HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-08-28 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, August 28, 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
August 28, 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
SKY WOODRUFF, 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 10/4/2019
August 28, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September as National Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor)
1.
Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September 15 - October 15 as National
Hispanic Heritage Month in South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor)
2.
Presentation of New Employees (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager)3.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber’s and
submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to
address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council
from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency
circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation
and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for
more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the
podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE
LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your
cooperation.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of July 10, 2019, July 22, 2019 and
July 24, 2019.
4.
Motion confirming payment registers for August 28, 2019. (Janet Salisbury, Director
of Finance)
5.
Motion to cancel the regular meeting of the City Council for September 11, 2019.6.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/4/2019
August 28, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the South San
Francisco ADA Curb Ramp Replacement Project (Project No. st1903) as complete in
accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $195,642.00).
(Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
7.
Report regarding a resolution approving the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure
Plan in accordance with provision C.3.j of the Municipal Regional Permit. (Matthew
Ruble, Principal Engineer)
8.
Resolution approving the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan in
accordance with provision C.3.j of the Municipal Regional Permit.
8a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the Second Amendment to a Consulting
Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group for staff augmentation services
for an additional amount of $130,000 and a total contract amount of $320,000, and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment. (Tony Rozzi,
Principal Planner)
9.
Resolution approving the Second Amendment to a Consulting Services Agreement
with Metropolitan Planning Group for staff augmentation services for an additional
amount of $130,000 and a total contract amount of $320,000, and authorizing the City
Manager to execute the second amendment.
9a.
Report regarding adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 20 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code to make minor revisions, corrections, and clarifications; and
improve and streamline the development standards in accordance with the General
Plan (Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner).
10.
Ordinance amending Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to make
minor revisions, corrections and clarifications; and improve and streamline the
development standards in accordance with the General Plan, and determination that
the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
10a.
Report regarding a resolution rejecting all bids for the Linden Ave. Complete Streets
(Aspen to Miller) Phase II/ Spruce Ave (Lux Ave to Maple Ave) Project. (Matthew
Ruble, Principal Engineer)
11.
Resolution rejecting all bids for the Linden Ave. Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller)
Phase II/ Spruce Ave (Lux Ave to Maple Ave) Project. (Matthew Ruble, Principal
Engineer)
11a.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/4/2019
August 28, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report recommending the adoption of a resolution to approve consulting services
agreement with Matrix Consulting to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost
Allocation Plan, and Impact Fee Study Review in an amount not to exceed $100,000.
(Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
12.
Resolution approving a consulting services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group
for a Comprehensive User Fee Study, Cost Allocation Plan, and Impact Fee Study
Review in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and authorizing the City Manager to
execute said agreement.
12a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real,
authorizing the City Manager to execute the improvement agreement, encroachment
and maintenance agreement, storm drain easement encroachment agreement, COM
(construction, operation, and maintenance) agreement, stormwater treatment measures
maintenance agreement, and authorizing the recordation of the final parcel map, the
improvement agreement and all related documents. (Jason Hallare, Associate Civil
Engineer)
13.
Resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real, authorizing the
City Manager to execute the improvement agreement, the encroachment and
maintenance agreement, the storm drain easement encroachment agreement, the
construction, operation and maintenance (COM) agreement, and the stormwater
treatment measures maintenance agreement, and authorizing the recordation of the
final parcel map, the improvement agreement and all related documents.
13a.
Report regarding an ordinance increasing the Minimum Wage to $15 per hour
effective January 1, 2020. (Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager)
14.
Ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to
a citywide minimum wage.
14a.
Report regarding an Ordinance adding Chapter 2.81 to the South San Francisco
Municipal Code establishing a Traffic Safety Commission. (Sarah Henricks,
Management Analyst II)
15.
Ordinance adding Chapter 2.81 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
establishing a Traffic Safety Commission.
15a.
Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency
and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light
Replacement Project. (Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation
Director)
16.
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/4/2019
August 28, 2019City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to
continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement
Project.
16a.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates in advance of the League of CA Cities
Annual Conference October 16-18 (Mayor Matsumoto)
17.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 10/4/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-691 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September as National Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in
South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
RECOGNITION OF SEPTEMBER AS
NATIONAL CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
August 28, 2019
WHEREAS, although childhood cancers make up less than one percent of all cancers
diagnosed each year, according to the American Cancer Society, after accidents, cancer is the
second leading cause of death in children ages 1 to 14; and
WHEREAS, about 1,180 children younger than 15 years old are expected to die from
cancer this year; and
WHEREAS, the types of cancers that occur most often in children are different than those
seen in adults, where the most common cancers of children are leukemia, brain and spinal cord
tumors, neuroblastoma, lymphoma, and bone cancer, among others; and
WHEREAS, childhood cancer research is vastly and consistently underfunded; and
WHEREAS, this year marks the sixth consecutive year the City of South San Francisco is
planning to light the tree on Sigh Hill in gold the month of September to recognize National
Childhood Cancer Awareness Month in South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, the tree on Sign Hill will be lit in gold, which is significant as the color gold
is symbolic and represents childhood cancer; and
WHEREAS, this year marks the third year that City Hall will be adorned in gold lights,
so City Hall, together with the tree on Sign Hill, can help bring attention, awareness, and
education to the topic of childhood cancer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Karyl Matsumoto and the City
Council of South San Francisco do hereby dedicate September as National Childhood Cancer
Awareness Month and encourage the South San Francisco community to continue to keep the
conversation of childhood cancer going now and all throughout the year to achieve much-needed
funding, more research, and improved treatments to ultimately find a cure.
________________________________
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor
________________________________
Richard Garbarino, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Mark Addiego, Council Member
________________________________
Mark Nagales, Council Member
________________________________
Buenaflor Nicolas, Council Member
Dated: August 28, 2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-390 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:2.
Presentation of a proclamation recognizing September 15 - October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in
South San Francisco. (Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
RECOGNITION OF SEPTEMBER 15 – OCTOBER 15 AS
NATIONAL HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
August 28, 2019
WHEREAS, National Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates and recognizes the contributions Hispanic
Americans have made to American society and culture and to hono r five Central American neighbors of the United
States, who celebrate their independence in September; and
WHEREAS, National Hispanic Heritage Month had its origins when the U.S. Congress passed Public Law
90-498 on September 17, 1968, which authorized and requested the President of the United States to issue an annual
proclamation designating the week, including September 15 and 16, as National Hispanic Heritage Week; and
WHEREAS, with the U.S. Congress directing that this week should include September 15 and 16, this law
celebrated Hispanic Americans and the anniversaries of independence for the five Latin American countries of Costa
Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, as well as Mexico’s independence on September 16; and
WHEREAS, between 1969 and 1988, U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and
Ronald Reagan issued a series of annual proclamations that designated a week in September, including September
15 and 16, as National Hispanic Heritage Week; these proclamations celebrated the contributions to American of
men and women of Hispanic origin as well as recalling the work of the early Spanish explorers and settlers; and
WHEREAS, in 1988, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 100-402, which amended Public Law 90-498
and established National Hispanic Heritage Month, and the U.S. President was again authorized and requested to
issue an annual proclamation designating the “31-day period beginning September 15 and ending on October 15”
as National Hispanic Heritage Month; and
WHEREAS, President George H.W. Bush issued the first proclamation, Presidential Proclamation 6021,
for National Hispanic Heritage Month on September 14, 1989, and every U.S. President has since issued a
proclamation for National Hispanic Heritage Month; and
WHEREAS, the fabric of our nation is richer and stronger due to the significant influence and
contributions of inspirational Hispanic American leaders, including labor leaders Cesar Chavez and Dolores
Huerta; folk singer and activist Joan Baez; Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Walter Alvarez; sports legends Jose
Canseco, Roberto Clemente, Oscar De La Hoya, Nancy Lopez, Chi Chi Rodriguez, and Sammy Sosa; actors and
actresses including Salma Hayek, Raul Julia, Ricardo Montalban, Rita Moreno, and Edward James Olmos;
missionary Junípero Serra; singers and musicians Celia Cruz, Gloria Estefan, Jerry Garcia, Trini Lopez, Jennifer
Lopez, Linda Ronstadt, and Selena; and politicians Henry Cisneros, Joseph Mario Hernandez, Melquiades Martinez,
and Nydia Velásquez, among many others; and
WHEREAS, today nearly 55 million people or 17 percent of Americans are of Hispanic or Latino origin
and another 3.7 million are residents of Puerto Rico; in South San Francisco, nearly 33.9 perce nt of the population
of 67,082 is of Hispanic origin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Karyl Matsumoto and the City Council of South San
Francisco do hereby proclaim September 15 – October 15 as National Hispanic Heritage Month in South San
Francisco and encourage all residents and visitors alike to join us in celebrating this special month.
________________________________
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor
________________________________
Richard Garbarino, Vice Mayor
________________________________
Mark Addiego, Council Member
________________________________
Mark Nagales, Council Member
________________________________
Buenaflor Nicolas, Council Member
Dated: August 28, 2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-616 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:3.
Presentation of New Employees (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-724 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:4.
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of July 10, 2019, July 22, 2019 and July 24, 2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-718 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:2 Item #:5.
Motion confirming payment registers for August 28,2019.(Janet Salisbury,
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 8/29/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Payment Listing by Department for City Council Review
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
CITY ATTORNEY
CSG CONSULTANTS INC 8/16/2019 27834024700 E 100-04110-5005 250.00 MAY2019 SSF PUBLIC STORAGE EXHIBIT
Payments issued for CITY ATTORNEY $250.00
CITY CLERK
DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 8/7/2019 278088B3275314 E 100-02110-5024 73.50 ORD SUMMARY - ILLEGAL DUMPING POST-ADOPT
8/7/2019 278088B3275381 E 100-02110-5024 106.50 ORD SUMMARY - PARK FEE UPDATE PRE-ADOPT
8/7/2019 278088B3275416 E 100-02110-5024 81.00 ORD SUMMARY - MINIMUM LOT SIZE PRE-ADOPT
8/7/2019 278088B3275453 E 100-02110-5024 121.50 ORD SUMMARY - PURCHASING PROCEDURES PRE
8/7/2019 278088B3275459 E 100-02110-5024 78.00 ORD SUMMARY - STREET VENDORS (SB 946) PRE-
8/7/2019 278088B3278091 E 100-02110-5024 78.00 NOTICE OF PH 2400 WESTBOROUGH
8/7/2019 278088B3279573 E 100-02110-5024 90.00 ORD SUMMARY - MINIMUM LOT SIZE POST-ADOP
8/7/2019 278088B3279581 E 100-02110-5024 130.50 ORD SUMMARY - PURCHASING PROCEDURES POS
8/7/2019 278088B3279584 E 100-02110-5024 87.00 ORD SUMMARY - STREET VENDORS (SB 946) POST
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/7/2019 2781318054938927 E 100-02110-5020 398.16 OFFICE SUPPLIES
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-02110-5074 141.60 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Payments issued for CITY CLERK $1,385.76
CITY COUNCIL
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-01110-5045 10.99 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS 8/9/2019 27818807/25/19 E 100-01110-5031 26.68 FN: EXPENSE REIMB FOR MILEAGE 7/25/19
8/14/2019 27827401/15/19-05/31/19 E 100-01110-5031 402.17 FN: EXP REIMB FOR MILEAGE 01/15/19 TO 5/31/
MARK NAGALES 8/9/2019 27818607/02/19-07/25/19 E 100-01110-5031 221.56 MN: EXPENSE REIMB FOR MILEAGE JULY 2019
RICHARD GARBARINO 8/9/2019 27816907/03/19-08/21/19 E 100-01110-5071 35.66 RG: EXP REIMBURSEMENT JULY MILES & FAX USE
8/9/2019 27816907/03/19-08/21/19 E 100-01110-5031 68.44 RG: EXP REIMBURSEMENT JULY MILES & FAX USE
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/9/2019 2782128054938943/4187599E 100-01110-5020 104.00 CMO OFFICE SUPPLIES
Payments issued for CITY COUNCIL $869.50
CITY MANAGER
4IMPRINT, INC. 8/9/2019 27814218433733 E 100-05110-5030 4,342.79 PROMOTIONAL ITEMS FOR SSF
ALEXIA ESTRADA 8/9/2019 27816307/22/19-08/02/19 E 100-05110-5031 29.29 AE: INTERN EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 7/22-8/2/
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 1 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
CITY MANAGER
ALEXIA ESTRADA 8/9/2019 278163AEstrada Install #2 E 100-05110-5005 1,050.00 AE: FINAL STIPEND FOR SUMMER INTERN 7/9/19
KLAUDINE KAYLA M GARCIA 8/9/2019 27817007/09/19-08/09/19 E 100-05110-5005 1,050.00 KG: FINAL STIPEND FOR SUMMER INTERN 7/9 TO
MIKE FUTRELL 8/9/2019 2781686/19-8/5/19 E 100-05110-5031 191.80 MF: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 6/19-8/5/19
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 8/9/2019 278222cc398894 E 100-05110-5031 134.58 HE: KTVU LUNCH MTG FOR 11 ON 7/10/19
8/9/2019 278222cc399010 E 100-05110-5031 52.68 HE: LUNCH MTG KTVU SSF SEGMENT 7/10/19
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 8/9/2019 27820910104983 E 100-05110-5005 7,516.67 FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS - SQUIRE PATTON BOG
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/9/2019 2782128054938943/4187599E 100-05110-5020 104.23 CMO OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278222cc399012 E 100-05110-5020 228.19 CF: CMO OFFICE SUPPLIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 E 100-05110-5037 192.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
Payments issued for CITY MANAGER $14,892.23
COMMUNICATIONS
ESSENCE PRINTING INC 8/9/2019 278162138627a E 100-05130-5025 1,638.75 CITYWIDE EMPLOYEE NEWSLTR JUNE 2019
POSTMASTER- LINDEN OFFICE 8/14/2019 278281Permit #138 E 100-05130-5027 3,526.09 POSTAGE FOR CITYWIDE GARAGE SALE & CLEANU
Payments issued for COMMUNICATIONS $5,164.84
CITY TREASURER
CHANDLER ASSET MGMT, INC 8/14/2019 2782451907SOSF E 100-03110-5001 8,959.67 JULY 2019 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO MGMT SVCS
CMTA-CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 8/14/2019 2782472019-20 E 100-03110-5031 190.00 2019-20 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP DUES; F. RISSO &
Payments issued for CITY TREASURER $9,149.67
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 8/14/2019 27822830769 E 100-10520-5034 1,963.70 BULDING DIVISON DEPARTMENT POLOS
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS 8/14/2019 278304CC398869 E 100-10110-5033 585.00 A.G. - CALBO TRAINING CLASSES (3) FOR AG
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 8/14/2019 278304CC398851 E 100-10110-5004 95.00 A.G. - CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY PAYMENT
FACEBOOK 8/14/2019 278304CC398876 E 100-10110-5004 206.86 A.G. - ECD FACEBOOK ADS FOR JUNE
FEDEX 8/7/2019 2780956-617-66179 E 100-10410-5020 116.28 DRB PACKETS JULY 2019
8/16/2019 2783446-575-90057 E 100-10110-5030 283.11 FEDEX SHIPPING FOR RETURN OF ITEMS FROM BI
GATEWAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC 8/14/2019 278256rd-2753107 E 100-10110-5021 840.07 559 GATEWAY CHILD CARE ASSOCIATION FEE
KRIS ROMASANTA 8/14/2019 27828807/17/19 E 100-10115-5031 21.51 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE FOR K.R.
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 8/14/2019 27826733033 E 241-10880-5007 4.84 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 8/7/2019 2781152019060021 E 270-10415-5003 302.40 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1251 - 150 AIRPO
8/7/2019 2781152019060024 E 270-10413-5005 159.50 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1267 2 TOWER PL
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 2 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 8/14/2019 2782712019060022 E 100-10110-5005 549.90 938 LINDEN - MEYERS NAVE
8/14/2019 2782712019060029 E 270-10115-5003 100.80 OYSTER POINT HOTEL - MEYERS NAVE
PAYPAL-SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE8/14/2019 278304CC398864 E 100-10110-5035 250.00 A.G. - PAYMENT FOR EXHIBITOR BOOTH AT 8/8 SS
POSTMASTER- LINDEN OFFICE 8/14/2019 278282Permit # 138 E 100-10410-5004 3,526.09 CITYWIDE GENL PLAN SUBAREA MTGS POSTCARD
8/14/2019 278282Permit #138 E 100-10410-5004 813.99 CITYWIDE GEN PLAN SUB-AREA MTGS POSTCARD
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/7/2019 2781318054938832 E 100-10410-5020 130.84 PLANNING OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 2783878055257265 E 100-10520-5020 912.99 STAPLES SUMMARY INVOICE - JULY 2019 BLDG O
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-10110-5074 343.61 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-10410-5074 473.72 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Payments issued for ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $11,680.21
FINANCE
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 8/14/2019 27822830762 E 100-06110-5020 67.61 BUSINESS CARD: J. SALISBURY
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-06110-5045 274.75 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 8/16/2019 278330TKJ0436 E 100-06110-5045 365.93 ADOBE ACROBATE PRO - FINANCE DEPT.
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS 8/14/2019 2782580151001 E 100-06110-5031 595.00 ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES-09/01/19 -08/31/20
MARIE BIEHLER 8/7/2019 27807607/30/19 E 100-06210-5020 56.03 DEPARTMENT OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 27832508/10/19-08/11/19 E 100-06210-5020 82.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 8/14/2019 27826733033 E 100-06210-5007 3,659.04 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
MUNISERVICES, LLC 8/9/2019 278185INV06-006633 E 100-06210-5001 1,301.54 STARS SVCS FOR 1ST QTR 2019 DATA
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/9/2019 278190328099485001 E 100-06210-5020 159.42 OFFICE DEPOT - FINANCE
8/14/2019 278275328099524001 E 100-06210-5020 23.78 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
8/14/2019 278275336132901001 E 100-06210-5020 99.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
8/16/2019 278360193415498001 E 100-06210-5020 293.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
8/16/2019 278360336132724001 E 100-06210-5020 257.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
8/16/2019 278360336132902001 E 100-06210-5020 433.28 OFFICE SUPPLIES-FINANCE
READYREFRESH 8/16/2019 27836709G0030587083 E 100-06210-5021 0.04 06/21/19-07/20/19 WATER COOLER RENTAL/REFI
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-06210-5074 246.73 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Payments issued for FINANCE $7,917.03
FIRE
ACE PARKING LOT 8/7/2019 278137CC399222 E 100-11110-5031 37.00 WORKSHOP/ TRAINING PARKING
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 3 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-11610-5045 25.18 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222CC399265 E 100-11720-5022 287.96 JB- BOOKS FOR TRAINING
8/14/2019 278304CC399375 E 100-11110-5021 329.20 BA-OFFICE SUPPLIES
BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS TRAINING INS8/7/2019 278137CC399231 E 100-11210-5033 481.00 CL-INSPECTOR TRAINING
BEST BUY 8/9/2019 278222CC399279 E 100-11610-5045 38.04 RW-EMS SUPPLIES
BOATING AND WATERWAYS, 8/9/2019 278222CC399264 E 100-11720-5033 10.00 JB-BOATING CARD
BOX.NET BUS SRVCS, CA 8/14/2019 278304CC399348 E 100-11310-5021 45.00 KA-CERT OPERATING SUPPLIES
CALIFORNIA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIA8/7/2019 278137CC399229 E 100-11210-5033 150.00 CL-INSPECTOR TRAINING REGISTRATION
8/9/2019 278222CC399320 E 100-11720-5033 1,646.70 RW- FIVE CALCHIEF MEMBERSHIPS
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 8/16/2019 278330TKG8464 E 100-11720-5045 2,131.56 SURFACE PRO LAPTOP AND CHARGER - FIRE DEPT
COSTCO 8/7/2019 278137cc399138 E 100-11730-5021 238.51 SM-STATION SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137CC399152 E 100-11730-5021 144.26 STATION 62 SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137CC399180 E 100-11730-5020 34.70 STATION 62 SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137cc399187 E 100-11730-5021 341.44 STATION 63 SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137cc399193 E 100-11730-5021 43.88 STATION 63 SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137CC399200 E 100-11730-5021 51.54 STATION 62 SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 278304CC399372 E 100-11730-5021 177.87 PM-STATION 65 SUPPLIES
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 8/7/2019 278137CC399230 E 100-11210-5021 92.00 CL-SM COUNTY RELEASE
ELEARNING AMERICAN HEART 8/9/2019 278222CC399290 E 100-11750-5021 425.00 RW-HEALTH & SAFETY TRAINING
8/9/2019 278222CC399319 E 100-11750-5021 170.00 RW-HEALTH & SAFETY TRAINING
FASTRAK 8/14/2019 278304CC399333 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA-OPERATING SUPPLIES
FUTURE INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES8/9/2019 278222CC399270 E 100-11720-5022 74.65 JB-TRAINING SUPPLIES
HOME DEPOT 8/9/2019 278222CC399234 E 100-11610-5021 65.10 CC-EMS SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 278304CC399374 E 100-11710-5021 160.55 PM-SUPPRESSION SUPPLIES
ITUNES STORE 8/7/2019 278137CC399206 E 100-11110-5045 0.99 IPAD MONTHLY STORAGE
8/7/2019 278137CC399220 E 100-11720-5033 9.99 TRAINING APPLICATION
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 8/7/2019 278137CC399195 E 100-11710-5028 157.16 CHAINSAW FUEL
MARRIOTT HOTELS 8/7/2019 278137CC399223 E 100-11110-5031 876.09 ANNUAL PLANNING WORKSHOP
ROYAL PIN DONUTS 8/14/2019 278304CC399366 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA- EVAC TRAINING REFRESHMENTS (18)
SARKIS SIGNS 8/9/2019 278222CC399282 E 100-11110-5020 87.40 RW-OFFICE SUPPLIES
SATCOM GLOBAL, INC. 8/7/2019 278137CC399140 E 100-11310-5021 42.75 MONTHLY SATELLITE SERVICE
SEAN FOREMAN 8/7/2019 27809707/16/2019 E 100-11610-5033 200.00 FOREMAN, SEAN - STAFF DEVELOPMENT PARAM
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 4 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
STARBUCKS 8/14/2019 278304CC399349 E 100-11310-5021 35.90 KA- EVAC TRAINING REFRESHMENTS (18)
SUPPLY CACHE INC, THE 8/14/2019 278304CC399373 E 100-11710-5021 312.51 PM-SUPPRESSION SUPPLIES
TACOS EL GUERO 8/9/2019 278222CC399275 E 100-11720-5033 26.16 JB- OFFSITE INTERN LUNCH (2)
TARGET 8/9/2019 278222CC399283 E 100-11110-5021 15.70 RW-OFFICE SUPPLIES
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-11110-5074 295.05 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-11310-5074 12.41 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-11710-5074 30.77 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
TRAINING OFFICERS SYMPOSIUM 8/9/2019 278222CC399262 E 100-11720-5033 105.00 JB-TRAINING TUITION
US FLAG STORE 8/14/2019 278304CC399370 E 100-11710-5021 259.01 PM-OPERATING SUPPLIES
Payments issued for FIRE $9,718.03
HUMAN RESOURCES
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-09110-5045 109.24 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
BRYCE CONSULTING 8/16/2019 2783283248 E 100-09110-5005 3,995.00 PROF. SERVICES-HUMAN RESOURCES ASSISTANCE
CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN8/16/2019 278395CC399435 E 100-09110-5001 40.87 MM-SHREDDING SERVICES
EQUIFAX 8/16/2019 278395CC399436 E 100-09110-5001 20.50 MM - EQUIFAX MONTHLY ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/7/2019 278119326196890001 E 100-09110-5020 77.30 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES-FOLDERS & COPY PAP
8/7/2019 278119332651478002 E 100-09110-5020 13.16 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278190272390685001 E 100-09110-5020 488.12 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES-TONER, BINDERS, DIVI
8/14/2019 278275352575178001 E 100-09110-5020 44.75 GENERAL OFFICE SUPPLIES AND HEADSET
PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 8/14/2019 2782830149867-IN E 100-09110-5001 318.78 JULY 2019 PRE-EMPLOYMENT DRUG SCREENING
TERI BLACK & COMPANY LLC 8/14/2019 27830219-0606-101 E 100-09110-5036 6,954.19 PROF SVCS & EXPENSES-FINANCE DIR RECRUITME
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-09110-5074 248.53 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Payments issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $12,310.44
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5042 690.17 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5044 8,629.01 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5041 209.23 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5020 17.65 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5021 57.86 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 785-16110-5040 173.08 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 5 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
B & H PHOTO VIDEO 8/7/2019 278137cc399081 E 785-16110-5041 93.23 DW- VIDEO CABLE FOR PEG CHANNEL
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN8/16/2019 2783388155 20 044 0622357 E 785-16110-5071 239.11 INTERNET TERRABAY 8/6 - 9/5/19
GRANICUS, INC. 8/9/2019 278172115939 E 785-16110-5040 3,113.47 GRANICUS MONTHLY SERVICE FEE - AUGUST 201
KELSO COMMUNICATIONS 8/9/2019 278177I2019077 E 785-16110-5005 2,867.39 SEPTEMBER 2019-TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAIN
8/14/2019 278261I2019087 E 785-16110-5071 30,507.31 NEW PHONE SYSTEM (VOIP) - EQUIPMENT & INST
KRONOS INCORPORATED 8/16/2019 27835111481330 E 785-16110-5040 20.32 TELESTAFF IVR SUPPORT SERVICES (JUNE 2019)
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 8/16/2019 278352902833 E 785-16110-5051 102.30 EQUIPMENT FOR SMARTBOARD INSTALL - FIRE A
NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC 8/7/2019 278137cc399100 E 785-16110-5040 7.96 TB-RENEWAL WEBSITE URLS - SSFGOV.COM, NET
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 8/16/2019 27836412909 E 785-16110-5040 53.88 WARRANTY RENEWALS FOR PLS ENVISIONWARE
PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 8/9/2019 278196044128 E 785-16110-5040 4,585.50 SAAS VISTA TIME - JULY 2019
POWER MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 8/16/2019 27836633603 E 785-16110-5040 9,550.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR UPS BATTERIES FY 201
SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK INC8/16/2019 27837723047 E 785-16110-5040 200.00 NETWORK ACCESS SERVICES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 E 785-16110-5037 32.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 785-16110-5074 26.88 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Payments issued for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $61,176.35
LIBRARY
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 8/9/2019 27814617HX-MKKY-QYG9 E 100-15110-5021 136.69 EOP ADAPTERS
8/9/2019 2781461PCC-LVJM-D4FT E 100-15110-5021 78.61 OPERATING SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 2781461R1C-J4LD-MK9J E 100-15220-5030 22.82 YOUTH SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES - MAIN LIB
8/16/2019 2783171VYQ-PQMT-JFJC E 100-15999-5022 822.14 BOOKS - LEARNING WHEELS
ART'S PENINSULA LOCKSMITH 8/16/2019 278319445147 E 100-15110-5021 26.22 KEY COPIES - MAIN LIBRARY
ASIAN ART MUSEUM FOUNDATION 8/16/2019 278320081019 E 100-15230-5030 68.00 ASIAN ART MUSEUM PRESENTATION - MAIN LIBR
BAKER & TAYLOR INC 8/16/2019 278321L4317564 E 100-15210-5022 228.48 BOOKS
CALIFA GROUP 8/9/2019 2781542452 E 100-15110-5001 36.46 GALE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC HOSTING FEE 09/0
CITY OF SSF PARKING 8/14/2019 278304cc399409 E 100-15999-5031 2.00 KB - PARKING FEE
COSTCO 8/14/2019 278304cc399421 E 100-15999-5030 34.47 KB - REFRESHMENTS, STEM EVENT
FABRICIO ALFARO ROMERO 8/9/2019 27820108/17/2019 E 100-15110-5001 675.00 END OF INTERNSHIP PAYMENT - F. ALFARO-ROM
FRANCES ULRICH 8/14/2019 27830507/01/19-07/24/19 E 100-15410-5031 62.64 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENTFOR THE MONTH OF J
GRUBHUB 8/14/2019 278304cc399412 E 100-15410-5031 87.83 KB - PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS
J & J BAKERY 8/14/2019 278304cc399414 E 100-15999-5021 38.75 KB - REFRESHMENTS, STEM PARTNER EVENT
JALISCO PRODUCE 8/14/2019 278304cc399424 E 100-15999-5030 14.04 KB - REFRESHMENTS STEM EVENT
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 6 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
KING'S SANDWICH CO 8/14/2019 278304cc399403 E 100-15999-5021 86.38 KB - REFRESHMENTS, STEM MEETING
MASE GROUP LLC 8/16/2019 27835300363 E 100-15110-5001 407.10 DVD LABELING SERVICE
MIDWEST TAPE 8/9/2019 2781842000009742 E 100-15220-5043 343.32 A/V
8/14/2019 2782732000009739 E 100-15210-5043 3,092.83 A/V
8/14/2019 2782732000009739 E 100-15310-5043 734.59 A/V
MONIQUE ANN GRILLET 8/16/2019 278345JULY2019 E 100-15999-5999 1,000.00 TEEN LIFE SKILLS GRANT - PROGRAM PRESENTATI
NERDY GIRL NUTRITION, LLC 8/16/2019 27835807/09/2019 E 100-15999-5999 800.00 TEEN LIFE SKILLS GRANT - REDISCOVER NUTRITIO
OCLC WESTERN 8/9/2019 2781890000674636 E 100-15110-5004 1,039.18 CATALOGING AND METADATA SUBMONTHLY/
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/9/2019 278190347761949001 E 100-15430-5020 58.95 OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278190349015305001 E 100-15110-5020 112.27 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY
8/9/2019 278190349015661001 E 100-15110-5021 28.96 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278360353647236001 E 100-15430-5020 109.97 OFFICE SUPPLIES
OWL'S HOUSE INC 8/16/2019 2783614539 E 100-15220-5022 79.11 BOOKS - YOUTH SERVICES
PAN ASIAN PUBLICATIONS (USA) 8/16/2019 278362U-16153 E 100-15310-5022 174.01 BOOKS - GRAND LIBRARY
PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 8/9/2019 27819512873 E 100-15110-5001 402.75 DEBT COLLECT/ UNIQUE MANAGEMENT APR-JUN
8/16/2019 27836412913 E 100-15110-5004 149.45 INTERNET ARCHIVE RUN AUG. 2019
READYREFRESH 8/16/2019 27836719H5745298009 E 100-15430-5021 121.90 WATER COOLER RENTAL / REFILL
SAFEWAY INC 8/16/2019 278369125129 E 100-15999-5999 117.48 PROGRAM REFRESHMENT: LEARNING WHEELS
8/16/2019 278369125129 E 100-15430-5021 156.71 PROGRAM REFRESHMENT: LEARNING WHEELS
8/16/2019 278369125129 E 100-15410-5021 266.00 PROGRAM REFRESHMENT: LEARNING WHEELS
SHAYAN LAVASANI 8/9/2019 27818008/19/2019 E 100-15110-5001 900.00 END OF INTERNSHIP - S. LAVASANI
SOPHIE'S STRESS FREE SIOREES 8/16/2019 278382080919 E 100-15999-5999 450.00 SUMMER LEARNING PROGRAMS - SOPHIE'S WOR
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/9/2019 2782128054938817/4187589E 100-15310-5020 132.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 2783878055257256 E 100-15110-5020 112.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES - GRAND AVE LIBRARY
8/16/2019 2783878055257273 E 100-15110-5021 27.84 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY
8/16/2019 2783878055257273 E 100-15110-5020 165.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY
STARBUCKS 8/16/2019 278395cc399423 E 100-15999-5030 17.95 KB - STEM PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS
THE GALE GROUP, INC 8/9/2019 27821567491216 E 100-15210-5022 50.39 BOOKS
8/9/2019 27821567491300 E 100-15210-5022 49.50 BOOKS
8/9/2019 27821567491487 E 100-15210-5022 33.29 BOOKS
8/9/2019 27821567508656 E 100-15210-5022 158.11 BOOKS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-15110-5074 650.29 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 7 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
Payments issued for LIBRARY $14,361.97
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC8/16/2019 2783141144894 E 782-07410-5090 9,488.21 COMMERCIAL CYBER LIABILITY 2019/20 APIP CYB
AT&T 8/7/2019 2780729391060752 E 781-07210-5071 333.51 PHONE CHARGES
8/7/2019 2780729391060755 E 781-07210-5071 142.07 PHONE CHARGES
8/7/2019 2780729391060817 E 781-07210-5071 98.82 PHONE CHARGES
8/7/2019 2780729391060848 E 781-07210-5071 75.79 PHONE CHARGES
8/7/2019 2780739391060753 E 781-07210-5071 2,719.07 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060747 E 781-07210-5071 198.88 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060750 E 781-07210-5071 372.11 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060842 E 781-07210-5071 29.43 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060843 E 781-07210-5071 14.48 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060845 E 781-07210-5071 349.53 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060869 E 781-07210-5071 249.76 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391060973 E 781-07210-5071 222.15 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391061122 E 781-07210-5071 115.17 PHONE CHARGES
8/14/2019 2782339391062505 E 781-07210-5071 14.63 PHONE CHARGES
ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS 8/9/2019 278150002 E 782-07410-5081 24,530.91 JULY 2019 WORKER'S COMPENSATION LOSS REPL
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MGMT DIST8/16/2019 27832308/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 2,211.76 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT - DIST OF
BICKMORE ACTUARIAL 8/14/2019 27823527169 E 782-07410-5005 2,250.00 ACTUARIAL REVIEW OF SELF-INSURED WC PROGR
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 8/7/2019 2780803779544444 E 781-07210-5073 55,276.51 WATER SERVICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 8/7/2019 2780810165444444 E 781-07210-5073 371.79 WATER SERVICE
8/7/2019 2780813194444444 E 781-07210-5073 34.42 WATER SERVICE
8/7/2019 2780819639955148 E 781-07210-5073 35.78 WATER SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782423310807997 E 781-07210-5073 35.78 WATER SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782425187444444 E 781-07210-5073 162.83 WATER SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782427733252569 E 781-07210-5073 93.17 WATER SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782427807444444 E 781-07210-5073 12.91 WATER SERVICE
COLMA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL DIST8/16/2019 27833708/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 13,927.97 COLMA CR FLOOD CONTROL - DIST OF NET PROC
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN8/14/2019 2782498155 20 044 0045948 E 100-07110-5001 90.25 CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM BUSINESS
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT 8/7/2019 278094L1532046688 E 783-00000-4349 1,364.00 UNEMPLOYMENT INS BENEFITS CHRG APR 1, 201
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 8 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
P & A ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS, INC8/9/2019 278191CSSFF19-VARIOUS E 783-00000-5095 42,980.80 FY 18-19-FSA CLAIMS FROM JAN-JUNE 2019 INVO
8/9/2019 278191CSSFF19-VARIOUS.02 E 783-00000-5095 8,583.55 FSA MONTHLY CLAIMS FOR JULY 2019
8/9/2019 278191CSSFF19-VARIOUS.03 E 783-07310-5005 4,122.00 FSA/COBRA/RETIREE MONTHLY ADMIN FEES
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY8/9/2019 2781920211654236-2 E 781-07210-5070 35.58 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/9/2019 2781925548997000-8 E 781-07210-5070 3,264.08 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/9/2019 2781926152070396-0 E 781-07210-5070 21.99 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/9/2019 2781928286202617-4 E 781-07210-5070 143.73 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/9/2019 2781928923172305-0 E 781-07210-5070 40.97 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/9/2019 2781935616338496-1 E 781-07210-5070 105,061.64 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782762814692974-1 E 781-07210-5070 98.02 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782763635896993-3 E 781-07210-5070 62.68 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782764575602530-5 E 781-07210-5070 10.19 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782765177240092-8 E 781-07210-5070 484.47 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782765534400076-9 E 781-07210-5070 22.78 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
8/14/2019 2782766035223249-4 E 781-07210-5070 189.98 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
PLAN JPA 8/16/2019 278365PLAN-2019-255 E 782-07410-5090 1,357,655.00 GEN LIABILITY & PROPERTY MEMBER CONTRIBUT
PREFERRED BENEFIT INS ADM-PBIA8/9/2019 278199EIA29451 E 783-00000-4341 56,968.86 AUGUST 2019 DENTAL & VISION CLAIMS & ADMI
REI 8/7/2019 278137CC399085 E 783-07310-5061 500.00 YM-BIKE COMMUTER PROGRAM - WELLNESS
SAN MATEO COUNTY 8/16/2019 27837008/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 250,834.33 GENERAL COUNTY TAX - DIST OF NET PROCEEDS
SAN MATEO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDU8/16/2019 27837208/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 37,352.04 COUNTY EDUCATION TAX - DIST OF NET PROCEED
SAN MATEO COUNTY RESOURCE 8/16/2019 27837308/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 35.38 RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT - DIST OF NE
SAN MATEO CTY COMM COLLEGE DIS8/16/2019 27837408/06/19 E 100-00000-5079 71,773.60 SM JR COLLEGE GEN PUR - DIST OF NET PROCEED
SAN MATEO CTY HARBOR DISTRICT 8/16/2019 27837508/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 3,731.12 COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT DIST OF NET PROCEE
SSF UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 8/16/2019 27838508/16/19 E 100-00000-5079 427,297.35 DISTRIBUTION OF NET SALE PROCEEDS OF SA PR
STANDARD INSURANCE CO 8/16/2019 278386338329 E 783-00000-4349 32,319.10 AUG 2019 MONTHLY LIFE INSURANCE ACTIVE EM
Payments issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $2,518,410.93
PARKS & RECREATION
A+ LIVESCAN SERVICES 8/16/2019 2783125826 E 100-17275-5037 99.00 PRINTS/KUPERMAN
8/16/2019 2783125939 E 100-17275-5037 594.00 PRINTS/MENDOZA,BEREJES,VENANCIO,QUINTAN
A-1 TRUCK DRIVING SCHOOL 8/16/2019 278395CC399688 E 100-17310-5033 2,000.00 BC: COMMERICAL DRIVER LICENSE - T O'CONNELL
ACCO BRANDS USA LLC 8/7/2019 278137CC399076 E 100-17310-5021 39.33 MP: OFFICE SUPPLIES
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 9 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY8/9/2019 2781455211893 E 100-17420-5050 359.65 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. 8/14/2019 27823011WL-TDFD-6RKR E 100-17260-5021 284.27 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION CLASSES AN
8/14/2019 27823014C6-PWCJ-CV7H E 100-17260-5021 461.61 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION CLASSES AN
8/14/2019 27823017L7-3WC9-4TYY E 100-17260-5021 187.13 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION CLASSES AN
8/14/2019 278230199K-7YXD-61DM E 100-17210-5021 74.39 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION
8/14/2019 2782301PCK-T3NP-YD93 E 100-17260-5021 215.31 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION ACTIVITIES
8/14/2019 2782301R77-GCQD-XDMN E 100-17260-5021 256.86 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION CLASSES AN
8/14/2019 2782301T4X-37YF-XQKY E 100-17260-5021 61.46 OPERATING SUPPLIES - RECREATION CLASSES AN
AMAZON MKTPLACE 8/7/2019 278137CC399196 E 100-17310-5020 38.08 GM: OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 278304CC399417 E 100-17230-5020 167.86 DS - PRINTER RIBBONS
AMAZON.COM 8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-17410-5045 26.32 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
8/14/2019 278304CC399419 E 100-17250-5021 98.76 DS - RENTAL EVENT SUPPLIES
ANYPROMO INC 8/7/2019 278137CC399096 E 100-17999-5999 274.43 AD - GET MOVING PROMOTION
8/7/2019 278137CC399097 E 100-17999-5999 625.96 AD - GET MOVING PROMOTION
8/7/2019 278137CC399098 E 100-17210-5021 25.00 AD - DIGITAL PLATINUM MEMBERSHIP
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 8/7/2019 278071760340587 E 100-17320-5034 416.29 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/7/2019 278071760351941 E 100-17320-5034 433.29 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760329176 E 100-17410-5034 53.54 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760340589 E 100-17410-5034 44.54 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760351943 E 100-17410-5034 175.54 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 8/14/2019 27823417615 E 100-17240-5021 645.49 SSF COED CHAMP SUMMER SOFTBALL SWEATSHI
8/14/2019 27823417616 E 100-17240-5021 712.27 SSF SUMMER LEAGUE SUMMER CHAMPS SWEAT
BEACON ATHLETICS 8/7/2019 278137CC399062 E 100-17320-5050 60.03 GM: AUGER BIT FOR FENCE POSTS
BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 8/9/2019 27815351905 E 100-17970-5061 403.88 TOP SOIL FOR IRISH TOWN GREEN
8/9/2019 27815351908 E 100-17970-5061 500.46 TOP SOIL FOR IRISH TOWN GREEN
8/16/2019 27832752206 E 100-17320-5050 48.29 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY 8/14/2019 27823807/01/19-06/30/20 E 100-17110-5031 225.00 CAPRCBM - JUL 2019 - JUN 2020 ANNUAL DUES F
CA PARKS & RECREATION SOCIETY 8/9/2019 278222CC399063 E 100-17310-5033 3,490.00 GM: MMS SCHOOL - S. CONTRERAS & C. MORAN
CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO8/7/2019 27808335684 E 100-17320-5050 51.00 SFPUC LEASE~
8/7/2019 27808335685 E 100-17970-5061 1,032.88 SFPUC LEASE - ELKWOOD PARK~
8/7/2019 27808335696 E 100-17310-5050 34.00 SFPUC LEASE - W.ORANGE & CAMARITAS~
8/7/2019 27808335697 E 100-17320-5050 460.13 SFPUC LEASE - SIEBECKER
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 10 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
CITY MECHANICAL INC 8/16/2019 27833555768 E 100-17420-5050 779.26 HVAC REPAIR @ MSB
CITY OF FREMONT 8/16/2019 278395CC399722 E 100-17275-5021 24.50 LA-INNER TUBES FOF
8/16/2019 278395CC399726 E 100-17275-5021 13.00 LA INNER TUBES FOF
CITY OF SSF PARKING 8/7/2019 278137CC399095 E 100-17210-5031 1.50 AD - PARKING METER FEE - MEETING AT CITY HAL
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN8/7/2019 2780868155 20 044 0252502 E 100-17310-5001 25.57 CORP YARD CABLE (JULY 20 - AUG 19 2019)
8/7/2019 2780868155 20 044 0252502 E 100-17420-5001 25.57 CORP YARD CABLE (JULY 20 - AUG 19 2019)
8/14/2019 2782498155 20 044 0252494 E 100-17240-5021 37.46 MONTHYLY CABLE BILL FOR TERRABAY BLDG. - JU
CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 8/7/2019 27808764975049 E 100-17310-5006 221.00 DOT PHYSICAL RECERTIFICATIONS
8/14/2019 27825065044442 E 100-17310-5006 110.50 DOT PHYSICAL RECERTIFICATIONS
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 8/7/2019 278137CC399197 E 100-17110-5050 195.00 GM: E-MARKETING MONTHLY SERVICE
COSTCO 8/16/2019 278395CC399753 E 100-17275-5021 582.98 EE - PROGRAM SNACK & COOKING SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395cc399766 E 100-17275-5021 329.04 EE PROGRAM SNACK SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395cc399820 E 100-17275-5021 688.30 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395cc399822 E 100-17275-5021 643.74 CR PROGRAM SUPPLIES
DAN'S DRILLING & FENCING INC 8/7/2019 2780890717191 E 100-17320-5050 1,625.00 REPAIR FENCING AT AVALON PARK
8/7/2019 2780890801198 E 231-17531-5050 1,525.00 FENCE REPAIRS
DELTA GROWERS INC 8/9/2019 2781618/2/19 E 100-17320-5050 3,352.50 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 8/16/2019 278343W36743870101 E 100-17275-5021 370.44 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278343W38859040101 E 100-17275-5021 506.00 MONTE VERDE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
DOG ON IT PARKS 8/16/2019 278395CC399683 E 100-17320-5050 2,647.00 BC: DOG WATERING STATION
EMERALD HILLS GOLFLAND 8/16/2019 278395CC399747 E 100-17275-5061 86.00 EE - TEEN CAMP ADMISSION
GOOGLE.COM 8/7/2019 278137CC399091 E 100-17240-5021 20.12 BS - SPORTS SUPPLIES
GRAND AVENUE HARDWARE 8/9/2019 2781713280/2158 E 100-17320-5050 200.44 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 8/9/2019 278173114431 E 100-17971-5061 119.49 PAINT SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278173114554 E 100-17420-5050 102.07 PAINT SUPPLIES
HUB INTERNATIONAL INSUR SVCS 8/7/2019 27810208/05/19 E 100-17210-5004 1,807.10 INSURANCE PAYMENT FOR FACILITY RENTALS - JU
KULLY SUPPLY INC 8/7/2019 278137CC399204 E 100-17320-5050 242.90 BC: PARKS SUPPLIES
LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 8/7/2019 278109SL015016 E 100-17230-5021 281.66 BICARB FOR OMP POOL
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 8/7/2019 278137CC399064 E 100-17320-5050 213.47 GM: PLANTS FOR CITY HALL
8/9/2019 278181902123 E 100-17420-5050 133.56 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278181902480 E 100-17420-5050 32.14 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278181903769 E 100-17420-5050 164.30 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 11 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 8/9/2019 278181908190 E 100-17420-5050 59.51 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
MACMURRAY PACIFIC 8/9/2019 27818219071689 E 100-17971-5061 91.65 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 27818219073184 E 100-17971-5061 86.98 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
MARIA SPREMICH 8/16/2019 27838407/11/19-08/10/19 E 100-17260-5021 74.86 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR BALLET CLASS SUPPLIES
MARIN CENTER BOX OFFICE 8/16/2019 278395cc399824 E 100-17275-5021 20.00 KC- MARIN COUNTY FAIR ENTRANCE FEE
MELINDA MCMONIGLE 8/14/2019 2782688-13-19 MM E 100-17210-5001 900.00 2ND INSTALLMEN REC INTERN - MELINDA MCMO
MICHAEL'S 8/16/2019 278395cc399751 E 100-17275-5021 95.26 EE- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395CC399763 E 100-17275-5021 62.87 EE - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPT CORP 8/16/2019 278356CA94957169 E 100-17320-5050 18.00 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
NBC SUPPLY CORP 8/7/2019 27811726741 E 100-17320-5034 112.96 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/7/2019 278119271894129001 E 100-17210-5020 715.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES - REC ADMIN SHARED PRINTER
8/7/2019 278119271894129001 E 100-17110-5020 715.06 OFFICE SUPPLIES - REC ADMIN SHARED PRINTER
ONE HOUR DRY CLEANING SSF 8/7/2019 278137CC399099 E 100-17210-5021 25.00 AD - DRY CLEANING - TABLECLOTHS
O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 8/9/2019 278222CC399061 E 100-17420-5050 8.18 AH: CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
PENINSULA BATTERY CO 8/9/2019 278194129586 E 100-17420-5050 115.81 POLICE DEPT - SUPPLIES
PLAN-IT INTERACTIVE, INC. 8/9/2019 27819835361 E 100-17110-5050 1,100.00 KTVU P&R MONTH KIDS ACTIVITIES
8/9/2019 27819835361 E 100-17210-5050 1,100.00 KTVU P&R MONTH KIDS ACTIVITIES
8/9/2019 27819835361 E 100-17310-5005 1,100.00 KTVU P&R MONTH KIDS ACTIVITIES
SAFEWAY STORE 8/16/2019 278395cc399825 E 100-17275-5021 79.76 KC- COOKING SUPPLIES
SAN FRANCISCO ZOOLOGICAL 8/16/2019 278395cc399717 E 100-17275-5021 11.00 LA- SF ZOO PARKING
SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY INC8/16/2019 2783800557474-IN E 100-17240-5021 426.24 FIELD PREP
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 8/7/2019 278137CC399073 E 100-17310-5021 51.96 MP: VOLUNTEER EVENT & OFFICE SUPPLIES
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 8/7/2019 278129980756 E 231-17531-5050 3.47 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
8/7/2019 278129980788 E 100-17320-5050 32.90 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207972693 E 100-17276-5061 50.03 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278207979968 E 100-17420-5050 5.48 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207979969 E 100-17420-5050 1.28 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207979970 E 100-17420-5050 14.28 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207980007 E 100-17420-5050 77.01 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207980182 E 100-17420-5050 65.84 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207980320 E 100-17420-5050 68.81 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207980411 E 100-17420-5050 24.13 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 12 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 8/9/2019 278207980446 E 100-17420-5050 15.34 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/9/2019 278207980790 E 100-17420-5050 0.98 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
8/16/2019 278383981049 E 100-17320-5050 19.49 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
8/16/2019 278383981328 E 100-17320-5050 36.10 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
8/16/2019 278383981417 E 100-17320-5050 43.76 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
8/16/2019 278383981438 E 100-17320-5050 11.95 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
STANDARD PLUMBING SUPPLY CO 8/9/2019 278211JVZ549 E 100-17420-5050 181.48 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/14/2019 2782978054938901 E 100-17240-5020 115.46 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CHILDCARE AND SPORTS PR
8/14/2019 2782978054938901 E 100-17275-5021 732.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CHILDCARE AND SPORTS PR
8/14/2019 2782978055257278 E 100-17110-5020 356.16 OFFICE SUPLIES FOR MSB ADMIN OFFICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 E 100-17310-5037 64.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
TARGET 8/7/2019 278137CC399090 E 100-17240-5021 66.61 BS - UTILITY TUBS
8/16/2019 278395CC399743 E 100-17275-5021 40.17 EE - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395CC399761 E 100-17275-5021 40.90 EE - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278395cc399765 E 100-17275-5021 19.85 EE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
TARGET SUPPLIES 8/16/2019 278395CC399745 E 100-17275-5021 43.46 EE - PROGRAM SUPPLIES
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-17110-5074 1,043.95 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-17240-5074 85.44 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-17275-5074 37.90 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-17276-5074 133.14 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
TOMMY SEUNG NAM KIM 8/16/2019 27835008/03/19 E 100-17260-5001 980.00 INSTRUCOR FEES FOR SUMMER GOLF LESSONS 2
TREESTUFF.COM 8/7/2019 278136INV-475395 E 100-17340-5050 179.10 PARKS DIV - SUPPLIES
TURFTIME EQUIPMENT LLC 8/9/2019 27822191224 E 100-17970-5061 20,450.00 TURF TOP DRESSER TRACTOR IMPLEMENT
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 8/9/2019 2782249236996485 E 100-17420-5050 17.13 CITY FAC - SUPPLIES
WALT DISNEY FAMILY MUSEUM 8/16/2019 278395CC399728 E 100-17275-5061 154.00 DD- DISNEY MUSEUM/TEEN CANP ADMISSION
YEE-LYNN WONG 8/14/2019 27831108/14/19 E 100-17320-5005 750.00 STIPEND #2 - LYNN
Payments issued for PARKS & RECREATION $64,715.42
POLICE
ACTION TOWING AND ROAD SERVICE8/14/2019 278227112763 E 100-12720-5021 125.00 PD TOW - TRAILER
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 8/7/2019 27806930768 E 100-12720-5034 46.80 BUSINESS CARDS - CHETCUTI
8/14/2019 27822830773 E 100-12720-5034 46.80 BUSINESS CARDS - R. AMADOR
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 13 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
POLICE
AMAZON.COM 8/14/2019 278304CC399318 E 100-12110-5020 413.16 LD CC - PD SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 278304CC399335 E 100-12720-5021 971.30 LS CC - SUPPLIES
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 8/9/2019 278148M7175147TH E 100-12410-5071 19.51 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
ARAGON VETERINARY CLINIC 8/14/2019 278231178543 E 100-12720-5061 234.78 ANNUAL VET EXAM - ACE / FINNEGAN
BAY AREA OIL SUPPLY 8/14/2019 278304CC399321 E 100-12110-5031 56.51 JA CC - FUEL EXPENSE
BECKY DABNEY 8/14/2019 27825305/10/19 E 100-12720-5033 400.00 TUITION REIMB FOR R.DABNEY PER MOU
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 8/9/2019 278155TGX8637 E 100-12110-5045 40.33 INK CARTRIDGE FOR RECEIPT PRINTER
COSTCO 8/14/2019 278304CC399328 E 100-12110-5061 170.46 LS CC - YOUTH ACADEMY REFRESHMENTS
DFS GREEN, INC 8/7/2019 27809127806-11 E 100-12210-5001 398.00 CARPET CLEANING
EMBASSY SUITES 8/14/2019 278304CC399329 E 100-12720-5033 458.60 LS CC - HOTEL STAY A. SARIOTTI
FEDEX 8/7/2019 2780956-632-16939 E 100-12210-5027 14.78 TICKETING DEVICE REPAIR - SHIPPING CHARGE
IVAN DELACRUZ 8/16/2019 27834108/04-08/07/19-ID E 100-12720-5033 223.38 DEFENSIVE TACTIC TRAINING - EXPENSES
JASON SMITH 8/16/2019 27838107/22-08/02/19- JS E 100-12720-5033 457.04 RANGE INSTRUCT TRAINING- MILEAGE EXP
JOANN'S CAFE 8/16/2019 278395CC399609 E 100-12720-5061 36.18 KW - DEBRIEF LUNCH FOR OIS
K9 STORM INCORPORATED 8/14/2019 278304CC399336 E 100-12720-5021 675.00 LS CC - CANINE SUPPLIES
KAISER PERMANENTE - OHSS 8/16/2019 278349320900248601 E 100-12720-5036 873.90 JULY 2019 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 8/14/2019 2782624606485 E 100-12720-5005 156.85 TRANSLATIONS - JULY 2019
LAURA SOTO 8/14/2019 27829108/06/19 E 100-12110-5061 449.66 L.SOTO - TUITION REIMB FOR SUMMER 2019
MATTHEW O'CONNOR 8/16/2019 27835908/05/19-08/07/19-ME 100-12720-5033 234.84 DEFENSIVE TACTIC TRAINING EXPENSES
MERRITT COMMUNICATIONS INC. 8/7/2019 27811496090 E 100-12110-5020 53.78 DISPATCH HEADSET
8/14/2019 2782692130962 E 100-12110-5020 49.00 DISPATCH SUPPLIES
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 8/14/2019 278270055363 E 100-12720-5021 282.70 RADIO REPAIR
NICHOLAS MICHELS 8/14/2019 27827207/22/19-08/02/19 E 100-12720-5033 696.00 FIREARMS INSTR COURSE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/7/2019 278119245630609001 E 100-12110-5020 100.06 PD OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278119327561169001 E 100-12110-5020 84.36 PD OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278119347108104001 E 100-12110-5020 37.78 DISPATCH SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 278275347108347001 E 100-12210-5020 20.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES - DISPATCH
OP TEMPO 8/14/2019 278304CC399398 E 100-12720-5033 850.00 AP CC - COMBAT/PISTOL COURSE
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC8/14/2019 278279JULY 2019 E 100-12720-5034 4,926.12 UNIFORM ITEMS
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS8/7/2019 27812233945 E 100-12720-5034 115.24 SEARCH ID LIST
REDWOOD CITY FIREFIGHTER ASSOC8/14/2019 27828619-RCFFA - PD E 100-12110-5061 200.00 SMC PUBLIC SAFETY MEMORIAL FUND 09/08/19
RONALD M CARLINO 8/14/2019 27824304/17/19 E 100-12110-5033 440.40 TUITION REIMB FOR R. CARLINO - SUMMER 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 14 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
POLICE
SACRAMENTO REGIONAL PUBLIC SAF8/14/2019 278304CC399322 E 100-12720-5033 54.00 AP - DEFENSIVE TACTICS INSTR. 4 ATTENDEES (A
SAFEWAY STORE 8/14/2019 278304CC399324 E 100-12110-5031 12.94 MS CC - PD HOSTING REFRESHMENTS
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 8/14/2019 278304CC399327 E 100-12110-5061 138.31 MS CC - CHIEF & RECRUITS LUNCH (11 PPL)
SSF SCAVENGER CO INC 8/7/2019 2781300000853958 E 100-12110-5020 282.00 PD-DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/16/2019 2783878055257284 E 100-12110-5020 948.49 OFFICE SUPPLIES
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 8/14/2019 278304CC399334 E 100-12720-5021 10.15 LS CC - OFFICE SUPPLIES
STARBUCKS 8/14/2019 278304CC399326 E 100-12110-5031 115.00 MS CC - COFFEE FOR PD HOSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 E 100-12720-5037 32.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
TARGET 8/14/2019 278304CC399331 E 100-12110-5061 21.38 LS CC - YOUTH ACADEMY UTENSILS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG ASSOC 8/14/2019 27830146091 E 100-12410-5001 4,735.00 MONTHLY RADIOS MAINT AUG 2019
8/16/2019 27839246095 E 100-12410-5005 16,915.00 PROF. MONTHLY SERVICES - AUG 2019
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-12210-5074 640.90 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 8/9/2019 27822030659 E 100-12720-5001 5,981.16 CITATION PROCESSING FY 19/20
VERIZON WIRELESS 8/16/2019 2783999835122968 E 100-12410-5071 1,634.95 DATA CARD SERVICES FOR LAPTOPS IN PATROL C
Payments issued for POLICE $45,879.89
PUBLIC WORKS
ABS ALTERNATIVE BMW SERVICE 8/7/2019 278068111371 E 781-13610-5001 661.50 GARAGE VEH #507 REPAIRS
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 8/9/2019 27814330761 E 100-13210-5021 46.80 BUSINESS CARDS FOR MATT POWLESON
AIRGAS USA, LLC 8/16/2019 2783139964030988 E 710-13942-5051 28.70 WELDING GAS RESTOCK
AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 8/9/2019 278144407549 E 781-13610-5021 79.73 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/9/2019 278144407576 E 781-13610-5021 7.67 GARAGE OP VEH#714
ALWAYS UNDER PRESSURE 8/16/2019 27831690540 E 740-13820-5051 7,826.90 REPLACEMENT HOT WATER PRESSURE WASHER
AMAZON MKTPLACE 8/7/2019 278137CC398835 E 100-13410-5021 34.91 MG OPERATING SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278137CC398872 E 710-13315-5021 399.94 MW - SEWER MAINT OP SUPPLIES
AMAZON.COM 8/7/2019 278137CC398917 E 710-13910-5033 39.59 BS STAFF DEVELOPMENT
8/7/2019 278137CC398930 E 710-13910-5021 475.22 BS REPLACEMENT COMPUTER MONITOR FOR SCA
8/7/2019 278137CC398931 E 710-13910-5051 580.07 BS REPLACEMENT DOMES FOR PLANT SECURITY C
8/9/2019 278222cc399084 E 100-13410-5045 24.27 TB-PRIME MEMBERSHIP, IT PURCHASES - PURCH
AMERICAN AIR SYSTEMS INC 8/9/2019 278147190500 E 710-13951-5050 1,175.00 FY 19-20 HVAC, BOILERS AND LAB REF UNITS MAI
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 8/9/2019 278148M7175147TH E 710-13910-5071 83.32 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
AQUA HAND WASH AND GAS 8/7/2019 27807007/15/19-07/31/19 E 781-13610-5001 879.78 CAR WASHES FOR CITY FLEET JULY 15-31, 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 15 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 8/7/2019 278071760351942 E 710-13315-5001 152.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/7/2019 278071760351942 E 740-13820-5001 152.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/7/2019 278071760351944 E 781-13610-5001 34.30 PW MAINT UNIFORMS FOR GARAGE
8/7/2019 278071760351945 E 781-13610-5001 39.45 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER & SHOP TOWEL
8/9/2019 278149760363337 E 710-13910-5001 140.78 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760363338 E 710-13910-5001 183.20 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760363341 E 740-13820-5001 138.84 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760363341 E 710-13315-5001 138.84 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/9/2019 278149760363343 E 781-13610-5001 8.30 PW MAINT UNIFORMS FOR GARAGE
8/9/2019 278149760363344 E 781-13610-5001 47.85 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER & SHOP TOWEL
8/14/2019 278232760374678 E 740-13820-5001 131.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/14/2019 278232760374678 E 710-13315-5001 131.34 PW WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/14/2019 278232760374680 E 781-13610-5001 34.30 PW MAINT UNIFORMS FOR GARAGE
8/14/2019 278232760374681 E 781-13610-5001 47.85 PW MAINT GARAGE SEAT COVER & SHOP TOWEL
8/16/2019 278318760374674 E 710-13910-5001 136.28 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
8/16/2019 278318760374675 E 710-13910-5001 174.20 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
AUDIBLES 8/7/2019 278137CC398946 E 710-13910-5033 21.00 BS STAFF DEVELOPMENT
8/7/2019 278137CC398947 E 710-13910-5033 28.30 BS STAFF DEVELOPMENT
BAY AREA UPHOLSTERY 8/7/2019 2780758372 E 781-13610-5001 246.34 GARAGE STOCK REPAIR
8/7/2019 2780758373 E 781-13610-5001 45.00 GARAGE VEH#327 REPAIRS
BAYWORK 8/9/2019 2781511117 E 710-13910-5002 1,500.00 BAYWORK ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP
BOB JR'S TOWING INC 8/9/2019 27815232830 E 781-13610-5001 125.00 PW - TOWING SERVICE VEH# 234
BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 8/14/2019 27823752117 E 100-13420-5021 304.56 PW - SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 27823752129 E 100-13420-5021 406.08 PW - SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
8/14/2019 27823752152 E 100-13420-5021 406.08 PW - SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 27832752048 E 100-13420-5021 304.56 PW - SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
BUS & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 8/7/2019 27807871067 E 781-13610-5001 1,535.99 GARAGE VEH#526 REPAIRS
C H BULL CO 8/7/2019 2780791201844 E 710-13315-5051 263.07 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES & EQUIPMENT
CACEO 8/7/2019 278137CC398902 E 100-13410-5033 106.00 LL CLASS REGISTRATION FOR CODE ENFORCERME
CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO 8/16/2019 27833117724532 E 100-13420-5021 89.76 SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
CHARGEPOINT, INC. 8/16/2019 278333IN58234 E 710-13922-5050 9,113.65 EV CHARGING STATION
CHRISTINE KOPTI 8/9/2019 27817807/27/19 E 710-13910-5021 92.81 CAL OSHA REQUIRED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQ
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 16 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY AUTO SUPPLY 8/7/2019 2780843-654880 E 781-13610-5021 145.67 GARAGE OP VEH #6
8/7/2019 2780843-655135 E 781-13610-5021 71.97 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/7/2019 2780843-656714 E 781-13610-5021 19.84 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/7/2019 2780843-657412 E 781-13610-5021 240.65 GARAGE OP VEH#115
8/9/2019 2781563-659132 E 781-13610-5021 28.45 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/16/2019 2783343-660874 E 781-13610-5021 174.68 GARAGE OP VEH #234
CITY MECHANICAL INC 8/7/2019 27808553295 E 720-13720-5005 1,532.69 HVAC GARAGE SERVICE
8/7/2019 27808557280 E 720-13720-5005 787.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR MILLER PARKING G
CLEANITSUPPLY.COM 8/9/2019 278157INV449847 E 710-13910-5021 194.79 OPERATING SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278336INV453827 E 710-13910-5021 423.09 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RE-STOCK
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN8/7/2019 2780868155 20 044 0252502 E 710-13315-5001 25.57 CORP YARD CABLE (JULY 20 - AUG 19 2019)
8/7/2019 2780868155 20 044 0252502 E 710-13310-5001 25.57 CORP YARD CABLE (JULY 20 - AUG 19 2019)
CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 8/14/2019 27825065044442 E 710-13310-5006 110.50 DOT PHYSICAL RECERTIFICATIONS
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 8/14/2019 278251324331 E 710-13932-5002 1,255.00 SMC ENV. HEALTH - HAZ MAT STORAGE FEES RP0
8/14/2019 278251324331 E 100-13440-5001 2,168.00 SMC ENV. HEALTH - HAZ MAT STORAGE FEES RP0
8/16/2019 278339RP00008509 E 710-13932-5002 1,539.00 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEES
8/16/2019 278339RP00008509 E 710-13931-5002 513.00 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEES
8/16/2019 278339RP00008509 E 710-13910-5002 3,542.00 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEES
8/16/2019 278339RP00008509 E 710-13930-5002 513.00 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEES
CRISTIAN MORALES 8/16/2019 27835508/01/19 - 08/03/19 E 710-13315-5031 190.24 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT - C. MORAL
CULLIGAN SANTA CLARA 8/9/2019 2781580114547 E 710-13941-5051 202.40 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
CUSTOM TRUCK 8/14/2019 27825220192015 E 781-13610-5001 1,195.43 GARAGE NEW VEH #32 REPAIRS
CWEA - SANTA CLARA VALLEY SECT8/9/2019 278222CC399088 E 710-13310-5036 290.00 YM-JOB POSTING PLANT MECHANIC I/II
CWEA SPECIALTY CONFERENCES 8/7/2019 278137CC398905 E 710-13315-5031 849.00 LL - CWEA MEMBERSHIP RENEWALS
D&M TRAFFIC SERVICES, INC. 8/9/2019 27815966454 E 100-13430-5021 2,371.43 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
DAVID BOCKHAUS 8/7/2019 27807706/20/2019 E 100-13410-5031 20.00 CCEA LUNCH REIMBURSEMENT
DISH NETWORK 8/9/2019 278222CC398919 E 710-13910-5005 120.85 BS DISH NETWORK
EDGARD STA MARIA 8/9/2019 27821008/02/19 E 710-13910-5033 97.00 E.STA MARIA - EMPL.REIMB. CWEA MEMBERSHIP
EMERGENCY VEHICLE GROUP INC 8/7/2019 27809325458 E 781-13610-5021 121.15 GARAGE OP VEH#516
ERGOTRON 8/7/2019 278137CC399005 E 100-13210-5020 599.53 KS-ERGOTRON DUAL WORKSTATION FOR C.MISE
FASTRAK 8/9/2019 278222CC398853 E 100-13410-5001 25.00 DB: CORP YARD FASTRAK ACCT PAYMENT
FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY, LLC8/9/2019 2781651695132 E 710-13951-5021 249.99 FY 2019-2020 LAB SUPPLIES-PO LIMIT $10,000
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 17 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
FLYERS ENERGY LLC 8/7/2019 27809619-925709 E 781-13610-5028 1,391.52 BULK FUEL DELIVERY FOR FIRE STN 65
8/7/2019 27809619-929094 E 781-13610-5028 1,030.89 BULK FUEL DELIVERY AT FIRE STN 64
8/7/2019 27809619-935539 E 781-13610-5028 878.87 BULK FUEL DELIVERY AT CORP YARD
8/9/2019 27816719-925711 E 781-13610-5028 2,586.81 BULK FUEL DELIVERY TO FIRE STN 61
8/9/2019 27816719-925712 E 781-13610-5028 3,089.88 BULK FUEL DELIVERY FOR FIRE STN 63
8/9/2019 278167CFS-2001043 E 781-13610-5028 16,364.76 PW FUEL CARD TRANSACTION FOR CITY FLEET
GOLDEN GATE TRUCK CENTER 8/14/2019 278257R005081909:01 E 781-13610-5001 2,483.48 GARAGE VEH #507 REPAIRS
GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 8/7/2019 2780983798 E 781-13610-5001 759.03 GARAGE VEH#13 REPAIRS
HARRISON & BONINI 8/7/2019 278100760949 E 710-13943-5051 829.45 SHOP RE-STOCK
HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE SVC 8/7/2019 278101164645 E 781-13610-5001 1,343.60 GARAGE VEH#510 REPAIRS
8/14/2019 278259164667 E 781-13610-5021 65.43 GARAGE OP VEH #509 & STOCK
IDEXX DISTRIBUTION, INC. 8/7/2019 2781033050766034 E 710-13951-5021 334.44 LAB SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 2783463051459384 E 710-13951-5021 74.22 LAB SUPPLIES
INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL,INC8/7/2019 278137CC398882 E 100-13520-5022 79.00 LL CODE ENFORCEMENT ZONING INSPECTION BO
INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING IN8/16/2019 2783485640 E 740-13820-5002 28,125.00 HICKEY BLVD VALLEY GUTTER & EROSIAN REPAIR
8/16/2019 2783485640 E 740-13820-5001 28,125.00 HICKEY BLVD VALLEY GUTTER & EROSIAN REPAIR
INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CTRL PRO 8/9/2019 278174232198 E 100-13430-5021 5,352.02 TRAFFIC MARKINGS OPER SUPPLIES
IPS GROUP, INC 8/9/2019 27817543530 E 720-13720-5005 9,812.09 PARKING METER ASSEMBLY
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 8/7/2019 27810677799 E 781-13610-5021 255.12 GARAGE OP VEH#0859
8/9/2019 27817677877 E 781-13610-5021 21.13 GARAGE OP VEH #312
KAISER PERMANENTE - OHSS 8/16/2019 278349320900248601 E 710-13310-5036 257.40 JULY 2019 PRE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
KIM SANTOS MACARAIG 8/7/2019 27812507/25/2019 E 100-13210-5033 112.52 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT FOR KIM SANTOS~
KUSSMAUL ELECTRONICS CO INC 8/9/2019 2781790000151110 E 781-13610-5021 506.34 GARAGE OP VEH #516
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 8/7/2019 278110980281 E 100-13420-5021 1,080.87 PW GARAGE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278181902343 E 710-13315-5021 62.65 PW - SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278181902573 E 100-13411-5021 136.88 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278181903835 E 100-13411-5021 51.18 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278181917668 E 710-13943-5050 130.67 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
LUIGI'S SANDWICH PALACE 8/7/2019 278111163564 E 710-13910-5033 394.40 MEALS FOR CITY HOSTED LEADERSHIP TRANING 3
MARA SCHEUBER 8/16/2019 27837808/13/19 E 710-13951-5031 192.00 EMPL.REIMB. FOR CWEA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 8/14/2019 27826733033 E 250-13510-5007 9.68 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
8/14/2019 27826733033 E 710-13310-5007 348.48 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 18 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 8/14/2019 27826733033 E 710-13910-5007 769.56 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
8/14/2019 27826733033 E 720-13720-5007 48.40 PROF SVCS IN JULY FOR AUDIT YE JUNE 30, 2019 -
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 8/7/2019 27811211541527 E 710-13922-5051 195.78 BATTERY RECYCLING CONTAINER
8/7/2019 27811211700508 E 710-13943-5051 145.55 HARDWARE SHOP RE-STOCK
MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPT CORP 8/7/2019 278116CA94-957028 E 710-13315-5021 131.59 PW - SEWER/STREETS OP SUPPLIES
NATASHA GUTIERREZ 8/7/2019 27809907/23/19-07/25/19 E 710-13910-5033 72.93 EMPL. REIMB. MILEAGE AND COURSE SUPPLIES F
NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC 8/16/2019 278357INV-184577 E 710-13953-5030 3,251.40 ON-SCREEN OUTREACH
NEW PIG 8/9/2019 27818722813552-00 E 781-13610-5051 3,080.93 GARAGE SHOP EQUIPMENT
NSI SOLUTIONS, INC. 8/7/2019 278118369126 E 710-13951-5021 383.00 LAB SUPPLIES
OFFICE DEPOT INC 8/9/2019 278190350191311001 E 710-13910-5021 40.52 OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278190350191311001 E 710-13951-5021 55.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278360358094463001 E 100-13210-5020 136.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES - PAPER, TISSUE, DESK ITEMS
8/16/2019 278360358099948001 E 100-13210-5020 337.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES - TONER CARTRIDGES
PENINSULA BATTERY CO 8/7/2019 278120129641 E 781-13610-5021 98.23 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/7/2019 278120129736 E 781-13610-5021 319.92 GARAGE OP VEH#318
8/7/2019 278120129778 E 781-13610-5021 102.06 GARAGE OP VEH #902
8/14/2019 278278129851 E 781-13610-5021 473.04 GARAGE OP VEH# 509
8/14/2019 278278129860 E 781-13610-5021 103.06 GARAGE OP VEH#217
8/16/2019 278363129888 E 781-13610-5021 158.41 GARAGE OP VEH #4
PETER SHEA 8/16/2019 27837908/02/19 - 08/03/19 E 710-13315-5031 63.10 STANDBY MILEAGE FOR P. SHEA
PETERSON TRUCKS, INC. 8/7/2019 278121188633P E 781-13610-5021 145.67 GARAGE STOCK OP SUPPLIES
PHENOVA, INC. 8/9/2019 278197152088 E 710-13951-5021 370.57 LAB SUPPLIES
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS8/7/2019 27812233823 E 100-13410-5025 158.41 BUS CARDS FOR D. WIGTON
8/14/2019 27828433974 E 100-13210-5025 2,716.31 NO PARKING SIGNS (ENG DEPT SUPPLIES)
R.A. METAL PRODUCTS INC 8/7/2019 2781238792 E 781-13610-5001 205.23 GARAGE VEH #506 SERVICE
ROBERT FRANKLIN RICHARDSON 8/9/2019 278200014-131-220 E 100-13310-5078 76.00 LOW INCOME SEWER SERVICE REBATE
SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS INC 8/9/2019 27820280341506 E 710-13941-5051 636.07 PARTS CLEANER SERVICE
SAN FRANCISCO HARLEY-DAVIDSON 8/7/2019 278124442234 E 781-13610-5021 315.64 GARAGE OP VEH #44
8/9/2019 278203442838 E 781-13610-5021 100.64 GARAGE OP STOCK
SAN MATEO LAWNMOWER INC. 8/16/2019 278376189308 E 781-13610-5021 40.91 GARAGE OP SUPPLIES
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 8/7/2019 278126664517 E 781-13610-5021 164.48 GARAGE OP SUPPLY VEH#6
8/7/2019 278126664590 E 781-13610-5021 42.18 GARAGE OP SUPPLY VEH #6
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 19 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 8/7/2019 278126664594 E 781-13610-5021 24.99 GARAGE OP VEH#6
8/7/2019 278126664778 E 781-13610-5021 38.89 GARAGE OP VEH#6
8/7/2019 278126665051 E 781-13610-5021 173.89 GARAGE OP VEH #6
8/7/2019 278126665326 E 781-13610-5021 171.48 GARAGE OP VEH #233 & STOCK
8/9/2019 278205665456 E 781-13610-5021 59.52 GARAGE OP VEH #221
8/9/2019 278205666007 E 781-13610-5021 25.95 GARAGE OP VEH #514
SHIVA AUTO REPAIR 8/7/2019 27812741448 E 781-13610-5001 56.75 GARAGE VEH#138 SMOG INSPECTION
8/9/2019 27820641495 E 781-13610-5001 56.75 GARAGE VEH#103 SMOG INSPECTION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 8/7/2019 278129980776 E 710-13922-5051 54.27 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278207978682 E 100-13411-5021 3.95 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278207979526 E 100-13411-5021 10.51 STREET MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278207980105 E 100-13420-5021 32.60 SIDEWALKS/CURBS OPER SUPPLIES
8/9/2019 278207981053 E 710-13922-5050 27.35 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES RESTOCK - SANDPAPER
8/14/2019 278292981329 E 781-13610-5051 22.17 GARAGE MAINT & OPER EQUIPMENT
8/16/2019 278383980435 E 100-13420-5021 55.86 PW - SIDEWALKS/CURBS OER SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278383981019 E 100-13420-5021 55.61 PW - SIDEWALK/CURB OPER SUPPLIES
8/16/2019 278383981361 E 710-13943-5051 32.91 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES - CLR CLEANER
SPARTAN TOOL LLC 8/9/2019 278208607213 E 710-13315-5021 3,420.00 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 8/7/2019 278137CC398829 E 100-13410-5061 140.88 MG LUNCH FOR QUARTERLY MUNICIPAL REGION
8/7/2019 278137CC398918 E 710-13910-5036 63.18 BS PLANT HOURLY CHEMIST INTERVIEW PANEL L
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/16/2019 2783873410481542 E 100-13410-5020 23.58 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CORPYARD FRONT OFFI
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 8/7/2019 278137CC398865 E 100-13411-5021 97.62 AR CC - OPER SUPPPLIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 E 710-13310-5037 96.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
STEVEN'S BAY AREA DIESEL SER I8/9/2019 27821345466 E 781-13610-5001 11,940.95 GARAGE VEH#516 REPAIRS
8/14/2019 27829945574 E 781-13610-5001 971.89 GARAGE VEH #508 REPAIRS
8/16/2019 27838945528 E 781-13610-5001 14,970.36 GARAGE VEH #504 REPAIRS
STEWART CHEVROLET 8/7/2019 278132122632CVW E 781-13610-5021 308.02 GARAGE OP VEH #252
THE ADAM-HILL COMPANY 8/9/2019 27821430056913 E 781-13610-5021 77.05 GARAGE OP VEH #312
THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO 8/7/2019 278134184-1088068 E 781-13610-5001 1,376.45 GARAGE VEH#311 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8/7/2019 278134184-1088108 E 781-13610-5021 439.32 GARAGE OP VEH #114 &115
8/9/2019 278216184-1088139 E 781-13610-5021 309.07 GARAGE OP VEH #115
8/16/2019 278393184-1088190 E 781-13610-5001 4,369.98 GARAGE VEH#510 REPAIRS
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 20 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
THE SWENSON GROUP, INC. 8/16/2019 278394242157 E 710-13310-5074 443.93 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 100-13210-5074 187.30 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
8/16/2019 278394242157 E 710-13910-5074 144.66 CITY WIDE COPIER CHARGES - 7/7/19 - 8/6/19
TOOLBARN.COM 8/7/2019 278137CC398942 E 740-13820-5021 207.43 LL STORM OP SUPPLIES
TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 8/9/2019 2782171801P121023 E 781-13610-5021 125.69 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/9/2019 2782171801P121312 E 781-13610-5021 320.25 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/9/2019 2782181801P121562 E 781-13610-5021 53.22 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/14/2019 2783031801P117340 E 781-13610-5021 54.14 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/14/2019 2783031801P117342 E 781-13610-5021 45.12 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/14/2019 2783031801P117498 E 781-13610-5021 61.39 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/14/2019 2783031801P117753 E 781-13610-5021 16.21 GARAGE OP STOCK
TRANSENE COMPANY, INC 8/7/2019 278135171596 E 710-13951-5021 132.49 LAB SUPPLIES
8/7/2019 278135171842 E 710-13951-5021 450.42 LAB SUPPLIES
TRUCK VAULT INC. 8/9/2019 278219201820 E 781-13610-5021 3,552.81 GARAGE OP NEW VEH# 32
UCB ITS TECH TRANSFER PROGRAM 8/7/2019 278137CC399006 E 100-13210-5033 595.00 KS-STAFF DEVELOPMENT FOR B.LIU
UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 8/16/2019 278396172567408-001 E 100-13411-5021 411.57 STREET MAINT/ASPHALT OPER SUPPLIES
UNIVAR USA INC 8/9/2019 278223SJ951713 E 710-13964-5021 5,992.24 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM BISULFITE
8/9/2019 278223SJ952915 E 710-13944-5021 3,675.34 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
8/9/2019 278223SJ953333 E 710-13944-5021 3,712.62 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
8/16/2019 278397SJ954730 E 710-13944-5021 3,675.26 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE
8/16/2019 278397SJ955384 E 710-13964-5021 5,979.68 FY 2019-2020 SODIUM BISULFITE
USA FLEET SOLUTIONS 8/7/2019 27813838401 E 781-13610-5021 67.17 GPS TRACKING FOR STREET SWEEPERS
VALLEY POWER SYSTEMS INC 8/16/2019 278398J30672 E 781-13610-5001 69,887.76 GARAGE VEH#504 REPAIRS
VARIDESK, LLC 8/7/2019 278137CC399004 E 100-13210-5020 1,031.65 MR-VARIDESK SIT-STAND DESK, DUAL MONITOR
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 8/7/2019 2781399236990975 E 781-13610-5021 34.69 GARAGE OP STOCK
8/9/2019 2782249243337475 E 710-13932-5050 130.51 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES & EYEWASH PRESERVATIVE
8/9/2019 2782249245381794 E 710-13932-5021 27.60 USB RECHARGEABLE BATTERY
8/9/2019 2782249247313555 E 710-13951-5051 210.13 TUBING
WESTERN TRUCK FABRICATION INC 8/16/2019 27840021660 E 710-13964-5021 1,851.53 LAPTOP MOUNT FOR OUTSIDE ROUNDS TRUCK
8/16/2019 27840021695 E 710-13964-5021 1,994.85 ACCESSORIES FOR REPLACEMENT VEHICLES NO'S:
WINZER CORPORATION 8/14/2019 2783096426687 E 781-13610-5005 337.13 GARAGE MAINT & OPER EQUIPMENT
WORLD OIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 8/9/2019 278225I500-00467752 E 781-13610-5028 65.00 GARAGE - USED OIL DISPOSAL
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 21 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
ZAP MANUFACTURING INC 8/7/2019 2781402800 E 100-13430-5001 932.44 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES & SERVICES
8/7/2019 2781402800 E 100-13430-5021 334.92 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES & SERVICES
8/7/2019 2781402801 E 100-13430-5021 521.31 PAINTS & SIGNS OPER SUPPLIES
Payments issued for PUBLIC WORKS $316,260.82
BALANCE SHEET
24/7 ROOTER AND PLUMBING 8/9/2019 278141E19-0465 B 270-21703 3,000.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 337 COMMERCIAL AV
BELL PLUMBING 8/16/2019 278324E19-0578 B 270-21703 1,000.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 28 GREENWOOD DR
DEL RIO ROOFING CO INC 8/9/2019 278160B19-0849 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMO DEPOSIT
DISCOUNT PLUMBING 8/16/2019 278342E19-0562 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 280 VILLAGE WAY
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS IN8/7/2019 278092191036-3 B 100-21742 570.00 DENSITY BONUS FEASIBILITY STUDY 6.1 THROUG
FIRST FOUNDATION BANK 8/9/2019 27816411a B 710-21208 127,210.14 SS1301 - 5% RENTENTION FIRST FOUNDATION BA
FLATIRON WEST INC 8/9/2019 27816611 B 710-21208 -127,210.14 SS1301 - WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR I
IN & OUT PLUMBING 8/16/2019 278347E19-0648 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 546 RAILROAD AVE
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 8/7/2019 278115201060031 B 100-21742 151.20 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1300 - 645 BADEN
8/7/2019 2781152019060028 B 100-21742 876.60 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1285 CADENCE P
8/7/2019 2781152019060032 B 100-21742 771.00 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1308 - 2400 WEST
8/7/2019 2781152019060034 B 100-21742 277.20 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1317 - 151 MITCH
8/7/2019 2781152019060037 B 100-21742 480.40 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1332 ACTION SIG
8/7/2019 2781152019060039 B 100-21742 151.20 PROF SERV THRU 6.30.19 - 405.1340 - 2 A STREET
P & A ADMINISTRATIVE SVCS, INC8/9/2019 278191CSSFF19 B 783-11302 27,779.60 FY18-19 FSA DEPOSIT-INITIAL FUNDING 20% OF E
RIDGEVALLEY ROOFING INC 8/16/2019 278368B19-0733/B19-1066 B 270-21724 400.00 RELEASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION D
SIGNATURE ROOFING, INC 8/7/2019 278128B19-0919 B 270-21724 200.00 RELEASE OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION D
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8/16/2019 278388393906 B 100-21205 194.00 JULY 2019 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
SUGAR BEAR PLUMBING 8/16/2019 278391E19-0695 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 452 ALMANOR AVE
WORKS PLUMBING & ROOTER 8/16/2019 278401E19-0497 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACHMENT DEPOSIT, 227 VERANO DR
Payments issued for BALANCE SHEET $38,051.20
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BARKERBLUE INC 8/7/2019 2780740000625744 E 510-99999-5999 315.03 PF1805 - SET OF PLANS FOR FIRE STATION 64 RE
CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER PARTNERS 8/14/2019 27824100006360382 E 510-99999-5999 1,033.32 ST1602 - AD IN SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES
FLATIRON WEST INC 8/9/2019 27816611 E 710-99999-5999 2,544,202.93 SS1301 - WQCP WET WEATHER AND DIGESTOR I
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 22 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
G. BORTOLOTTO & CO, INC. 8/14/2019 2782554726 E 510-99999-5999 165,024.84 ST193A - FY 2018-19 SURFACE SEAL CONTRACTO
GATEWAY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC 8/14/2019 2782562755071 E 510-99999-5999 2,890.00 ST1603 - LEGAL FEES - POLETTI WAY
SANDIS CIVIL ENG SURVEYORS 8/9/2019 2782041906123 E 720-99999-5999 4,895.00 PF1801 - FY 19-20 ON CALL CIVIL SURVEYING SRV
SETON PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION 8/14/2019 2782891 E 510-99999-5999 657,214.75 ST1702 - GENERAL CONTRACTOR ANTOINETTE U
Payments issued for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $3,375,575.87
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE
ALPINE AWARDS 8/16/2019 2783155537671 B 280-27405 576.52 CUSTOM MEDALS AND PLATES FOR KARATE TOU
CEDRIC MCNICOL 8/7/2019 278113CM07/19/2019 B 280-27465 372.56 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE FOR CEDRIC MCNICOL -
MARIA SPREMICH 8/16/2019 27838407/11/19-08/10/19 B 280-27405 156.48 EMPLOYEE REIMB. FOR BALLET CLASS SUPPLIES
MELISA MENDOZA 8/9/2019 27818308/07/19-08/11/19 B 280-27408 501.08 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - M. MENDOZA
PLAN-IT INTERACTIVE, INC. 8/14/2019 27828035042 B 280-27405 4,895.00 09/28/19 CONCERT KIDS ACTIVITIES - 1ST HALF O
SAMMY JOSEPH 8/7/2019 27810407/21/19-07/25/19 B 280-27465 186.05 SAMMY JOSEPH - JULY ICC SEMINAR STATEMENT
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 8/7/2019 278137CC399073 B 280-27463 38.85 MP: VOLUNTEER EVENT & OFFICE SUPPLIES
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 8/16/2019 2783878055257273 B 280-27409 -139.82 OFFICE SUPPLIES - MAIN LIBRARY
STARBUCKS 8/7/2019 278137CC399075 B 280-27463 60.00 MP: VOLUNTEER EVENT REFRESHMENTS
STEWART CHEVROLET 8/16/2019 278390140941 B 280-27411 39,587.00 NEW DEA VEHICLE FOR MAHON
TRADER JOE'S 8/7/2019 278137CC399074 B 280-27463 53.40 MP: IPP PLANTING 6/29/19
Payments issued for DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE $46,287.12
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
ANTHONY KIM 8/7/2019 27810717125443 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WESTBOROUG
AYIN CHANG 8/16/2019 27833217411244 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF FERNEKES BLDG
BRINK'S, INCORPORATED 8/14/2019 27823610777480 R 110-00000-36010 1,546.08 JULY 2019 ARMORED CAR SVCS
8/14/2019 27823610795970 R 110-00000-36010 1,542.63 AUGUST 2019 ARMORED CAR SVCS
8/16/2019 2783262799298 R 110-00000-36010 894.82 JULY 2019 ARMORED CAR SVCS-EXCESS LIABILITY
CONRADO BARCELON 8/16/2019 27832217411257 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF SOCIAL HALL
FLORIDA VENTURA 8/14/2019 27830817316297 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK
GEORGE JUE 8/7/2019 27810516883789 R 100-17275-35307 125.00 REFUND OF TRADITIONAL SUMMER CAMP SESSIO
GEORGE TERRY 8/7/2019 27813317125384 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OR ORANGE PARK SHELTER DEPOSIT AU
GINA JEW 8/14/2019 27826017324574 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF WESTBOROUG
HELEN MERGELIAN 8/16/2019 27835417396354 R 100-17275-35307 316.20 REFUND OF AFTERSCHOOL PAYMENT - 1ST HALF
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 23 of 24
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and8/5/2019 8/18/2019 -City of South San Francisco
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
HELEN MERGELIAN 8/16/2019 27835417396405 R 100-17275-35307 316.20 REFUND OF AFTERSCHOOL PAYMENT - 2ND HALF
JOSEPH COFFIN 8/14/2019 27824841014635 R 100-12720-33001 38.00 CITATION REFUND
LARRY WONG 8/14/2019 27831016951740 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPSOIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK
MAGGIE LAU 8/14/2019 27826317316310 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF WEST. PARK SHELTER DEPOSIT FROM
MARITZA REYES 8/14/2019 27828717324536 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 REFUND OF SOCIAL HALL DEPOSIT - AUGUST 3RD
MICHELLE MAGAT 8/14/2019 27826517316324 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF ORANGE PARK SHELTER DEPOSIT 8-1
PATRICIA CHAN 8/7/2019 27808217130909 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF WESTBOROUGH PARK SHELTER DEPO
RUBEN DEANG 8/7/2019 27809017125402 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF ORANGE PARK SHELTER DEPOSIT - A
SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLER'S 8/16/2019 278371JULY 2019 R 100-12720-33001 28,274.10 ALLOCATION OF PARKING PENALTIES - JULY '19
SCOTT CARROLL 8/14/2019 278244SS-427902 R 100-12720-33001 38.00 CITATION REFUND
SEAN CANCIO 8/16/2019 27832917411231 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF FERNEKES BLDG
SOLAR OUTSOURCE, INC 8/14/2019 278290B19-1064 R 100-10520-32101 275.83 REFUND OF DUPLICATE PAYMENT TAKEN BY AUT
TIMOTHY LEAUPEPTELE 8/7/2019 27810817049554 R 100-17250-35301 450.00 REFUND OF JOSEPH FERNEKES BUILDING DEPOSIT
Payments issued for REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS $37,466.86
TOTAL PAYMENTS FOR PERIOD $6,591,524.14
Monday, August 19, 2019 Page 24 of 24
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-668 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:6.
Motion to cancel the regular meeting of the City Council for September 11, 2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-676 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:7.
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the South San Francisco ADA Curb
Ramp Replacement Project (Project No.st1903)as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total
Construction Cost $195,642.00).(Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council,by motion,accept the construction improvements of the South
San Francisco ADA Curb Ramp Replacement Project (Project No.st1903)as complete in accordance
with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $195,642.00).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On November 14,2018,the City Council of South San Francisco awarded the South San Francisco ADA Curb
Ramp Replacement Project (Project No.st1903)to Golden Bay Construction,Inc.to install 41 accessible curb
ramps,in various areas of the City,in advance of streets that are scheduled for paving in 2019-20,see
attachment 1 for Vicinity Map.Curb Ramps at the intersection of Spruce Ave and Victory Ave had to be
removed from the project due to coordination with the traffic signal at the intersection.
The total construction cost incurred for the project is summarized as follows:
Projected Actual
Golden Bay Construction Contract $ 206,127.00 $ 195,642.00
Construction Contingency (25 percent)$ 51,532.00 $ 0.00
Construction Management / Administration (10 percent)$ 10,307.00 $ 11,760.00
Total Project Budget $267,966.00 $207,402.00
FUNDING
This project is funded by Community Development Block Grants,gas tax fund,and Measure A funds.Funding
for this project was included in the City of South San Francisco FY 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved Quality of Life by
renewing pavement striping 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 warranty bond.
It is recommended that the City Council,by motion,accept the construction improvements of the South San
Francisco ADA Curb Ramp Replacement Project (Project No.st1903)as complete in accordance with plans
and specifications (Total Construction Cost $195,642.00).
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-676 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:7.
Attachments: Vicinity Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
VICINITY MAP
ZONE 1
ZONE 2
ZONE 3
ADA Curb Ramp
Replacement Proejct Vicinity Map Page 1 of 2
ADA Curb Ramp
Replacement Proejct Vicinity Map Page 2 of 2
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-490 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
Report regarding a resolution approving the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan in accordance with
provision C.3.j of the Municipal Regional Permit.(Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the South San Francisco Green
Infrastructure Plan in accordance with requirements of provision C.3.j of the Municipal Regional
Permit.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)regulates
pollutants in stormwater runoff from municipal storm drain systems throughout San Mateo,Santa Clara,
Alameda,and Contra Costa Counties.Provision C.3.j of the MRP requires each jurisdiction subject to the MRP,
including City of South San Francisco,to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan that demonstrates how each
permittee will gradually shift from traditional “gray”storm drain infrastructure -which channels stormwater
runoff directly into receiving waters without treatment -to a more resilient and sustainable storm drain system
comprised of “green”infrastructure,which captures,stores and treats stormwater using specially designed
landscape systems.In addition to managing runoff in a more sustainable fashion,the Green Infrastructure Plans
must be designed to collectively achieve specific reductions in mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
in stormwater runoff by 2020 and 2040, per Provisions C.11 and C.12 in the MRP.
The Green Infrastructure Plans must:
·Include a mapping and prioritization mechanism to identify and prioritize both private and public green
infrastructure project opportunities;
·Identify locations and timeframes for implementing green infrastructure, including numeric targets for
retrofitting impervious areas to achieve mandated pollutant load reductions;
·Utilize a regionally consistent process for tracking and mapping completed projects to ensure progress
towards meeting the pollutant load reduction targets;
·Include and/or reference design and construction guidelines and standard specifications and details for
green infrastructure to guide and enable the completion of projects;
·Integrate with other planning efforts, including updating other relevant City of South San Francisco
plans, policies, codes and ordinances to incorporate green infrastructure for stormwater management to
support the implementation of project opportunities;
·Evaluate long-term funding options, including those for design, construction, and long-term operations
and maintenance, from the City and other sources;
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-490 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
·Incorporate any necessary legal mechanisms to enable implementation of the plan and projects within
and by the City of South San Francisco; and
·Include public outreach on development and implementation of the plan.
The City of South San Francisco’s Green Infrastructure Plan,attached to the accompanying resolution as
Exhibit A,must be developed and submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
by September 30, 2019.
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)and its consultants have worked
with member agencies and City staff members to develop model green infrastructure planning materials,
including the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan and Workplan.On August 27,2017,City Council
approved the attached Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan,included here as Attachment 1,which was a
framework for developing the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan by September 30,2019.This workplan detailed
the various activities necessary for creating a Green Infrastructure Plan compliant with MRP requirements,and
indicated which aspects of the Green Infrastructure Plan would be undertaken by C/CAG and which must be
done by City staff.
A presentation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board on February 27,2019 and a Study Session
conducted on July 22,2019 were held in order to further inform City Council on the various facets of the Green
Infrastructure Plan, including long-term implementation costs and potential funding options.
The potential long-term costs to retrofit existing urbanized areas with green infrastructure at levels necessary to
achieve the required pollutant load reductions may be significant.C/CAG and its consultants have worked with
member agencies to develop projections of future development patterns in order to estimate how much green
infrastructure will be implemented on private sites,under separate MRP requirements that have mandated since
2005 on-site stormwater management for most new and redevelopment projects.Based on the private site
projections as well as any known regional projects (such as Orange Memorial Park),projections of additional
public green infrastructure needed to meet the mandated pollutant load reductions were developed.The
attached Green Infrastructure Plan contains these C/CAG estimates of public versus private green infrastructure
needs for both short and long-term load reduction requirements for 2020 through 2040.
A combination of private and public projects will be needed in order to meet the pollutant load reductions in
both 2030 and 2040,as required by the MRP.As previously discussed,additional regional projects and changes
to the City’s stormwater conditions of approval have the potential to decrease the number of public projects
required to be installed by the City.For example,if South San Francisco follows the lead of other
municipalities in San Mateo County and requires private developments to implement stormwater treatment
above MRP requirements,including greening property frontages and rights-of-way,the public project burden to
the City could decrease significantly.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The City’s Green Infrastructure Plan and implementation will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan goal of
improving Quality of Life.This effort will help to clean stormwater runoff to Colma Creek and the San
Francisco Bay, which will contribute to protecting public health and safety.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-490 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:8.
FUNDING
The potential long-term cost of implementing the Stormwater Green Infrastructure Plan is estimated to be
$2,000,000 - $5,000,000 annually.
It is likely that no single source of revenue will be adequate to fund the implementation of GI,and a portfolio of
funding sources will be needed.There are a variety of approaches available to help fund up-front and long-term
investments,including current City funding sources,grants,and additional sources identified with assistance
from C/CAG.
The stormwater program is currently funded by a local assessment referred to as the Stormwater Fund,Gas Tax,
Measure M,and the General fund.The C/CAG Stormwater Fund was established in 1993 to support the local
implementation of stormwater permit compliance activities and is a parcel tax.The stormwater program is
further subsidized by monies from the Gas Tax and the General Fund to address the increase in stormwater
permitting requirements.All monies in the stormwater program are applied to efforts related to MRP
compliance, including Green Infrastructure.
As required by the MRP,the City conducted an evaluation of additional potential funding options for the
design,construction,and operations and maintenance (O&M)of GI projects.These opportunities consist of
grant funding opportunities at the regional,state,and federal level,including funding through the San Mateo
County Stormwater Resource Plan and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.Finally,C/CAG developed a
Green Infrastructure Funding Nexus Evaluation report (presented in Appendix C of the GI Plan),which
discusses other funding options such as special taxes, property relations fees and general obligation bonds
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the attached Green Infrastructure Plan per the
requirements in provision C.3.j of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit.
Attachment 1:South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Workplan
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
South San Francisco
Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan
June 2017
The following Workplan provides an annotated outline for the development of South San Francisco’s
(City) Green Infrastructure Plan (Plan or GIP). This Workplan will layout the specific tasks that need to be
completed in order for the City to complete the preparation of the various components of the Green
Infrastructure Plan, and the timeline for their completion by the deadlines defined within the Municipal
Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP).
Note that the Workplan documentation is to be submitted in the 2017 Annual Report, including
documentation that the Workplan was approved by the City’s governing body, Mayor, City Manager, or
County Manager by June 30. 2017; per Provision C.3.j.i.(5) of the MRP.
The City is using the template that has been prepared by the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) Green Infrastructure Committee. The City has allocated resources to
supplement the support that SMCWPPP is providing on the City’s behalf.
Statement of Purpose
The statement of purpose is a minimum requirement for the Workplan per the MRP (Provision C.3.j.i.(1)).
This is the City’s statement of purpose for its GIP which could be derived from the GIP purpose that was
provided by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, in response to comments on the draft MRP:
The Green Infrastructure Plan is intended to describe how the City will shift their impervious surfaces and
storm drain infrastructure from gray (traditional) to green. That is, the Plan should describe how the City
will change over time infrastructure that directs runoff directly into storm drains and receiving waters to
green infrastructure that slows runoff by dispersing it to vegetated areas, harvests and uses runoff,
promotes infiltration and evapotranspiration, and uses bioretention and other green infrastructure
practices to treat stormwater runoff.
Therefore, one of the required elements for the Plan is for the City to self-determine and establish
“targets” for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted with green infrastructure.
In addition, the introduction to Provision C.3.j states what the Board intends the Green Infrastructure
Plans to achieve:
“The Plan is intended to serve as an implementation guide and reporting tool during this and subsequent
Permit terms to provide reasonable assurance that urban runoff TMDL wasteload allocations (e.g., for the
San Francisco Bay mercury and PCBs TMDLs) will be met, and to set goals for reducing, over the long term,
the adverse water quality impacts of urbanization and urban runoff on receiving waters. For this Permit
term, the Plan is being required, in part, as an alternative to expanding the definition of Regulated Projects
prescribed in Provision C.3.b to include all new and redevelopment projects that create or replace 5,000
square feet or more of impervious surface areas and road projects that just replace existing imperious
surface area. It also provides a mechanism to establish and implement alternative or in-lieu compliance
options for Regulated Projects and to account for and justify Special Projects in accordance with Provision
C.3.e.
Attachment 1
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
2
The Plan shall also identify means and methods to prioritize particular areas and projects within each
City’s jurisdiction, at appropriate geographic and time scales, for implementation of green infrastructure
projects. Further, it shall include means and methods to track the area within the City’s jurisdiction that is
treated by green infrastructure controls and the amount of directly connected impervious area. As
appropriate, it shall incorporate plans required elsewhere within this Permit, and specifically plans
required for the monitoring of and to ensure appropriate reductions in trash, PCBs, mercury, and other
pollutants.”
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
Review model Statement of
Purpose for GIP Workplan.
Prepare model
Statement of Purpose
language.
January 2017 (Completed)
Develop Agency Statement of
Purpose for GIP Workplan. Finalize model language. February 2017 (Completed)
Adopt/approval of final
statement of purpose.
Support per member
agency request.
Complete by adoption/approval of
member agency Workplan by June 30,
2017.
Required Green Infrastructure Plan Elements
A. Prioritization and Mapping of Green Infrastructure Potential and Planned Projects
This work covers three provisions for the Green Infrastructure Plan as defined in the MRP:
•Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(a): A mechanism (e.g., SFEI’s GreenPlanIT tool or another tool) to prioritize and
map areas for potential and planned projects, both public and private, on a drainage-area-specific
basis, for implementation over the following time schedules, which are consistent with the timeframes
for assessing load reductions specified in Provisions C.11. and C.12.
(i) By 2020;
(ii) By 2030; and
(iii) By 2040.
The mechanism shall include criteria for prioritization (e.g. specific logistical constraints, water quality
drivers (e.g. TMDLs), opportunities to treat runoff from private parcels in retrofitted street right-of-
way) and outputs (e.g. maps, project lists) that can be incorporated into the City’s long-term planning
and capital improvement processes.
•Provision C.3.j.i. (2)(b): Outputs from the mechanism described above, including, but not limited to,
the prioritization criteria, maps, lists, and all other information, as appropriate. Individual project-
specific reviews completed using these mechanisms are not required to be submitted with the Plan,
but shall be made available upon request.
•Provision C.3.j.i. (2)(c): Targets for the amount of impervious surface, from public and private projects,
within the City’s jurisdiction to be retrofitted over the following time schedules, which are consistent
with the timeframes for assessing load reductions specified in Provisions C.11. and C.12.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
3
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
A.1 Work with SMCWPPP to develop GIS-based modeling tool for use in mapping, prioritizing, and phasing
of potential and planned projects.
A.1.1 Provide data for drafting of San Mateo
County Stormwater Resources Plan (SRP). Prepare Draft SRP. TASK COMPLETE
A.1.2 Support SMCWPPP development of tool
during preparation of the Reasonable
Assurance Analysis (RAA) to address mercury
and PCBs TMDL implementation.
Further develop tool
through the RAA
process.
Review data input and results
of tool, second half of FY 16-17.
A.1.3 Begin using web-based GIS tool1 for on-
going tracking of GI implementation and to
support MRP annual reporting.
Support per member
agency request.
Tool to be available in second
half of FY 16-17 for on-going
use.
A.2 Develop prioritization criteria for GI project opportunities.
A.2.1 Review preliminary criteria established
as part of the SRP.
Prepare draft
preliminary criteria. First half of FY 16-17.
A.3 Develop mapping and associated database of GI project opportunities with information needed to
perform a prioritization assessment of the opportunities.
A.3.1 Review methodology for new and
redevelopment land area, and possible
refinements to public property and public
streets potential for GI
Develop
methodology and
initial land area
estimate
TASK COMPLETE
A.3.2 Review revised estimate of new and
redevelopment area, and draft any
refinements to property and public streets
potential
Revise land use
estimate TASK COMPLETE
A.3.3 Review refined mapping and database
developed through the RAA, if needed.
Revise mapping and
database, if needed.
Initial refinement complete in
Feb/March 2017. Potential
additional refinement finalized
by June 2017.
1 As currently planned, this tool would allow for viewing of mapping and data. This tool will be accessible via the
internet, and will not require a local GIS platform for City to view GIS layers.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
4
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
A.4 Develop phasing plan for GI project opportunities consistent with timeframes of required Mercury and
PCB load reductions, by 2020, by 2030, and by 2040; building from the work in identifying potential
projects to achieve target load reductions and target amounts of impervious surface, from public and
private projects, to be retrofitted over the same time schedule.
A.4.1 Review volume/sediment capture goals
to meet TMDL implementation milestones
established through RAA.
Draft capture goals. RAA finalized by end of June
2017.
A.5 Define the methodology for integration of the GI project opportunities phasing plan into City’s long-
term planning and capital improvement plans and processes. This should include projects that are
intended to be implemented following the current permit term; those that are intended to be
implemented to achieve the 2030 and 2040 load reduction targets.1
A.5.1 Review draft model methodology. Prepare draft
methodology. Review 1st quarter FY 17-18.
A.5.2 Review and finalize model methodology. Refine methodology.
Review and comment on final
draft, early November 2017.
Accept final model
methodology, December 2017.
A.6 Develop and integrate into GI Plan for
adoption.
Begin 2nd quarter FY 17/18 and complete for inclusion
in Annual Report submittal of September 30, 2019
B. Develop process for tracking and mapping completed projects
This work covers needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(d) of the MRP:
A process for tracking and mapping completed projects, public and private, and making the information
publically available.
1 The workplan for completion of prioritized projects, those to be completed by 2020, is included in section F below,
related to Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(j) of the MRP.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
5
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
B.1 Work with SMCWPPP through GI TAC to
identify model methodology for mapping and
finalizing database information for projects as they
are completed.
Develop publicly
accessible element of
web-based mapping
and data tool.
July through mid-
October 2017.
B.2 Identify City-specific department/division
responsibilities for mapping and finalizing database
information as projects are completed.
Support per member
agency request.
December 2017 and
February 2018.
B.3 City implement pilot period of mapping and
database management. During this period the
public “portal” of the web-based mapping and data
tool will also be piloted.
Support per member
agency request.
Mid-February thru mid-
May 2018.
B.6 City refine and implement tracking procedures,
defined under Item A above, and SMCWPPP refines
the public “portal”.
Support per member
agency request.
Start FY 18-19 and
continue through
permit term (December
31, 2020).
C. Develop overall Green Infrastructure guidelines, standard specifications, and design
details
This work covers two provisions for the Green Infrastructure Plan as defined in the MRP:
• Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(e): General guidelines for overall streetscape, and project design and construction
so that projects have a unified, complete design that implements the range of functions associated
with the projects. …The guidelines should call for the City to coordinate, for example, street
improvement projects so that related improvements are constructed simultaneously to minimize
conflicts that may impact green infrastructure.
• Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(f): Standard specifications and, as appropriate, typical design details and related
information necessary for the City to incorporate green infrastructure into projects in its jurisdiction.
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
C.1 Work with SMCWPPP through GI TAC to develop model San Mateo countywide guidelines, standard
specifications, and design details, the San Mateo County Model Green Infrastructure Guidelines and
Standards, to implement the range of functions associated with projects, such as: street use for
stormwater management and treatment; safe pedestrian travel; use as public space; for bicycle, transit,
and vehicle movement; and as locations for urban forestry. These will also include identification of needs
and model procedures for coordinated and consistent plan review of private projects, scoping and design
for public projects, provisions for public/private implementation and maintenance agreements, and
operations and maintenance.
C.1.1 Review model guidelines and standards
reference documents memorandum.
Research reference
documents, prepare
memorandum.
TASK COMPLETE
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
6
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
C.1.2 Review proposed reorganization of model
guidelines and standards approach.
Prepare proposed
approach. TASK COMPLETE
C1.3 Review revised scope and schedule for
SMCWPPP preparation of model document
Prepare revised scope
and schedule TASK COMPLETE
C.1.4 Review draft samples of guidelines and
standards sections and provide comments to
SMCWPPP.
Prepare draft samples. TASK COMPLETE
C.1.5 Participate in GI TAC workshop to give
direction on approach for full model guidelines
and standards, refinements to approach, level
of detail, etc. based on review sample
guidelines and standards
Facilitate GI TAC
Workshop TASK COMPLETE
C.1.6 Review full TAC draft of model guidelines
and standards and provide comments to
SMCWPPP.
Prepare draft model
documents. June 2017 (In progress).
C.1.7 Approve final comprehensive draft of the
model guidelines and standards.
Prepare final model
documents.
November 2017.
C.2 Revise existing guidelines, standard specifications, design details, departmental procedures, etc. as
needed given the implementation approach for City.
C.2.1 Use web-based platform, provided by
SMCWPPP as City resource for revising various
guidelines and standards documents.1
Support per member
agency request. Nov. 2017 thru Feb. 2018.
C.2.2 Provide feedback to SMCWPPP regarding
utility of web-based resource platform.
Revise model
documents, as needed. By end of February 2018.
C.2.3 Finalize City specific development of
guidelines and standards; City may choose to
adopt the model guidelines and standards.
Support per member
agency request.
Start mid-May 2018 and
finish approval/adoption by
September 30, 2019.
1 The concept is to make it a resource that would provide access to the model language documents and to also serve
as a clearing house for documents that are prepared by Member Agencies. This would be similar to the “21
Elements: Housing Element Update Kit” website (21elements.com)
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
7
D. Develop requirements for design of projects to meet hydromodification sizing
requirements or other accepted sizing requirements
This work covers needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(g) of the MRP:
…projects be designed to meet the treatment and hydromodification sizing requirements in Provisions
C.3.c. and C.3.d. For street projects not subject to Provision C.3.b.ii. (i.e., non-Regulated Projects),
Permittees may collectively propose a single approach with their Green Infrastructure Plans for how to
proceed should project constraints preclude fully meeting the C.3.d sizing requirements.
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
D.1 Work through SMCWPPP and its GI TAC to coordinate with the BASMAA Development Committee’s
work on a single approach for how to proceed should project constraints preclude fully meeting the C.3.d
sizing requirements.
D.1.1 Review BASMAA draft recommendations on
single approach, not related to hydromodification,
through SMCWPPP GI TAC; provide comments to
BASMAA and their consultant.
Provide GI TAC with
comments on BASMAA
draft single approach.
SMCWPPP review,
est. April 2017.
TAC review, est.
May 2017. (In
progress)
D.1.2 Review BASMAA draft recommendations on
single approach, related to hydromodification, through
SMCWPPP GI TAC; provide comments to BASMAA and
their consultant.
Provide GI TAC with
comments on BASMAA
draft single approach.
SMCWPPP review,
est. mid-March thru
April 2018.
TAC review, est.
May 2018.
D.1.3 Integrate final single approach from BASMAA into
GI Plan.
Support per member
agency request.
Begin in est. August
2018.
E. Planning document update, summary of updates, and workplan for future plans
This work covers the needs of two provisions of the MRP:
• Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(h): A summary of the planning documents the City has updated or otherwise
modified to appropriately incorporate green infrastructure requirements… City’s expected to complete
these modifications as a part of completing the Green Infrastructure Plan, and by not later than the
end of the permit term.
• Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(i): To the extent not addressed above [in (h)], a workplan identifying how the City
will ensure that green infrastructure and low impact development measures are appropriately
included in future plans (e.g., new or amended versions of the kinds of plans listed above).
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
8
City Task SMCWPPP
Support Timeframe
E.1 Work through SMCWPPP through the GI TAC to develop model planning document update language.
E.1.1 City provide existing planning
documents to SMCWPPP for review.
Document and
review planning
documents.
TASK COMPLETE
E.1.2 Review draft model plan update
materials from SMCWPPP.
Prepare model
plan update
report.
TASK COMPLETE
E.1.3 Begin utilizing final model planning
update materials to revise City-specific
documents; see below for further details.
Finalize model
plan update
report.
Support per
member agency
request.
June 2017 (In progress).
E.2 Make modifications to City-specific planning documents.
E.2.1 Make needed modifications to
planning documents that are currently
being updated or created, for other
purposes, during the preparation of
development of model language, to the
extent feasible.
Support per
member agency
request.
Work of priority/in-progress plans can
begin in January 2017 using draft model
language and complete for inclusion in
the GI Plan.1
E.2.2 Draft modifications or updates to each
existing planning document, needing this
effort, to appropriately incorporate green
infrastructure requirements.
Support per
member agency
request.
Start in June 2017 and complete with
enough time to allow for public review
and approval/adoption process.
E.2.3 Take modified or updated planning
documents through necessary public review
and approval/adoption processes; see
below related to future planning
documents.
Support per
member agency
request.
Begin in Fall 2017 (or sooner)
and complete prior to end of the
permit term (December 31, 2020).
1 GI Plan is to be completed by June 30, 2019 and submitted as part of 2019 Annual Report by September 30, 2019,
and the end of the permit term is December 31, 2020.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
9
City Task SMCWPPP
Support Timeframe
E.3 Develop a summary of planning documents that have been updated or modified to incorporate green
infrastructure requirements and improvements.
E.3.1 Draft summary of modifications made
to planning documents as they move
through the approval/adoption process,
and integrate into Green Infrastructure
Plan.
Support per
member agency
request.
Begin during or before FY 17-18 and
complete “these modifications as a part
of completing the Green Infrastructure
Plan, and by not later than the end of
the permit term”.1 2
E.4 Develop a workplan for on-going integration of language to incorporate green infrastructure
requirements in future planning documents.
E.4.1 Work with SMCWPPP through the GI
TAC to develop model language for
appropriate policies and/or procedures to
ensure language is integrated into future
documents.
Develop Model
Language.
TASK COMPLETE
E.4.2 Draft City-specific policies and/or
procedures.
Support per
member agency
request.
Start in June 2017 and complete with
enough time to allow for public review
and approval/adoption process.
E.4.3 Take City-specific policies and/or
procedures through necessary public review
and approval/adoption processes.
Support per
member agency
request.
Begin in Fall 2017 (or sooner) and
complete for inclusion in the GI Plan.2
E.4.4 Summarize City-specific policies
and/or procedures and their
approval/adoption in City’s GI Plan.
Support per
member agency
request.
Begin in Fall 2017 (or sooner) and
complete for inclusion in the GI Plan.2
F. Workplan for completion of prioritized projects
This work covers needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(j) of the MRP:
A workplan to complete prioritized projects identified as part of a Provision C.3.e Alternative Compliance
program or part of Provision C.3.j Early Implementation.
1 Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(h) of the MRP, page 46.
2 GI Plan is to be completed by June 30, 2019 and submitted as part of 2019 Annual Report by September 30, 2019,
and the end of the permit term is December 31, 2020.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
10
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
F.1 Determine need for SMCWPPP support to member agencies for this task.
F.1.1 Discussions at GI TAC regarding
potential for support and definition of
scope, if needed.
Prepare for and facilitate
GI TAC discussions.
TASK COMPLETE
F.2 Preparation of City-specific workplan to complete prioritized projects.
F.2.1 Develop and integrate into GI Plan for
adoption. To be determined.
Begin during FY 17-18 and
complete for inclusion in the GI
Plan.1
G. Evaluation of Funding Options
This work covers needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(2)(k) of the MRP:
An evaluation of prioritized project funding options, including, but not limited to: Alternative Compliance
funds; grant monies, including transportation project grants from federal, State, and local agencies;
existing City resources; new tax or other levies; and other sources of funds.
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
G.1 Determine need for SMCWPPP support to member agencies for this task.
G.1.1 Discussions with GI TAC regarding
potential for support and definition of
scope.
Prepare for and facilitate
GI TAC discussions.
Discuss with TAC during February
and May 2017 TAC Meetings.
G.1.2 Begin efforts on this work item. To be determined. Begin during FY 17-18.
G.2 Preparation of City-specific evaluation of funding options for inclusion in each City’s Green
Infrastructure Plan.
G.2.1 Develop and integrate into GI Plan
for adoption.
Support per member
agency request.
Begin during FY 17-18 and
complete for inclusion in the GI
Plan.2
1 GI Plan is to be completed by June 30, 2019 and submitted as part of 2019 Annual Report by September 30, 2019,
and the end of the permit term is December 31, 2020.
2 GI Plan is to be completed by June 30, 2019 and submitted as part of 2019 Annual Report by September 30, 2019,
and the end of the permit term is December 31, 2020.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
11
H. Adopt other policies, ordinances, and/or other legal mechanisms to ensure Green
Infrastructure Plan implementation
This work covers the needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(3) of the MRP:
(3) Adopt policies, ordinances, and/or other appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure implementation of
the Green Infrastructure Plan in accordance with the requirements of this provision.
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
H.1 Determine need for SMCWPPP support to member agencies for this task.
H.1.1 Discussions with GI TAC
regarding potential for support and
definition of scope.
Prepare for and
facilitate GI TAC
discussions.
Discuss with TAC during January 2017
and May 2017 TAC Meeting.
H.1.2 Begin implementing SMCWPPP
support on this work item. To be determined.
During FY 17-18 in coordination with
development of draft model planning
update materials.
H.2 Preparation and adoption of City-specific policies, ordinances, and/or other legal mechanisms to ensure
Green Infrastructure Plan implementation.
H.2.1 Develop and integrate into GI
Plan for adoption.
Support per member
agency request.
Begin during FY 17-18 and complete for
inclusion in the GI Plan.1
I. Conduct outreach and education with public, staff, and elected officials
This work covers the needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(4) of the MRP:
(4) Conduct outreach and education in accordance with the following:
(a) Conduct public outreach on the requirements of this provision, including outreach coordinated with
adoption or revision of standard specifications and planning documents, and with the initiation and
planning of infrastructure projects. Such outreach shall include general outreach and targeted
outreach to and training for professionals involved in infrastructure planning and design.
(b) Train appropriate staff, including planning, engineering, public works maintenance, finance,
fire/life safety, and management staff on the requirements of this provision and methods of
implementation.
(c) Educate appropriate City elected officials (e.g., mayors, city council members, county supervisors,
district board members) on the requirements of this provision and methods of implementation.
1 GI Plan is to be completed by June 30, 2019 and submitted as part of 2019 Annual Report by September 30, 2019,
and the end of the permit term is December 31, 2020.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
12
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
I.1 Conduct public outreach through the efforts being defined in the Five-Year Public Education and
Outreach Strategic Plan.
I.1.1 Review and finalize the Five-Year Public
Education and Outreach Strategic Plan.
Prepare draft and final
strategic plan.
Begin in 3rd quarter of FY
16/17.
I.1.2 Implement the Five-Year Public Education
and Outreach Strategic Plan as a coordinated
SMCWPPP and City effort.
On-going support of
member agency efforts.
Implementation of
countywide efforts.
Currently and
throughout the permit
period.
I.2 Determine scope of SMCWPPP efforts in supporting training of City staff, and implement support.
I.2.1 Discussions with GI TAC regarding potential
for support and definition of scope.
Prepare for and facilitate
GI TAC discussions.
Discuss with TAC during
May 2017 TAC Meetings.
I.2.2 Implement support of training of City staff.
On-going support of
member agency efforts.
Implementation of
countywide efforts.
Begin in 4th quarter of FY
16-17.
I.3 Determine scope of SMCWPPP efforts in supporting educating City elected officials, and implement
support.
I.3.1 Discussions with GI TAC regarding potential
for support and definition of scope.
Prepare for and facilitate
GI TAC discussions.
Discuss with TAC during
May 2017 TAC Meetings.
I.3.2 Implement support of education of City
elected officials.
On-going support of
member agency efforts.
Implementation of
countywide efforts.
Begin in 4th quarter of FY
16-17.
J. Report on Green Infrastructure Planning Efforts
This work covers the needs of Provision C.3.j.i.(5) of the MRP: (5) Report on Green Infrastructure Planning;
and several other provisions and related GIP Workplan elements discussed earlier in this outline.
South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan June 2017
13
City Task SMCWPPP Support Timeframe
J.1 City shall submit documentation in the 2017
Annual Report that its framework or workplan for
development of its Green Infrastructure Plan was
approved by its governing body, Mayor, City
Manager, or County Manager.
Support per
member agency
request.
Complete GIP Workplans
by June 30, 2017 and
submit as part of 2017
Annual Report by
September 30, 2017.
J.2 City shall submit its completed Green
Infrastructure Plan with the 2019 Annual Report.
Support per
member agency
request.
Complete by June 30,
2019, and submit by
September 30, 2019 as
part of 2019 Annual
Report.
J.3 City shall submit documentation of its legal
mechanisms to ensure implementation of its Green
Infrastructure Plan with the 2019 Annual Report.
[related to Provision C.3.j.i.(3), see section H above.]
Support per
member agency
request.
Complete by June 30,
2019, and submit as part
of 2019 Annual Report by
September 30, 2019.
J.4 City shall submit a summary of its outreach and
education efforts in each Annual Report.
Support per
member agency
request.
Complete and submit by
September 30th of each
permit term year: 2016
through 2020.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-491 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:8a.
Resolution approving the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan in accordance with provision C.3.j of
the Municipal Regional Permit.
WHEREAS,the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Permit
(“MRP”)regulates stormwater discharges from municipal storm drain systems throughout San Mateo County,
including the City of South San Francisco (“City”); and
WHEREAS,Provision C.3.j of the MRP requires each permittee to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan that
demonstrates how permittees will gradually shift from traditional “gray”storm drain infrastructure,which
channels polluted runoff directly into receiving waters without treatment,to a more resilient and sustainable
storm drain system comprised of “green” infrastructure, which captures, stores, and treats stormwater; and
WHEREAS,the MRP also requires that Green Infrastructure Plans be collectively designed to achieve specific
reductions in mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within specific time horizons; and
WHEREAS,all permittees under the MRP,including the City,are required to approve by September 30,2019 a
Green Infrastructure Plan; and
WHEREAS,the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG)has been working
with its member agencies,including the City of South San Francisco to develop model green infrastructure
planning documents, including a model plan; and
WHEREAS,on August 27,2017,City Council approved a Green Infrastructure Plan Workplan that set the
framework for developing the City’s Green Infrastructure Plan in compliance with MRP requirements and the
division of responsibilities between C/CAG and the City in implementing the plan; and
WHEREAS,based on the foregoing framework and collaborations,staff has prepared a Green Infrastructure
Plan,attached to this resolution as Exhibit A,that outlines the tasks and implementation rules consistent with
MRP requirements;
WHEREAS,the cost to implement a Green Infrastructure Plan is estimated to range between $2,000,000 to
$5,000,000 annually through fiscal year 2039-2040; and
WHEREAS,the Fiscal Year (FY)2019-20 Capital Improvement Program allocated $200,000 for green
infrastructure planning; and
WHEREAS,remaining funds for the implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan will be requested through
FY 2039-40.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-491 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:8a.
WHEREAS,it is the intent of the City of South San Francisco to now adopt the Green Infrastructure Plan and
to allocate sufficient resources to ensure timely implementation of a that plan,in accordance with MRP
requirements.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco,hereby approves the South San Francisco Green Infrastructure
Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Exhibit A
pg. 1 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Acknowledgments
The City would like to acknowledge the City of Palo Alto, the City of Menlo Park, Santa Clara County,
Alameda County, and Contra Costa County for sharing outlines and text from Green Infrastructure Plans.
The City would also like to acknowledge C/CAG for their support providing materials that have been
included in this Green Infrastructure Plan and the development of the Green Infrastructure Design Guide
which is available online on their website at https://www.flowstobay.org/gidesignguide.
This plan was prepared by Schaaf & Wheeler with extensive support from department staff at South San
Francisco Public Works, Economic and Community Development, Finance, Parks and Recreation, and
City Council. Disclaimer
The Green Infrastructure targets set forth in Chapter 4 are based on NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 dated
November 19, 2015. The City will continue to re-evaluate the targets in the context of regulatory
revisions, how much development occurs, and the amount of public GI projects that are able to be built.
Exhibit A
pg. 2 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Acronyms
BASMAA Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
Bay San Francisco Bay
C3 Regulated Project A development or redevelopment project that creates or replaces
10,000 square feet (sf) of impervious surface or 5,000 sf of impervious
for special land use categories such as gasoline stations, parking lots,
and restaurants
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
COA Conditions of Approval
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GI Green Infrastructure
GIS Geographic Information System
LID Low Impact Development
MRP Municipal Water Quality
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RAA Reasonable Assurance Analysis
ROW Right of Way
RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco
Bay Region
SMCWPPP San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
SRP Stormwater Resources Plan
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Loads
WLAs Wasteload Allocations
pg. 3 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Disclaimer...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Regulatory Mandate ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 The Problem .................................................................................................................................. 5
1.3 City’s Objectives & Vision.............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 The Purpose of this Document ..................................................................................................... 6
1.5 What is Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development ...................................................... 6
1.6 Change of City Perspectives .......................................................................................................... 7
2.0 Integration with City Plans and Documents ..................................................................................... 8
2.1 City Plans ....................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Regional Plans and Agencies ......................................................................................................... 8
3.0 Design Guidelines and Specifications ............................................................................................... 10
3.1 Design Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Details and Specifications ........................................................................................................... 11
4.0 Green Infrastructure Targets .......................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) Overview ........................................................................ 14
4.2 Implementation Milestones ........................................................................................................ 16
4.3 Early Implementation Projects.................................................................................................... 18
4.3.1 Orange Memorial Park Water Capture Project ................................................................... 20
5.0 Tracking and Mapping Systems ...................................................................................................... 22
6.0 Evaluation of Funding ..................................................................................................................... 24
6.1 Current Funding Sources ............................................................................................................. 24
6.2 Evaluation of Additional Funding Sources .................................................................................. 24
7.0 Outreach and Education ....................................................................................................................... 26
7.1 City Staff Outreach & Education ................................................................................................. 26
7.2 Public Outreach & Education Efforts .......................................................................................... 26
7.3 Council Presentations ................................................................................................................. 26
8.0 References ............................................................................................................................................ 27
pg. 4 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Executive Summary
The purpose of this Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan is to demonstrate the City of South San Francisco’s
(City) continued commitment to improve water quality and meet requirements to reduce pollution of
stormwater runoff to the San Francisco Bay. These requirements are contained in the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) and include specific
provisions for addressing key pollutants of concern, namely mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls),
sediment, and trash. The MRP also requires jurisdictions to transition from gray, or piped, infrastructure
to green, or landscape-based, systems that capture, treat, and infiltrate runoff — GI.
This GI Plan will provide goals, policy changes, and programs to implement GI in private and public
projects, and support the goals of the MRP. The purpose of this GI Plan is to provide a roadmap for the
City to achieve the load reduction targets set forth in the MRP by implementing GI projects throughout
the City. These GI projects while reducing pollution and runoff associated with stormwater runoff, also
have the aim to create a balanced development condition; this includes improving biological functioning
of plants, soils, and other natural infrastructure, and providing community benefits through stakeholder
engagement and education.
Figure ES-1. Balanced Development that Allows Runoff to Infiltrate and Evaporate
pg. 5 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Regulatory Mandate
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay Region’s (RWQCB’s)
Municipal Water Quality Permit (MRP) was last reissued in November 2015 mandating the
implementation of a comprehensive program of stormwater control measures and actions designed to
limit contributions of urban runoff pollutants to San Francisco Bay (Bay). MRP Provision C.3.j.i requires
the City of South San Francisco to prepare a GI Plan to be submitted with its Annual Report to the
RWQCB due September 30, 2019. The GI Plan is intended to provide the methods by which the total
maximum daily load (TMDL) waste load allocations for urban runoff to the Bay will be met, and to set
goals for reducing the adverse water quality impacts of urbanization and urban runoff on receiving
waters. Table 1-1, presented below, links each section of this GI Plan to the applicable MRP provision.
Table 1-1. Green Infrastructure Plan Sections and Applicable MRP Provisions.
Section of Green Infrastructure Plan Applicable MRP Provision
1.0 Introduction C.3.j
2.0 Integration with City Plans and Documents C.3.j.i. (2) (a)-(d), (h)-(i), C.3.j.i. (3)
3.0 Design Guidelines and Specifications C.3.j.i. (2) (e)-(g)
4.0 Green Infrastructure Targets C.3.j.i. (2) (a)-(c), (j), C.3.j.i. (3), C.3.j.ii.
5.0 Tracking and Mapping Systems C.3.j.i. (2) (d)
6.0 Evaluation of Funding C.3.j.i. (2) (k), C.3.j.ii.
7.0 Outreach and Education C.3.j.i. (4), C.3.j.iii.
Appendix A City Plans and Suggested Updates to Include GI C.3.j.i. (3)
Appendix B SMCWPPP RAA Plan C.3.j.i. (2) (a)-(d), C.3.j.iii.
Appendix C Green Infrastructure Funding Report C.3.j.i. (2) (k), C.3.j.ii.
Appendix D Outreach Materials C.3.j.i. (4) (a)
1.2 The Problem
Rainfall is prevented from infiltrating into the ground when cities develop impervious areas such as
streets, parking lots, roofs, etc. The impervious surface increases the flow and velocity of the
stormwater runoff which is received by local creeks and eventually the Bay. The increased stormwater
runoff and velocity can erode creeks and wash away important habitat for fish and macroinvertebrates
that live in the creek or the Bay. In addition to these physical impacts to the receiving waterbodies,
stormwater runoff from impervious areas carries various pollutants that are found on paved surfaces
such as sediment, bacteria, oil and grease, trash, pesticides and metals. These pollutants come from
various sources, including pet waste, lawn fertilization, cars, construction sites, illegal dumping and
spills, and pesticide application. These pollutants wreak havoc in our creeks and the Bay. Implementing
GI projects can reduce the impacts of urbanization on local creeks and the Bay.
pg. 6 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
1.3 City’s Objectives & Vision
This GI Plan provides is an outline for the City to manage its stormwater while decreasing water quality
impacts to the San Francisco Bay (Bay). This plan establishes guidelines for integrating GI measures into
the City in combination with conventional storm drain system (gray) improvements to manage runoff
from storm events. In addition, the integration of GI into the current storm drain system may provide
cost-effective solutions when strategically planned and implemented. This GI Plan provides an
opportunity to develop more resilient stormwater systems by incorporating sustainable stormwater
systems to reduce runoff volumes and improve runoff water quality.
1.4 The Purpose of this Document
This GI Plan is intended to serve as an implementation guide to describe how the City will shift from
conventional “collect and convey” storm drain infrastructure management to sustainable stormwater
management, and focus on retrofitting existing gray infrastructure to include GI designs into new and
existing public spaces, including streets, parks, and parking lots. This GI Plan puts forth a framework for
identifying, and prioritizing City properties for potential GI project opportunities. In addition, this plan
defines GI and Low Impact Development (LID) and provides examples that exist in the Bay Area.
1.5 What is Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development
GI and LID in this Plan refers to engineered or man-made stormwater infrastructure that uses
vegetation, soils, and natural processes to sustainably manage stormwater and create healthier urban
environments. GI may be new construction or a retrofit of an existing storm drainage system, and aims
to reduce runoff volumes and improve water quality through natural processes before discharging into
local creeks and the Bay. Examples of GI include pervious pavement, infiltration basins, bioretention
facilities or raingardens, green roofs, and rainwater harvesting systems. GI can be incorporated into
construction on new and previously developed parcels, as well as new and rebuilt streets, roads and
other infrastructure within the public right-of-way. This Plan focuses primarily on incorporating GI into
City projects but also aims to change the general construction practices on both public and private
projects to consider GI stormwater design.
Figure 1-1. Grey Stormwater Infrastructure (left) to Green Infrastructure (right)
Photo Credit: San Mateo County GI Design Guide Photo Credit: San Mateo County GI Design Guide
pg. 7 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
1.6 Change of City Perspectives
An important aspect of GI Plan Implementation is shifting the focus to sustainability in stormwater
management and incorporating GI and LID in the early stages of design for construction and
maintenance projects. Per the MRP the City is required to “adopt policies, ordinances, and/or other
appropriate legal mechanisms to ensure implementation of the GSI Plan.” Policies in the City can be
established to promote the integration of GI in capital improvement projects (CIPs) and providing
multiple benefits from each public project. The City is currently working GI into public projects, and has
updated conditions of approval (COAs) for private development to encourage the use of GI in future
development, presented in Section 4.3.
pg. 8 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
2.0 Integration with City Plans and Documents
As part of the planning process, the City has reviewed its existing ordinances, plans, and documents
related to the implementation of MRP requirements in order to identify items that need to be updated
to include language to implement the GI plan.
2.1 City Plans
Several planning documents address different elements related to GI, including land use, transportation,
sustainability, conservation, urban forestry, environmental leadership, infrastructure, and housing. In an
effort to ensure that GI is considered and supported in the range of planning and design processes for
these projects, the City has reviewed current and past planning documents to appropriately incorporate
GI requirements. The most important update will be the General Plan update which is anticipated to be
completed in 2021/2022.
The City uses area and master plans, as well as specific plans to coordinate planning future development
and improvement projects throughout the City. Including GI and LID in planning documents will allow GI
and LID approaches to be integrated to the early phases of design and allow for a more effective use of
resources. Some of the planning documents listed in Attachment 1 already contain language to support
the GI Plan. However, to be better aligned with the GI Plan, the City will need to modify language to
require the integration of the San Mateo Green Infrastructure Design Guide and Specifications that are
housed on the San Mateo County Wide Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) website at
www.flowstobay.org. It should be noted that the San Mateo Green Infrastructure Design Guide and
Specifications are applicable to non-regulated GI projects (public or private) that are not subject to
Provision C.3.i. Design guidance for C3 Regulated Projects in San Mateo County is housed on the San
Mateo County Wide Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) website at
https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment.
Per the MRP, language supporting GI will need to be added to these plans during their next update. If
these updates do not occur during the current permit term, an interim policy will be adopted by the City
Manager to direct staff to follow the GI Plan. The City’s engineering standards for both the Departments
of Public Works and Utilities were reviewed as part of the development of a process and
recommendations for incorporation of the GI details and specifications from the Design Guide were
suggested into the City standards. Appendix A contains a detailed list of City ordinances, plans and
documents and suggested GI language to include when these documents are updated.
2.1 Regional Plans and Agencies
The City is a member of the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), an
association representing twenty cities, the County of San Mateo, and the Flood Control District that
collaborate on stormwater regulation and compliance with the intent to reduce the pollution carried by
stormwater into local creeks, the Bay, and the Pacific Ocean. The City is working with SMCWPPP, C/CAG,
and other agencies to integrate and coordinate several large-scale planning efforts related to
stormwater management and GI including:
pg. 9 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
• Green Infrastructure Design Guide - The Countywide Program created the San Mateo
Countywide Green Infrastructure Design Guide (Design Guide) to aid jurisdictions in gradually
transitioning from gray to green infrastructure over time. The Design Guide includes design
guidance, standards and typical details for green infrastructure implementation in public and
private projects. More information on the Design Guide is provided in Chapter 3.
• San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP) - A collaboration between SMCWPPP,
stakeholders, and the public to provide detailed analysis of stormwater and dry weather capture
projects for the County. These projects aim to reduce flooding and pollution associated with
stormwater runoff, improve biological functioning of plants, soils and other natural
infrastructure, and provide community benefits through stakeholder engagement and
education.
• Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) – To meet MRP requirements SMCWPPP initiated a
county-wide effort to develop an RAA to estimate baseline PCB and mercury loads at the
subwatershed level and identify the most cost effective “recipe” of green infrastructure
control measures to meet countywide pollutant load reductions. More details in Chapter 4.
• The Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) – The Bay Area IRWMP is a
comprehensive water resources plan for the Bay region that addresses four functional areas: 1)
water supply and water quality; 2) wastewater and recycled water; 3) flood protection and
stormwater management; and 4) watershed management and habitat protection and
restoration. It provides a venue for regional collaboration and serves as a platform to secure
state and federal funding. The IRWMP includes a list of over 300 project proposals, and a
methodology for ranking those projects for the purpose of submitting a compilation of high
priority projects for grant funding.
• San Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Design Guidebook – The San
Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Guidebook (Guidebook) provides
guidance with designing green street and parking lot demonstration projects, and aims to
inspire widespread changes that will improve San Mateo County’s watershed health by reducing
the impacts of urbanization on receiving waterbodies.
• San Mateo Countywide Sustainable Streets Master Plan (SSMP) – C/CAG was awarded a grant to
prepare a sustainable streets master plan for the entire County. A consultant has been hired to
put together this plan which is anticipated to be completed in 2020. The plan will contain
climate change adaptation, street-scale opportunities, and periodization overlaid with
community priorities and climate risk criteria. The plan will also contain a tracking tool.
In addition to SMCWPPP, the City is also a member of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise
Resiliency Agency that was established with a vision to make a “resilient shoreline” in San Mateo County
by 2100. Portions of their funding will be spent on stormwater detention solutions and multi-benefit
projects which will include GI as a core component.
The Colma Creek Flood Zone is one of the San Mateo County Flood Control Districts. While the primary
function of the District is flood control, projects with multi-benefits are also considered.
pg. 10 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
3.0 Design Guidelines and Specifications
The MRP requires that the GI Plan include general design and construction guidelines, standard
specifications and details for including GI components in projects throughout the City. These guidelines
and specifications are intended to address a variety of project types in the City right-of-way based on
the land use and transportation characteristics of the site, to allow projects to provide a range of
functions and benefits, such as stormwater management, bicycle and pedestrian friendly streets, public
green space, and street trees.
SMCWPPP, with input and feedback from its member agencies, including the City of South San
Francisco, has developed a countywide Green Infrastructure Design Guide (Design Guide) to provide
comprehensive guidance on the planning, design, construction, and operations and maintenance of GI
for buildings, parking lots, sites, and streets. The Design Guide addresses the requirements of the MRP,
fulfilling Section C.3.j.i.(2)(e) requiring design and construction guidelines for streets and projects and
C.3.j.i.(2)(f) for developing typical design details and specifications for different street and project types.
The Design Guide also addresses the part of C.3.j.i.(2)(g) related to a regional approach for alternative
hydraulic sizing for non-regulated constrained street projects.
“C3 Regulated Project” refers to development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet (sf) or
more of impervious surface or 5,000 sf of impervious surface for special land use categories such as auto
service facilities, uncovered parking lots, and restaurants. C3 Regulated Projects are required to provide
stormwater quality treatment through the use of low impact development (LID). C3 Regulated Projects
should follow the C3 Stormwater Technical Guidance which is located on the San Mateo County Wide
Pollution Prevention Program’s (SMCWPPP) website at https://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment.
3.1 Design Guidelines
In order to develop comprehensive guidelines throughout San Mateo County, C/CAG hired a consultant
to prepare the Green Infrastructure Design Guide (Design Guide). The Design Guide includes a range of
information related to GI, such as provision of policies and definitions; identification of different types of
treatment and site design measures; summation of various benefits including a range of community
benefits provided beyond stormwater management; presentation of before and after images of
integrating GI into projects; introduction of complete streets concepts and design; discussion regarding
BASMAA’s regional approach for alternative sizing for non-regulated constrained green street projects;
design and implementation considerations; operations and maintenance; and provision of typical
construction details and specifications. The Design Guide explains how these concepts, considerations,
and guidance can be used to effectively integrate GI into communities in new and redevelopment
projects whether they are C.3 Regulated Projects or not.
General guidelines for overall streetscape and project design, construction, and maintenance have been
developed so that projects have a unified, complete design and implement the range of functions
associated with the projects. The MRP emphasizes the need for guidance related to green streets
functions. The Design Guide includes implementation guidance specifically for stormwater management
pg. 11 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
and treatment within streets. The guidance supports safe and effective multimodal travel with a focus
on the comfort of people walking and cycling; shared use as public space and an attractive and
functional public realm; use of appropriate measures for different street and land use contexts and
types; and the achievement of urban forestry goals and benefits. The Design Guide defines practices to
give considerations to no missed opportunities and the efficient and effective coordination, review, and
implementation of GI in public and private projects.
The City of South San Francisco will use the Design Guide and future amended versions to provide
support and guidance in implementing GI within the City. The Design Guide can be found at SMCWPPP’s
website, https://www.flowstobay.org/gidesignguide .
The Design Guide presents key design and construction considerations when implementing GI features
which include:
• Protecting existing improvements
• Designing for pedestrian circulation
• Deal with steep topography/using check dams and weirs
• Overflow options
• Designing for poor soils
• Dealing with utilities
• Capturing and conveying surface runoff
• Capturing and conveying rooftop runoff
• Soil Preparation, landscape grading, and mulch placement
• Effective placement of pervious pavement
• Choosing and placing appropriate plant material
• General sizing of green infrastructure facilities
• Construction administration process
• Specialized design consideration for San Mateo County
The design guide provides guidance for GI design for new construction and retrofit applications.
3.2 Details and Specifications
The details and specifications presented in the Design Guide were originally developed for the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) San Francisco Green Infrastructure Plan, and were
included in the Design Guide so that designers and engineers can incorporate the GI details into their
site plans. The Design Guide is meant to be a comprehensive resource for the City’s, developers, and
project sponsors for design, construction, and maintenance of GI in San Mateo County.
The design guide includes details for permeable pavement, stormwater planters, infiltration systems,
stormwater curb extensions, utility protection and other components related to the construction of GI.
Green streets represent the majority of the public GI projects, which will include a combination of
stormwater planters, stormwater curb extensions, infiltration systems, and pervious pavement.
Stormwater planters may be very useful for complete street retrofits, due to their compactness and
pg. 12 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
versatile application. Stormwater planters may be used between driveways, pedestrian walkways, or
constructed in series along the street, and can be designed to capture and treat significant runoff.
Stormwater curb extensions, also referred to as a bulb out, is a GI treatment measure which integrates a
bioretention planter into the extension of a street curb, see Figure 3-1 from the Green Infrastructure
Design Guide. In addition to water quality benefits, stormwater curb extensions benefit pedestrians by
shortening distance to cross the street if they are located at an intersection, as well as adding green
space in urban environments. Pervious pavement applications for the City include parking lots, plazas,
sidewalks and roadways, parking strip, gutter line, and bicycle lanes. Pervious concrete, pervious asphalt
and porous rubber infiltration systems have pore spaces within the material that allow for rain water to
infiltrate through to the underlying ground, or be stored in the gravel base and connected to the
stormwater system via under drains. An example detail for pavement components is presented below in
Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1. Green Infrastructure Design Guide - Stormwater Curb Extension
pg. 13 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
4.0 Green Infrastructure Targets
The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2015-0049) requires the development
of GI Plans (Provision C.3) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and mercury control measure
implementation plans (Provisions C.11 and C.12) that provide the necessary pollutant load reductions to
meet total maximum daily load (TMDL) wasteload allocations (WLAs) over specified compliance periods.
A key component of these plans is a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) that quantitatively
demonstrates that proposed control measures will result in sufficient load reductions of PCBs and
mercury to meet WLAs for municipal stormwater discharges to the Bay. The City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County, via its San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention
Program (SMCWPPP), led a county-wide effort to develop an RAA to estimate the baseline PCB and
mercury loads to the Bay, determine load reductions to meet WLAs among San Mateo County
Permittees, and set goals for the amount of GI needed to meet the portion of PCB and mercury load
reduction the MRP assigns to GI (SFBRWQCB 2015).
An important consideration for the RAA was the ability to track costs and benefits of different categories
of GI projects within the model. This tracking was performed for GI project categories within each model
subwatershed and municipal jurisdiction, and supports the selection of the most cost-effective
implementation strategy to attain pollutant reduction goals. The RAA builds upon the previous planning
efforts and represents the following generalized GI project categories in the model:
1. Existing Projects: Stormwater treatment and GI projects that have been implemented since FY-
2004/05. This primarily consists of all of the regulated projects that were mandated to treat
runoff via Provision C.3 of the MRP, but also includes any public green street or other
demonstration projects that were not subject to Provision C.3 requirements. For C3 Regulated
Projects in the early years of C.3 implementation, stormwater treatment may have been achieved
through non-GI means, such as underground vault systems or media filters.
2. Future New and Redevelopment: All the C3 Regulated Projects that will be subject to Provision
C.3 requirements to treat runoff via LID and is based on spatial projections of future new and
redevelopment tied to regional models for population and employment growth.
3. Regional Projects (identified): C/CAG worked with agencies to identify five projects within public
parks or Caltrans property to provide regional capture and infiltration/treatment of stormwater,
and included conceptual designs to support further planning and designs. Note – the model can
be updated to include future identified projects to support adaptive management.
4. Green Streets: The SRP identified and prioritized opportunities throughout San Mateo County for
retrofitting existing streets with GI in public rights-of-way. Green streets were ranked as high,
medium, and low priority (within each subwatershed) based on a multiple-benefit prioritization
process developed for the SRP.
5. Other GI Projects (to be determined): Other types of GI projects on publicly owned parcels,
representing a combination of either additional parcel-based GI or other Regional Projects. The
SRP screened and prioritized public parcels for opportunities for onsite LID and Regional Projects.
These opportunities need further investigation to determine the best potential projects.
The RAA considers the numerous GI project opportunities that exist within each municipal jurisdiction,
and selects a suite or “recipe” of projects that can most cost-effectively address pollutant load
reductions. The amount and combination of those GI projects can be determined through analysis of
pg. 14 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
estimated load reductions and implementation costs. Figure 4-1 presents an example GI recipe showing
the distribution of selected GI project categories versus incremental reductions in pollutant loading and
increasing cost.
Figure 4-1. Example Implementation Recipe Showing General Sequencing of GI Projects
4.1 Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) Overview
The RAA considers multiple perspectives and strikes a balance between detail and specificity while still
leaving ample opportunity to allow for future adaptive management. The following are key
considerations for the RAA output:
1. Demonstrate PCBs and Mercury Load Reductions – The primary goal of the RAA is to
quantitatively demonstrate that GI Plans and Control Measure Implementation Plans will result
in load reductions of PCBs and mercury sufficient to attain their respective TMDL WLAs and the
component stormwater improvement goals to be achieved with GI. Based on the baseline
hydrology and water quality model (Phase 1), the RAA determined that a 17.6% reduction in PCB
loads is needed to meet the GI implementation goals established by the MRP. Zero reduction in
mercury loads was determined to be needed from MRP areas because baseline loads were
predicted to be below the TMDL WLA for San Mateo County. As a result, a 17.6% reduction in PCB
loads is established as the primary pollutant reduction goal for the GI Plan.
2. Develop Metrics to Support Implementation Tracking – The MRP (Provision C.3.j) also requires
tracking methods to provide reasonable assurance that TMDL WLAs are being met. Provision C.3.j
states that the GI Plan “shall include means and methods to track the area within each Permittee’s
jurisdiction that is treated by green infrastructure controls and the amount of directly connected
impervious area.” Through C/CAG’s current effort preparing a Sustainable Streets Master Plan for
San Mateo County, a tracking tool will be developed that will enable calculation of metrics
consistent with the results of the RAA and additional metrics relevant to sustainable street
implementation. The tracking tool is planned for completion in 2020.
3. Support Adaptive Management – Given the relatively small scale of most GI projects (e.g., LID on
an individual parcel or a single street block converted to green street), numerous individual GI
projects will be needed to address the pollutant reduction goals. All the GI projects will require
site investigations to assess feasibility and costs. As a result, the RAA provides a preliminary
pg. 15 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
investigation of the amount of GI needed spatially (e.g., by subwatershed and municipal
jurisdiction) to achieve the countywide pollutant load reduction target. The RAA sets the GI Plan
“goals” in terms of the amount of GI implementation over time to address pollutant load
reductions. As GI Plans are implemented and more comprehensive municipal engineering
analyses (e.g., masterplans, capital improvement plans) are performed, the adaptive
management process will be the key to ensuring that goals are met. In summary, the RAA informs
GI implementation goals, but the pathway to meeting those goals is subject to adaptive
management and can potentially change based on new information or engineering analyses
performed over time.
The detailed analysis consisted of the modeling and optimization workflow, and is presented in Figure 4-
2.
Figure 4-2. Modeling System Supporting the RAA.
The RAA presents alternative scenarios to inform implementation and the adaptive management
process. These scenarios tested the underlining assumptions for GI implementation, and demonstrate
the need for further research, collaboration among multiple Permittees, and incorporation of lessons
learned in order to gain efficiencies and maximize the cost-effectiveness of GI to reduce pollutant loads
over time. Four modeling scenarios were configured for this analysis, summarized in Table 4-1.
The following factors are considered for each model scenario:
• Load Reduction Objective - With a cohesive sediment load reduction objective, Scenarios 1 and
2 represent the most conservative approaches. Those scenarios assume that given the
uncertainties about PCB source areas, targeting an overall 17.6% load reduction of cohesive
sediment in general (silts and clays) achieves the PCB load reduction objective for GI. Scenarios 3
and 4 assume that PCB sources are spatially distributed based on analysis of land use types. The
pg. 16 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
cost-benefit optimization process targets those areas as having the highest likelihood of PCB
sources. Scenarios 3 and 4 highlight the potential cost savings (relative to Scenarios 1 and 2) that
could be realized if PCB sources are identified and targeted for GI implementation.
• Jurisdictional verses Countywide - There are many possible ways to achieve a 17.6% load
reduction for all of San Mateo County. The “Jurisdictional” approach stipulates that each
jurisdiction must individually achieve at least a 17.6% load reduction based on the population-
based wasteload reduction for each jurisdiction. Conversely, the “Countywide” approach achieves
the 17.6% load reduction countywide by allowing the model to allocate the countywide wasteload
reduction via GI across jurisdictional boundaries. The countywide approach can provide significant
cost savings over the jurisdictional approach, especially where pollutant sources are spatially
concentrated.
Table 4-1. Model Scenarios Objectives and Cost-Benefit Evaluation.
Based on the RAA results, the countywide approach should result in a roughly 34% cost reduction for
each municipality and is a better reflection of a more realistic breakdown of GI throughout San Mateo
County. Some agencies will have more GI opportunities and be able to do more, and some agencies will
have fewer or more costly GI opportunities. A countywide approach is not only more cost effective, but
it provides a vehicle for collecting funding for regional project opportunities, the costs of which can be
shared by multiple jurisdictions. It also provides a vehicle for credit trading between agencies. Refer to
the “Green Infrastructure Funding Nexus Evaluation” (SCI Consulting Group and Larry Walker Associates,
January 2019) for more information about the concept of credit trading. This document is in Appendix C.
As the GI program develops, further discussions about collaborations will take place. The RAA has
allowed for the possibility of credit trading by providing multiple management metrics for GI, such as
impervious area to be treated in acreage, and GI capacity in acre-feet.
4.2 Implementation Milestones
Throughout the adaptive management process, the City will continue to verify feasible opportunities for
GI projects to meet the final load reduction goals for 2040. The process will include the tracking of
management metrics and continued re-evaluation of GI project opportunities considered for the RAA.
For instance, the RAA assumed projected amounts of LID associated with new and redevelopment,
pg. 17 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
which are subject to change based on factors that are outside the control of the City. If less
development occurs over time, more green streets or regional projects on public land may be needed to
provide equivalent volume management. For the RAA and GI Plan, a preliminary schedule was
developed in order to chart a potential course for GI implementation, which considered the various
project opportunities. South San Francisco was divided into ten (10) subwatershed areas for the RAA
analysis. The relative amount of GI capacities (normalized by area) for each subwatershed are shown in
the Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3. Map of GI capacities within each subwatershed of South San Francisco
The MRP requires reporting of goals for implementation of GI for interim milestones 2020 and 2030, in
addition to the final milestone of 2040. In order to estimate the amount of GI to be implemented at
these milestones, various assumptions were made in terms of the pace of implementation for various GI
project types. The GI capacity milestones for South San Francisco are presented in Figure 4-4. Separate
analyses determined the projected amount of LID associated with new development and redevelopment
by 2020, 2030, and 2040. In addition, the Orange Memorial Park Storm Water Capture Project,
described later in this document, is located in the City and is assumed to be built and operational by
pg. 18 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
2030. Finally, 33 percent of green streets required by 2040 are assumed to be implemented by 2030.
More details on the implementation milestones may be found in Appendix C.
Figure 4-4. Summary GI Capacity for Interim and Final Implementation Milestones
4.3 Early Implementation Projects
The City is currently working on updating COAs for new developments to include GI and increase green
space in frontage areas, per MRP Section C.3.j.ii. Early Implementation of Green Infrastructure Projects
(No Missed Opportunities). The City is reviewing private and public projects that have the potential to
include GI components within the public right of way (ROW). The following projects will include GI
components:
Table 4-2. South San Francisco Development Projects Incorporating GI into Design
Development Projects in South San Francisco
Office/ R& D Projects GI or LID Component?
1 494 Forbes Blvd Yes; TBD
2 249 E Grand Office/R&D Yes; Bioretention Areas
3 328 Roebling Yes; TBD
4 Merck Campus Yes; Bioretention Areas
5 475 Eccles Yes; TBD
6A Phase 1 - Gateway of Pacific Yes; Bioretention Areas
6B Phase 2 - Gateway of Pacific Yes; Bioretention Areas
6C Phase 3 - Gateway of Pacific Yes; Bioretention Areas
7 Britannia Cove at Oyster Point Yes; Bioretention Areas
8 Oyster Point Redevelopment Yes; Bioretention Areas
21 33 44
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2020 2030 Jurisdictional
InterimStructural BMP Capacity(acre-ft)Other GI Projects (TBD)
Green Streets (Low)
Green Streets (Medium)
Green Streets (High)
Regional Projects (Identified)
Future New & Redevelopment
Existing Projects
Total Capacity (acre-ft)
Milestones: South San FraMilestones: South San
Francisco
2040
pg. 19 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Development Projects in South San Francisco
8A Phase IC and Phase ID Yes; Bioretention Areas
8B Phases IID - IVD Yes; Bioretention Areas
8C Phase IIC Yes; Bioretention Areas
9 Genesis Yes; Bioretention Areas
10 Genentech Building B-40 Yes; Bioretention Area
11 USDA Office Building Yes; Bioretention Area
12 426 Victory Avenue TBD
13 201 Haskins Way Yes; Bioretention Area
14 Auto-Chlor System Building (465 Cabot) Yes; Bioretention Areas
15 ARE Amenity Building Yes; Bioretention Area
Commercial Projects GI or LID Component?
16 Costco Fuel Facility Relocation, Phase II Yes; Bioretention Area
17 550 Gateway Hotel Yes; Bioretention Area
18 Marriott Fairfield Inn & Suites Yes; Bioretention Area
19 Park SFO Expansion Yes; Bioretention Areas
20 180 El Camino Real Yes; Bioretention Areas
21 USDA (560 Eccles Ave) Yes; Bioretention Area
22 681 Gateway Blvd Yes; Bioretention Area
23 Wyndham Garden Yes; TBD
24 141 Hickey Boulevard Yes; TBD
25 Sing Tao Newspapers (215 Littlefield Ave) Yes; TBD
26 160 Country Club Dr Yes; Bioretention Areas
27 701 Airport Blvd Yes; TBD
Residential/Mixed Use Projects GI or LID Component?
28 418 Linden Yes; Bioretention Area
29 201 Grand Yes; Flow-through Planters
30 Oakmont Meadows Yes; Bioretention Area
31 616 Maple TBD
32 Mission & McLellan Yes; Flow-through Planters
33 City Ventures Yes; Bioretention Areas
34 988 El Camino Real Yes; Flow-through Planters
35 410 Noor Avenue Yes; TBD
36 818-824 Linden Avenue Yes; TBD
37 645 Baden Avenue Yes; TBD
38 40 Airport Blvd Yes; TBD
39 200 Airport Blvd TBD
40 124 Airport Blvd and 100 Produce Avenue Yes; TBD
41 7 South Linden Avenue Yes; TBD
47 South San Francisco PUC Site Development Yes; Bioretention Areas
Civic Projects GI or LID Component?
pg. 20 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Development Projects in South San Francisco
42 Caltrain Station Improvement Project Yes; Bioretention Area
43 SSF Community Civic Center Campus Yes; Bioretention Area
44 Linden Avenue Complete Streets Yes; Bioretention Area
45 Grand Avenue Streetscape Yes; Bioretention Area
46 Grand Boulevard Improvements Yes; Pervious Pavement, and
Bioretention Area
4.3.1 Orange Memorial Park Water Capture Project
The City received funding from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the Orange
Memorial Park Regional Project (Project) that was listed in the Stormwater Resources Plan for San
Mateo County (SRP) as a conceptual project. The Project is currently under design and includes the
construction and operation of a water capture facility through the installation of a drop inlet, diversion
channel, and inlet junction structure (trash screen) in the upper and western end of the Colma Creek
channel and Park boundary (Figure 4-5). Captured water would be diverted into a series of storm pipes
and pretreatment chambers that would lead to an underground stormwater storage reservoir in the
southeastern corner of the Park. A portion of the storage would function as a cistern holding water for
eventual non-potable irrigation use in and around the Park, and the remainder would function as an
infiltration chamber. These storage facilities would be constructed underneath a portion of the Park’s
two existing ballfields. When storage capacity is exceeded, overflow from the system would be routed
through an infiltration chamber before being metered back into the channel. This regional Project would
have multiple benefits in addition to water quality improvements, including reducing flooding and
reusing treated water for irrigation and groundwater recharge. The Project would capture and treat 8 to
13 percent of the annual drainage from approximately 6,300 acres of land in the City of South San
Francisco, Town of Colma, the City of Daly City, and a portion of unincorporated San Mateo County.
The green infrastructure goals of the project include:
• Achieve load reductions in discharges of PCBs and mercury to San Francisco Bay for compliance
with TMDL requirements;
• Reduce trash discharges to help meet MRP requirement of 100% reduction to the Bay by 2022;
• Implement green infrastructure improvements to capture and treat flows from Colma Creek,
and utilize treated water for beneficial uses such as irrigation and infiltration;
• Alleviate flooding in lower reaches of Colma Creek;
• Implement solutions that minimize long-term operations and maintenance requirements and
short-term construction impacts to park users.
pg. 21 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Figure 4-5. Concept for Orange Memorial Park
pg. 22 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
5.0 Tracking and Mapping Systems
The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County, via its San Mateo
Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP), led a county-wide effort to develop an
RAA to quantitatively estimate the baseline PCB and mercury loads to the Bay, determine load
reductions to meet WLAs among San Mateo County Permittees, and set goals to meet the PCB and
mercury load reductions the MRP assigns to GI (SFBRWQCB 2015). The Baseline Modeling Report (Phase
I) provides documentation of the development, calibration, and validation of the baseline hydrology and
water quality model, and the determination of PCB and mercury load reductions to be addressed
through GI implementation (SMCWPPP 2018). The Green Infrastructure Modeling Report (Phase II)
provides documentation of the application of models to determine the most cost-effective GI
implementation for each municipality, setting stormwater improvement goals for the GI Plan (SMCWPPP
2019).
The RAA recommends management metrics for the GI Plan that are based on metrics that can be easily
measured and tracked throughout implementation. Table 5-1 provides details on the implementation
plan for the 10 subwatersheds within the City’s jurisdiction (represented by each row in table). At the
left side of the table in Table 5-1 are columns under the header “Management Metrics for GI,” which
include performance metrics for “% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual),” “Annual Volume Managed (acre-
ft),” and “Impervious Area Treated (acres).” The “% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual)” and “Annual Volume
Managed (acre-ft)” metrics are based on annualized results represented in the RAA modeling system
that are directly comparable to TMDL WLAs. The “% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual)” provides a relative
comparison of the load reduction to be achieved within each subwatershed. The “Annual Volume
Managed (acre-ft)” shows the acre-feet of water captured and infiltrated and/or treated within each
subwatershed, resulting in a total annual volume of 528.2 acre-feet of stormwater managed in the City
of South San Francisco for an average year. This 528.2 acre-feet of stormwater managed could serve as
the primary metric to be tracked for GI implementation. In other words, stormwater volume managed is
being used as a unifying metric to evaluate GI effectiveness. “Impervious Area Treated (acres)”is an
additional metric suggested by the MRP for implementation tracking. As a result of adaptive
management, the implementation plan may change over time and alternative GI projects can be
substituted without having to re-run the RAA model, as long as the “Management Metrics for GI,”
representing the goals for the GI Plan, remain on track.
The San Mateo County Sustainable Streets Master Plan (SSMP) which is currently under development
will contain a tracking tool for the City to use to track GI projects, mainly green streets, which works
with the projected schedule of milestones showing that the City will start street greening between 2020
through 2030. The current LID projects that are constructed as part of the new and redevelopment
projects are currently tracked by the City through their annual reporting to the RWQCB.
pg. 23 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
Table 5-1. Scenario 1: GI implementation strategy for the City of South San Francisco (sediment target, with regional identified project) Subwatershed ID Management Metrics for GI Green Infrastructure Capacity to Achieve 17.6% Reduction Target
(Capacity expressed in units of acre-feet) % Load Reduction PCBs (Annual) Annual Volume Managed (acre-ft) Impervious Area Treated (acres)
Existing/Planned
Green Streets Other GI Projects (TBD) Total BMP Capacity (acre-ft) Existing Projects Future New & Redevelopment Regional Projects (Identified) High Medium Low 232519 24% 4.67 4.55 0.15 0.10 -- 0.08 0.00 -- -- 0.3
232619 31% 0.29 0.07 -- 0.01 -- -- 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0
240119 24% 3.67 321.35 10.40 4.09 0.01 9.43 0.30 -- -- 24.2
240219 16% 68.00 25.93 0.18 0.80 0.25 1.26 -- -- -- 2.5
240319 16% 165.61 28.27 0.74 1.07 0.61 1.38 -- -- -- 3.8
240419 24% 37.28 9.66 0.05 0.14 0.09 0.38 -- -- -- 0.7
240519 16% 83.65 14.14 0.14 0.38 0.31 0.87 -- -- -- 1.7
250119 27% 150.75 161.72 5.91 1.21 -- 0.00 1.84 0.49 -- 9.5
250219 16% 13.46 9.87 0.30 0.58 -- 0.00 0.19 -- -- 1.1
250319 3% 0.79 1.32 -- 0.08 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1
Total 18.0% 528.2 576.9 17.9 8.5 1.3 13.4 2.3 0.5 0.0 43.8
pg. 24 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
6.0 Evaluation of Funding
The total cost of GI includes costs for planning, capital (design, engineering, construction) and ongoing
expenditures, including operations and maintenance (O&M), utility relocation, and feature replacement.
It is likely that no single source of revenue will be adequate to fund the implementation of GI, and a
portfolio of funding sources will be needed. There are a variety of approaches available to help fund up-
front and long-term investments.
This section discusses the City’s current stormwater management funding sources as potential future
funding options to complement the current funding. It should be noted that this list is a starting point;
the City is working towards developing a thorough funding strategy to implement this GI Plan.
6.1 Current Funding Sources
The stormwater program at the City is funded by a local assessment referred to as the Stormwater Fund,
Gas Tax, Measure M, and the General fund. The C/CAG Stormwater Fund was established in 1993 to
support the local implementation of stormwater permit compliance activities and is a parcel tax. The
stormwater program is further subsidized by monies from the Gas Tax and the General Fund to address
the increase in stormwater permitting requirements. All monies in the stormwater program are applied
to efforts related to MRP compliance.
6.2 Evaluation of Additional Funding Sources
As required by the MRP, the City conducted an evaluation of potential funding options for the design,
construction, and operations and maintenance (O&M) of GI projects. There are grant funding
opportunities for LID and GI at the regional, state, and federal level. C/CAG also funded the
development of the San Mateo County Stormwater Resource Plan (SRP), to identify and prioritize
regional GSI projects in San Mateo County. As a result of Senate Bill 985, which has been incorporated
into the California Water Code, stormwater capture projects must be included in a prioritized list of
projects in a SRP in order to compete for state grant funds from any voter-approved bond measures.
The GI projects identified in the SRP, presented in Table 6-1, are eligible to apply for the Storm Water
Grant Program (SWGP) Proposition 1 (Assembly Bill 1471, Rendon).
Table 6-1. Projects submitted by South San Francisco for SRP
Project
Name Project Description Project
Type Location
Orange
Memorial
Park
High opportunity stormwater capture project with a
large multi-jurisdictional capture area approximately
6,300 acres.
Regional
Project Orange Avenue at Colma Creek
Grand
Avenue
High opportunity green street project with the capacity
to treat 1.3 acre-ft / year of impervious surface.
Green
Street
Grand Avenue in the vicinity of downtown
South San Francisco and the South San
Francisco Caltrain Station
pg. 25 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program is a federal-state partnership that provides
grants and low interest loans for water infrastructure projects, including GI projects. In addition, the
SSMP is also a plan that will be used in the future to obtain grant funding for street GI projects.
Finally, C/CAG developed a Green Infrastructure Funding Nexus Evaluation report, presented in
Appendix C, which discusses other funding options such as special taxes, property relations fees, and
general obligation bonds.
pg. 26 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
7.0 Outreach and Education
An important step in the development and implementation of the GI plan is outreach and education
with City staff, elected officials, and residents regarding the purpose, goals, and implementation of the
GI plan. A summary of the outreach efforts is described below.
7.1 City Staff Outreach & Education
In 2018, the City developed a Green Team that included City staff members of a variety of departments
to ensure that all departments are aware and understand the intent of the Green Infrastructure Plan
and the change in development design from grey to green stormwater infrastructure. The Green Team
met regularly with various departments, in both small- and large-scale settings throughout this GI
planning process. These meetings focused on discussing GI requirements, obtaining early and frequent
feedback, and building connections to work together in GI planning/design, implementation,
maintenance, and monitoring strategies and requirements.
7.2 Public Outreach & Education Efforts
SMCWPPP has supported the City and other municipalities by providing outreach on a County-wide
scale. For the public, SMCWPPP developed a factsheet, and poster titled “Green Infrastructure for a
Sustainable San Mateo County” that is posted on SMCWPPP’s website, distributed at events, and used
by member agencies to educate their residents. The factsheet and poster may be found in Appendix D.
SMCWPPP has a green infrastructure webpage aimed at educating residents on LID/GI measures that
they can integrate into their yards and garden components, and generate support for future green
street projects. In addition, SMCWPPP has a green streets webpage which a map of installed green
streets in San Mateo County.
7.3 Council Presentations
In February 2019, City consultant and a representative from the RWQCB presented the development
process for the GI Plan and the anticipated adoption schedule for the plan. In July 2019, consultant and
C/CAG representative presented to Council at a Study Session to discuss the draft plan and potential
cost implications and funding options. Finally, in August 2019 the Final GI Plan was presented to City
Council for adoption.
pg. 27 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
8.0 References
SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. NPDES Phase I MS4
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. R2-2015-
0049. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2016. C.3. Stormwater
Technical Guidance, Version 5.0.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2016. Stormwater Resource
Plan for San Mateo County. Stormwater Resource Plan for San Mateo County. Prepared by
Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker Associates for San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program, Redwood City, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2017. Stormwater Resource
Plan for San Mateo County. Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker Associates for
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2018. San Mateo County-Wide
Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury: Phase I Baseline Modeling Report.
Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker Associates for San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2019. San Mateo County-Wide
Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury: Phase II Green Infrastructure
Modeling Report. Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker Associates for San
Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2019. Green Infrastructure
Design Guide, First Edition.
pg. 28 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
APPENDIX A
City Plans and Suggested Updates to Include GI
Document Type Document Title Date City Point Person Next Update Sections for GI Language Changes Proposed ChangesCODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSGeneral Plan Introduction Mar‐99 Billy Gross 2020 p 1‐14 (GENERAL PLAN THEMES > #9) … such as streets, parks, storm drainage, green infrastructure, and fire safety, are established to ensure that growth does no to exceed carrying capacity.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSGeneral Plan Land Use Feb‐99 Billy Gross 2020 p 2‐4 (Land use Framework)Inclusion of new green infrastructure strategies into city‐owned landscapes to improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSGeneral Plan Planning Sub‐Areas Element Feb‐99 Billy Gross 2020 p 3‐16 (Parking, Loading, and Streetscape)Include reference to Green Infrastructure Design Guide on https://www.flowstobay.org/ for design of the public right of way.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSGeneral Plan Transportation Billy Gross 2020CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSGeneral Plan NA Feb‐99 Billy Gross 2020 Health and Safety, Open Space and Conservation CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSHousing Element NA Oct‐99 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 13 Public ImprovementsCity Attorney 2019/2020CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 14.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge ControlCity Attorney 2019/2020 p 1/11 (14.04.020 Purpose and intent)Including of new green infrastructure strategies into city‐owned landscapes to improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 14.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge ControlCity Attorney 2019/2020 p 4/11 (14.04.131 Stormwater treatment requirements) Stormwater treatment requirements as specified in NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 and the city's Green Infrastructure Plan, which is scheduled to be adopted in 2019, are mandated…CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 14.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge ControlCity Attorney 2019/2020 p 4/11 (14.04.134 Low Impact Development)LID includes green infrastructure and other water quality strategies that are requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit, see the County’s Green Infrastructure Plan, planned for adoption in 2019, for more information.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 19.16 General Design and Improvement StandardsCity Attorney 2019/2020 (19.16.050 Watercourses and drainage) Implementation of green infrastructure to aid in managing and treating stormwater runoff.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 19.20 Street DesignCity Attorney 2019/2020 (19.20.010 Conformance to table required) Opportunity for green streets including permeable pavements, street trees, and pedestrian and bicycle‐friendly streets.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 19.24 ImprovementsCity Attorney 2019/2020 (19.24.020 Improvements required)CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 19.40 Standard Subdivision ProcedureCity Attorney 2019/2020 (19.40.120 Discharge determination)CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 20.210 Bay West Cove Specific Plan DistrictCity Attorney 2019/2020 (20.210.007 Open Space Standards) Opportunity for stormwater management and treatment with the use of green infrastructure.CODES/ORDINANCES/PLANSMunicipal CodeTitle 20.330 On‐site Parking and LoadingCity Attorney 2019/2020 (20.330.010 Parking Area Design and Development Standards)Include language more specific to Green InfrastructureDEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSGrading Regulations NA Jason Hallare 2019/2020DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSDesign Standards NA Jason Hallare 2019/2020Include reference to Green Infrastructure Design Guide on https://www.flowstobay.org/ for green storm drain design.DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSDrainage Review NA Jason Hallare 2019/2020DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONSSouth San Francisco Design Review Guidelines NA unknown Jason Hallare 2019/2020DESIGN STANDARDSEngineering Design Standards and Specifications NA Matt Ruble 2019/2020MASTER/ACTION PLANSBicycle Master Plan Chapter 3.2 Citywide Plans and Municipal CodeFebruary‐11 Matt Ruble 2019 p 3‐7 (3.2.6 Capital Improvement Program) Include language more specific to Green Infrastructure in streets and storm drain subsections.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p I‐3 (Design Goals and Objectives)Include new green infrastructure strategies into city‐owned landscapes to improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p I‐7 (Goals to improve active transportation)Include reference to Green Infrastructure Design Guide on www.flowstobay.com for green storm drain design.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p I‐10 Include GI language in "1.3 REGIONAL PLANS"MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p II‐12 (Design Standards)Implement green street design where feasible on projects, particularly in those locations that are identified as opportunities in the City's Green Infrastructure Plan, once adopted in 2019. Design and other guidance for the implementation of green street.infrastructure are provided in the County's Green Infrastructure Design Guide.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p III‐17 (Sidewalks > OPPORTUNITIES)Identify opportunities for green infrastructureMASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p VI‐7 (6.1 Goals and Objectives)Adopt a Green Streets policy that facilitates environmentally sensitive design of the public right of way.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p A‐5 (Pedestrian Bulb‐outs)This area may include integrated green infrastructure.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p A‐6 (Design Summary > Furnishing/Landscape Zone)This area may include integrated green infrastructure.MASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p A‐8 (Design Summary > Street Trees)Identify opportunities for green infrastructureMASTER/ACTION PLANSPedestrian Master Plan NA February‐14 Matt Ruble 2019 p A‐16 (Discussion)This area may include integrated green infrastructure.MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 46 (Measure 1.1)Adopt a Green Streets policy that facilitates environmentally sensitive design of the public right of way.
MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 53 (Measure 3.4 > #2)Trees provide water quality benefit by taking water, minerals, chemicals, and other elements up their roots; and delay and limit stormwater runoff by leaves and bark catching rain before it hits the ground. Refer to the Municipal Regional Permit and the Green Infrastructure Plan for more information and how street trees can be used as a green infrastructure strategy; the GI Plan is scheduled to be adopted in 2019.MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 53 (Measure 3.5)Provide educational materials to the community about green infrastructure strategies that can improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 59 (Measure 6.2)Include water harvesting and other green infrastructure strategies to provide additional irrigation sources.MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 59 (Measure 6.2)Include new green infrastructure strategies into city‐owned landscapes to improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.MASTER/ACTION PLANSClimate Action Plan NA February‐14 Billy Gross To be updated as part of General Plan 2020p 59 (Measure 6.2)Retrofit and include new green infrastructure strategies into city‐owned landscapes to improve water quality and reduce need to irrigate landscape.MASTER/ACTION PLANSStorm Drain Master Plan NA February‐16 Bianca Liu 2020/2021 Include GI projects in CIP recommendations SPECIFIC PLANSSouth San Francisco BART Transit Village Plan NA August‐01 NA NASPECIFIC PLANSSouth El Camino Real General Plan NA April‐10 NA NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSDowntown Specific NA February‐15 NA NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSEl Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan NA July‐11 NA NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSOyster Point Specific Plan NA February‐11 NA NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSGenetech Master Plan NA April‐07 Tony Rozzi NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSGrand Avenue Streetscape Specific Plan NA NA Jake Gilchrist 2021Identify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSOrange Memorial Park Master Plan NA NA Greg Mediati NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSUrban Forest Master Plan NA NA Greg Mediati 2019Identify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.SPECIFIC PLANSParks and Recreation Master Plan NA July‐15 Greg Mediati NAIdentify opportunities for green infrastructure and update the specific plan if there are future revisions to it.
pg. 29 2019
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
APPENDIX B
SMCWPPP RAA Plan
1
Paradigm is currently leading C/CAG’s efforts to perform a Reasonable Assurance Analysis that
demonstrates the amount of green infrastructure needed to meet the portions of the PCB and
mercury load reductions required by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit to address Total
Maximum Daily Load wasteload allocations over specified compliance periods. Results of the
Reasonable Assurance Analysis can be used to set goals for green infrastructure implementation,
which can be incorporated within Green Infrastructure Plans currently being prepared by the
C/CAG member agencies. The following is example text that each C/CAG member agency can use
as a template to tailor discussions incorporated within each agency’s Green Infrastructure Plan. The
purpose of this example text is to provide a consistent narrative for discussion of the Reasonable
Assurance Analysis and outcomes for the Permittees of San Mateo County. This portion of the
Reasonable Assurance Analysis only addresses the Green Infrastructure requirements of the
Municipal Regional Permit, not the other source control measures that will be evaluated in the Total
Maximum Daily Load implementation plans submitted in September 2020. Each agency may tailor
this text, incorporating their respective Reasonable Assurance Analysis results specific to each
jurisdiction. The text also refers to the following two separate documents that can either be included
within appendices of each Green Infrastructure Plan, or referenced as separate documents:
• San Mateo County-Wide Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury:
Phase I Baseline Modeling Report (June 2018)
• San Mateo County-Wide Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury:
Phase II Green Infrastructure Modeling Report (under development)
To: Matt Fabry, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
From: Stephen Carter, Paradigm Environmental
Date: 5/3/2019
Re: Green Infrastructure Plan text summarizing results of the Reasonable Assurance
Analysis for the City of South San Francisco
2
1 REASONABLE ASSURANCE ANALYSIS AND GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION GOALS
The Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) (Order No. R2-2015-0049) requires the
development of Green Infrastructure (GI) Plans (Provision C.3) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs) and Mercury Control Measure Implementation Plans (Provisions C.11 and C.12) that
provide the necessary pollutant load reductions to meet Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
wasteload allocations (WLAs) over specified compliance periods. A key component of these plans is
a Reasonable Assurance Analysis (RAA) that quantitatively demonstrates that proposed control
measures will result in sufficient load reductions of PCBs and mercury to meet WLAs for municipal
stormwater discharges to the Bay. The City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San
Mateo County, via its San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP),
led a county-wide effort to develop an RAA to estimate the baseline PCB and mercury loads to the
Bay, determine load reductions to meet WLAs among San Mateo County Permittees, and set goals
for the amount of GI needed to meet the portion of PCB and mercury load reduction the MRP
assigns to GI (SFBRWQCB 2015). The reports described below include documentation of the
county-wide RAA, including:
• Phase I Baseline Modeling Report (Phase I) – Provides documentation of the development,
calibration, and validation of the baseline hydrology and water quality model, and the
determination of PCB and mercury load reductions to be addressed through GI
implementation (SMCWPPP 2018).
• Phase II Green Infrastructure Modeling Report (Phase II) – Provides documentation of the
application of models to determine the most cost-effective GI implementation for each
municipality, setting stormwater improvement goals for the GI Plan (SMCWPPP 2019).
The following sections provide an overview of the purpose of the RAA, and a summary of RAA
results for the City of South San Francisco (City) to serve as stormwater improvement goals that set
the stage for an adaptive management approach.
1.1 Purpose of the Reasonable Assurance Analysis
In 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 released Developing Reasonable
Assurance: A Guide to Performing Model-Based Analysis to Support Municipal Stormwater Program Planning
(EPA RAA Guide) (USEPA 2017), which provides guidance on the technical needs of the RAA and
considerations for model selection. Building upon the EPA RAA Guide, the Bay Area Stormwater
Management Agencies Association (BASMAA) prepared the Bay Area Reasonable Assurance Analysis
Guidance Document (Bay Area RAA Guidance) (BASMAA 2017), which provides specific guidance
on modeling to support RAAs performed in the Bay Area to meet MRP requirements, address
TMDLs for PCBs and mercury, and support GI planning. The EPA RAA Guide and Bay Area
RAA Guidance both outline essential steps for performing an RAA, as depicted in Figure 1-1.
3
Figure 1-1. RAA Process Flow Chart (USEPA 2017).
4
Figure 1-2. SRP Prioritized Green Street Opportunities.
Depending on the audience, the purpose of the RAA can vary in terms of what constitutes
reasonable assurance, and it is important to consider not just the targets for pollutant load
reductions, but also the effectiveness of information management and engineering and economic
feasibility. The EPA RAA Guide provides an example of three differing perspectives for defining
reasonable assurance (USEPA 2017):
• Regulator Perspective - Reasonable assurance is a demonstration that the implementation of
a GI Plan will result in sufficient pollutant reductions over time to address TMDL WLAs or
other targets specified in the MRP.
• Stakeholder Perspective - Reasonable assurance is a demonstration that specific
management practices are identified with sufficient detail, and implemented on a schedule to
ensure that necessary improvements in water quality will occur.
• Permittee Perspective - Reasonable assurance is based on a detailed analysis of the TMDL
WLAs and associated MRP targets themselves, and a determination of the feasibility of
those requirements. The RAA may also assist in evaluating the financial resources needed to
meet pollutant reductions based on schedules identified in the MRP.
Phase I and Phase II provide full documentation of the technical approaches and results of the
SMCWPPP RAA, which are consistent with the recommendations of the EPA RAA Guide and Bay
Area RAA Guidance.
1.2 Preliminary Identification of Opportunities for GI Projects
To support the RAA and GI Plans, C/CAG has initiated a number of planning efforts that identify
opportunities for GI implementation. The following is a summary of those efforts:
• LID for New Development and Redevelopment – The MRP includes a Provision (C.3) for
the integration of LID within new development and redevelopment. As LID techniques are
implemented as new development and redevelopment occurs throughout the City, the
benefits of such practices in terms of reducing urban runoff flows and associated pollutant
loads can be considered as part of the pollutant load reductions attributed to implementation
of GI. C/CAG worked with San
Mateo County Permittees to compile
information on LID practices that have
been implemented within new
development and redevelopment since
water year 2003 (baseline year for the
TMDL). C/CAG also performed an
analysis to project the number of acres
of future new development and
redevelopment to be addressed through
Provision C.3 by 2040. The RAA
considers existing LID practices and
projections of LID in future new
development and redevelopment areas
to estimate anticipated PCBs and
mercury load reductions from 2003 to
2040.
• Countywide Stormwater Resource
Plan (SRP) – The SRP is a
5
comprehensive plan that identifies and prioritizes thousands of GI project opportunities
throughout San Mateo County and within each municipal jurisdiction. Prioritized project
opportunities include: (1) large regional projects within publicly owned parcels (e.g., public
parks) that infiltrate or treat stormwater runoff generated from surrounding areas (e.g.,
diversion from neighborhood storm drain system; diversions from creeks draining large
urban areas); (2) retrofit of publicly owned parcels with GI that provide demonstration of
onsite LID designs; and (3) retrofit of public street rights-of-way with GI, or “green streets.”
The SRP included a multi-benefit scoring and prioritization process that ranks GI project
opportunities based on multiple factors beyond pollutant load reduction (e.g., proximity to
flood prone channels, potential groundwater basin recharge). Figure 1-2 provides an example
of green street opportunities identified, scored, and prioritized by the SRP throughout San
Mateo County (SMCWPPP 2017).
The above efforts and resulting technical products provide preliminary identification of opportunities
for GI projects. Those GI project opportunities serve as the foundation for the RAA and GI Plans as
strategies are developed for implementation plans to meet the PCBs and mercury load reduction
goals per the TMDL.
1.3 Description of the RAA Model
C/CAG performed a comprehensive, countywide modeling effort to provide: (1) simulation of
baseline loads of PCBs and mercury for each of the County’s watersheds and municipal jurisdictions
discharging to San Francisco Bay; (2) estimation of necessary load reduction goals to meet
requirements of the MRP and TMDL WLAs; and (3) determination of the amount of GI needed to
address load reduction goals based on project opportunities identified Section 1.2. The RAA also
provides analysis of alternative implementation scenarios through cost-benefit optimization that can
inform cost-effective GI implementation within each municipal jurisdiction. These results set goals
for GI Plans developed by each Permittee.
The analytical framework selected to support the San Mateo Countywide RAA is based on a linked
system of models (Figure 1-3). Component models of the linked system include:
• Loading Simulation Program C++ (LSPC) – The hydrologic and water quality model
selected for the baseline model of San Mateo County watersheds was the Loading
Simulation Program in C++ (LSPC) (Shen et al., 2004), a watershed modeling system that
includes Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) (Bicknell et al. 1997)
algorithms for simulating watershed hydrology, erosion, water quality, and instream fate and
transport processes. The model can simulate upland loading of sediment, mercury, and
PCBs and instream delivery and transport. LSPC is built upon a relational database
platform, making it ideal for collating diverse datasets to produce robust representations of
natural systems. LSPC integrates GIS outputs, comprehensive data storage and management
capabilities, the original HSPF algorithms, and a data analysis/post-processing system into a
convenient PC-based Windows environment. The algorithms of LSPC are identical to a
subset of those in the HSPF model with selected additions, such as algorithms to address
land use change over time. LSPC is an open-source public-domain watershed model
available from EPA.
• System for Urban Stormwater Treatment & Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) – Developed
by EPA’s Office of Research and Development, SUSTAIN was primarily designed as a
decision-support system for selection and placement of GI projects at strategic locations in
urban watersheds. It includes a process-based continuous project simulation module for
representing flow and pollutant transport routing through various types of GI projects. A
6
distinguishing feature of SUSTAIN is a robust cost-benefit optimization model that
incorporates dynamic, user-specified project unit-cost functions to quantify the costs
associated with project construction, operation, and maintenance. The cost-benefit
optimization model runs iteratively to generate a cost-effectiveness curve that is sometimes
comprised of millions of GI project scenarios representing different combinations of projects
throughout a watershed. Those results are used to make cost-effective management
recommendations by evaluating the trade-offs between different scenarios. The “benefit”
component can be represented in several ways: (1) reduction in flow volume (2) reduction in
load of a specific pollutant or (3) other conditions including numeric water quality targets,
frequency of exceedances of numeric water quality targets, or minimizing the difference
between developed and pre-developed flow-duration curves (USEPA 2009, Riverson et al.
2014).
Figure 1-3. Modeling System Supporting the RAA.
For this analysis, model cost functions were developed from literature, including an
inventory of projects in the Los Angeles region. Because of uncertainty regarding the true
costs to C/CAG member agencies, results were normalized for relative comparison—the
relative costs between project types is well represented for the optimization of project types
in the RAA. In other words, although it is not be recommended to use the RAA costs to
project county-wide or city-wide implementation costs, they are sufficiently resolved for
comparing alternative implementation scenarios and selecting the most cost-effective
strategies and combination of GI, LID, and regional stormwater capture projects to meet
pollutant reduction targets.
The LSPC model provides a characterization of existing conditions and determination of necessary
pollutant load reductions to meet requirements of TMDLs and the MRP. SUSTAIN provides
analysis of the amount of GI needed to provide the portion of the load reduction assigned to GI by
the MRP. The Phase I and Phase II reports provide more detailed discussion of the models and their
application to the San Mateo County watersheds.
7
1.4 Model Considerations to Inform GI Plans
An important consideration for the RAA was the ability to track costs and benefits of different
categories of GI projects within the model. This tracking was performed for GI project categories
within each model subwatershed and municipal jurisdiction, and supports the selection of the most
cost-effective implementation strategy to attain pollutant reduction goals. The RAA builds upon the
previous planning efforts and represents the following generalized GI project categories in the
model:
1. Existing Projects: Stormwater treatment and GI projects that have been implemented since
FY-2004/05. This primarily consists of all of the regulated projects that were mandated to
treat runoff via Provision C.3 of the MRP, but also includes any public green street or other
demonstration projects that were not subject to Provision C.3 requirements. For regulated
projects in the early years of C.3 implementation, stormwater treatment may have been
achieved through non-GI means, such as underground vault systems or media filters.
2. Future New and Redevelopment: All the regulated projects that will be subject to Provision
C.3 requirements to treat runoff via LID and is based on spatial projections of future new
and redevelopment tied to regional models for population and employment growth.
3. Regional Projects (identified): C/CAG worked with agencies to identify five projects within
public parks or Caltrans property to provide regional capture and infiltration/treatment of
stormwater, and included conceptual designs to support further planning and designs. Note –
the model can be updated to include future identified projects to support adaptive
management.
4. Green Streets: The SRP identified and prioritized opportunities throughout San Mateo
County for retrofitting existing streets with GI in public rights-of-way. Green streets were
ranked as high, medium, and low priority (within each subwatershed) based on a multiple-
benefit prioritization process developed for the SRP.
5. Other GI Projects (to be determined): Other types of GI projects on publicly owned parcels,
representing a combination of either additional parcel-based GI or other Regional Projects.
The SRP screened and prioritized public parcels for opportunities for onsite LID and
Regional Projects. These opportunities need further investigation to determine the best
potential projects.
The RAA considers the numerous GI project opportunities that exist within each municipal
jurisdiction, and selects a suite or “recipe” of projects that can most cost-effectively address pollutant
load reductions. The amount and combination of those GI projects can be determined through
analysis of estimated load reductions and implementation costs. Figure 1-4 presents an example GI
recipe showing the distribution of selected GI project categories versus incremental reductions in
pollutant loading and increasing cost.
Cost-benefit optimization of GI
project opportunities was included to
build upon the preliminary C/CAG
SRP planning efforts above, and to
properly inform and set meaningful
goals for GI Plans. For each
optimized combination of GI
projects, SUSTAIN provides an
estimate of the resulting pollutant
load reduction and implementation
costs, allowing for the comparison of
Figure 1-4. Example Implementation Recipe Showing General Sequencing of GI Projects.
8
GI implementation scenarios and the selection of the most cost-effective implementation plan to
address pollutant reduction goals, whether at the scale of an individual jurisdiction or across
municipal boundaries.
1.5 Goals for Green Infrastructure Implementation
As discussed in Section 1.1, depending on the perspective of the regulators, stakeholders, or
Permittees, the purpose and expectations of the RAA can vary in terms of how reasonable assurance
is demonstrated. As a result, the output from the RAA must consider multiple perspectives and
strike the right balance between detail and specificity while still leaving ample opportunity to allow
for future adaptive management. The following are key considerations for the RAA output:
• Demonstrate PCBs and Mercury Load Reductions – The primary goal of the RAA is to
quantitatively demonstrate that GI Plans and Control Measure Implementation Plans will
result in load reductions of PCBs and mercury sufficient to attain their respective TMDL
WLAs and the component stormwater improvement goals to be achieved with GI. Based on
the baseline hydrology and water quality model (Phase I), the RAA determined that a 17.6%
reduction in PCB loads is needed to meet the GI implementation goals established by the
MRP. Zero reduction in mercury loads was determined to be needed from MRP areas
because baseline loads were predicted to be below the TMDL WLA for San Mateo County.
As a result, a 17.6% reduction in PCB loads is established as the primary pollutant reduction
goal for the GI Plan. However, there is some uncertainty in terms of how PCB source areas
are represented in the model, which will require more monitoring and analysis in the future
to gain an improved understanding of PCB source areas and the ability to target these areas
with GI. Since PCBs are generally understood to be transported with cohesive sediment
(e.g., silt and clay), cohesive sediment load can serve as a surrogate on which to base a load
reduction target. The RAA considers a 17.6% reduction of cohesive sediment load as a more
conservative surrogate until a better understanding is reached in terms of specific PCB source
areas within the County. If additional PCB source areas are confirmed, these areas could be
targeted for source control measures or additional GI implementation, likely resulting in
greater effectiveness for GI to reduce PCB loads in those areas, and thus redistributing or
reducing the overall amount of GI needed to meet the load reduction target based on
sediment loading estimates.
• Develop Metrics to Support Implementation Tracking – The MRP (Provision C.3.j) also
requires tracking methods to provide reasonable assurance that TMDL WLAs are being met.
Provision C.3.j states that the GI Plan “shall include means and methods to track the area
within each Permittee’s jurisdiction that is treated by green infrastructure controls and the
amount of directly connected impervious area.” Through C/CAG’s current effort preparing
a Sustainable Streets Master Plan for San Mateo County, a tracking tool will be developed
that will enable calculation of metrics consistent with the results of the RAA and additional
metrics relevant to sustainable street implementation. The tracking tool is planned for
completion in 2020.
• Support Adaptive Management – Given the relatively small scale of most GI projects (e.g.,
LID on an individual parcel or a single street block converted to green street), numerous
individual GI projects will be needed to address the pollutant reduction goals. All the GI
projects will require site investigations to assess feasibility and costs. As a result, the RAA
provides a preliminary investigation of the amount of GI needed spatially (e.g., by
subwatershed and municipal jurisdiction) to achieve the countywide pollutant load reduction
target. The RAA sets the GI Plan “goals” in terms of the amount of GI implementation over
time to address pollutant load reductions. As GI Plans are implemented and more
9
comprehensive municipal engineering analyses (e.g., masterplans, capital improvement
plans) are performed, the adaptive management process will be key to ensuring that goals are
met. In summary, the RAA informs GI implementation goals, but the pathway to meeting
those goals is subject to adaptive management and can potentially change based on new
information or engineering analyses performed over time.
The RAA output, or goals for GI implementation, attempt to identify the appropriate balance in
terms of detail and specificity needed to address the above considerations. The RAA also considered
multiple alternative scenarios that can inform implementation and the adaptive management
process. These scenarios tested the underlining assumptions for GI implementation, and
demonstrate the need for further research, collaboration among multiple Permittees, and
incorporation of lessons learned in order to gain efficiencies and maximize the cost-effectiveness of
GI to reduce pollutant loads over time. Four modeling scenarios were configured for this analysis (as
summarized in Table 1-1):
Table 1-1. Model scenarios objectives and cost-benefit evaluation.
The following factors are considered for each model scenario:
• Load Reduction Objective - With a cohesive sediment load reduction objective, Scenarios 1
and 2 represent the most conservative approaches. Those scenarios assume that given the
uncertainties about PCB source areas, targeting an overall 17.6% load reduction of cohesive
sediment in general (silts and clays) achieves the PCB load reduction objective for GI.
Scenarios 3 and 4 assume that PCB sources are spatially distributed based on analysis of land
use types. The cost-benefit optimization process targets those areas as having the highest
likelihood of PCB sources. Scenarios 3 and 4 highlight the potential cost savings (relative to
Scenarios 1 and 2) that could be realized if PCB sources are identified and targeted for GI
implementation.
• Jurisdictional verses Countywide - There are many possible ways to achieve a 17.6% load
reduction for all of San Mateo County. The “Jurisdictional” approach stipulates that each
jurisdiction must individually achieve at least a 17.6% load reduction based on the
population-based wasteload reduction for each jurisdiction. Conversely, the “Countywide”
approach achieves the 17.6% load reduction countywide by allowing the model to allocate
the countywide wasteload reduction via GI across jurisdictional boundaries. The countywide
10
approach can provide significant cost savings over the jurisdictional approach, especially
where pollutant sources are spatially concentrated. Figure 1-5 conceptually illustrates the
jurisdictional versus countywide optimization approaches. Where there is cooperation
among jurisdictions, results from these two scenarios can provide a useful analytical
framework for cost-sharing and implementation of the most cost-effective management
scenarios.
Figure 1-5. Jurisdictional vs. countywide approaches for cost-benefit optimization
Results of each of the four RAA scenarios are documented in Phase II. These results can inform the
adaptive management process for GI implementation, and help garner support for collaborative
efforts for GI implementation or further research of PCB source areas that can seek more cost-
effective implementation strategies over time. Figure 1-6, Table 1-2, and Figure 1-7 provide a
summary of Scenario 1 RAA results for the City of South San Francisco. Scenario 1 represents the
most conservative scenario for GI implementation. The following steps outline how the process for
formulating the scenario in the RAA model and using the results to set goals for GI implementation.
First: Based on GI project categories defined in Section 1.4, SUSTAIN was used to simulate
effectiveness/load reductions and estimate planning-level costs for various combinations of GI
projects within the City’s jurisdiction (along the x-axis of Figure 1-6, from low pollutant
reduction/effectiveness to high reduction/effectiveness). “Existing Projects” were locked in the
model and included those GI projects included in the FY 2016-17 MRP Annual Report to the Water
Board. “Future New & Redevelopment” is an estimation of the LID that will likely be implemented
in the future in redevelopment areas (based on Provision C.3). “Green Streets” were based on
prioritized and ranked (High, Medium, and Low) street retrofit opportunities reported in the SRP.
For the City of South San Francisco, the “Regional Project (Identified)” refers to the regional project
located within Orange Memorial Park that is currently under consideration by the City. “Other GI
Projects” refer to additional GI projects needed, but specific locations for project opportunities
within certain subwatersheds are yet to be determined.
11
Second: As depicted in Figure 1-6, a 17.6% reduction of modeled PCB for the City was identified as
the target reduction to be attained through the implementation of GI (for Scenario 1, cohesive
sediment reduction is used as a surrogate to represent load reduction of PCBs).
Third: SUSTAIN is used to provide cost-optimization and selection of the most cost-effective
combination of GI projects to attain the target reduction. In Figure 1-6, this solution can be viewed
as the vertical slice that intersects the point on the x-axis at 17.6% reduction. The combination of GI
structural capacities in that slice at the 17.6% load reduction represents the proposed GI
implementation plan for the City of South San Francisco produced by the model. Table 1-2 provides
details on that implementation plan for the ten (10) subwatersheds within the City’s jurisdiction
(represented by each row in table). Optimization results recommend that varying amounts of GI
capacity in different subwatersheds (different rows) are needed to achieve the most cost-effective
solution, but the overall PCBs load reduction addresses 17.6% (bottom row of table). The relative
amount of GI capacities (normalized by area) for each subwatershed are shown in the map in Figure
1-7.
Figure 1-6. Scenario 1: Optimization summary for the City of South San Francisco (sediment target, with
regional identified project).
Target: 17.6% Reduction
Capacity: 43.0 acre -ft
Cost: 6.91%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%Percent of Total Implementation CostStructural BMP Capacity(acre-ft)Other GI Projects (TBD)
Green Streets (Low)
Green Streets (Medium)
Green Streets (High)
Regional Projects (Identified)
Future New & Redevelopment
Existing Projects
Total Capital Cost
Selected Solution
1: South San Francisco
Percent Reduction in Cohesive Sediment
12
Table 2. Scenario 1: GI implementation strategy for the City of South San Francisco (sediment target, with
regional identified project) Subwatershed ID Management Metrics for
GI
Green Infrastructure Capacity to Achieve 17.6% Reduction Target
(Capacity expressed in units of acre-feet) % Load Reduction PCBs (Annual) Annual Volume Managed (acre-ft) Impervious Area Treated (acres) Existing/Planned Green Streets Other GI Projects (TBD) Total BMP Capacity (acre-ft) Existing Projects Future New & Redevelopment Regional Projects (Identified) High Medium Low 232519 24% 4.67 4.55 0.15 0.10 -- 0.08 0.00 -- -- 0.3
232619 31% 0.29 0.07 -- 0.01 -- -- 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.0
240119 24% 3.67 321.35 10.40 4.09 0.01 9.43 0.30 -- -- 24.2
240219 16% 68.00 25.93 0.18 0.80 0.25 1.26 -- -- -- 2.5
240319 16% 165.61 28.27 0.74 1.07 0.61 1.38 -- -- -- 3.8
240419 24% 37.28 9.66 0.05 0.14 0.09 0.38 -- -- -- 0.7
240519 16% 83.65 14.14 0.14 0.38 0.31 0.87 -- -- -- 1.7
250119 27% 150.75 161.72 5.91 1.21 -- 0.00 1.84 0.49 -- 9.5
250219 16% 13.46 9.87 0.30 0.58 -- 0.00 0.19 -- -- 1.1
250319 3% 0.79 1.32 -- 0.08 -- -- -- -- -- 0.1
Total 18.0% 528.2 576.9 17.9 8.5 1.3 13.4 2.3 0.5 0.0 43.8
13
Figure 1-7. Scenario 1: Map of GI capacities within each subwatershed of the City of South San Francisco
(sediment target, with regional identified project).
As can be seen in the above results, the cost-optimization favored implementation of different
combinations of GI projects within each subwatershed. These combinations were based on: (1)
number and type of GI project opportunities identified within each subwatershed, and (2) cost-
effectiveness given various characteristics associated with GI control measure efficiency (typically
governed by infiltration rates), higher sediment (or PCBs) generation in upstream areas, etc. During
implementation, it is almost certain that the actual implementation of GI will not follow the RAA
output exactly; however, the recipe provides “management metrics” by subwatershed (described
below) to guide the adaptive management process. Dimensions and location of GI projects will vary
based on on-the-ground feasibility and site-specific constraints. GI performance varies based on
factors like the physical properties of the facility and upstream drainage area managed. For these
reasons, it is not recommended that GI capacity serve as the focus for stormwater improvement goals
for the GI Plan.
The RAA recommends management metrics for the GI Plan that are based on metrics that can be
easily measured and tracked throughout implementation. At the left side of the table in Table 1-2 are
columns under the header “Management Metrics for GI,” which include performance metrics for
“% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual),” “Annual Volume Managed (acre-ft),” and “Impervious Area
Treated (acres).” The “% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual)” and “Annual Volume Managed (acre-
ft)” metrics are based on annualized results represented in the RAA modeling system that are
directly comparable to TMDL WLAs. The “% Load Reduction PCBs (Annual)” provides a relative
comparison of the load reduction to be achieved within each subwatershed. The “Annual Volume
14
Managed (acre-ft)” shows the acre-feet of water captured and infiltrated and/or treated within each
subwatershed, resulting in a total annual volume of 528.2 acre-feet of stormwater managed in The
City of South San Francisco for an average year. This 528.2 acre-feet of stormwater managed could
serve as the primary metric to be tracked for GI implementation. In other words, stormwater volume
managed is being used as a unifying metric to evaluate GI effectiveness. “Impervious Area Treated
(acres)”is an additional metric suggested by the MRP for implementation tracking. As a result of
adaptive management, the implementation plan may change over time and alternative GI projects
can be substituted without having to re-run the RAA model, as long as the “Management Metrics
for GI,” representing the goals for the GI Plan, remain on track.
1.6 Implementation Schedule
Throughout the adaptive management process, the City will continue to verify feasible opportunities
for GI projects to meet the final load reduction goals for 2040. The process will include the tracking
of management metrics and continued re-evaluation of GI project opportunities considered for the
RAA. For instance, the RAA assumed projected amounts of LID associated with new and
redevelopment, which are subject to change based on factors that are outside the control of the City.
If less development occurs over time, more green streets or regional projects on public land may be
needed to provide equivalent volume management. For the RAA and GI Plan, a preliminary
schedule was developed in order to chart a potential course for GI implementation, which
considered the various project opportunities.
The MRP requires reporting of goals for implementation of GI for interim milestones 2020 and
2030, in addition to the final milestone of 2040. In order to estimate the amount of GI to be
implemented at these milestones, various assumptions were made in terms of the pace of
implementation for various GI project types. Separate analyses determined the projected amount of
LID associated with new development and redevelopment by 2020, 2030, and 2040. In addition, the
Orange Memorial regional project, in the City is assumed to be built and operational by 2030.
Finally, 33 percent of green streets required by 2040 are assumed to be implemented by 2030. The
resulting schedule presented in Figure 1-4 demonstrates anticipated interim and final milestones for
GI implementation in terms of structural capacity (corresponding to the capacities presented at the
right side of Table 2). These interim and final GI capacities are subject to adaptive management;
however the 2040 Management Metrics for GI (left side of Table 2) sets the ultimate goal for GI
planning efforts and tracking.
Table 2 also provides a comparison of the amount of GI capacity estimate to be needed in the City
to address 2040 goals for Scenario 1 (jurisdictional) and Scenario 2 (countywide) (see Table 1-1).
The countywide scenario would require significant additional discussion among San Mateo County
Permittees in order to provide cost-share agreements that would result in more GI implementation
within the City of South San Francisco, likely resulting in less GI implemented in other city or
unincorporated County jurisdictions. However, comparison of these scenarios further demonstrates
the need for an adaptive management framework to further investigate the most cost-effective
approach to countywide GI implementation.
15
Figure 1-8. Summary GI capacity for interim and final implementation milestones.
2 REFERENCES
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association). 2017. Bay Area Reasonable
Assurance Analysis Guidance Document. Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association, Oakland, CA.
Bicknell, B. R., , J. C. Imhoff, A. S. Donigian, R. C. Johanson. 1997. Hydrological Simulation Program
– FORTRAN (HSPF), User’s Manual For Release 11. EPA – 600/R-97/080. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Riverson, J., K. Alvi, J. Zhen, R. Murphy. 2014. SUSTAIN Application User’s Guide for EPA Region
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Office of Water and Watersheds,
Seattle, WA.
Shen, J., A. Parker, and J. Riverson. 2004. A New Approach for a Windows-based Watershed
Modeling System Based on a Database-supporting Architecture. Environmental Modeling and
Software, July 2004.
SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2006. Mercury in San
Francisco Bay: Proposed Basin Plan Amendment and Staff Report for Revised Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) and Proposed Mercury Water Quality Objectives. San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco, CA.
SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2008. Total Maximum
Daily Load for PCBs in San Francisco Bay: Final Staff Report for Proposed Basin Plan Amendment.
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco, CA.
21 33 44 44
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
2020 2030 Jurisdictional Countywide
InterimStructural BMP Capacity(acre-ft)Other GI Projects (TBD)
Green Streets (Low)
Green Streets (Medium)
Green Streets (High)
Regional Projects (Identified)
Future New & Redevelopment
Existing Projects
Total Capacity (acre-ft)
Implementation Milestones
Milestones: South San Francisco
16
SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2015. NPDES Phase I
MS4 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) for San Francisco Bay Region. Order No. R2-
2015-0049. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2017. Stormwater
Resource Plan for San Mateo County. Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker
Associates for San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City,
CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2018. San Mateo
County-Wide Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury: Phase I Baseline Modeling
Report. Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker Associates for San Mateo
Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City, CA.
SMCWPPP (San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program). 2019. San Mateo
County-Wide Reasonable Assurance Analysis Addressing PCBs and Mercury: Phase II Green
Infrastructure Modeling Report. Prepared by Paradigm Environmental and Larry Walker
Associates for San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program, Redwood City,
CA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. SUSTAIN—A Framework for Placement of
Best Management Practices in Urban Watersheds to Protect Water Quality. EPA/600/R-09/095.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Edison, NJ.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Developing Reasonable Assurance: A Guide to
Performing Model-Based Analysis to Support Municipal Stormwater Program Planning. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, San Francisco, CA.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
APPENDIX C
Green Infrastructure Funding Report
A6 - 2GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
A6 - 3 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................... 2
1.3 GOALS OF THIS REPORT ....................................................................................... 3
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE ............................................................................................ 4
2 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING NEEDS ....................................................................................... 5
2.1 PLANNING NEEDS ................................................................................................. 5
2.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS .............................................................................. 6
2.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS ................................................................ 6
3 TRADITIONAL TYPES OF STORMWATER PROGRAM FUNDING ............................................. 7
3.1 LOCAL FUNDING STRATEGIES THAT REQUIRE A BALLOTED PROCESS ........................ 7
3.2 SENATE BILL 231 – THE END OF BALLOTING FOR STORMWATER FEES? .................. 10
3.3 LOCAL FUNDING STRATEGIES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A BALLOTED PROCESS ......... 11
3.4 GRANTS AND LOANS ........................................................................................... 13
3.5 ASSESSMENTS & SPECIAL FINANCING DISTRICTS .................................................. 16
4 POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR MEETING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ........................ 21
4.1 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE ................................................................................. 21
4.2 PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER STRATEGIES ............................................................. 23
5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ......................................................... 27
5.1 SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 27
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 27
5.3 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... 28
5.4 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 29
6 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 31
6.1 APPENDIX A – FUNDING MATRIX .......................................................................... 32
6.2 APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE CASE STUDY IN EMERYVILLE, CA........... 40
6.3 APPENDIX C – POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... 42
A6 - 4GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE ii
(THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
A6 - 5 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (Regional Water Board) 2015
Municipal Regional Permit (referred to as MRP 2.0) includes specific provisions for addressing key
pollutants of concern, including mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biph enyls), and trash. The MRP 2.0
also requires jurisdictions to transition from gray, or piped, infrastructure storm drainage systems to
green, or landscape-based, systems that capture, treat, and infiltrate runoff. In other words, Green
Infrastructure.
The MRP 2.0 defines green infrastructure as: Infrastructure that uses vegetation, soils, and natural
processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments that mimic nature by soaking
up and storing water. Following this definition to its natural conclusion would mean turning the urban
landscape of San Mateo County back into green fields. Clearly, that cannot happen, but every action
to permeate the hardened urban surfaces and once more expose the soil to the natural precipitation
would move our environment further in that direction.
1.1.1 THE ROLE OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
This endeavor falls generally under the umbrella of stormwater management, but it also stretches
the meaning of stormwater management as municipalities have long envisioned it. Over the past
century of urban expansion, stormwater management meant collecting and conveying “nuisance”
runoff to receiving waters. The revisions to the Clean Water Act in the late 1980s and the first
NPDES1 permits for MS4s2 in the early 1990s are serving to redefine stormwater management
profoundly. Over the past two decades the trend in the NPDES permits has become clear –
municipalities must change how they view their roles as stormwater managers. Where they had once
focused strictly on traditional public infrastructure, NPDES now pushes them to focus on other
practices (public AND private) such as pest management, enforcing commercial and industrial
discharges, and construction sites – later growing to permanent controls on new development
(including low impact development, hydrograph modification, capture and reuse), trash capture, and,
finally, green infrastructure (GI). MRP 3.0 and 4.0 promise to move further along this path.
But just when more and more municipalities are realizing that stormwater management should be
considered an enterprise or utility on par with water and s ewer utilities, others are beginning to realize
that stormwater management may have already outgrown “utility” status. It may not actually fit neatly
inside the box of a discrete enterprise but must permeate through all their planning and land use
responsibilities as well. It is also pushing the limits of what a municipality is empowered to do
regarding behavior and practices on private property. This is manifest in the range of documents that
make up the Green Infrastructure Plans.
1 Acronym stands for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System from the Clean Water Act. Permits are issued
under this system to municipalities and other entities that discharge stormwater to receiving waters (creeks, bays,
etc.).
2 Acronym stands for municipal separate storm sewer systems.
A6 - 6GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 2
1.1.2 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE STRETCHES PRIOR FUNDING MODELS
Funding for GI is no less vexing. Under the old model, stormwater funding was for management and
upgrade/expansion of traditional public stormwater infrastructure (inlets, pipes, pump stations,
creeks, channels, and levees). GI expands on the concepts of low impact development and
hydrograph modification for private development sites and applies them to the broader universe of
infrastructure in general – both public and private – and the funding models for these activities are
not well developed.
Traditional stormwater funding has always been a challenging field with many hurdles that are
changing as rapidly as the regulations pertaining to stormwater quality. Dedicated and sustainable
stormwater funding is usually found in the form of a property-related fee (similar to water and sewer
fees). Proposition 218 requires these to be focused around services provided and each property’s
share of the cost of those services. GI expands the universe of infrastructure beyond the tradition al
drainage facilities to roads, landscaped areas and other facilities. As a result, great care must be
taken as traditional stormwater funding sources are applied to the GI goals. In addition, there are
inherent difficulties in applying public funding to private facilities, which will necessarily play a role in
meeting the GI goals.
Proposition 218 was a constitutional amendment approved by California voters in 1996 and was
intended to make it more difficult for municipalities to raise taxes, assessments and fees (such as
property-related fees). As currently interpreted by the courts, Proposition 218 requires that
stormwater fees must be approved through a ballot measure – a much higher threshold than for the
sister utilities of water, sewer and refuse collection which must only conduct a public hearing. The
result is that in the past two decades, only a handful of municipalities have been able to put any new
stormwater revenue mechanisms in place. This has served to make stormwater a second-class utility
and has dealt a serious blow to achieving the “One Water” goals that are so important to solving
challenges such as supply shortages and pollution.
This report looks into common existing funding mechanisms (fees, taxes, developer fees, etc.) as
well as recently pioneered funding strategies such as alternative compliance funds, enhanced
infrastructure finance districts, etc. Many municipalities are finding that no single so urce of revenue
is adequate to fund its stormwater needs, and GI funding will be no different. It is expected that the
most successful funding strategy will be a “portfolio” approach containing multiple funding sources.
The end product will be a tool box of options.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), a joint powers agency
whose members are the County of San Mateo and the 20 incorporated cities and towns, administers
the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (Countywide Program) to assist its
member agencies with meeting requirements to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. These
requirements are contained in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s
(Regional Water Board) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2.0) and include specific provisions for
addressing key pollutants of concern, including mercury, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), and
trash. The MRP 2.0 also requires jurisdictions to transition from gray, or piped, infrastructure storm
A6 - 7 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 3
drainage systems to green, or landscape-based, systems that capture, treat, and infiltrate runoff –
Green Infrastructure.
The MRP 2.0 defines GI as: Infrastructure that uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to
manage water and create healthier urban environments. At the scale of a city or county, GI refers to
the patchwork of natural areas that provide habitat, flood protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water.
At the scale of a neighborhood or site, GI refers to stormwater management systems that mimic
nature by soaking up and storing water.
To aid jurisdictions in transitioning from gray to green infrastructure, MRP 2.0 requires each agency
to prepare and adopt a GI Plan by September 2019. The Regional Water Board describes the
purpose of the GI Plans as follows:
▪Over the long term, the Plan is intended to describe how the Permittees will shift their
impervious surfaces and storm drain infrastructure from gray, or traditional storm drain
infrastructure where runoff flows directly into the storm drain and then the receiving
water, to green – that is, a more resilient, sustainable system that slows runoff by
dispersing it to vegetated areas, harvests and uses runoff, promotes infiltration and
evapotranspiration, and uses bioretention and other GI practices to clean stormwater
runoff; and
▪The Plan shall also identify means and methods to prioritize particular areas and projects
within each Permittee’s jurisdiction, at appropriate geographic and time scales, for
implementation of GI projects. Further, it shall include means and methods to track the
area within each Permittee’s jurisdiction that is treated by GI controls and the amount of
directly connected impervious area.
The GI Plan is required to include targets for the amount of impervious surface to be retrofitted over
time in order to achieve specific reductions in mercury and PCBs discharging to San Francisco Bay.
It also must address policies, guidance, funding and other means for jurisdictions to ensure
implementation, operation, and maintenance of sufficient GI, to meet these target water quality
thresholds.
1.3 GOALS OF THIS REPORT
This report builds on C/CAG’s 2014 efforts to develop a dedicated and sustainable funding source .
Although that effort has not yet moved to the implementation stage, it did produce a Funding Options
Report in 2014 that identified a number of traditional stormwater funding sources. This report is not
intended to duplicate that 2014 effort, but rather update it as necessary and supplement it with
strategies more in line with GI challenges.
The MRP 2.0 provision C.3.j.i(2)(k) requires a GI Plan to include “an evaluation of prioritized project
funding options, including, but not limited to: Alternative Compliance funds; grant monies, including
transportation project grants from federal, State, and local agencies; existing Permittee resour ces;
new tax or other levies; and other sources of funds.” While other sub-tasks of the project identified a
prioritized list of potential public GI projects and estimated the potential redevelopment of private
parcels (which would require use of low impact development, or “LID”) on a drainage-area-specific
A6 - 8GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 4
basis, this Sub-Task (5.7) will provide an evaluation of funding sources that could potentially pair
with the types of projects identified.
It is the goal of this report to identify and evaluate the feasibility of various funding strategies to enable
member agencies to complete their GI Plans in a thorough and timely manner. This report will provide
a general overview of funding mechanisms common to stormwater management, with keys to how
they relate to GI.
1.4 REPORT STRUCTURE
▪ Chapter 2 provides a background of the overall GI planning efforts by C/CAG including
general discussion of the three types of funding needs (Planning, Capital and
Operations and Maintenance).
▪ Chapters 3 and 4 discuss various funding opportunities and strategies. These are
grouped into two categories: Traditional funding strategies (such as fees, taxes and
assessments), Chapter 3; and potential strategies for meeting GI needs, Chapter 4.
▪ Chapter 5 provides a summary and a set of recommendations.
▪ Appendices include:
o A summary matrix of the various funding mechanisms intended as a quick
reference guide to member agencies to help them keep sight of the broad scope
of funding possibilities;
o An alternative compliance case study; and
o The 2014 C/CAG report: Potential Funding Source Analysis a nd
Recommendations.
It is worth noting that the summary matrix in Appendix A contains some additional information such
as pros and cons and applicability to costs for staff, planning, capital and operations and
maintenance (“O&M”). This matrix should be considered a key document containing unique
information.
A6 - 9 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 5
2 OVERVIEW OF FUNDING NEEDS
As member agencies have developed early elements of their GI Plans, it has become evident that
downstream funding needs will be substantial and varied in its scope. GI, by its very nature, is a
flexible and variable approach to reducing stormwater pollutants, and therefore will continue to
evolve in the coming years in its efficacy, costs, and approaches. It is difficult to assign dollar
amounts to some of the elements at this stage, but below we discuss some of the factors that need
to be considered.
By way of structure, we have divided the task into three primary elements: Planning needs ; capital
improvement needs; and operations and maintenance needs. However, as funding is contemplated
it is worth noting that not all of these elements can be funded by all funding sources. For example,
bond funding is typically only applicable to capital improvement programs and ca nnot fund early
planning or operations demands downstream. Appendix A contains a matrix of funding sources that
cross references each source against the types of activities to which it does or does not apply. This
factor should be considered as the GI plans are finalized.
2.1 PLANNING NEEDS
2.1.1 PLANNING EFFORTS TO DATE
There has been a substantial planning effort underway since the issuance of MRP 2.0 to assist
member agencies to develop their GI Plans and educate staff and elected officials. This has included
the formation of the Technical Advisory Committee to help guide the countywide effort to provide
frameworks or work plans for member agencies; and conducting staff workshops and briefings for
municipal officials. The planning effort has developed or updated several major documents,
collectively referred to as the GreenSuite, to help guide future GI efforts including:
• Green Infrastructure Design Guide:
o Topics include policy and overview, buildings and sites, sustainable streets,
implementation, operations and maintenance among others.
o Appendices include a glossary, references, typical GI details, specifications for GI
materials, O&M checklists, and this GI Funding Nexus Evaluation.
• Regulated Projects Guide
2.1.2 FUTURE PLANNING EFFORTS
Looking forward, member agencies will need to continue to update and supplement these planning
documents in order to keep pace with ongoing and future MRP requirements and the information
needs of municipal staff to implement GI projects. In addition, each member agency will be required
to track and document GI implementation over time. This includes tracking planned and implemented
projects and modeling pollutant loads reduced for compliance purposes. Finally, there will be ongoing
efforts to coordinate with C/CAG and BASMAA groups in coming years to coordinate regionally
consistent approaches to GI planning and implementation.
A6 - 10GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 6
Also included in the planning category are the ongoing Education and Outreach efforts to help
educate the public, developers, agency staff, and elected officials on GI and LID planning, policy,
design and implementation.
2.2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
MRP 2.0 Provision C.3.h.i.(2)(a) requires each member agency’s GI Plan to include the identification
of potential and planned GI projects, both public and private, on a drainage-area specific basis for
implementation and assessment of potential load reductions by 2020, 2030, and 2040. On the public-
sector side, the GI Plans call for the routine incorporation of GI into capital improvement projects to
help meet the pollutant reduction requirements. On the private-sector side, development and
redevelopment projects have been required to incorporate LID features into projec t proposals for
more than a decade.
C/CAG has worked with its member agencies to define the methods for moving from the long-term
planning and estimating of performance of future GI through to the tracking and modeling of actual
construction and performance over time. For public sector projects, C/CAG established prioritization
criteria and identified potential projects utilizing a methodology for bridging the long-range
generalized planning with identification of suitable potential for potential GI projects on public lands
using clear and documented assumptions that will allow member agencies to develop capital
improvement projects that incorporate GI.
A summary of planned GI projects as well as other projects targeted for retrofitting to impervious
surfaces is still being developed.
Funding for capital projects can be obtained from most types of sources including sustainable fees,
taxes and assessments, one-time grants and loans, and through creative partnerships and in -lieu
programs.
2.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS
As with all built features, GI will require O&M efforts to keep the improvements in a serviceable
condition. However, GI has the added requirement that the “green” element remain as effective as
designed. Although many GI improvements appear to be landscape features when viewed from the
surface, they are in fact types of mini-treatment facilities, which have more specialized maintenance
requirements than typical landscape features. Therefore, the O&M efforts and costs can be
substantial and may require a different mix of skills and trained labor to undertake the maintenance .
To better define the maintenance needs, C/CAG is developing an Operations and Maintenance
Manual.
Funding for O&M is often the most restricted as it rarely can be sustained from grant funds or bond
programs. Sustainable fees, taxes and assessments are the most common ways to fund O&M, but
those mechanisms often require a ballot measure and therefore are difficult to secure at meaningful
levels.
A6 - 11 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 7
3 TRADITIONAL TYPES OF STORMWATER PROGRAM FUNDING
In 2014 C/CAG engaged SCI to study and make recommendations on strategies to fund water
pollution prevention programs required in the previous MRP. One of the deliverables from that effort
was the Potential Funding Sources Analysis and Recommendations Report, which described,
analyzed and evaluated various funding mechanism alternatives available for stormwater programs.
That 2014 Report forms a solid basis from which to evaluate funding options for GI as well. This
section will provide a brief overview of the 2014 Report, which is included herein as Appendix C. This
discussion will also provide some important updates to the 2014 Report – particularly regarding
Senate Bill 231.
There are several ways to categorize funding. This report looks at whether funding is ongoing
funding, one-time funding, or debt financing (one-time funds that are repaid in an ongoing manner).
This report also distinguishes between balloted and non-balloted, as any funding source that requires
a ballot measure will obviously bring with it more challenges. The matrix below helps to visualize
these two axes and illustrates a few examples of each.
Sustainable / Ongoing One-Time Long-Term Debt
Balloted Taxes, Fees
& Assessments GO Bonds *
Non-Balloted
Regulatory Fees
Re-Alignment
Developer Fees
Grants COPs **
Revolving Fund
* General Obligation Bonds; ** Certificates of Participation
3.1 LOCAL FUNDING STRATEGIES THAT REQUIRE A BALLOTED PROCESS
There are two basic types of balloted measures appropriate for stormwater funding, namely, special
taxes and property-related fees. Successfully implemented balloted approaches have the greatest
capacity to significantly and reliably fund stormwater management, but they are often very
challenging. Generally, the most important key to a successful ballot measure is to propose a project
or program that is seen by the voting community to have a value commensurate with the tax or fee.
The two greatest challenges are to craft a measure that meets this threshold, and then to effectively
communicate the information to the community.
Since balloted funding mechanisms tend to be the most flexible and sustainable, they are often seen
as underpinning an agency’s entire program. Not only can they pay directly for services or projects,
but a dedicated and sustainable revenue stream can also be leveraged to help secure grants, loans,
partnerships, and many other opportunities that present themselves. Without such a dedicated
revenue stream, those opportunities must often be missed.
A6 - 12GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 8
3.1.1 SPECIAL TAXES
Special taxes are decided by registered voters and require a two-thirds majority for approval.
Traditionally, special taxes have been decided at polling places corresponding with primary and
general elections. More recently, however, local governments have had success with single issue
special taxes by conducting them entirely by mail and not during primary or general elections. Special
taxes are well known to Californians and are utilized for all manner of services, projects , and
programs. They are usually legally very stout and flexible and can support an issuance of debt such
as loans or bonds in most cases.
There are several types of special taxes, but the most common for stormwater services are parcel
taxes. Parcel taxes are levied against real property and can be calibrated for some parcel metric
such as acreage, size of building, impermeable area, type of use, or simply a flat rate where each
parcel pays the same amount. One thing that distinguishes taxes from fees is that taxes do not
necessarily need to have a direct nexus between the amount of the tax and the service received. As
such, tax mechanisms can exempt certain types of property (e.g., public property) or owners (e.g.,
seniors or low income). While exemptions may reduce revenues somewhat, they are usually very
popular with voters. Examples of parcel taxes that have been successfully implemented for
stormwater services are in the cities of Culver City, Los Angeles, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica.
The most recent successful parcel tax measure was in Los Angeles County where the Flood Control
agency passed a tax that will raise as much as $300 million per year for projects that would capture,
treat and recycle rainwater.
Other types of special taxes include sales, business license, vehicle license, utility users, and
transient occupancy taxes. These types can also be implemented as a general (not special) tax,
where they would only require a simple 50% majority for passage. But to qualify as a general tax, it
must be pledged only for an agency’s general fund with no strings attached, in which case any GI or
stormwater services must compete with other general funded services such as police, fire and parks.
Although a general tax requires only a simple majority, voters tend to show better support for special
taxes where the purpose of the tax is explicitly identified.
3.1.2 PROPERTY-RELATED FEES
A Proposition 218-compliant, property owner balloted, property-related fee is a very viable revenue
mechanism to fund stormwater programs. Property-related fees are decided by a mailed vote of the
property owners with a simple majority (50%) threshold required for approval, with each parcel
getting one vote. The property-related fee process is generally not as well known, and it is more time
consuming and is more expensive than the special tax process, but it is much more common for
funding stormwater management, and in many communities, more suitable to meet the voter
approval threshold. One of the more successful municipalities to implement a property-related fee
for stormwater services is Palo Alto, where they have succeeded twice.
As they pertain to GI, property-related fees remain a flexible and stout funding source. However,
under Proposition 218 property-related fees must apply to defined services within a defined service
area, and the costs of providing those services must be spread equitably over the properties that
receive the services. The scope of GI is stretching the traditional boundaries of stormwater services,
A6 - 13 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 9
and great care must be taken when crafting a property-related stormwater fee structure. But just as
water agencies have embraced conservation efforts and watershed habitat protections, so, too, can
stormwater agencies carefully expand into the area of GI.
3.1.3 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
The voting public is very familiar with general obligation (GO) bond measures, which typically come
in the form of a general obligation bond and require a two-thirds majority for passage. Bonds are
issued to raise funding up front and are repaid through a tax levied against property on the annual
property tax bill. These levies are based on property value, so higher value properties pay a higher
portion of these taxes. Because the rate of taxation is based on value, ballot measures cannot state
an annual amount that would be paid by an individual. This is usually an advantage, as the voter is
presented with a bond amount (e.g., $25 million bond measure) for a project or program, and votes
based on that without knowing exactly what it will cost them or for how long.
One primary restriction on GO bonds is that they can only be used for capital projects. While that
includes land acquisition, planning, design and construction, the costs for maintenance and
operations cannot be paid from the bond proceeds.
Selling bonds for GI has become more viable this year with a clarification from the Government
Accounting Standards Board (Statement #62, or “GASB 62”) that distributed infrastructure can be
considered an asset upon which an agency can capitalize and there fore more easily be included in
a bonded debt program. Distributed infrastructure is a term for smaller improvements that are often
distributed around an area – sometimes on private property – like green roofs, rain barrels,
bioswales, and pervious pavements. GASB goes so far as to include the cost of rebate programs
for distributed infrastructure as well.
Examples of stormwater-related GO bonds successfully implemented include Berkeley’s Measure M
($30 million – partly for GI, 2012) and Los Angeles’ Measure O ($500 million, 2004).
3.1.4 CHALLENGES WITH BALLOTED APPROACHES
Ballot measures are inherently political and are often outside of the areas of experience and expertise
of most stormwater managers. For any measure to have a fair chance, the community must be well
informed, and their preferences and expectations must be woven into the measure. This requires
significant outreach and research, which is something best handled by specialized consultants, and
can take considerable time and resources.
Over the past 15 years, there have been fewer than two dozen community-wide measures attempted
for stormwater throughout California, and the success rate is just over 50%. Very few attempts have
been made to pass a stormwater ballot measure even though there may be over 500 agencies with
stormwater needs, because success is not assured. Clearly this is a high bar to clear, and any
agency considering a balloted approach must carefully weigh the pros and cons before proceeding.
Funding strategies are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C, which also includes a list of balloted
efforts throughout the State along with a discussion on why they succeeded or failed.
A6 - 14GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 10
3.1.5 KEYS TO A SUCCESSFUL BALLOTED APPROACH
Know your needs and how to fix them: This often will come from a needs analysis or a strategic
planning effort. The more popular fixes usually include capital projects that the community sees as
fixing a problem they know about. For example, a new storm drain pump station that will alleviate
chronic local flooding, or a spreading basin that will replenish the aquifer and create environmental
habitat with some recreational opportunities.
Know your community’s priorities: If the agency’s needs are not seen as priorities by the community,
a ballot measure will likely fail. This is usually measured by a public opinion survey, which would
identify priorities as well as willingness to pay for the proposed program. Top priorities identified in
the survey should be folded back into the proposed measure to demonstrate that the agency is
responsive to the community.
Communicate with the voters: Community engagement must be tailored to fit the measure and the
community it is designed to serve. It can range from a brief set of outreach materials (website and
flyer) to a comprehensive branding and information effort that can take several months or longe r,
complete with town hall meetings and media coverage. Knowing your stakeholders and opinion
leaders is a must, and special efforts with those groups are always recommended. Note that
advocacy by a public agency is strictly forbidden by law, so legal counsel should be involved at some
point to help distinguish between educational outreach and advocacy .
Know where you stand with the voters: For instance, do voters trust the agency? Do they believe
that you will deliver on your promises? How have past ballot measures worked out? Know the
answers to questions like these; and if you do not like the answers, figure out how to correct for that.
Plan for the needed resources: Many public agencies hire professional consultants for critical
elements of this process from needs analysis to surveys and community engagement. While these
consultants can be costly, it is usually well worth the expense if they can deliver a successful
measure. Considerable agency staff time may also be required, since this is a very iterative process
that must be presented to the public by agency representatives, not consultants.
3.2 SENATE BILL 231 – THE END OF BALLOTING FOR STORMWATER FEES?
As stated earlier, water and sewer fees are exempt from the voter approval requirements of
Proposition 218. Senate Bill (SB) 231, signed by Governor Brown on October 6, 2017, provides a
definition for sewer that includes storm drainage. This clarification would give stormwater
management fees the same exemption from the balloting requirement that applies to sewer, water,
and refuse collection fees, and would make stormwater property-related fees a non-balloted option
– something very attractive to municipalities. Unfortunately, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, who authored and sponsored Proposition 218, is expected to file a lawsuit against any
municipality that adopts a stormwater fee without a ballot proceeding. Therefore, the SB 231
approach must be given a very cautionary recommendation at this time. Any agency considering
moving in that direction should consult with other agencies and industry groups to coordinate their
efforts in a strategic manner and avoid setting an unfavorable legal precedent. C/CAG staff is keeping
abreast of developments in this area and would be a good first point of contact.
A6 - 15 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 11
3.3 LOCAL FUNDING STRATEGIES THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A BALLOTED PROCESS
Non-balloted approaches are those which can be implemented without voter approval. They can be
as simple as charging a plan check fee, or as complex as realigning functional units or financial
budget structures within an agency. The table below illustrates some examples of non -balloted
approaches.
Type of Approach Examples Comments
Regulatory Fees Plan Check Fees
Inspection Fees
Proposition 26 (2010) has significantly
limited the applicability.
Realignment of
Services
Water Supply
Sewer
Refuse Collection
Leverage and integrate stormwater
elements that qualify under water,
sewer and/or refuse collection
categories.
Business License
Fees
Business License Fee Applies to commercial operations with
clear impacts on stormwater such as
restaurants, vehicle repairs.
AB 1600 Fees Developer Impact
Fees
Similar to impact fees aimed at
improving water and sewer systems, or
parks and schools.
Integration into
Projects with
Existing Funding
Transportation or
Utility Projects
Takes advantage of multi-benefit
projects that also further stormwater
goals.
While not subject to local voters’ or property owners’ "willingness to pay" limitations, these non-
balloted approaches may encounter a certain amount of public resistance, particularly from specific
groups that will be impacted by these approaches (e.g., businesses will resist additional business
license fees). In addition, each one of these approaches require s that a nexus be drawn between
the fee and the impact on the payer of the fee in order to not be considered a tax. Therefore, a nexus
study or cost of service analysis needs to be developed in each case.
As they pertain to GI funding, developer fees and partnerships with transportation o r utility projects
may have the most applicability, particularly when integrated into other emerging strategies such as
discussed in Section 4 of this report. Realignment of services is discussed in more detail in the
following section. All these funding sources are discussed in more detail in Appendix C.
3.3.1 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Development impact fees pose an interesting option for cities that anticipate growth of any scale. “A
development impact fee is a monetary exaction other than a tax or special ass essment that is
charged by a local governmental agency to an applicant in connection with approval of a
development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related
to the development project. (Gov. Code § 66000(b).) The legal requirements for enactment of a
development impact fee program are set forth in Government Code §§ 66000-66025 (the "Mitigation
A6 - 16GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 12
Fee Act"), the bulk of which were adopted as 1987’s AB 1600 and thus are commonly referred to as
“AB 1600 requirements.” A development impact fee is not a tax or special assessment; by its
definition, a fee is voluntary and must be reasonably related to the cost of the service provided by
the local agency. If a development impact fee does not relate to the impact created by development
or exceeds the reasonable cost of providing the public service, then the fee may be declared a
special tax and must then be subject to a two -thirds voter approval. Developer impact fees are
exactions of either money or built improveme nts from a developer to mitigate the impacts to the
public infrastructure of that development.”3
Developer fees are typically done in one of two ways: 1) through predetermined fees tied to a nexus
study and charged to applicable development projects; or 2) on an ad hoc basis drafted for a
particular development. While the former requires a rigorous nexus study and is often based on the
expectation of significant future development, it will apply to all future development and provides a
known cost for developers as they plan projects. The latter method is often attractive for
municipalities that have no adopted developer fees and allows for flexibility in determining impacts
and creative methods for mitigating them. However, the ad hoc method carries with it a higher
burden for the agency to demonstrate the reasonable nexus and a rough propo rtionality to the impact
created by the development project. It also deprives developers from knowing in advance the cost
to their projects.
One of the impacts of new development that can be tied to a fee is that of stormwater quality. Most
new development is already subject to C.3 requirements, which mitigate many of the direct
stormwater pollution impacts for a particular site. Therefore, it may be difficult to demonstrate
additional impacts that can be mitigated through planned GI. One way would be t o tie local or
regional GI needs to the community at large and include each project’s fair share of the associated
costs in a development fee structure for GI. Another way may be to develop an overall stormwater
impact fee nexus (including GI) that can be applied to new development.
3 A Short Overview of Development Impact Fees, City Attorneys Department, California League of Cities, 2003. http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/resources__overviewimpactfees.pdf
A6 - 17 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 13
3.3.2 DELIVERY OF STORMWATER SERVICES: RE-ALIGNMENT OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES
One approach for delivering stormwater services that has significant appeal is realignment.
Realignment is the term used here to describe the reorganization
of management, staffing, service units and/or budgets from
“traditional” stormwater management services to the more -
easily funded water, sewer and/or refuse collection services.
This applies to the distinctions drawn in Proposition 218
between stormwater and the other three property-related fees
where stormwater requires a ballot proceeding and the
other three enterprises do not. Therefore, any
stormwater activity that falls within the scope of
the other three services can be funded by fees
without a ballot proceeding.
For example, trash capture activities and
infrastructure can be considered refuse collection and ca n be funded by garbage fees. Another
example could be certain kinds of low impact development where stormwater is infiltrated into the
ground where it contributes to the replenishment of
the drinking water aquifer.
This may not be as easy as it seems. First, any fee
structure must rely on an analysis of how costs for
service are spread across property types. Second,
reorganizing budgets or service units within a
municipal structure can be challenging, and in many
areas those non-stormwater services are delivered
by special districts instead of the municipality making reorganization impossible. Finally, just because
the water, wastewater or refuse collection services do not need to pursue a ballot measure to
increase rates, the public’s willingness to pay is still at issue and a public hearing is still required.
Many rate payers pay close attention to any rate increase, and elected officials are under constant
pressure to keep increases to a minimum.
3.4 GRANTS AND LOANS
3.4.1 GRANTS4
Federal, state, and regional grant programs have funding available to local governments to support
GI efforts. These grant programs include:
▪California Proposition 1 (Water Quantity, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of
2014) Stormwater Implementation Grant Program;
▪US Environmental Protection Agency: San Francisco Bay Water Q uality Improvement
Fund;
4 This section is taken from a Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13, 2018
from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
Stormwater
Wastewater
Refuse
Water
A6 - 18GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 14
▪ California Water Resources Control Board: 319(h) Non-Point Source Implementation
Program;5
▪ California Department of Water Resources: Integrated Regional Water Management
Program Implementation Grants;
▪ California State Parks: Land & Water Conservation Fund and Rails-to-Trails Programs;
▪ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: Urban and Community Program;
▪ Strategic Growth Council: Urban Greening Program;
▪ California Office of Emergency Services (OES) 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program;
▪ Caltrans Cooperative Implementation Agreements or Grants Program; and
▪ One Bay Area Grant Program (transportation projects).
Other potential grant resources that may be tapped in the future to support GI include Greenhouse
Gas Reduction Funds derived from the California Cap and Trade Program.
As a result of Senate Bill 985, now incorporated into the California Water Code, stormwater capture
and use projects must be part of a prioritized list of projects in a Stormwater Resource Plan in order
to compete for state grant funds from any voter-approved bond measures. Advantages of using grant
funding may include the following:
▪ Grants can fund programs or systems that would otherwise take up significant general
fund revenues;
▪ Grants often fund new and innovative ideas that a local agency might otherwise be
reluctant to take on using general funds;
▪ Grants can be leveraged with other sources of funding increasing the viability, benefits,
and/or size of a project; and
▪ Successful implementation of a grant-funded project can establish a record that can lead
to other grants.
Challenges with using grants as a funding approach typically include:
▪ Grants are opportunistic in that local governments have no control over when grant
monies will become available. However, in some cases opportunities to apply for grants
and the anticipated level and timeline of the funding are scheduled well in advance ;
▪ Grants are often available only once for the same purpose, which can lead to agencies
creating ever “new” programs to qualify for funds. Other “strings” can be attached to the
grant creating implementation or maintenance complexities;
▪ Grants are competitive. Considerable resources may be required to apply for a grant
with no guarantee of success;
5 Projects or activities required by or that implement a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, including
urban, area-wide stormwater programs covering discharges from a MS4, are not eligible for funding under Section
319(h) grants.
A6 - 19 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 15
▪Some level of matching funds is usually required. Some types of funds cannot be
matched with other types. For example, some federal funds are pass -through via the
state, but they are still considered federal and may therefore not be eligible as a match
with other federal funds; and
▪Most grants have a requirement for the agency to provide adequate post-project
maintenance for the improvement. This can impose significant costs on the agency that
are not funded by the grant.
While grant funding can help propel a GI program forward, it typically requires another source of
funding to cover grant obligations such as matching funds or post -project maintenance. This
understanding helps to underscore the importance of an underlying, dedicated and sustainable
revenue source such as a stormwater fee or tax.
3.4.2 LOANS
Long-term debt financing can be a valuable tool to use for funding important projects and programs.
It is not a source of new funding in and of itself, but rather allows an agency to leverage an ongoing
revenue stream by borrowing money for immediate needs such as capital construction, which is then
repaid over time. While GO bonds (discussed above) are a type of debt instrument that requires
voter approval, other forms of long-term debt do not require voter approval such as certificates of
participation (COPs) or loans from a state revolving fund (SRF). COPs are a type of municipal bond
that usually has relatively low interest rates but is only secured by the agency’s ability to repay and
can have substantial administrative costs.
The California Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is one type of SRF that may be a good
option for agencies. These loans are secured by a reliable source of revenue such as dedicated fees
or taxes, and typically have below-market interest rates and very low administrative costs. In the past
these loans have been for wastewater treatment plants but are now opening up to green stormwater
projects. The CWSRF also has a principal forgiveness program for projects related to water or energy
efficiency and stormwater runoff sustainability or mitigation projects. The program can forgive up to
50% of eligible capital costs and 75% of eligible planning costs, up to a cap of $4 million.
Debt financing for GI has become more viable this year with a clarification from the Government
Accounting Standards Board (Statement #62, or “GASB 62”) that distributed infrastructure can be
considered an asset upon which an agency can capitalize and therefore can more easily be included
in a bonded debt program. Distributed infrastructure is a term for smaller improvements that are
often distributed around an area – sometimes on private property – like green roofs, rain barrels,
bioswales, and pervious pavements. GASB goes so far to include the cost of rebate programs for
distributed infrastructure as well.
It is important to note that while long-term debt provides immediate funding for projects, it is not a
new source of funds. It simply converts a dedicated, sustainable revenue stream (e.g., fees or taxes)
into near-term funding. Without the dedicated, sustainable revenue stream, long -term debt is not
usually an option.
A6 - 20GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 16
3.5 ASSESSMENTS & SPECIAL FINANCING DISTRICTS
Special financing districts are not the same as special districts, which are a form of governance with
their own elected board and scope of services. Special financing districts are simply financial
structures created by local governments for the purpose of levying taxes, fees , or assessments for
specific improvements and/or services provided. These include benefit assessments, community
facilities districts, business improvement districts, and infrastructure financing districts.
Most special financing districts require a balloting of affected property owners, but these are typically
either a very small area (like a business district) or are applied to single land owner s such as a
developer in the process of a new development.
3.5.1 BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS
Benefit assessment districts can levy charges that correlate to special benefits conferred on property
by virtue of improvements or services. These can range from landscaping, lighting, recreation
facilities, parks, fire protection, mosquito abatement, and even cemeteries. Most benefit assessment
districts are governed by a statute, which can vary depending on the type of service or improvement.
All benefit assessments must comply with Proposition 218, which limits assessments to the special
benefits conferred, but cannot be levied based on any general benefit (such as to properties outside
the district boundary or to the general public at large). The portion of the benefits that are general
must be funded from sources other than the benefit assessments – such as a city’s general fund.
This general benefit factor can become prohibitive in some cases.
As they pertain to GI, property owners in a watershed could be assessed to fund stormwater runoff
management programs that provide direct benefit to properties within that water shed or sub-basin.
The watershed unit may be particularly effective and equitable as programs ca n be tailored to
address specific priorities identified within that watershed and would include the diverse socio -
economic demographics from the hills to the flatlands typical to a Bay Area urban watershed.
Benefit assessments are not taxes or fees and must be approved by a weighted majority6 of the
affected property owners that cast votes. Benefit assessments typically are collected as part of the
annual property tax bill.
3.5.2 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS (MELLO-ROOS)
Community Facilities Districts, more commonly known as “CFDs” or “Mello-Roos Districts”, are a
form of special tax, and must be approved by property owners or registered voters.7 Similar to benefit
assessments, these are often formed during the development process for a finite set of parcels
owned by a single entity, and thus there would only be a single ballot . Oftentimes, formation of a
CFD will be included in the conditions of approval for a development, so the balloting is more of a
formality.
6 In a ballot proceeding for a benefit assessment, ballots are weighted by the amount of the assessment to be levied.
As a result, property owners faced with large assessments wield more weight in the balloting.
7 A CFD tax is balloted to property owners if there are fewer than 12 registered voters in the district. Otherwise the
balloting is by registered voters.
A6 - 21 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 17
As a tax, the structure of the charges and the use of the funding is much more flexible than for a
benefit assessment. For instance, publicly-owned property can be exempted as well as other classes
of properties (such as commercial properties in a school-based CFD). In addition, general benefit
does not need to be considered or funded from other sources. Finally, CFD taxes are easily
structured to allow for future expansion to other properties that are developed in the future. They
need not be contiguous to the original (or seed) development.
As they pertain to GI, the flexibility inherent in a CFD tax would allow flexibility in the types of
improvements or services that are funded . However, as a tool primarily used for new development,
the proceeds may be restricted to improvements and services for those new developments only.
3.5.3 BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
A Business Improvement District (BID) is a mechanism in which businesses and property owners tax
themselves and manage the funds to build or maintain certain assets. The BID can be set up and
administered by the community members. For example, the Dogpatch and Northwest Potrero Hill
Green Benefit District (http://dnwph-gbd.org) is a Green Business Improvement District in San
Francisco developed to fund and maintain the public-realm landscaping in the area. The landscape
staff used to maintain this landscaping can be trained in GI maintenance practices and qualified in
sustainable landscaping services.
3.5.4 ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICTS
In 2014, the California Legislature approved the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD)
structure. EIFDs have emerged as a potential replacement for Redevelopment Agencies which were
eliminated in 2012. Cities and counties may create EIFDs to capture ad valorem tax increments,
similar to the now-defunct Redevelopment Agencies, to invest within the specific District boundaries
or out-of-area projects that have a tangible benefit to the District. EIFDs are not limited to blighted
areas and can directly, or through bond financing, fund local infrastructure including highways,
transit, water systems, sewer projects, flood control, libraries, parks, and solid waste facilities.
However, similar to grant funding and certain bond financing, EIFD funding cannot be used fo r
ongoing operations and maintenance of facilities.
The tax increment is defined as the increase in ad valorem property taxes due to increases in
assessed value associated with improvements. However, the one percent ad valorem tax is split
amongst many local agencies with school districts typically receiving approximately 50% of that
revenue – a share that is not eligible for EIFD participation. Other tax-sharing agencies can
participate in an EIFD, but that participation is strictly voluntary. As a result, the revenue potential of
an EIFD is estimated to be about 20% of a comparable redevelopment agency.
The formation of an EIFD requires consent from all the participating local agencies through a Joint
Powers Authority but does not require voter approval unless bonds are to be issued. Other
requirements include the preparation of an Infrastructure Financing Plan and formation of a Public
Finance Authority. If an EIFD is proposed for an area that had been a redevelopment agency, the
successor agency must have a Finding of Completion for all redevelopment obligations prior to
A6 - 22GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 18
receiving any new tax increment. An EIFD can run for up to 45 years, which provides flexibility in
the issuance of bonded debt.
This financing structure may be a good fit for localized areas where stormwater infrastructure and
water quality are major concerns – particularly environmental clean-up on private properties. An
EIFD can be created with multiple municipalities, so it can span political boundaries making it a good
fit for a watershed approach to GI funding. However, no EIFDs are known to include multiple
jurisdictions at this time.
EIFDs also present a few challenges. Very few EIFDs have been formed in the State, and GI has
not been highlighted in any of the plans to date (see table below showing the types of improvements
of existing EIFDs). The EIFD concept is aimed at funding improvements that spur development in a
district, which in turn increases the assessed property value (and thus the property tax revenues).
The improvements are therefore seen as an economic engine that generates its own revenue
(increased property taxes, or tax increment). Whether GI can be viewed as a viable “economic
engine” has not yet been demonstrated, but the case could possibly be made.
Another drawback for EIFDs is the pace of revenues. Because the “economic engine” must come
before the properties increase in value, funding is typically provided through bonds (or debt of some
sort). This requires a revenue stream of substance and reliabl e pace in order to qualify for
reasonable bond rates. For this reason, EIFDs are typically structured around major, transformative
community infrastructure projects such as transportation (e.g., rail station, new freeway access) or
primary infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, parks, water, sewer and other utilities. While GI
may fit well within a suite of infrastructure projects, it may be a weak “economic engine” on its own.
Furthermore, any agency contemplating the formation of an EIFD (a cumbersom e and expensive
task) is likely to favor the more high-powered engines. In addition, EIFDs typically rely on other
revenue sources such as grants, bonds, assessments, taxes and private sources in order to help
cover revenue gaps with the tax increment revenues.
One possible example of a GI-based EIFD could be an industrial area that requires mitigation for
PCBs, mercury or other pollutants where the mitigation measure may lie outside the area (e.g., a
regional GI project). Since EIFD proceeds may be spent outside the district when there is a tangible
benefit to the district, the EIFD may fund part or all of the GI project. Furthermore, if there are fewer
than 12 registered voters in the EIFD, the approval for bonds would be a landowner (not registered
voter) election – oftentimes more politically viable. Finally, the EIFD may also impose other taxes
(subject to voter approval) that could serve as seed-money funding until the tax increment revenues
are mature enough to support bonds.
A6 - 23 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 19
SUMMARY OF PROS AND CONS
Pros Cons
No voter approval required (unless bonds are to be
issued)
Voter approval is required if bonds are to be issued
(55% majority)
No blight finding is required Revenue potential is about 20% of a comparable
RDA
Proceeds can be used for a wide variety of
improvements
Proceeds cannot be used for operations,
maintenance and repairs
May be used with other funding sources such as
grants, bonds, assessments, taxes or private
sources
Revenues start slow and build only after properties
are developed - bonds may have to be delayed until
revenues can support them
Proceeds can be spent outside district if a tangible
benefit is provided to district
CEQA review may be required
Multiple agencies can join together Getting approval from other agencies can be
difficult
As a legal government entity, an EIFD may impose
other taxes and assessments (subject to voter
approval)
Improvements must have a 15-year life
No low- or moderate-income housing requirement
Areas need not be contiguous
A6 - 24GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 20
EXAMPLES OF EIFDS
Only a handful of cities have formed an EIFD. Three recent EIFDs are highlighted in the table below
to illustrate the process, financial structure, revenue potential and other features of an EIFD.
City West Sacramento La Verne Otay Mesa (San Diego)
Other Agencies none none none
Sub Areas 14 3 none
Size (acres)4,144 144 ~ 9,500
Duration 45 years 45 years 45 years
Housing Relocations?none none none
Improvements
54% - Transportation
23% - Econ Dev
10% - Parks & Rec
10% - Parks & Rec
10% - Parks & Rec
5% - Parking
4% - City Buildings
4%-Water,Sewer,
Drainage
57% - Water
21% - Ped Access
9% - Streets & Traffic
7% - Sewer
6% - Other Utility
75% - Transportation
17% - Park
3% - Water & Sewer
2% - Police
2% - Fire
2% - Library
Drainage Improvements $5m (0.3%)not specified not specified
Cost of Improvements $1.1b (2017) $33m (2017) $1.2b (2014)
Other Funding?yes yes
Cumul Tax Increment $1.23b (2017) ~ $50m (2017) ~ $500m (2014)
For a summary of EIFDs and the processes involved with formation, please visit the League of
California Cities website:
https://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Hot-Issues/New-Tax-Increment-Tools
A6 - 25 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 21
4 POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR MEETING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
As discussed above, traditional stormwater funding options were already out of step with a
contemporary view of stormwater management imperatives before GI became a priority. Once again,
the “need” outstrips the “ability to fund” as GI expands the horizon of possibilities in managing our
built environment and the role stormwater and other water elements play in that endeavor. In this
section, several emerging strategies are discussed that have been adapted to GI and other
stormwater approaches both inside and outside of California. The have been grouped into two
categories:
Alternative Compliance
4.1 Alternative Compliance
4.1.1 In-Lieu Fee Challenges
4.1.2 Credit Trading Programs
Partnerships
4.2.1 Multi-Agency
4.2.2 Transportation
4.2.3 Caltrans Mitigation
4.2.4 Public-Private ("P3")
4.2.5 Financial Capability Assessment
4.2.6 Volunteers
4.1 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
The MRP 2.0 contains a vast array of elements for which compliance is required, both for private
development and for public agencies. For many individual cases, compliance may be impractical or
impossible, and the Regional Water Board has shown a willingness to consider alternate compliance
in one form or another. Provision C.3.e.i. of the MRP 2.0 allows the following alternative compliance
options:
▪Construction of a joint stormwater treatment facility;8
▪Construction of a stormwater treatment system off-site (on public or other private
property); and
▪Payment of an in-lieu fee9 for a regional project (on another public or private property).
Each option comes with obligations for municipal staff in addition to other pros and cons for the
municipality and developer. Currently, qualified urban infill redevelopment projects in the Bay Area
8 The MRP 2.0 defines Joint Stormwater Treatment Facility as a facility built to treat the combined runoff from two or
more Regulated Projects.
9 The MRP 2.0 defines In-lieu Fees as a monetary amount necessary to provide both hydraulically-sized treatment (in
accordance with Provision C.3.d.) with LID treatment measures of an equivalent quantity of stormwater runoff and
pollutant loading, and a proportional share of the operation and maintenance costs of the Regional Project.
A6 - 26GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 22
that have site constraints that limit use of LID treatment measures often take advantage of the
Special Project option in MRP 2.0 Provision C.3.e.ii. However, the Special Project option may not be
included in future MRPs, and municipalities may want to start taking advantage of the alternative
compliance option to fund and/or construct municipal GI projects. Some municipalities may have to
update the stormwater section of their municipal codes to allow for one or more of these alternative
compliance options.10
There have been numerous examples of off-site construction of LID facilities in the Bay Area. One
such example is in the City of Emeryville in 2017. A summary of this project was presented as a case
study in the Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13, 2018
from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. This is reproduced in
Appendix B.
4.1.1 IN-LIEU FEE CHALLENGES
In-lieu fees are attractive in the GI arena as they could be a source of funding for regional projects
that help an agency meet their GI Plan goals. There are two basic ways to collect in-lieu fees for
alternative compliance: Ad hoc approach; and structured approach .
The ad hoc approach is done on a case-by-case basis and is usually negotiated with an individual
developer depending on the financial and logistical circumstances. This presents challenges and
opportunities, but the agency’s leverage is limited to its discretionary authority and compliance with
local regulations and the MRP 2.0. One advantage is that the outcome can be customized to the
project. For instance, compliance could be severed into any (or all) of three options: on-site
construction; off-site construction; and in-lieu fee contribution. An ad hoc approach allows for out-of-
the-box thinking. This is often the course followed for agencies that have few and sporadic
development projects. But for agencies with a steady stream of development, it can be laborious to
the point of overwhelming.
A structured approach would typically follow the developer fee model (AB 1600). This would end up
with a set of in-lieu fees adopted and published in the agency’s master fee schedule. However, the
path to that end must include a comprehensive nexus study complete with goals, objectives, project
lists, and a reasoned methodology linking development impacts or compliance needs to projects –
possibly by geographic or watershed zones – and options for variations and other administrative
chores. For agencies that are larger and experience numerous development projects (particularly
small to midsized projects), the effort to adopt in -lieu fees would be worthwhile. It allows staff to
simply apply the scheduled fees to each project as it comes around . At the same time, for larger
projects that enter into a developer agreement, those adopted fees could be set aside for a more
creative or appropriate ad hoc approach.
One key element to an in-lieu fee program is the identification of in-lieu projects. Since GI is still an
emerging art or science, there are few templates available to identify GI projects and their life-cycle
10 Taken from the Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13, 2018 from the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
A6 - 27 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 23
costs. However, the GI Plans being developed in conjunction with this report will go a long way
toward meeting this challenge.
4.1.2 CREDIT TRADING PROGRAM
Another type of alternative compliance program is a credit trading program. Credits are created by
one property owner whose project has the capacity to overbuild the on-site LID, which is then traded
to other property owners who may not be able to meet their MRP 2.0 requirements. The program is
typically managed by a government agency and can create incentives to treat stormwater in excess
of the NDPES permit requirements on regulated sites, while also creating incentives to install
systems that treat stormwater on non-regulated sites. One example of a credit trading program is the
one developed by Washington D.C.’s Department of Energy and the Environment.11 The MRP 2.0
does not specifically mention credit trading programs, but such a program could be developed in
consultation with the Regional Water Board as a form of alternative compliance.12
As this applies to GI, the public agency could become more than just the broker of credits and
become a creator or consumer of credits to be applied toward its GI goals. These credits would be
a form of currency, analogous to the in-lieu fees described in the previous section.
4.2 PARTNERSHIPS AND OTHER STRATEGIES
By teaming up with other entities, an agency may not generate additional funding directly, but
partnerships offer many other benefits that can aid in the overall resources needed to deliver projects
such as GI improvements. These can come in the form of economy-of-scale savings or multi-benefit
projects that can achieve multiple goals for a single price . Several such strategies, as well as some
other beneficial strategies, are discussed below.
4.2.1 MULTI-AGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
Some resources and project opportunities do not match agency boundaries, and multi-agency
partnerships can take advantage of those situations. For example, regional projects are a natural fit
for multi-agency partnerships. Every agency tends to have strengths and weaknesses: Some are
excellent at grant writing and obtaining grants but lack in project delivery capacity or local
environmental conditions that fit certain grants (such as GI opportunities), while other agencies may
have complementary strengths. By sharing resources and funding, regional projects can be delivered
more efficiently – “more bang for the buck.” Economy-of-scale savings can help cut costs – in some
cases substantially – and GI projects and programs are no exception.
Challenges and opportunities abound in such partnerships. For example, developing mechanisms
for sharing the planning, capital, operations and maintenance and administrative chores can be
challenging. On the other hand, these types of projects can be an opportunity to be either a generator
of trading credits or a way to invest trading credits (as described in an earlier section). In addition,
such partnerships can be a source of multi-benefit projects – projects that can achieve GI goals as
well as other important public and private goals.
11 https://doee.dc.gov/src
12 Taken from the Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13, 2018 from the Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
A6 - 28GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 24
4.2.2 TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES
For more than ten years, local development projects have been required to incorporate some sort of
LID and hydrograph modification features. More recently, transportation projects have come under
NPDES requirements to include similar elements. The complete streets and green streets
movements have brought more attention to incorporating environmental mitigation elements, such
as LID, into traditional transportation projects – even where NPDES permits do not require it. The
resulting multi-benefit projects have begun to demonstrate how transportation funding can be
leveraged to satisfy stormwater – and GI – goals economically.
In San Mateo County, where the governing body for transportation funding (C/CAG) is the same as
for NPDES compliance, there have been many examples of transportation funds being leveraged to
include stormwater quality elements. Even for federally funded projects, Caltrans is becoming more
flexible in these applications. One example is the Active Transportation funding.
4.2.3 CALTRANS MITIGATION COLLABORATION
Caltrans operates under its own statewide NPDES permit in parallel with municipal permitees. In
many cases, Caltrans and local agencies operate along the same drainage system with one
discharging into the other’s facilities. Thus, NPDES requirements are sometimes a shared obligation.
In some cases, Caltrans has funding available to mitigate various pollutant loading that can be shared
with local agencies through Cooperative Implementation Agreements to pursue local or regional GI
projects. In this way, Caltrans can often meet its pollutant load mitigation requirements outside their
limited rights of way while benefiting local watershed objectives using Caltrans funding in partnership
with the local agencies.
4.2.4 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS (P3)13
Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) have the potential to help many communities optimize their limited
resources through agreements with private parties to help build and maintain their public
infrastructure. P3s have successfully designed, built, and maintained many types of public
infrastructure such as roads and drinking water/wastewater utilities across the U.S. Until a few years
ago, there were no efforts to develop P3s specifically for stormwater management or Clean Water
Act requirements.
The EPA Region 3 Water Protection Division (WPD), in the mid-Atlantic region, has been
researching, benchmarking, and evaluating P3s for their potential adaptation and use in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. On December 6, 2012, the EPA Region 3 WPD hosted a P3 Experts
Roundtable in Philadelphia, PA. The goal of the P3 Roundtable was to provide a forum for a targeted
group of private sector representatives to discuss in detail the feasibility, practicality, and benefits of
using P3s to assist jurisdictions in the finance, design, construction, and O&M of an urban stormwater
retrofit program. The results of this Roundtable were published in "A Guide for Local Governments,"
the foundation and approach for applying a stormwater P3 model across the Chesapeake Bay
13 This section is taken from the Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13, 2018
from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
A6 - 29 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 25
watershed. This guide provides communities with an opportunity to review the capacity and potential
to develop a P3 program to help “close the gap” between current resources and the funding that will
be required to meet stormwater regulatory commitments and community stormwater management
needs. In addition, this guide and the tools presented (fees/rebates, credit/offset trades, and
grants/subsidies) are a continuing effort, commitment, and partnership between EPA Region 3 and
communities in the Chesapeake Bay region. EPA believes it will help to raise the bar and further
advance the restoration goals and objectives for the Chesapeake Bay (EPA 2015).
In California, P3-enabling legislation was enacted by the state in 2007 , and since then several
agencies have used P3s for public infrastructure projects, such as Caltrans with the Presidio Parkway
(Doyle Drive) approach to the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, and the State of California
judicial system with a courthouse in Long Beach.14 However, to date, there are no known P3s that
have been developed in the state for the explicit purpose of implementing GI. Prince George’s County
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed is the most often cited example of a GI program using a P3 ;
however, they are able to use their stormwater fee for their program.
In California there is a scarcity of agencies that have stormwater fees that can be leveraged in a P3
program – this is related to the historically difficult Proposition 218 process of establishing dedicated
stormwater funding. California stands alone in that regard – all the other states make it easier to
establish such funding streams. However, under SB 231, this may be changing in the near future as
a select group of municipalities begin to navigate the new options allowed under that legislation.
The non-profit organization, WCX (the West Coast Infrastructure Exchange), has promoted Prince
George’s P3 model in California and the west coast and released a report on water resiliency projects
in 2016.15 WCX is involved at the state and regional levels to increase awareness of P3s and other
infrastructure tools.
Advantages of using P3s include:
▪Leveraging public funds while minimizing impacts to a municipality’s debt capacity;
▪Accessing advanced technologies;
▪Improved asset management;
▪Drawing on private sector expertise and financing;
▪Benefits to the local economic development and “green jobs ;” and
▪Relieving pressure on internal local government resources.
14 For other examples of P3s in California go to: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Public-
Private_Partnership_Policy_Casebook
15 http://westcoastx.com/assets/documents/Resilience%20Report/WCX%20Resilience%20Report.pdf
A6 - 30GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 26
4.2.5 FINANCIAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT16
In 2014, the EPA implemented a process by which communities that meet certain financial capability
criteria can apply for some relief in the schedules for compliance with some of their NPDES
stormwater permit elements. This process is called the “Financial Capability Assessment Framework
for Municipal Clean Water Act Requirements.” The framework is designed to help communities
develop a more accurate and complete picture of their ability to pay for Clean Water Act obligations,
emphasizing factors beyond the 2% threshold for median income.
The new framework builds on EPA’s 1997 “Combined Sewer Overflows —Guidance for Financial
Capability Assessment and Schedule Development,” but emphasizes the role of supplemental
information. The framework mentions a host of factors that can be used to assess a community’s
financial condition, including poverty rates, income distributions, bond ratings, debt levels, historic
water and sewer rates, and more. Additionally, the framework encourages communities to examine
all Clean Water Act obligations, from combined sewer overflow consent decree actions, to
stormwater permit programs, to wastewater treatment plant upgrades. In this way, the framework
also builds on EPA’s 2012 Integrated Planning Framework.
It should be noted that this assessment does not help to generate additional funding, nor does it
allow an agency to avoid compliance with permit requirements. It can allow an agency to work with
the EPA and the Regional Board to work out an alternative compliance schedule depending on the
community’s financial capabilities.
4.2.6 VOLUNTEERS
Volunteerism is alive and well in the Bay Area. In some cases, local agencies cultivate volunteer
programs to assist in achieving various goals; in other cases, volunteer groups work under the
direction of non-profit organizations. Habitat stewardship and protection is one area that garners
much attention from volunteers, and their work often overlaps with municipal stormwater
management services. This type of activity can have some application for GI in the form of planting
and caring for landscaped improvements such as rain gardens and bioswales.
While the work performed by a volunteer workforce can help a local agency meet its GI goals, it can
also be difficult to recruit, oversee, and manage volunteers. Reliability and quality of work can be
challenging at times, too.
Benefits of a volunteer program can include public education and building community support for the
agency’s stormwater management program (and possibly a future fee impl ementation). One
example of a volunteer program that supports GI is the Green Street Steward Program in Portland,
Oregon.
16 This section is taken from the Green Infrastructure Funding Options technical memorandum dated February 13,
2018 from the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
A6 - 31 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 27
5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
5.1 SUMMARY
This paper has illustrated the reasons stormwater, as a primary municipal service, is largely less
valued and more difficult to fund than similar services including water, sewer, and refuse collection.
While stormwater began to emerge as a fully regulated public works enterprise a few years before
Proposition 218 was enacted in 1996, that new status was not widely embraced by public agencies
or acknowledged by taxpayer advocates. Further, Proposition 218 was not sufficiently explicit on the
key question of whether stormwater qualifies for the water, sewer, and refuse collection exemption
from the voter approval requirement. This issue was settled in 2002 when the appellate court ruled17
that any new or increased stormwater fee would be required to obtain voter approval. However, SB
231 (2017) attempts to push back on the Salinas decision, and may prove to be the vehicle for putting
funding for stormwater services on par with the other water-related services.
GI funding is both a subset of and an expansion of stormwater funding . By aiming at a significant
increase in permeating rain water into the ground, GI enters into the disciplines of aquifer geology,
soils engineering, road pavement, transportation, landscaping, habitat management, and other
onsite and offsite planning, design and construction considerations. The need to finance activities
such as strategic, policy and financial planning, capital construction, and operations and
maintenance across these disciplines further complicates the challenge.
No single funding strategy will typically suffice. Most agencies will need to develop several funding
sources – a portfolio approach. For instance, a sustainable, dedicated fee or tax will form a solid
base from which to work but is rarely sufficient in the amount of revenue that can be realized .
However, that type of revenue stream can be leveraged to win grants, take on long-term debt, and
pursue opportunities for partnering or participating in credit-trading programs.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Several funding mechanisms have been explored in this report. However, this is just a starting point
for funding the scope of GI projects envisioned by the GI plans. As those GI plans are further drafted
and adopted, the funding aspect must be explored further . It is recommended that the member
agencies select a limited number of funding options or strategies for further study and identify some
specific priority funding options at the outset of GI Plan adoption. For instance, the member agencies
may choose to look further into enhanced infrastructure financing districts as a way to fund certain
types of GI. Parcel taxes or property-related fees may be worth developing as they would form a
backbone of revenue that can open many other possibilities such as grants, partnerships, and long-
term debt. And developing a credit trading program can help bring public and private participants to
the same table to help achieve the ambitious GI goals of the current and future MRPs.
17 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association versus the City of Salinas, Sixth Appellate District, 2002.
A6 - 32GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 28
As member agencies proceed to develop their individual GI Plans, they are encouraged to draw from
the information contained in this report to select potential funding sources to investigate further.
Considerations should include the following elements:
▪ Collaborating with neighboring agencies to explore cross-boundary opportunities such
as EIFDs, watershed-based solutions and regional projects; and
▪ Reviewing case studies from around the country with discussion of how those examples
could be tailored to meet GI goals;
▪ Collaborating with similar efforts in other Bay Area counties, BASMAA, and CASQA;18
▪ Cultivating support from agency leadership (Council and City Manager); and
▪ Understanding the costs associated with certain options.
C/CAG may also consider conducting workshops that help educate member agency staff on the
nuances of funding opportunities and challenges.
It is also worth noting that, while member agencies are working on their individual GI Plans, the
County and C/CAG are currently developing a proposal for a new agency to plan, build and maintain
projects of regional significance which could complement, or possibly supplement, local GI needs as
well as address sea level rise and flooding challenges. Funding could be provided through a
countywide property tax or similar mechanism.
5.3 ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
This report is intended to introduce member agencies to many funding strategies, but there is much
more to be learned in the form of case studies, work done in other regions or states, or new, emerging
strategies not included here. Several other outlets of information are provided below, and the reader
is urged to explore these further.
5.3.1 EPA WATER FINANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
The Environmental Protection Agency has long recognized that funding challenges can be a
significant barrier to successful GI implementation. In an effort to help public agencies around the
country, they have developed a website as a clearing house for information on funding for drinking
water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. It can be found at the following url:
https://ofmpub.epa.gov/apex/wfc/f?p=165:1::::::
The Water Finance Clearinghouse includes two searchable databases: one contains available
funding sources for water infrastructure and the second contains resources, such as reports,
weblinks, webinars, etc., on financing mechanisms and approaches that can help communities
access capital to meet their water infrastructure needs.
18 This acronym stands for the California Stormwater Quality Association.
A6 - 33 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 29
The Water Finance Clearinghouse was developed by EPA’s Water Infrastructure Finance and
Resiliency Center, an information and assistance center identifying water infrastructure financing
approaches that help communities reach their public health and environmental goals.
5.3.2 S.T.O.R.M.S.
The State Water Board has launched a program entitled, “Strategy to Optimize Resource
Management of Storm Water” (STORMS, or Storm Water Strategy). One key element of this program
is “Project 4b, Eliminate Barriers to Funding Storm Water Programs,” which will utilize f ocused
stakeholder workshops to identify barriers to stormwater projects and strategies for local agencies
to meet those challenges.
Watch for these workshops in the near future. The website can be found here:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/storms/
5.3.3 CASQA WHITE PAPERS
The California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) developed the following white papers in
2017:
▪Stormwater Funding Barriers and Opportunities (CASQA 2017); and
▪Use of Triple Bottom Line Analyses to Support Stormwater Objectives (CASQA 2017).
These and other resources will be posted on the CASQA Stormwater Funding Resources web page:
https://www.casqa.org/resources/funding-resources
5.3.4 RESILIENT BY DESIGN FINANCING GUIDE
The Resilient by Design (“RbD”) Bay Area Challenge was “a year-long collaborative design challenge
bringing together local residents, public officials and local, national and international experts to
develop innovative community-based solutions that will strengthen our region’s resilience to sea level
rise, severe storms, flooding and earthquakes.” Part of that effort included a finance advisory team
that issued a Financing Guide to provide guidance to design teams. The updated guide (Financing
Guide 2.0) produced at the conclusion of the process provides an excellent overview of finance
options and strategies for achieving funded projects. That guide can be found at the following url:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/579d1c16b3db2bfbd646bb4a/t/5b5f4da288251b0f228a990e/
1532972477684/RBD+Financing+Guide+%28NHA+Advisors%29+Final+Version+2a.pdf
5.4 CONCLUSION
The way forward is not entirely mapped out for GI and other stormwater funding challenges.
However, the tools already being used can be put to good use by a multitude of local agencies as
they traverse and overcome barriers to stormwater program implementation. Developing multi-
benefit projects and multi-agency partnerships will further help open funding doors as well.
Stormwater professionals, including municipal staff, elected representatives, consultants,
academics, and others must redouble their efforts to effec tively convey to decision-makers and the
A6 - 34GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 30
general public the importance of water quality and the funding of water quality. No longer can
stormwater professionals be satisfied with a lower status, but instead, must be creative, progressive,
political, forward-thinking and demanding.
A6 - 35 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 31
6 APPENDICES
The following pages contain three appendices:
A.Funding Matrix – A summary of the funding strategies contained in this report;
B.Alternative Compliance Case Study from Emeryville, CA; and
C.Potential Funding Source Analysis and Recommendations – Draft, C/CAG, 2014.
A6 - 36GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 32
6.1 APPENDIX A – FUNDING MATRIX
Traditional Mechanisms
3.1.1 Parcel Taxes
3.1.1 Other Special Taxes
3.1.2 Property-Related Fees
3.1.3 General Obligation Bonds
3.2 Senate Bill 231
3.3 Regulatory Fees
3.3 Developer Impact Fees
3.3.1 Re-Alignment
3.4.1 Grants
3.4.2 Loans
Special Financing Districts
3.5.1 Benefit Assessments
3.5.2 Community Facilities Districts
3.5.3 Business Improvement Districts
3.5.4 Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD)
Alternative Compliance
4.1 Alternative Compliance
4.1.1 In-Lieu Fee Challenges
4.1.2 Credit Trading Programs
Partnerships
4.2.1 Multi-Agency
4.2.2 Transportation
4.2.3 Caltrans Mitigation
4.2.4 Public-Private ("P3")
4.2.5 Financial Capability Assessment
4.2.6 Volunteers
Summary Matrix Contents
A6 - 37 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
A6 - 38GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 33
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M3.1.1 Parcel Taxes
Can fund all or any parts of a GI
program as stipulated in the
ballot question and authorizing
ordinance
Usually a 2/3 majority of voters
(general taxes require only 50%
majority, but can only go to
General Fund)
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Debt can be issued in most cases;
* Most voters are familiar with Parcel Taxes
* Requires voter approval at the 2/3 level;
* Must compete with other ballot measures X X X X
3.1.1 Other Special Taxes
* Business License Tax;
* Vehicle License Fees;
* Sales Tax;
* Utility Users Tax;
* Transient Occupancy Tax
Typically require a 2/3 voter
approval
* Most are flexible in how they can be used;
* 50% threshold can be used if a general tax
* 2/3 voter approval is diffucult to attain;
* Ballot measure can be expensive;
* If a general tax, then GI must compete with
other General Fund needs;
* Must compete with other ballot questions
X X X X
3.1.2 Property-Related Fees
Establishes Storm Drainage as a
separate utility service and can
fund all or any parts of a GI
program
Prop 218 compliance;
* Rigorous rate study;
* Must define services and
service area;
* Property owners approval for
non-Water, -Sewer, and -Garbage
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Debt can be issued in most cases
* Ballot measure required if for a Storm Drain
service - usually voted on by property owners
(Not registered voters);
* Ballot measure requires significant public
outreach;
* Public not familiar with balloted property-
related fees
X X X X
3.1.3 General Obligation Bonds
Can fund Capital GI Projects
through debt taken on by
municipality
* Voter approval at 2/3 level;
* Will need Financial Advising
Consultant
* Can fund capital projects or programs with
debt paid back over time through property
taxes;
* Typically easier to pass than a parcel tax;
* Taxes based on property value, so annual
obligation of individual prop owner is vague
Can only be used for capital costs - Cannot be
used for O&M or staff costs X X
3.2 Senate Bill 231
Allows for adoption of property-
related fees without having to go
to ballot
* Cost of Service Analysis
* Rate Study
* Prop 218 Protest Hearing
Avoids the cost and risk of a ballot measure
* Taxpayers groups vow to sue on grounds of
consititution / court provisions;
* Governing boards will still have political
pressure to not raise rates
X X X X
3.3 Regulatory Fees
Fees and charges for performing
administrative activities related
to GI
Cannot exceed the actual cost of
performing activities such as
permit issuance, inspections, on-
site mitigation, etc.
* No voter approval is needed;
* Usually included in Master Fee Schedule;
* Most municipalities already have these in
place
Does not pay for capital improvements or O&M X
Funding Category
Traditional Mechanisms
A6 - 39 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFUNDINGNEXUSEVALUATION
TASK 5.7OF THESMCWPPPGREEN INFRASTRUTUREPLANNINGPROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 33
GI NexusRequirementsProsConsStaff PlanningCapital O&M3.1.1Parcel Taxes
Can fund all or any parts of a GI
program as stipulated in the
ballot question and authorizing
ordinance
Usually a 2/3 majority of voters
(general taxes require only 50%
majority, but can only go to
General Fund)
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Debt can be issued in most cases;
* Most voters are familiar with Parcel Taxes
* Requires voter approval at the 2/3 level;
* Must compete with other ballot measuresXXXX
3.1.1Other Special Taxes
* Business License Tax;
* Vehicle License Fees;
* Sales Tax;
* Utility Users Tax;
* Transient Occupancy Tax
Typically require a 2/3 voter
approval
* Most are flexible in how they can be used;
* 50% threshold can be used if a general tax
* 2/3 voter approval is diffucult to attain;
* Ballot measure can be expensive;
* If a general tax, then GI must compete with
other General Fund needs;
* Must compete with other ballot questions
XXXX
3.1.2Property-Related Fees
Establishes Storm Drainage as a
separate utility service and can
fund all or any parts of a GI
program
Prop 218 compliance;
* Rigorous rate study;
* Must define services and
service area;
* Property owners approval for
non-Water, -Sewer, and -Garbage
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Debt can be issued in most cases
* Ballot measure required if for a Storm Drain
service - usually voted on by property owners
(Not registered voters);
* Ballot measure requires significant public
outreach;
* Public not familiar with balloted property-
related fees
XXXX
3.1.3General Obligation Bonds
Can fund Capital GI Projects
through debt taken on by
municipality
* Voter approval at 2/3 level;
* Will need Financial Advising
Consultant
* Can fund capital projects or programs with
debt paid back over time through property
taxes;
* Typically easier to pass than a parcel tax;
* Taxes based on property value, so annual
obligation of individual prop owner is vague
Can only be used for capital costs - Cannot be
used for O&M or staff costsXX
3.2Senate Bill 231
Allows for adoption of property-
related fees without having to go
to ballot
* Cost of Service Analysis
* Rate Study
* Prop 218 Protest Hearing
Avoids the cost and risk of a ballot measure
* Taxpayers groups vow to sue on grounds of
consititution / court provisions;
* Governing boards will still have political
pressure to not raise rates
XXXX
3.3Regulatory Fees
Fees and charges for performing
administrative activities related
to GI
Cannot exceed the actual cost of
performing activities such as
permit issuance, inspections, on-
site mitigation, etc.
* No voter approval is needed;
* Usually included in Master Fee Schedule;
* Most municipalities already have these in
place
Does not pay for capital improvements or O&MX
Funding Category
Traditional Mechanisms
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 34
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M3.3 Developer Impact Fees
Could incorporate fees for
mitigating stormwater
impacts to help fund GI -
Would not relieve developer
of NPDES requirements
Must comply with AB 1600 and
include a rigorous nexus study Could partially fund GI
* Requires a nexus study, often times by a
consultant;
* Nexus study must demonstrate
connection between development and GI
need;
* Administration of funds requires
resources;
* AB 1600 requires 5-year window for
programming funds;
X X
3.3.1 Re-Alignment
GI that promotes groundwater
recharge, diversion to
wastewater treatment, or
trash capture can be
incoporated into existing
property-related fee
structures without need for
ballot measure
Prop 218 compliance for
realignment to Water, Sewer
or Garbage - must
demonstrate applicability
* Existing non-balloted fee mechanisms can
help pay for GI services;
* Enhances integration of GI into other
muncipal activities;
* Causes other utilities to recognize the
value of GI programs
* Limited to activities attributable to other
funded revenue centers;
* Prop 218 hawks could challenge;
* Outside revenue center will need to raise
rates to fund GI activity - politically
unpopular;
* Has not been widely used;
* May be unpopular with Water, Sewer and
Garbage managers;
* Water or sewer may be handled by
separate agencies, making realignment
impossible
X X X X
3.4.1 Grants
One-time infusion of funds
for qualifying projects from
State or other granting
authority
* Project concept must
conform to grant
requirements;
* Most grants are competetive
with limit funding available
* Grants are outside sources of funding that
do not need to be repaid;
* Readiness is a plus, so can benefit a
project or program that is well developed
and possibly designed;
* Some State Revolving Fund loans can be
converted to grants through forgiveness
clauses
* Projects must be tailored to grant
requirements, possibly causing scope and
schedule creep;
* Most grants require matching funds from
other sources;
* Most grants require commitment to post-
project O&M, but do not fund those
activities;
* Little control over timing - can be difficult
to coordinate with other funding sources;
* Competitive nature lowers chances of
obtaining grant;
* Applying for grants can be time-
consuming and require outside help from a
grant writer;
* Grant administration requires significant
resources
X X X ???
Funding Category
A6 - 40GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 36
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M3.5.4 Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFD)
Captures property tax increment
similar to redevelopment (RDA)
for building and maintaining
infrastructure like GI
With No Debt:
* Establish a Public Finance
Authority;
* Adopt a Financing Plan;
* Resolution(s) from participating
agencies
With Debt:
* All of the above;
* Get approval from at least 55%
of voters in District
* Can fund many types of projects;
* Does not require a vote (unless debt is part of
the plan, then a 55% majority is required);
* Can include multiple municipalities and special
districts, so area can be tailored to needs (e.g.,
watersheds, high legacy pollutant areas,
countywide);
* Does not require a blight finding;
* Can overlap with former RDA areas;
* Works well with master planned community
with a single land owner;
* Planning costs can be paid for from proceeds
(with limitations);
* EIFD can go for up to 45 years
* Education districts are not permitted to
participate, so revenues would be much less
than RDA;
* If overlapping a former RDA area, then cannot
proceed until RDA is issued a finding of
completion from the State;
* GI is only a small piece of what an EIFD can do -
it may take a back seat to other, larger
community concerns;
* Some agencies (i.e., special districts) may not
agree to their portion of tax increment to be
diverted thereby reducing revenue potential
???X X
4.1 Alternative Compliance
Allows developers who cannot
meeting GI requirements on-site
to build (or pay for) off-site
construction of GI elements
Municipality would need to have
alternative projects ready - could
bedone case-by-case
* Enables higher density development in certain
areas (such as TOD and PDA);
* Enables GI in public spaces that private
developers would not normally participate in;
* Funds can be pooled to finance larger or
regional projects that can be more effective;
* Post-project O&M can be added in the form of
a cash payment or other consideration;
* Municipality can be flexible in enforcement to
allow hybrid compliance;
* Ad hoc negotiation with developers can be
challenging
* Agency will need to have off-site or regional
projects ready to bring to negotiation
X X X X
Alternative Compliance
Funding Category
A6 - 41 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTUREFUNDINGNEXUSEVALUATION
TASK 5.7OF THESMCWPPPGREEN INFRASTRUTUREPLANNINGPROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 36
GI NexusRequirementsProsConsStaff PlanningCapital O&M3.5.4Enhanced Infrastructure
Financing Districts (EIFD)
Captures property tax increment
similar to redevelopment (RDA)
for building and maintaining
infrastructure like GI
With No Debt:
* Establish a Public Finance
Authority;
* Adopt a Financing Plan;
* Resolution(s) from participating
agencies
With Debt:
* All of the above;
* Get approval from at least 55%
of voters in District
* Can fund many types of projects;
* Does not require a vote (unless debt is part of
the plan, then a 55% majority is required);
* Can include multiple municipalities and special
districts, so area can be tailored to needs (e.g.,
watersheds, high legacy pollutant areas,
countywide);
* Does not require a blight finding;
* Can overlap with former RDA areas;
* Works well with master planned community
with a single land owner;
* Planning costs can be paid for from proceeds
(with limitations);
* EIFD can go for up to 45 years
* Education districts are not permitted to
participate, so revenues would be much less
than RDA;
* If overlapping a former RDA area, then cannot
proceed until RDA is issued a finding of
completion from the State;
* GI is only a small piece of what an EIFD can do -
it may take a back seat to other, larger
community concerns;
* Some agencies (i.e., special districts) may not
agree to their portion of tax increment to be
diverted thereby reducing revenue potential
???XX
4.1Alternative Compliance
Allows developers who cannot
meeting GI requirements on-site
to build (or pay for) off-site
construction of GI elements
Municipality would need to have
alternative projects ready - could
bedone case-by-case
* Enables higher density development in certain
areas (such as TOD and PDA);
* Enables GI in public spaces that private
developers would not normally participate in;
* Funds can be pooled to finance larger or
regional projects that can be more effective;
* Post-project O&M can be added in the form of
a cash payment or other consideration;
* Municipality can be flexible in enforcement to
allow hybrid compliance;
* Ad hoc negotiation with developers can be
challenging
* Agency will need to have off-site or regional
projects ready to bring to negotiation
X X X X
Alternative Compliance
Funding Category
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 35
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M3.4.2 Loans
Debt instruments can help
accelerate project deliver while
paying off debt over time
* Must have dedicated revenue
stream to pay off debt;
* Must have adequate credit
rating to secure reasonable
interest rates;
* Some Bonds require voter
approval
* Can leverage a modest revenue stream by
borrowing money up front for rapid project
delivery while paying off debt over longer
periods of time;
* Accelerates project delivery and makes
coorination with other funding or projects easier
* Must have dedicated revenue stream to
service debt;
* Some debt mechanisms require voter approval
(GO Bonds, Revenue Bonds, EIFD Bonds)
???X X
3.5.1 Benefit Assessments Can fund the construction and
maintenance of GI projects
Prop 218 compliance;
* Rigorous Engineer's Report;
* Must deduct general benefit
from special benefit;
* Property owners approval is
required through a ballot
proceeding (weighted voting);
* Works best with new
development due to voting
requirement
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Can fund both construction and maintenance;
* Can use bonded indebtedness
* General Benefit must be separated and paid
for by other sources;
* Votes are weighted by assessment amount,
favoring large land owners
X X X
3.5.2 Community Facilities
Districts
Can fund the construction and
maintenance of GI projects
Requires vote by majority of
landowners or 2/3 majority of
registered voters
* Usually formed by developer, so only one
ballot is cast;
* Very flexible - can fund all aspects;
* Subsequent annexation is simple;
* Tax rate can be tiered to allow for retirement
of debt yet continue with O&M;
* Annual administration is more streamline than
benefit assessments
* Difficult to form in an existing community due
to 2/3 majority requirement;
* Known as a Mello-Roos tax - which can have a
negative connotation
X X X
3.5.3 Business Improvement
Districts
Business and property owners tax
themselves to build and maintain
GI improvements
Formed by a municipality through
a notice and protest hearing
process.
* Flexible and legally stout;
* Can fund both construction and maintenance;
* Local improvements can generate local
support and involvement
* GI improvements can also be amenities;
* Can enhance sense of ownership and pride in
the neighborhood when results are visible
* Cannot use debt financing;
* Opposing businesses can disrupt the progress;
* Can burden businesses & property owners so
they are unwilling to support other funding
measures
X X X
Special Financing Districts
Funding Category
A6 - 42GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 38
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M4.2.1 Multi-Agency
Encourages partnerships with
non-Stormwater agencies to
explore GI co-benefits in their
work
Examples may include:
* Spreading basins for
groundwater agencies;
* GI project sites on school
grounds;
* GI on housing authority sites
* Can generate credits for Credit Trading
Program;
* Expands GI potential and awareness;
* Flexible;
* Can leverage limited GI funding to greater
benefit
* Not cookie-cutter; requires customization;
* May be diffucult to find partners X X X ???
4.2.2 Transportation
Encourages partnerships with
transportation agencies to
explore GI co-benefits in their
work and take advantage of
Complete Streets or Green
Streets programs
Examples may include:
* Permeable pavements;
* Roadside rain gardens;
* Cisterns
* Most municipalities are also transportation
agencies, so internal project coordination more
likely;
* Can generate credits for Credit Trading
Program;
* Expands GI potential and awareness;
* Can leverage limited GI funding to greater
benefit;
* Recent increase in Gas Tax may make more
room for GI elements
* Not cookie-cutter; requires customization;
* May be diffucult to find partners;
* Road condition woes prevail, making it difficult
to shift funding to GI and other amenity-type
elements;
* Transportation grants may preclude using
funds for GI
X X X ???
4.2.3 Caltrans Mitigation
Caltrans looks for opportunities
for off-site mitigation of
stormwater impacts of their
highways
Local municipalities may enter in
a cooperative agreement with
Caltrans to build GI as a way for
them to mitigate stormwater
impacts of their highways
* Caltrans may furnish funding for local or
regional projects that help them meet their
obligations;
* Locals can propose solutions that benefit both
Caltrans and the local agencies
* Caltrans cooperative agreements can be
cumbersome and bureaucratic;
* Projects that work for Caltrans may be difficult
to develop
X X ???
4.2.4 Public-Private ("P3")
Private enterprises can provide
overall solutions to GI programs
through better access to
resources and capital
P3 is primarily a delivery system
for projects where debt provides
near-term funding and project
acceleration
* Bypasses some of the bureaucracy;
* Can make existing funding sources work more
efficiently;
* Draws on private sector expertise and
financing;
* Debt may be tax-exempt;
* Debt accelerates project delivery;
* Can include design, build, finance, operate;
* Debt is private - may not affect public ageny's
debt capacity
* Does not provide additional funding;
* Dedicated revenue stream is needed - cash
flow is an important element X X X
Partnerships
Funding Category
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 37
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M4.1.1 In-Lieu Fee Challenges
Allows developers who
cannot meet GI requirements
to pay into fund that would
finance off-site or regional
projects
Municipality would need to
estimate the costs of of
mitigation - could bedone
case-by-case
* Enables higher density development in
certain areas (such as TOD and PDA);
* Enables GI in public spaces that private
developers would not normally participate
in;
* Funds can be pooled to finance larger or
regional projects that can be more
effective;
* Municipality can be flexible in
enforcement to allow hybrid compliance;
* Municipality may consider informal fee
process, negotiating each individual
developer through COA;
* Funds can be leveraged for grants or loans
* Case-by-case approach can be difficult;
* Developers will try to evade costs;
* May need to comply with AB 1600
X X X X
4.1.2 Credit Trading Programs
Creates GI Credit program for
developers and others to
trade GI responsibilities to
others who have better
capability to meet GI goals
A municipality (or regional
entity) must create credit
trading program including:
* Definition of GI Credits;
* Relative Value of Credits;
* Timing of responsibilities;
* Eligibility
* Allows developers who cannot meet
NPDES or GI requirements to buy credits
created by other entities;
* Encourages developers or other entities
who have greater GI capacity to over-build
GI in order to sell credits in future;
* Present value of future O&M costs can be
incorporated into credit value;
* Allows for flexibility to guide GI to areas
with greater pollutant loading need;
* May save developers money
* Very few Programs (to use as an example)
have been implemented - particularly in
California;
* Credits may need to stay within same
watershed;
* Overbuilding GI in some areas may not
help other areas;
* Overbuilding GI can lead to overlapping GI
zones;
* Unclear if developers are willing to
overbuild on speculation of future sale of
credits;
* Unclear how value of credits would be
established;
* Unclear if municipality would be credit
broker, or if developers can deal directly
with each other;
* May be difficult to apply credits to public
rights of way;
* Costing future O&M is difficult
X X X
Funding Category
A6 - 43 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 38
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M4.2.1 Multi-Agency
Encourages partnerships with
non-Stormwater agencies to
explore GI co-benefits in their
work
Examples may include:
* Spreading basins for
groundwater agencies;
* GI project sites on school
grounds;
* GI on housing authority sites
* Can generate credits for Credit Trading
Program;
* Expands GI potential and awareness;
* Flexible;
* Can leverage limited GI funding to greater
benefit
* Not cookie-cutter; requires customization;
* May be diffucult to find partners X X X ???
4.2.2 Transportation
Encourages partnerships with
transportation agencies to
explore GI co-benefits in their
work and take advantage of
Complete Streets or Green
Streets programs
Examples may include:
* Permeable pavements;
* Roadside rain gardens;
* Cisterns
* Most municipalities are also transportation
agencies, so internal project coordination more
likely;
* Can generate credits for Credit Trading
Program;
* Expands GI potential and awareness;
* Can leverage limited GI funding to greater
benefit;
* Recent increase in Gas Tax may make more
room for GI elements
* Not cookie-cutter; requires customization;
* May be diffucult to find partners;
* Road condition woes prevail, making it difficult
to shift funding to GI and other amenity-type
elements;
* Transportation grants may preclude using
funds for GI
X X X ???
4.2.3 Caltrans Mitigation
Caltrans looks for opportunities
for off-site mitigation of
stormwater impacts of their
highways
Local municipalities may enter in
a cooperative agreement with
Caltrans to build GI as a way for
them to mitigate stormwater
impacts of their highways
* Caltrans may furnish funding for local or
regional projects that help them meet their
obligations;
* Locals can propose solutions that benefit both
Caltrans and the local agencies
* Caltrans cooperative agreements can be
cumbersome and bureaucratic;
* Projects that work for Caltrans may be difficult
to develop
X X ???
4.2.4 Public-Private ("P3")
Private enterprises can provide
overall solutions to GI programs
through better access to
resources and capital
P3 is primarily a delivery system
for projects where debt provides
near-term funding and project
acceleration
* Bypasses some of the bureaucracy;
* Can make existing funding sources work more
efficiently;
* Draws on private sector expertise and
financing;
* Debt may be tax-exempt;
* Debt accelerates project delivery;
* Can include design, build, finance, operate;
* Debt is private - may not affect public ageny's
debt capacity
* Does not provide additional funding;
* Dedicated revenue stream is needed - cash
flow is an important element X X X
Partnerships
Funding Category
A6 - 44GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 39
GI Nexus Requirements Pros Cons Staff Planning Capital O&M4.2.5 Financial Capability
Assessment
Can allow an agency to delay
compliance with certain NPDES
permit requirements
Follow EPA guidelines for
application
Allows a qualifying agency to defer compliance
with certain Permit compliance requirements
* Not a source of funding - only can grant time
extenstions to Permit compliance;
* Communities must meet several criteria such
as poverty rates, income distibutions, bond
ratings, etc.
4.2.6 Volunteers
Volunteer groups can be a
resource for GI operations and
maintenance (O&M) as well as
program planning
* To be effictive, volunteers need
organization and oversight;
* Can be used to supplement
paid contractors, or perform
entire projects
* "Free" labor;
* Some volunteers provide needed expertise;
* Increases awareness of GI program;
* Some non-profit organizations have ready-
made volunteer groups that are trained and
organized;
* Can build public support for dedicated revenue
mechanism such as a fee;
* Education program for community
* Requires significant staff resources to recruit,
organize, train and plan & supervise the work;
* Can be unreliable - hard to build schedule and
cost forecasts around volunteer work force;
* Can create conflict with prevailing wage
requirements;
* Difficult to incorporate into project
construction work
X ???X
Funding Category
A6 - 45 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
A6 - 46GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 40
6.2 APPENDIX B – ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE CASE STUDY IN EMERYVILLE, CA
In July 2017, the City Council of the City of Emeryville approved the use of an alternative compliance
option for a portion of a private property owner’s 14.5-acre mixed use redevelopment project building
674 multi-family residential units, 180,000 square feet of retail, and 120,000 square feet of office
space. The majority of the project will use on-site LID to treat stormwater runoff. However, because
one four-acre parcel of the site contained several existing buildings and pavement that were to be
retained and required treatment, the property owner chose to propose to the City the use of an
alternative compliance option in the MRP 2.0. There are several challenges to constructing LID
stormwater treatment measures on this parcel including contaminated soil, a high seasonal
groundwater table, conflicts with existing and planned utilities, clayey soils, tidal flows, and limited
space.
The City used an “Off-site Stormwater Improvement Agreement” to detail the requirements of the
property owner, who will construct approximately 6,300 square feet of GI measures (bioretention
facilities) in the City’s public right-of-way and in a City park to treat runoff from an amount of
impervious surface greater than what would have been treated on-site. The key purposes of the
agreement are to:
▪Describe the conditions that led to the approval of off-site stormwater treatment;
▪Set forth a process and timeframe for approval of plans and construction; and
▪Describe maintenance responsibility and a calculation of cost for maintenance.
The off-site locations for GI were chosen through a consensus-based process and provide benefits
to both the City and the property owner, including the following:
▪Net water quality benefit compared with on-site provision of treatment measures through
increases in pollutant of concern type and load reductions and increases of square
footage of catchment and treatment area using the C.3.d sizing criteria;
▪Increased cyclist and pedestrian safety through the use of stormwater curb extensions
as traffic calming measures at intersections and in mid-block areas;
▪Replacement of trees in poor health with new trees and improved planting conditions;
▪Replacement of turf and other conventional landscapes with new sustainable, Bay-
Friendly landscaping with a lower maintenance cost;
▪Reductions in pollutant (e.g., PCBs, mercury and trash) discharges to the Bay by treating
runoff from a larger variety of land uses and roadways as opposed to just roof tops on-
site;
▪Lower net cost for the property owner; and
A6 - 47 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 41
▪Progress towards meeting MRP 2.0 GI implementation long-term goals.
The developer has agreed to bear the costs of design, construction and post-project operations and
maintenance. The developer will contract with design and construction firms and pay for the City -
required plan check fees, insurance and permits necessary to build the improvements. The system
designs will be approved by the City and inspected via the normal process for any work in the public
right-of-way or on public property.
Operation and maintenance costs for the planned improvements were calculated based on t he
present value of a growing annuity. The present value of maintenance for a period of thirty years has
been agreed upon by the City and the developer at $154,000 (or approximately $0.80 per square
foot of treatment area per year in today’s dollars), to be provided to the City by the developer as
described in the Improvement Agreement in a lump sum after the improvements have been accepted
by the City. The City will then assume responsibility for the maintenance of the treatment areas.
The O&M agreement for the on-site LID measures of the development project will reference the
Improvement Agreement and the approval by the City of the alternative compliance option.
A6 - 48GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING NEXUS EVALUATION
TASK 5.7 OF THE SMCWPPP GREEN INFRASTRUTURE PLANNING PROJECT
JANUARY 2019
PAGE 42
6.3 APPENDIX C – POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In 2014 C/CAG engaged SCI to study and make recommendations on strategies to fund water
pollution prevention programs required in the previous MRP. One of the deliverables from that effort
was the Potential Funding Sources Analysis and Recommendations Report, which described,
analyzed and evaluated various funding mechanism alternatives available for stormwater programs
at that time. That 2014 Report forms a solid basis from which to evaluate funding options for GI as
well.
This report is included on the following pages.
A6 - 49 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN GUIDE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
APPENDIX D
Outreach Materials
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR A
SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY
REDUCE
POLLUTION
Reduces pollutants from
entering the Bay and ocean
and filters air pollutants &
particulates
KEEP WATER LOCAL
Captures and increases
stormwater infiltration into
the ground to help recharge
local groundwater supply
INCREASE NATURAL
HABITAT
Increases wildlife
habitat in urban areas
with added vegetation
MANAGE
FLOOD RISK
PROMOTE SAFER
COMMUNITIES
LOWER URBAN HEAT
ISLAND EFFECTS
Mitigates flood risk by slowing
and reducing stormwater runo
during storms
Promotes traic calming and
increases bike & pedestrian safety
through planned community designs
Cools urban areas by
deflecting sun radiation and
providing shade
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AT WORK
From mitigating flood risk to protecting our Bay and waterways, green or
nature-based infrastructure can lessen the impacts of climate change and
heavy storms in San Mateo County. Build green infrastructure to help
build a stronger, safer, and more prepared community.
IMAGE COURTESY O F S C V U R P P P
HOW DOES GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE WORK?
There are various types of green infrastructure (GI) that range
in size, scale, and function. The vast majority are built
to be multi-beneficial which can provide habitat, flood
protection, cleaner air, and cleaner water. GI that uses
vegetation, soils, and natural processes, manage water
and create healthier urban environments by mimicing
nature that both captures and soaks up water. The natural
filtration that occurs through most GI also works to remove
pollutants and improve water quality.
IMAGE COURTESY OF SCVURPPP
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
FOR A SUSTAINABLE SAN
MATEO COUNTY
Mitigating flood risk, protecting our Bay and waterways, creating safer
communities— these are just a few ways green infrastructure (also known
as nature-based infrastructure) can lessen the impacts of climate change
and heavy storms. Green infrastructure means a stronger, safer, and more
prepared San Mateo County.
Find us on social media @flowstobay
or visit us online at flowstobay.org
01 REDUCE POLLUTION
Green inrfrastructure that employs natural filtering processes
which reduces water pollutants such as PCBs, mercury, and
trash from entering the Bay and ocean and while it works above
ground to filter air pollutants and particulates.
02 MANAGE FLOOD RISK
Green infrastructure can mitigate flood risk
by slowing and reducing stormwater runoff
during storms.
03 PROMOTES SAFER COMMUNITIES
Promotes traffic calming and increases bike and pedestrian
safety through planned community designs.
04 KEEPS WATER LOCAL
Captures and increases stormwater
infiltration into the ground to help recharge
local groundwater supply.
05 INCREASE NATURAL HABITAT
Increases wildlife habitat in urban areas with added vegetation.
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
AT WORK
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-711 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
Report regarding a resolution approving the Second Amendment to a Consulting Services Agreement with
Metropolitan Planning Group for staff augmentation services for an additional amount of $130,000 and a total
contract amount of $320,000,and authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment.(Tony Rozzi,
Principal Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopt a resolution approving
the Second Amendment to a consulting services agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group (DBA M-
Group)of Campbell,California for staff augmentation services for an additional amount of $130,000 and
a total contract amount of $320,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the amendment.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Metropolitan Planning Group (“M-Group”)of Campbell,California,has provided on-site consultant
assistance to the City of South San Francisco (“City”)since 2017,as the result of a City-issued Request for
Proposal and competitive selection process.The M-Group currently staffing two planners to support ongoing
projects with the City.The consultants combine to provide the equivalent of one (1)full time employee
working Monday through Friday.M-Group’s consultants process new applications and execute planning
initiatives,such as the adopted Small Cell Wireless ordinance and revised accessory dwelling unit regulations.
Given the tenure of the M-Group with the City,the staff planners are fully trained and proficient in the use of
the City’s many software programs and processes for application review.During this continued period of high
development activity,retaining the M-Group’s services rather than training new consultant planners,has
provided a significant benefit to the Planning Division.The M-Group has continued to provide high quality
work to fulfill the staffing needs of the Planning Division.
In June,2018,the City and M-Group entered into a consulting services contract for $130,000 to provide the
aforementioned staff augmentation services.In June 2019,the City Council approved the First Amendment to
the M-Group contract to increase the contract amount by $60,000.for a total not to exceed amount of $190,000.
These additional funds did not have a general fund impact and were covered via existing Planning Division
budget and developer pass through accounts.Accordingly,in the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget,the Planning
Division requested and received an allocation of $130,000 to continue contractual services with the M-Group.
This line item along with the FY 2019-20 Budget was approved by the City Council.
Staff now recommends that the City Council consider and approve a second amendment to the consulting
services agreement with the M-Group.The proposed second amendment would increase the total contract
amount by $130,000,thereby raising the total not to exceed amount from $190,000 to $320,000.This
amendment would also extend the contract term from December 31,2019 to June 30,2020,and permit the M-
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-711 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:9.
amendment would also extend the contract term from December 31,2019 to June 30,2020,and permit the M-
Group consultants to continue provide uninterrupted services to the Planning Division to fulfill the continuing
need for staff augmentation services.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional fiscal impact as the additional funding of $130,000 was approved as part of the Fiscal
Year 2019-21 Budget.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Second Amendment to a consulting
services agreement with Metropolitan Planning Group for staff augmentation services for an additional amount
of $130,000 and a total contract amount of $320,000,and authorizing the City Manager to execute the second
amendment.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-713 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:9a.
Resolution approving the Second Amendment to a Consulting Services Agreement with Metropolitan Planning
Group for staff augmentation services for an additional amount of $130,000 and a total contract amount of
$320,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the second amendment.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)has identified the ongoing need to supplement Planning
Division staffing to ensure a continued high-quality customer service environment; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to a City-issued Request for Proposals in July 2017 and the competitive selection
process,the City selected the Metropolitan Planning Group to provide staff augmentation services to the
Planning Division,and the parties entered into a Consulting Services Agreement on July 25,2018,for such
services during the term of July 25, 2018 to June 30, 2019, in the amount of $130,000; and
WHEREAS,Metropolitan Planning Group has continued to provided staff augmentation services to the
Planning Division by providing consultant planners to support entitlement review,application processing,and
other services provided by the Planning Division; and
WHEREAS,on June 5,2019,the City and the Metropolitan Planning Group executed a First Amendment to the
Consulting Services Agreement,for an additional $60,000 and a total not-to-exceed contract amount of
$190,000, and extended the term of the agreement from June 30, 2019 to December 31, 2019; and
WHEREAS,based on the continued need for staff augmentation at the Planning Division,and on the high
quality work that the Metropolitan Planning Group continues to provide,the City and the Metropolitan Group
desires now to execute a Second Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Second Amendment would provide for an additional $130,000 contract amount,
raising the total not-to-exceed amount to $320,000,and would extend the term of the agreement to June 30,
2020; and
WHEREAS,the City Council previously approved an additional $130,000 to the Planning Division budget as a
part of the Fiscal Year 2019-20 Budget approval process; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed Second Amendment to permit the
Metropolitan Planning Group to continue provide uninterrupted services to the Planning Division to fulfill the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-713 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:9a.
Metropolitan Planning Group to continue provide uninterrupted services to the Planning Division to fulfill the
continuing need for staff augmentation.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves a Second Amendment to the consulting services agreement,attached hereto as Exhibit
A,with Metropolitan Planning Group (DBA M-Group)of Campbell,California,for an additional amount of
$130,000 and a total not-to-exceed amount of $320,000,conditioned on the timely execution of the consulting
services agreement and submission of all required documents,including but not limited to,certificates of
insurance and endorsements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Second Amendment
attached hereto as Exhibit A and any other related documents on behalf of the City upon timely submission by
Metropolitan Planning Group of signed contract and all other documents,subject to approval as to form by the
City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take any other required actions
consistent with the intent of this resolution that do not materially increase the City’s obligations.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AND METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT is made
at South San Francisco, California, as of August 28, 2019 by and between THE CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (“City”), a municipal corporation, and Metropolitan Planning Group
(“Contractor”), (sometimes referred together as the “Parties”) who agree as follows:
RECITALS
A. On July 25, 2018, City and Contractor entered that certain Consulting Services
Agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Contractor agreed to provide professional staff
augmentation consulting services for the City’s Planning Division. A true and correct copy of
the Agreement and its exhibits is attached as Exhibit A.
B.On June 5, 2019, City and Contractor entered into a First Amendment to that
Agreement whereby the parties agreed to an additional contract amount of $60,000, for a total
not to exceed amount of $190,000, to provide additional professional staff augmentation
consulting services for the City’s Planning Division. A true and correct copy of the Agreement
and its exhibits are attached hereto as Exhibit B.
C.City and Contractor now desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and
Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1.All terms which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this
Amendment, unless specifically provided herein to the contrary.
2.Section 1. The December 31, 2019 end date for the term of services identified in
Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby replaced with June 30, 2020.
3.Section 3. Section - of the Agreement shall be amended such that the City agrees to pay
Contractor a sum not to exceed $320,000, with the understanding that up to $190,000 has
already been paid to Contractor or authorized for contract authority.
Contractor agrees this is the City’s total contribution for payment of costs under the
Agreement unless additional payments are authorized in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement and said terms of payment are mutually agreed to by and between the parties in
writing.
All other terms, conditions and provisions in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. If
there is a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the
Agreement will control unless specifically modified by this Amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Exhibit A
Dated:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO M-GROUP
By: By:
City Manager Geoff Bradley
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Attorney
Exhibit Aa
Exhibit Ab
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-709 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:10.
Report regarding adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to
make minor revisions,corrections,and clarifications;and improve and streamline the development standards in
accordance with the General Plan (Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving amendments to South San
Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 to make minor revisions,corrections,and clarifications;and improve
and streamline the development standards in accordance with the General Plan.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On August 14,2019,the City Council introduced an ordinance making zoning text amendments to update the
Zoning Ordinance. The City Council voted to introduce this ordinance, which now requires a second reading.
(Introduced on 8/14/19; Vote 5-0)
The Ordinance is now ready for adoption.
CONCLUSION
The ordinance and resolution are ready for adoption.
ASSOCIATIONS
1.Final Ordinance 19-710
A.Exhibit A- Zoning Text Amendment
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-710 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:10a.
Ordinance amending Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to make minor revisions,corrections
and clarifications;and improve and streamline the development standards in accordance with the General Plan,
and determination that the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
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 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; and,
WHEREAS,since adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in July 2010,the City has identified areas of the Zoning
Ordinance that require minor refinement, clarification, and/or correction; and,
WHEREAS,the City staff has drafted proposed revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance to address the
identified areas that require correction; and,
WHEREAS,the Zoning Ordinance was adopted after preparation,circulation,consideration,and adoption of
an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (“IS/ND”)in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Sections 21000,et seq.(“CEQA”),which 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 minor refinements,clarifications,and/or corrections set forth in this Zoning Amendment,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 IS/ND prepared and circulated for the Zoning Ordinance,nor do the refinements,clarifications,and/or
corrections constitute a change in the project or change in circumstances that would require additional
environmental review; and,
WHEREAS,on March 21,2019 the Planning Commission for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully
noticed public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the CEQA finding and the proposed zoning
ordinance amendments,take public testimony,and adopted Resolution No.2840-2019 making a
recommendation to the City Council on the project; and
WHEREAS,on August 14,2019 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticedCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-710 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:10a.
WHEREAS,on August 14,2019 the City Council for the City of South San Francisco held a lawfully noticed
public hearing to solicit public comment and consider the CEQA finding and the proposed zoning ordinance
amendments,take public testimony,and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the
proposed revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
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:
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,
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 Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendments;and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission’s duly noticed September 1,2016 meeting;and all reports,minutes,and public testimony
submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed September 15,2016 meeting;and all
reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed
March 21,2019 meeting and the City Council’s duly noticed August 14,2019 meeting;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 Ordinance Amendments are consistent with the General Plan because the
Ordinance Amendments will continue to reinforce many of the General Plan policies maintaining a
balanced land use program and is consistent with the City’s overall vision for the proper location of
uses.None of the new or revised definitions,tables,figures and land uses will conflict with or impede
achievement of any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan.
2.The areas of the City impacted by the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are suitable for the
proposed uses in terms of access,size of parcel,relationship to similar or related uses,and other
considerations because the minor revisions,corrections and clarifications will not alter the existing
uses permitted in the Zoning Ordinance.
3.The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments are not detrimental to the use of land in any adjacent
zone because the minor revisions,corrections and clarifications will not result in a change of any
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-710 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:10a.
existing zoning districts.
SECTION II.AMENDMENTS.
The City Council hereby amends the following sections,included as Exhibit A,of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code are amended 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.
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.
*****
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 14th day of
August 2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
Exhibit A – Clean Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for Adoption
A. Revise Chapter 20.040 Rules of Measurement to read as follows:
(1) Amend 20.040.005 (B) Measuring Fence Height to incorporate a graphic to illustrate
the fence height measurement calculation.
Figure 20.040.005(B) Measuring Fence Height
(2) Amend 20.040.008 Determining Floor Area to include a rule of measurement for
double-height spaces in Floor Area calculations, and to clarify that structured parking
is excluded from Floor Area, consistent with the General Plan.
A. Included in Floor Area. Floor area includes, but is not limited to, habitable (as defined
in the California Building Code) basements and cellars that are below the roof and within
the outer surface of the main walls of principal or accessory buildings or the centerlines
of party walls separating such buildings or portions thereof or within lines drawn parallel
to and two feet within the roof line of any building without walls. Any interior space with
a ceiling height equaling two (2) stories shall be doubled for purposes of calculating floor
area. In the case of a multi-story building that has covered or enclosed stairways,
stairwells or elevator shafts, the horizontal area of such features shall be counted only
once at the floor level of their greatest area of horizontal extent.
B. Excluded from Floor Area. Floor area does not include mechanical, electrical, and
communication equipment rooms that do not exceed two percent of the building’s gross
floor area; bay windows or other architectural projections where the vertical distance
between the lowest surface of the projection and the finished floor is 30 inches or greater;
areas that qualify as usable open space; and areas used for off-street parking spaces or
loading spaces, structured parking, driveways, ramps between floors of a multi-level
parking garage, and maneuvering aisles.
(3) Amend 20.040.009 Determining Floor Area Ratio to clarify what portions of a building
are excluded in FAR calculations, and to ensure consistency with the General Plan.
A. Excluded from Floor Area in Calculating FAR.
1. Basements. Usable basements and cellars, the ceiling of which does not extend more
than four feet above finished grade.
2. Parking for Residential. Parking areas located entirely below finished grade or
entirely beneath the finished floor of habitable space where the vertical distance
between the finished floor of habitable space and finished grade is four feet or less.
3. Parking for Nonresidential. Building area devoted to structured or covered parking
for non-residential development.
4. Child care facilities constructed as part of a commercial or industrial development in
the East of 101 Area.
(4) Amend 20.040.011 Determining Lot Frontage to clarify how frontage is determined on
a Corner Lot or Through Lot.
A. Corner Lot. The front of a lot is the narrowest dimension of the lot with street frontage.
The widest dimension of the lot with street frontage may be considered the front of a lot
subject to approval of a Minor Use Permit.
B. Revise Chapter 20.080 Residential Districts to read as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.080.002 “Land Use Regulations – Residential Districts” to remove
specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, and to add a row
under reference to “Use Permit Applicability”:
Use Classification RL-1.3 RL-5, 6, and
8
RM-10,
15, 17.5
RH-30 and
35 Additional Regulations
Residential Use Types
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single Unit Detached P P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P See Accessory Dwelling
Units in Chapter 20.350
Single Unit Semi-
Attached - C P P
Single-Unit Attached - - P P
Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Duplex - - P P
Multi-Unit - - P(1) P
Senior Citizen Residential C C C MUP
Elderly and Long-Term
Care - C C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Domestic Violence
Shelter - - P(2) P(2) See Domestic Violence
Shelter in Chapter 20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below
Large P P P P See Family Day Care, Large
in Chapter 20.350
Small P P P P
Group Residential - - - MUP See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Mobile Home Park - C C C See Mobile Home Parks in
Chapter 20.350
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General - - C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Limited P(3) P(3) P(3) P(3)
Senior - - C MUP See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Public and Semi-Public Use Types
Colleges and Trade Schools - - C(4) C(4)
Community Assembly - C C C See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Garden P P P P
Cultural Institutions - C C C
Day Care Centers - C MUP/C(5) P See Day Care Centers in
Chapter 20.350
Government Offices - - - C
Park and Recreation
Facilities, Public P P P P
Public Safety Facilities C C C C
Schools, Public or Private - C C C
Commercial Use Types
Crop Production, Limited MUP MUP MUP MUP
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP MUP MUP See Bed and Breakfast
Lodging in Chapter 20.350
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and
Professional - - - C (6)
Medical and Dental - - - C (6)
Walk-In Clientele - - - C (6)
Transportation and Utilities Use Types
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P See Section 20.300.012
Screening
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Home Occupations P P P P See Home Occupations in
Chapter 20.350
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use
Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Only in single-unit detached structures.
2. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300 feet of any other
domestic violence shelter.
3. Subject to state licensing requirements.
4. Only on parcels with access from arterial streets.
5. Minor Use Permit required when located within an existing building. Conditional Use Permit required for new
construction.
6. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 6,500 square feet and located on an arterial street.
(2) Amend Table 20.080.003(A) “Development Standards – Residential Districts” to
remove the reference to footnote 2 from the rear yard setback row, as footnote 2 only
refers to side yard setbacks.
Standard RL-1.3 RL-5, 6, and
8
RM-10, 15,
17.5 RH-30 and 35 Additional Regulations
Building Form and Location (cont’d)
Minimum Yards (ft)
Front 20 15 15 15
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
Interior Side 10 5 (1)(2) 5
5 for the first
two stories, 10
thereafter (C)
See (F) and Section
20.300.011 Projections
into Required Yards
Street Side 10 10 10 10
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
Rear 20 (G) 20 (1)(G) 20 (G)
10 for the first
two stories, 15
thereafter (G)
See Section 20.300.011
Projections into Required
Yards
1. Extending a Substandard Setback. Substandard side and/or rear yard setbacks may be extended on the ground level
only and by no more than 50 percent of the existing wall length. In all instances, side yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of three feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 16 feet.
2. Side Yard Setback for Substandard Lots. The side yard on any lot with an average width of 50 feet or less shall be
a minimum of 10 percent of the lot width, but in no case less than three feet.
(3) Amend Section 20.080.004.A “Exterior Materials” to add corrugated metal to the list
of prohibited materials.
A. Exterior Materials. Exterior building materials shall be selected from a list maintained
by the Planning Division. The exterior use of plywood, corrugated metal and aluminum
as siding materials is prohibited.
(4) Amend Section 20.080.004.C “Residential Single-Unit and Duplex Development” to
clarify provisions related to maximum number of driveways, maximum paving, the
types of bathroom facilities allowed in non-habitable space, and driveway widths.
5. Maximum Number of Driveways per Lot and Maximum Driveway Width. Driveway
approaches (curb cuts) shall be permitted only to provide access to, and shall be no wider
than, approved garages, carports and parking spaces.
a. For lots less than 85 feet in width, a maximum of one driveway up to 20 feet wide is
permitted for required parking.
b. For lots 85 feet wide or more, the combined width of all driveways may not exceed
28 feet.
c. Corner lots and through lots may be allowed more than one driveway on different
street frontages if the lot has more than one approved garage, carport, or parking
space.
6. Maximum Paving in Street-facing Yards. No more than 50 percent of the entire front
yard or the required street side yard may be covered with a paved impervious or pervious
surface.
7. Bathrooms in Garages and Accessory Buildings. Bathroom facilities in a garage or
accessory building shall be limited to a sink and a toilet, except in accordance with all
applicable provisions of Chapter 20.350 regarding accessory dwelling units.
(5) Amend Section 20.080.004.D “Residential Multi-Unit Development” to clarify required
driveway width.
9. Parking Area Access.
a. One driveway or access per 120 feet of linear frontage is permitted.
b. Driveway or accessway widths shall not exceed 25 feet unless an enlarged width is
approved by the City Engineer.
C. Revise Chapter 20.090 Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Districts as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.090.002 “Land Use Regulations – Commercial, Office, and Mixed-
Use Districts” to remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations”
column, to add a reference to “Use Permit Applicability” regulations, to remove
Limitation #9, which limits hours of operation from 7:00 AM – 7:00 PM, and to revise
Freight/Truck Terminals and Warehouses and Outdoor Storage Uses from requiring
a Minor Use Permit to a permitted use in the BPO District.
Use Classification CC BPO CMX ECRMX Additional Regulations
Residential Use Types
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single Unit Detached (1) (1) - (1)
Accessory Dwelling Unit (1) (1) P (1) See Accessory Dwelling
Units in Chapter 20.350
Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) (1) (1) (1)
Single-Unit Attached (1) (1) C P(2)
Multi-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Duplex (1) - C (1)
Multi Unit (1) - P(3) P(2)
Senior Citizen Residential (1) - P(3) P(2)
Elderly and Long-term Care - (1) C P(2) See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Domestic Violence Shelter - - MUP(3) MUP(2) See Domestic Violence
Shelter in Chapter 20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below
Large (1) (1) P - See Family Day Care, Large
in Chapter 20.350
Small (1) - P P(2)
Group Residential - - MUP(3) MUP(2) See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Mobile Home Park (1) - (1) - See Mobile Home Parks in
Chapter 20.350
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General (1) (1) C C(2) See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Limited (1) (1) C(4) C(2,4)
Senior (1) (1) P(3) P(2) See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private MUP C MUP MUP
Community Assembly, 2000
Square Feet or Less MUP - MUP MUP See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, More
Than 2000 Square Feet C - C C See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Garden P(5) P(5) P(5) P(5)
Cultural Institutions C C C C
Day Care Centers MUP MUP MUP P See Day Care Centers in
Chapter 20.350
Government Offices MUP MUP MUP P
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below
Hospitals C C C -
Clinics C C C C
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public P P P P
Schools, Public or Private C C C C
Social Service Facilities MUP MUP MUP MUP See Social Service Facilities
in Chapter 20.350
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales and
Services See sub-classifications below
Pet Stores P - P P See Animal Care, Sales, and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Kennels - C - - See Animal Care, Sales, and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Veterinary P MUP MUP P See Animal Care, Sales, and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Artists’ Studios P MUP P P
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Services See sub-classifications below
Automobile/Vehicle Rental MUP P(6) C -
See Automobile Rental
Facilities in Hotels in
Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Leasing MUP P(7) C -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Sales and Leasing in Chapter
20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Service
and Repair, Major C MUP(8) C -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Service and Repair in
Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Service
and Repair, Minor MUP MUP(8) MUP -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Service and Repair in
Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle
Washing MUP MUP(8) MUP -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Service Stations and
Washing in Chapter 20.350
Service Station C C - -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Service Stations and
Washing and Convenience
Markets in Chapter 20.350
Banks and Financial
Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P P P
Pawnbrokers C C C C
See Pawnbrokers in Chapter
20.350 and Chapter 6.92
Pawnbroker/Secondhand
Dealer
Other Financial Services See sub-classifications below
Alternative Loan
Businesses MUP MUP MUP MUP See Other Financial Services
in Chapter 20.350
Business Services P P P P
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation
C C C C
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C - C C
Coffee Shops/Cafés P P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Hookah Bar/Smoking
Lounge C - - C
Restaurants, Full Service P P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Limited Service P P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales See sub-classifications below
Convenience Market P P P P See Convenience Market in
Chapter 20.350
Grocery Store P P P P
Supermarket P P P P
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries C C C -
Live-Work Units P P P P See Live-Work Units in
Chapter 20.350
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Bed and Breakfast MUP - MUP MUP See Bed and Breakfast
Lodging in Chapter 20.350
Hotels and Motels C C C C
Maintenance and Repair
Services P P P P
Massage Businesses MUP MUP MUP - See Massage Businesses in
Chapter 20.350
Nurseries and Garden Centers MUP - MUP MUP
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P P P P
Medical and Dental P P P P
Walk-In Clientele P P P P
Parking Services See sub-classifications below
Public Parking P P P P
Personal Services See sub-classifications below
General Personal Services P P P P See Personal Services in
Chapter 20.350
Tattoo or Body Modification
Parlor - - MUP P See Tattoo and Piercing
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P - P P
Large Format Retail C - - C See Large Format Retail in
Chapter 20.350
Off-Price Merchandise C - - C
Second Hand Store C - C C
Shopping Center
Neighborhood P - - P
Community P - - P
Regional P - - P
Employment Uses
Construction and Material
Yard - P(8) - -
Food Preparation - P(8) - -
Handicraft/Custom
Manufacturing - P(8) - -
Industry, General - P(8) - -
Industry, Limited - P(8) - -
Recycling Facilities See sub-classifications below
Collection Facility P P(8) P C See Recycling Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Intermediate Processing - MUP(8) - - See Recycling Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Research and Development - P(8) - P
Warehousing, Storage, and
Distribution See sub-classifications below
Chemical, Mineral, and
Explosives Storage - C(8) - -
Freight/Truck Terminals
and Warehouses - P(8) - -
See Freight/Truck Terminals
and Warehouses in Chapter
20.350
Indoor Warehousing and
Storage - P(8) - -
Outdoor Storage - P(8) - - See Outdoor Storage in
Chapter 20.350
Personal Storage - C(8) - - See Personal Storage in
Chapter 20.350
Wholesaling and
Distribution - P(8) - -
Transportation and Utilities Uses
Light Fleet-Based Services - C(8) - - See Taxi and Limousine
Services in Chapter 20.350
Transportation Passenger
Terminals - C(8) - -
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Home Occupations P P P P See Home Occupations in
Chapter 20.350
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use
Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed.
2. Residential use types not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, except on the east side of
El Camino Real between First Street and West Orange Drive subject to approval of a Use Permit.
3. Residential use on ground floor limited to 50 percent of ground floor area.
4. Subject to state licensing requirements.
5. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use.
6. Maximum of 10 vehicles stored on-site with minor maintenance in enclosed structure only.
7. Must be located entirely within a building.
8. These uses shall be developed in accordance with the development standards and supplemental
regulations for the M1 District except the maximum FAR is .4 with an increase up to .6 for development
that provides specified off-site improvements, subject to Conditional Use Permit approval. These uses are
not subject to the development standards or supplemental regulations of the BPO District.
(2) Amend Section 20.090.006 “Supplemental Regulations – ECRMX District” to allow
unbundled parking for multi-family residential.
N. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other
multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or
rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent or
more of the provided parking may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking
management and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission.
D. Revise Chapter 20.100 Downtown Districts as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.100.002 “Land Use Regulations – Downtown Districts” to remove
specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, to clarify when
new single-unit dwelling units are allowed in the DMX zoning district, to clarify the
distance between required social service facilities, to add a reference to “Use Permit
Applicability Regulations”, and to add the three “Shopping Center” use classifications
as retail uses.
Use Classification DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single Unit Detached (1) P P C
Accessory Dwelling Unit (1) P P P See Accessory Dwelling Units
in Chapter 20.350
Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) P P P
Single-Unit Attached MUP(2) P P P
Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Duplex MUP(2) P P P
Multi Unit P/MUP(4) P P P
Senior Citizen Residential P/MUP(4) P P P
Domestic Violence Shelter P(5) P(5) P(5) P(5) See Domestic Violence Shelter
in Chapter 20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below
Large MUP P P P See Family Day Care, Large in
Chapter 20.350
Small P P P P
Group Residential MUP - - C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General C C C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Limited C(6) P(6) P(6) P(6)
Senior MUP C C MUP See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Single Room Occupancy (1) - - (1)
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private P - - C
Community Assembly, 2000
Square Feet or Less C MUP MUP MUP See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, More
Than 2000 Square Feet C C C C See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Garden P P P P
Cultural Institutions C C C C
Day Care Centers P C C C See Day Care Centers in
Chapter 20.350
Use Classification DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Government Offices P - - C
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below
Clinics MUP(7) - - - See Clinics in Downtown Core
in Chapter 20.350
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public P P P P
Social Service Facilities MUP C C C See Social Service Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub-classifications below
Pet Stores P - - - See Animal Care, Sales, and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Veterinary Services C - - - See Animal Care, Sales, and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Services See sub-classifications below
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals C - - -
See Automobile Rental
Facilities in Hotels in Chapter
20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing C - - - See Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Leasing in Chapter 20.350
Service Station C - - -
See Automobile/Vehicle
Service Stations and Washing
and Convenience Market in
Chapter 20.350
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions MUP - - -
Business Services P - - -
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation See sub-classifications below
Amusement Arcade MUP - - -
Indoor Entertainment C - - -
Indoor Sports and Recreation C - - C
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below
Coffee Shops/Cafés P - - - See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Full Service P - - - See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Limited Service C - - - See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Food and Beverage Retail Sales P - - -
Convenience Market C - - - See Convenience Market in
Chapter 20.350
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries C - - -
Live-Work Units P - - - See Live-Work Units in
Chapter 20.350
Use Classification DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP MUP MUP See Bed and Breakfast
Lodging in Chapter 20.350
Hotels and Motels C - - -
Maintenance and Repair
Services P - - -
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P - - -
Medical and Dental P - - -
Walk-In Clientele P - - -
Personal Services See sub-classifications below
General Personal Services P - - - See Personal Services in
Chapter 20.350
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P - - -
Second Hand Store C - - -
Shopping Center
Neighborhood C - - -
Community - - - -
Regional - - - -
Employment Uses
Recycling Facilities See sub-classifications below
Collection Facility P - - - See Recycling Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Transportation and Utilities Uses
Light Fleet-Based Services C - - - See Taxi and Limousine
Services in Chapter 20.350
Utilities, Major C C C C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Home Occupations P P P P See Home Occupations in Chapter
20.350
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use
Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Use Classification DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional Regulations
Limitations:
1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed unless there is an existing single-unit dwelling
on the site.
2. Limited to sites with a maximum gross site area of 4,000 square feet.
3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue,
banks, and walk-in offices which are subject to approval of a Use Permit.
4. Permitted if retail, restaurants, personal services, or other active pedestrian-oriented use is
located on the ground floor, otherwise Minor Use Permit is required. Minor Use Permit
may only be approved if the Review Authority first finds that, based on information in the
record, it is infeasible to locate retail, restaurants, personal services, or other active
pedestrian-oriented use on the ground floor.
5. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300
feet of any other domestic violence shelter.
6. Subject to state licensing requirements.
7. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor, except along Grand Avenue, west of Maple
Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
8. Living space may not occupy ground floor.
9. Limited to upper stories unless at least 50 percent of ground floor street frontage is
occupied by food service use.
10. Limited to single-family detached units.
11. New Social Service facilities shall not be located within 1,000 feet of any other Social
Service Facility.
(2) Amend Table 20.100.003 “Development Standards – Downtown Districts” to clarify
minimum distances between buildings, add substandard lot footnotes, and to correct
the minimum landscape requirements.
Standard DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional
Standards
Lot and Density
Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Corner Lot 5,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq.
ft.) 50 50 50 50
Corner Lot 50 60 60 60
Minimum Lot Depth (sq.
ft.) n/a 80 80 80
Minimum Density (units/net
acre) 14.1 5.1 15.1 20.1
Maximum Density
(units/net acre)
40, 21.8 on lots less
than 10,000 sq. ft. 15 (A) 25 (A)
40, 30 on lots
less than 1
acre (A)
See Ch. 20.390
Bonus Residential
Density
Standard DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional
Standards
Building Form and
Location
Maximum Height (ft)
Main Building 50 28 (B) 35 50 (C)
See Section
20.300.006
Height and Height
Exceptions
Accessory Building 20 12 (D) 12 (D) 12 (D)
See Section
20.300.006
Height and Height
Exceptions
Maximum Number of
Stories n/a 2 3 (E) 4
Minimum Yards
Front 0 15 15 15
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Interior Side 0, 10 when abutting
an R district 5 5
5 for the first
two stories,
10 thereafter
(C)
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Street Side 0 10 10 10
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Rear 0, 10 when abutting an
R district 20 (F) 20 (F)
10 for the first
two stories, 15
thereafter (C)
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Maximum Yards
Front or Street Side 10 (H) n/a n/a n/a
Interior Side n/a n/a n/a n/a
Minimum Distance
Between Buildings (ft)
Front to Front 15 15 15 15 Front is considered
any wall with
windows into the
primary living area
of the unit
Front to Any Side or
Rear 10 10 10 10
All Others 6 6 6 6
Maximum Lot Coverage (%
of lot) 50 80 90 90
See Ch. 20.040
Rules of
Measurement
Maximum Floor Area
(FAR) n/a
.70 or to allow
2,000 sq. ft.,
whichever is
greater (I)
1.25 n/a
See Ch. 20.040
Rules of
Measurement
Additional Standards
Standard DMX DRL DRM DRH Additional
Standards
Usable Open Space (sq. ft.
per residential unit) 100 n/a n/a n/a
See Supplemental
Regulations Section
20.100.004(D)(10)
Minimum Private Open
Space (sq. ft. per residential
unit)
n/a 100 100 80
Minimum Common Open
Space (sq. ft. per residential
unit)
n/a 100 100 100
Minimum Amount of
Landscaping (% of site) 10 10 10 10
See Section
20.300.007
Landscaping
1. Extending a Substandard Setback. Substandard side and/or rear yard setbacks may be extended on the ground level
only and by no more than 50 percent of the existing wall length. In all instances, side yard setbacks shall be a
minimum of three feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 16 feet.
2. Side Yard Setback for Substandard Lots. The side yard on any lot with an average width of 50 feet or less shall be
a minimum of 10 percent of the lot width, but in no case less than three feet.
(3) Amend Section 20.100.003.F “Reduced Setbacks” as follows, to correct a typographical
error:
F. Reduced Setbacks.
1. Existing Structures. When the existing rear yard setback is less than 20 feet,
additions to such structures may conform to the existing setback, provided that the
addition is located no closer than 15 feet to the rear property line.
2. Through Lots. On a through lot where the rear yard abuts a lane, required rear yard
setback may be reduced to 15 feet for a residential structure oriented toward the lane.
E. Revise Chapter 20.110 Employment Districts as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.110.002 “Land Use Regulations – Employment Districts” to remove
specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, to add a reference
to “Additional Use Permit Regulations”, add a requirement for Minor Use Permit for
day care centers in the East of 101 Area, to add the three types of shopping centers as
Retail Sales uses, to include “Waste Transfer Facility” as a conditionally permitted use
in the Mixed-Industrial district, to remove “Mobile Home Parks” as a conditionally
permitted use in the Business Commercial district, and to move “Rental Car Storage”
from the Employment to Commercial use classification.
Use Classification BC BTP FC MI Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Caretaker Unit - - - C(1)
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General C - - - See Group Residential Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Limited C(2) - - -
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Colleges and Trade Schools P P - P
Community Assembly, 2,000 sq. ft. or
less P - - - See Community Assembly Facilities
in Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, more than 2,000
sq. ft. C - - - See Community Assembly Facilities
in Chapter 20.350
Cultural Institutions P P - C
Day Care Centers MUP MUP - MUP See Day Care Centers in Chapter
20.350
Emergency Shelter MUP - - P See Emergency Shelters in Chapter
20.350
Government Offices P P - P
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below
Clinics MUP MUP(3) - -
Hospitals C MUP(3) - -
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public MUP MUP MUP MUP
Public Safety Facilities P P P P
Schools, Public or Private C C - -
Social Service Facilities MUP - - P See Social Service Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Commercial Uses
Adult Oriented Businesses C(4) - - C(4) See Adult Oriented Businesses in
Chapter 20.350
Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub-classifications below
Kennels MUP - - MUP See Animal Care, Sales, and Services
in Chapter 20.350
Pet Stores P - P - See Animal Care, Sales, and Services
in Chapter 20.350
Pet Day Care MUP - - P See Animal Care, Sales, and Services
in Chapter 20.350
Veterinary Services MUP - - MUP See Animal Care, Sales, and Services
in Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals MUP(1) MUP - MUP See Automobile Rental Facilities in
Hotels in Chapter 20.350
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing C C C C See Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Leasing in Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Repair, Major - - - P(5) See Automobile/Vehicle Service and
Repair in Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Service and
Repair, Minor - - - P(5) See Automobile/Vehicle Service and
Repair in Chapter 20.350
Automobile/Vehicle Washing C(1) - - P(5)
See Automobile/Vehicle Service
Stations and Washing in Chapter
20.350
Rental Car Storage MUP
(4)
Service Station C(1) C C C
See Automobile/Vehicle Service
Stations and Washing and
Convenience Market in Chapter
20.350
Towing and Impound - - - CUP
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P - P
Pawnbrokers C C - C
See Pawnbrokers in Chapter 20.350
and Chapter 6.92
Pawnbroker/Secondhand Dealer
Other Financial Services See sub-classifications below
Alternative Loan Businesses MUP MUP - MUP See Other Financial Services in
Chapter 20.350
Building Materials Sales and Services P - - MUP
Business Services P MUP - P
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation See sub-classifications below
Amusement Arcade MUP(6) - - -
Indoor Entertainment C - C C(7)
Indoor Sports and Recreation C C C C(7)
Outdoor Entertainment C C - -
Outdoor Sports and Recreation C C - -
Crop Production, Limited - - - C
Eating and Drinking Establishments See sub-classifications below
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C - - -
Coffee Shops/Cafés P P C P See Outdoor Seating in Chapter
20.350
Restaurant, Full Service P P P MUP See Outdoor Seating in Chapter
20.350
Restaurant, Limited Service P P C P See Outdoor Seating in Chapter
20.350
Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
Convenience Market P P - P See Convenience Market in Chapter
20.350
Grocery Store P(1) - C(1) C(1)
Supermarket P(1) - C(1) -
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries C - - -
Commercial Uses (cont’d)
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Hotels and Motels C - P -
Maintenance and Repair Services P P - P
Massage Businesses MUP - MUP MUP See Massage Businesses in Chapter
20.350
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P P C P
Medical and Dental P P - P
Parking Services See sub-classifications below
Commercial Parking MUP MUP P(8) C
Public Parking P P P P
Personal Services See sub-classifications below
General Personal Services P - P P See Personal Services in Chapter
20.350
Tattoo or Body Modification Parlor - - C - See Tattoo or Body Modification
Parlor
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P P
Firearm Sales - - - C
Large Format Retail P - P - See Large Format Retail in Chapter
20.350
Second Hand Store C - - -
Swap Meet C - - C
Shopping Center
Neighborhood P - P -
Community P - P -
Regional P - P -
Employment Uses
Construction and Material Yard - - - P
Food Preparation - C - P(9)
Handicraft/Custom Manufacturing MUP P - P
Industry, General - - - P
Industry, Limited - P - P
Recycling Facility See sub-classifications below
Collection Facility MUP MUP - MUP See Recycling Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Intermediate Processing - - - MUP See Recycling Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Research and Development P P - P
Clean Technology P P - P
Salvage and Wrecking - - - CUP
Warehousing, Storage, and Distribution See sub-classifications below
Chemical, Mineral, and Explosives
Storage - - - C
Freight/Truck Terminals and
Warehouses - (10) - P See Freight/Truck Terminals and
Warehouses in Chapter 20.350
Indoor Warehousing and Storage - (10) - P
Employment Uses (cont’d)
Outdoor Storage MUP - - P See Outdoor Storage in Chapter
20.350
Personal Storage - - - C See Personal Storage in Chapter
20.350
Wholesaling and Distribution - P(11) - P
Transportation and Utilities Uses
Airports and Heliports C - - C
Light Fleet-Based C (10) - C See Taxi and Limousine Services in
Chapter 20.350
Transportation Passenger Terminals C C - C
Utilities, Major C C - C
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Waste Transfer Facility C
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Use
Other Uses Requiring Use Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Prohibited east of 101.
2. Subject to state licensing requirements.
3. Only in conjunction with research facility.
4. Limited to locations east of South Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway.
5. Must be located a minimum of 500 feet from any Residential district.
6. Only within hotels and motels.
7. Must be associated with a hotel or retail use when located within 1000 feet of SFO.
8. Restricted to: (a) areas located underneath major utility lines or under elevated freeways; or (b) consistent with General
Plan Policy 3.2-I-5, airport-oriented parking facilities on Produce Avenue that were legally approved prior to 1999.
9. Tasting rooms require Minor Use Permit approval.
10. In accordance with General Plan Policy 3.5-I-11 and Resolution 84-97, legally approved freight forwarding, customs
brokering, wholesale, warehousing, and distribution uses that existing in 1997 (or were approved prior to July 10, 2000
with a Use Permit) are considered conforming uses and may convert to other industrial uses including wholesale,
warehouse, and distribution uses, and may expand within parcel boundaries as they existed at the time Resolution 84-97
was adopted, subject to meeting the current development standards (Municipal Code); however, said uses may not
expand, convert to, re-convert to, or establish a freight forwarding use.
11. Only within enclosed buildings and south of Grand Avenue.
(2) Amend Table 20.110.003 “Development Standards – Employment Districts” to correct
the required side yard and rear yard setback in the Mixed Industrial zoning district,
and to correct the maximum floor area ratio in the Business Commercial zoning
district.
Standard BC BTP FC MI Additional
Regulations
Building Form and Location
Minimum Yards (ft)
Front 20 20 20 20
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Interior Side
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 if along
MI district
boundary
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Street Side 10 10 10 10
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Rear
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 along R
district
boundary
0; 10 if along
MI district
boundary
See Section
20.300.011
Projections into
Required Yards
Maximum Lot Coverage
(% of lot) 50 60 60 60
See Chapter 20.040
Rules of
Measurement
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
0.50; 1.2 for
Hotels and
Motels
0.50
0.50; 1.2 for
Hotels and
Motels
0.40
See Chapter 20.040
Rules of
Measurement
Maximum Floor Area
Ratio with Incentives
Program
1.0; 2.0 for
Hotels and
Motels
1.0
1.0; 2.0 for
Hotels and
Motels
0.60 (C)
F. Revise Chapter 20.120 Public and Semi-Public Districts as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.120.002 “Land Use Regulations – Public and Semi-Public Districts”
to remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column and to
add a reference to “Use Permit Applicability”.
Use Classification PQP S Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General C - See Group Residential Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Limited C(1) -
Public and Semi-Public Uses
College and Trade Schools C C
Community Assembly, 2,000 sq. ft. or less MUP MUP See Community Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, more than 2,000 sq. ft. C C See Community Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Cultural Institutions C MUP
Day Care Centers MUP MUP See Day Care Centers in Chapter 20.350
Government Offices P MUP
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below
Hospitals C -
Emergency Shelter (2) -
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P C
Public Safety Facilities P C
Schools, Public or Private C C
Social Service Facilities MUP C See Social Service Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Commercial Uses
Parking Services See sub-classifications below
Public Parking P -
Transportation and Utilities Uses
Light Fleet-Based Services C - See Taxi and Limousine Services in Chapter
20.350
Utilities, Major C C
Utilities, Minor MUP MUP
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses and Structures See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Uses See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Subject to state licensing requirements.
2. Emergency shelters are permitted where they currently exist.
G. Revise Chapter 20.130 Parks and Open Space Districts as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.130.002 “Land Use Regulations – Parks and Open Space Districts” to
remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, to require
a Minor Use Permit instead of a Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Entertainment
and Outdoor Sports and Recreation Uses in the Open Space district, and add a
reference to “Use Permit Applicability”.
Use Classification PR OS Additional Regulations
Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications
Community Assembly, 2,000 sq. ft. or less P C See Community Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, more than 2,000 sq.
ft. P - See Community Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Community Gardens P -
Cultural Institutions P C
Day Care Centers P C See Day Care Centers in Chapter
20.350
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P MUP
Public Safety Facilities P -
Commercial Use Classifications
Commercial Entertainment and Recreation See sub-classifications below
Indoor Entertainment P -
Indoor Sports and Recreation P -
Outdoor Entertainment P C
Outdoor Sports and Recreation P C
Crop Production, Limited P MUP
Transportation and Utilities Use Classifications
Utilities, Major P C
Utilities, Minor P MUP
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses and Structures See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Nonconforming Uses See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Uses See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
H. Revise Chapter 20.210 Bay West Cove Specific Plan District as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.210.003 “Land Use Regulations – Bay West Cove Specific Plan
District” to remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations”
column.
Bay West Cove Planning Area
Uses Permitted 1a 1b 2 3 4 Additional Regulations
Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications
Day Care Centers P - P P P See Day Care Centers in Chapter
20.350
Park and Recreation Facilities, Public P P P P P
Commercial Use Classifications
Eating and Drinking Establishments P P P P P See Outdoor Seating in Chapter
20.350
Food and Beverage Sales See subclassifications below
Convenience Market P - P P - See Convenience Market in Chapter
20.350
Lodging See subclassifications below
Hotels and Motels - P - - P
Maintenance and Repair Services P - P P P
Offices P - P P -
Personal Services P P P P P See Personal Services in Chapter
20.350
Retail P P P P P
Employment Use Classifications
Research and Development P - P P -
I. Revise Chapter 20.220 Gateway Specific Plan District as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.220.003 “Land Use Regulations – Gateway Specific Plan District” to
remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column.
Uses Permitted Gateway Specific Plan Zone Additional Regulations
Commercial Use Classifications I II III IV V
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Services See subclassifications below
Service Stations - - P P P See Auto./Vehicle Service and
Repair in Chapter 20.350
Banks and Financial Institutions See subclassifications below
Banks and Credit Unions - - P P P
Business Services - P P P P
Commercial Recreation See subclassifications below
Amusement arcades P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1) P(1)
Indoor Entertainment - - P P P
Indoor Sports and Recreation P P P P P
Eating and Drinking Establishments P P P P P See Outdoor Seating in Chapter
20.350
Food and Beverage Sales See subclassifications below
Convenience Market P P P P P See Convenience Market in
Chapter 20.350
Lodging See subclassifications below
Hotels and Motels P P P P P
Offices P P P P P
Personal Services P P P P P See Personal Services in Chapter
20.350
Retail Sales P P P P P
Employment Use Classifications
Research and development - P P P P
Wholesaling and Distribution - - - - P(2)
Specific Limitations:
1. Must be located within a hotel.
2. Distribution only, wholesaling or storage is not allowed. Location is limited to the northeast 4.5 acres.
J. Revise Chapter 20.250 Transit Village Plan District as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.250.003 “Land Use Regulations for Transit Village Sub-Districts” to
remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, and to
correct the TC-R column heading to TV-R.
Uses Permitted TV-C TV-R TV-RM TV-RH Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single-Unit Attached - - P P
Multi-Unit Residential P(1) P(1) P P
Elderly and Long-term Care - - C C See Group Residential Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below
Large - - P P See Family Day Care, Large in Chapter
20.350
Small - - P P
Group Residential P(1) P(1) - C See Group Residential Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
Limited P(1) P(1) P P
General C - - C See Section Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Senior - - C C See Group Residential Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications
Community Assembly P - C C See Community Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Cultural Institutions P - - -
Government Offices P - - -
Public Safety Facilities P - - -
Schools, Public or Private P - - -
Commercial Use Classifications
Animal Care, Sales and Services See sub-classifications below
Pet Stores P - - -
Veterinary Services P - - -
Banks and Financial Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P P(2) P(3) -
Business Services P(2) - - P(3)
Commercial Recreation See sub-classifications below
Amusement Arcade C - - -
Indoor Entertainment C C - -
Indoor Sports and Recreation C - - -
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C C - -
Coffee Shops/Cafes P P
Restaurants, Full Service P P - -
Restaurants, Limited Service P C - -
With Live Entertainment C C - -
Outdoor Seating, less than 15
seats P P - - See Outdoor Seating in Chapter 20.350
Outdoor Seating, 15 seats or
more C C - - See Outdoor Seating in Chapter 20.350
Food and Beverage Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
Convenience Market P C - - See Convenience Market in Chapter
20.350
Grocery Store P P - -
Supermarket P P - -
Live-Work Units P(1) P(1) P P See Live-Work Units in Chapter 20.350
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Hotels and Motels C - - -
Maintenance and Repair
Services P C - -
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P(2) - - P(3)
Medical and Dental P - - C
Personal Services P P - P(3) See Personal Services in Chapter
20.350
Retail Sales, less than 30,000 sq.
ft. P P - -
Retail Sales, 30,000 sq. ft. or
more C C - -
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications
Light Fleet-Based Services C - - - See Taxi and Limousine Services in
Chapter 20.350
Utilities, Major C - - -
Utilities, Minor P P P P
Specific Limitations:
1. Not permitted as a principal ground floor use on a street where retail storefronts occupy 50 percent of more
of the building frontage.
2. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second
floor or when conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25
percent of the floor area. Additional office space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such
use will not conflict with adjacent street level retail uses.
3. Permitted as a secondary use on the second floor, occupying no more than 25 percent of the total building
area.
(2) Amend Table 20.250.004 “Development Regulations for Transit Village Sub-Districts”
to reference the correct parking standard section.
Standards TV-C TV-R TV-RM TV-RH Additional Regulations
Vehicle Accommodation- Driveways and Parking
Required parking See Table 20.250.004(N), Required Parking Spaces,
TV Districts (N)
(3) Amend Section 20.250.004 “Transit Village Regulations and Standards” to allow
unbundled parking for multi-family residential.
N. Required Parking. Each land use in the TV District shall be provided the number of on-
site parking spaces stated in Table 20.250.004(N) and the following standards.
1. Small Commercial Uses Exempt. No off-street parking is required for allowable
commercial uses occupying less than 1,500 square feet.
2. Substitution of On-Street Parking. On-street parking along a parcel’s corresponding
frontage lines shall be counted towards the parking requirements.
3. Parking Reduction. The number of required parking may be reduced up to 25 percent
with approval of a Use Permit. Additional reduction of parking requirements may be
granted for shared parking, with approval of a Use Permit.
4. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other
multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold
or rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent
or more of the provided parking may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking
management and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission.
K. Revise Chapter 20.270 El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan District as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.270.003 “Land Use Regulations for El Camino Real/Chestnut Sub-
Districts” to add new land use designations as permitted uses in the ECR/C-RH district
to promote future mixed use development opportunities, to remove specific section
numbers from the “Additional Regulations” column, and add a reference to “Use
Permit Applicability”.
Uses Permitted ECR/C-
MXH ECR/C-MXM ECR/C-RH Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classification below
Single-Unit Attached P(1) P P
Multi-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Multi-Unit C(1) C C
Senior Citizen Residential C(1) C C
Elderly and Long-Term Care C(1) C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classification below
Small P(1) P P
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
Limited P(1) P P
General - C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Senior - C C See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private MUP MUP MUP
Community Assembly, 2,000
square feet or less P P C See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, more
than 2,000 square feet or less MUP MUP C See Community Assembly
Facilities in Chapter 20.350
Community Garden P(2) P(2) P(2)
Cultural Institutions P P -
Day Care Centers P P P
Government Offices P P -
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classification below
Hospitals C(3) C - See Figure 20.270.003
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P -
Schools, Public or Private C C -
Social Service Facilities MUP MUP - See Social Service Facilities
in Chapter 20.350
Commercial Use Classifications
Animal Care, Sales and
Services See sub-classifications below
Pet Stores P P - See Animal Care, Sales and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Veterinary Services P P - See Animal Care, Sales and
Services in Chapter 20.350
Artists’ Studios P P P
Banks and Financial
Institutions See sub-classification below
Banks and Credit Unions P(4) P -
Business Services P(4) P -
Commercial Entertainment
and Recreation MUP C(5) MUP
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below
Bars/Night Clubs/Lounges C - -
Coffee Shops/Cafés P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Full Service P - P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Limited
Service P C(5) P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Food and Beverage Retail
Sales See sub-classifications below
Convenience Market P P P See Convenience Market in
Chapter 20.350
Grocery Store P P P
Supermarket P P P
Live-Work Units P(1) P P See Live-Work Units in
Chapter 20.350
Lodging See sub-classification below
Hotels and Motels C C C
Maintenance and Repair
Services
P MUP -
Massage Businesses MUP MUP MUP See Massage Businesses
in Chapter 20.350
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P(4) P P
Medical and Dental P P P
Walk-In Clientele P P P
Parking, Public or Private P(6) P(6) -
Personal Services See sub-classifications below
General Personal Services P P P See Personal Services in
Chapter 20.350
Retail Sales See sub-classification below
General Sales P P P
Employment Uses
Recycling Facilities See sub-classification below
Collection Facility C(7) C(7) - See Recycling Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Research and Development P P -
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below
Antennae and Transmission
Towers MUP(8) MUP(8) MUP(8)
See Chapter 20.370
Antennas and Wireless
Communications Facilities
Facilities within Buildings MUP MUP MUP
Utilities, Major C C -
Utilities, Minor P P P
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures
Home Occupations P P P See Home Occupations in
Chapter 20.350
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures, and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use
Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Not permitted on the ground floor along El Camino Real, Chestnut Avenue, Oak Avenue, or BART right-of-way south of
Oak Avenue.
2. Subject to site evaluation based on prior use.
3. Allowed only on the northeast corner of El Camino Real and Arroyo Drive/Oak Avenue Extension. See Figure
20.270.003.
4. Customer service offices are permitted on the ground level, and other offices are permitted on the second floor or when
conducted as an accessory use with a permitted use on the site, occupying no more than 25 percent of the floor area.
Additional office space may be allowed with a Use Permit, upon finding that such use will not conflict with adjacent
street level retail uses.
5. Not permitted along Mission Road.
6. Must be structured.
7. Large Collection Facilities are not permitted.
8. Only building mounted or completely enclosed within a building. Not permitted on the ground floor.
(2) Amend Section 20.270.005, ECR/C Supplemental regulations to expand the permitted
amount of unbundled parking.
H. Required Parking. Required parking for any use in ECR/C sub-districts shall be
established by the Chief Planner based on the particular characteristics of the proposed
use and any other relevant data regarding parking demand. The Chief Planner may
require the provision of parking studies or any other information at the applicant’s cost
as needed to assess parking demand for the proposed project. Where a Conditional Use
Permit is required for the use, the Planning Commission will establish the ultimate
parking requirement during the Conditional Use Permit application process. Generally,
parking shall not exceed two spaces per unit for residential uses and one space per 300
square feet of commercial use.
1. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other
multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold
or rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment developments, 50 percent
or more of the provided parking may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking
management and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission.
L. Revise Chapter 20.280 Downtown Station Area Specific Plan District as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.280.003 “Land Use Regulations Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
Sub-Districts” to remove specific section numbers from the “Additional Regulations”
column, and add a reference to “Use Permit Applicability”.
Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit Dwelling See sub-classifications below
Single Unit Detached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Accessory Dwelling Unit (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1) See Accessory Dwelling
Units in Chapter 20.350
Single Unit Semi-Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Single-Unit Attached (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Multiple-Unit Residential See sub-classifications below
Duplex (1) - (1) - (1) (1)
Multi-Unit C C (3) C (3) - C (3) C (3)
Senior Citizen Residential C - C - C (3) C (3)
Domestic Violence Shelter - - P (2) - - -
See Domestic Violence
Shelter in Chapter
20.350
Family Day Care Home See sub-classifications below
Large - - P - - - See Family Day Care,
Large in Chapter 20.350
Small P - P - P P
Group Residential - - C - - -
See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Residential Care Facilities See sub-classifications below
General C (4) - C (4) - - -
See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Limited C (4) (1) C (4) - (1) (1)
Senior MUP
(4) (1) MUP
(4) - C (3) C (3)
See Group Residential
Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Single Room Occupancy (1) (1) (1) - (1) (1)
Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private C C C C C (3) C (3)
Community Assembly, 2000
Square Feet or Less - - C - C (3) C (3)
See Community
Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Community Assembly, More
Than 2000 Square Feet - - - - C (3) C (3)
See Community
Assembly Facilities in
Chapter 20.350
Community Garden - - P - P P
Cultural Institutions C C C C C C
Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations
Day Care Centers P - P C - - See Day Care Centers in
Chapter 20.350
Government Offices P P P P P P
Hospitals and Clinics See sub-classifications below
Clinics - MUP
(7) - - MUP MUP See Clinics, Downtown
in Chapter 20.350
Park and Recreation
Facilities, Public P P P P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P
Social Service Facilities P (6) - - - P (6) P (6)
See Social Service
Facilities in Chapter
20.350
Commercial Use Classifications
Animal Care, Sales and
Services See sub-classifications below
Pet Stores P P P - P P
See Animal Care, Sales,
and Services in Chapter
20.350
Veterinary Services C - C - C C
See Animal Care, Sales,
and Services in Chapter
20.350
Artists Studios P P C - P P
Banks and Financial
Institutions See sub-classifications below
Banks and Credit Unions P MUP - P MUP MUP
Pawnbrokers C - - - - -
See Pawnbrokers in
Chapter 20.350 and
Chapter 6.92
Pawnbroker/
Secondhand Dealer
Business Services P P (3) - P P P
Commercial Entertainment
and Recreation See sub-classifications below
Indoor Entertainment MUP C - - C C
Indoor Sports and
Recreation MUP C (4) - C C C
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below
Coffee Shops/Cafés P P P P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Full Service P P C P P P See Outdoor Seating in
Chapter 20.350
Restaurants, Limited
Service P P P P P P Subject to approved
Trash Management Plan
Convenience Market P P P P P P See Convenience Market
in Chapter 20.350
Grocery Store P P C - P P
Supermarket P - - - C C
Funeral Parlors and
Mortuaries - - - - - -
Uses Permitted DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Regulations
Lodging See sub-classifications below
Bed and Breakfast - MUP (5) C - MUP MUP
See Bed and Breakfast
Lodging in Chapter
20.350
Hotels and Motels C C (5) - C - -
Maintenance and Repair
Services P - - - P P
Massage Businesses C C - - - - See Massage Businesses
in Chapter 20.350
Offices See sub-classifications below
Business and Professional P P (3) MUP P P (3) P (3)
Medical and Dental P P (3) MUP P P (3) P (3)
Walk-In Clientele P P (3) MUP P P P
Parking, Public or Private P - P P P P
Personal Services See sub-classifications below
General Personal Services P P P P P P See Personal Services in
Chapter 20.350
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below
General Sales P P P P P P
Secondhand Store C C P - P P
Employment Use Classifications
Clean Technologies MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Handicraft/Custom
Manufacturing MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Research and Development MUP P (3) - P MUP MUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications
Utilities, Major - - - C - -
Utilities, Minor P P P P P P
Other Applicable Use Regulations
Accessory Uses [See Section 20.300.002 Accessory Buildings and Structures]
Home Occupations P P P - P P See Home Occupations
in Chapter 20.350
Nonconforming Use See Chapter 20.320 Nonconforming Uses, Structures and Lots
Temporary Use See Chapter 20.340 Temporary Uses
Other Uses Requiring Use
Permit See Section 20.490.002 Use Permit Applicability
Limitations:
1. Permitted if existing. New units not allowed.
2. Limited to facilities serving a maximum of 10 victims and may not be located within 300 feet of any other domestic
violence shelter.
3. Prohibited on the ground floor except residential uses located south of Baden Avenue, banks and walk-in offices which
are subject to approval of a Use Permit.
4. Subject to licensing requirements.
5. Limited to upper stories unless at least 50 percent of the ground floor street frontage is occupied by food service uses.
6. Must be located at least 1,000 feet from any other social service facility.
7. Clinic uses may not occupy the ground floor along Grand Avenue, except on properties located west of Maple
Avenue, which are subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
(2) Amend Table 20.280.004-1 “Lot, Density, and FAR Standards - Downtown Station
Area Specific Plan Sub-Districts to include table footnote numbers.
Standard DTC GAC DRC TO/RD LCC LNC Additional Standards
Minimum Lot Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 5,000
Minimum Lot Width (sq. ft.) 50 50 50 50 50 50
Minimum Lot Depth (sq. ft.) n/a n/a 80 n/a 80 n/a
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Minimum FAR 2.0 1.5 n/a 1.5 n/a 2.0
Maximum FAR 6.0 3.0 3.0 2.5 n/a 3.0 Exclusive of structured
parking
Maximum FAR with
Incentive Program 8.0 4.0 3.25 (1) 3.5 n/a n/a Exclusive of structured
parking
Residential Density (units per
acre; included within FAR
above)
Minimum Density 80 14 40 n/a 20.1 40
Maximum Density 100 60 80 n/a 40 60
Maximum Density with
Incentive Program. Does
not include density bonuses
allowed per Chapter 20.390
Bonus Residential Density
180
(A)
80 (A)
/ 100
(2)(A)
100
(A) /
125
(1)(A)
n/a n/a 80 (A)
Limitations:
1. For qualifying affordable Senior Housing projects.
2. For developments on corner parcels or lots greater than one acre.
(3) Amend Section 20.280.006 “Supplemental Regulations – Downtown” to increase the
amount of permitted unbundled parking.
G. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other
multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or
rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment develo pments, 50 percent or more
of the provided parking may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking management
and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission.
M. Revise Chapter 20.300 Lot and Development Standards as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.300.007.B “Applicability” to clarify when Landscaping
requirements are applicable.
B. Applicability. The standards of this section apply to the following:
1. All new development, any change of use classification and additions (other than to
Single-Unit Dwellings or Duplexes) that expand existing floor area by 10 percent or
more.
2. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-provided
and/or homeowner-hired in single-unit and multi-unit residential projects with a total
project landscape area equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet.
3. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for all projects other than those
described in paragraph 2 above with a total project landscape area equal to or greater
than 2,500 square feet.
N. Revise Chapter 20.320 Non-Conforming Uses, Structures and Lots as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.320.005 “Changes and Substitutions of Nonconforming Uses” to
permit the continuation, expansion or substitution of a nonconforming employment
use, with a Use Permit.
D. Plan Consistency. The Planning Commission or the Chief Planner may find that the
continuation, expansion, or substitution of a nonconforming employment use is
consistent with the General Plan if the Use Permit is subject to a condition that limits the
term of such use or any other restriction deemed necessary to ensure that approval of the
Use Permit would not interfere with, impede, or preclude eventual implementation of the
Plan. This determination shall be based on information in the record including, but not
limited to, financial analysis and market studies.
O. Revise Chapter 20.330 On-Site Parking and Loading as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.330.004 “Required On-Site Parking Spaces” to clarify the Residential
Use Classification area descriptions, and to add a parking requirement for Large
Format Retail.
Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces
Residential Use Classifications
Single-Unit, Detached or Attached
Less than 2,500 square feet and 4
or fewer bedrooms
2 spaces per dwelling unit General Requirements for all Single-
Unit Residential Parking:
At least one space must be within a
garage.
A carport shall not be substituted for
a required garage except for existing
dwellings on lots adjacent to a lane.
2,500 to 2,999 square feet or 5
bedrooms
3 spaces per dwelling unit
3,000 square feet or more or 6 or
more bedrooms
4 spaces per dwelling unit
Accessory Dwelling Unit 1 space for each, except accessory dwelling units which meet the
criteria set forth in Section 20.350.035(H) are exempted from the
parking requirement.
Multi-Unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space per unit General Requirements for all Multi-
Unit Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be
designated for each unit
One additional guest parking space
must be provided for every 4 units
for projects greater than 10 units.
One-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq. ft.) 1.5 spaces per unit
Two-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq. ft.) 1.8 spaces per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq. ft. or larger
2 plus an additional .5 space
for each additional sleeping
room over 3
Commercial Use Classifications
Retail Sales
1 per 300 sq. ft. of floor area.
1 per 750 sq. ft. of floor area for appliance and
furniture stores.
1 per 450 sq. ft. of floor area for large format
retail.
(2) Amend Section 20.330.005 “Location of Required Parking” to allow uncovered parking
space(s) in the driveway to count towards parking requirements for single-family
residential uses.
A. Residential Uses. Required parking for a residential use shall be located on the same lot
as the dwelling(s) served. At least one space per unit must be within a garage. Off-street
parking space(s) in the driveway within the front yard setback can be used to satisfy the
dwelling unit’s parking requirement, subject to the following standards:
1. The parking space(s) shall be surfaced with concrete, grass-crete, pervious pavement,
or other approved materials with a minimum dimension of 10 feet wide by 20 feet
deep;
2. The driveway and any curb cut shall comply with City standards and be designed in
accordance with 20.280.004 (C) (5) (Maximum Number of Driveways per Lot and
Maximum Driveway Width.
a. There shall be a minimum 20-foot setback from any structure to the property line
or the back of sidewalk, whichever is less, so that vehicles parked in the driveway
will not project into the public right-of-way;
b. Parking in the required front setback area is restricted to passenger vehicles only;
and
c. The Chief Planner may approve open (uncovered) parking spaces with
dimensions of not less than eight feet and six inches wide by 18 feet deep.
(3) Amend Table 20.330.007 “Required Parking Spaces, Downtown Districts” to clarify the
parking requirement for one-bedroom units.
Land Use Classification Required Parking Spaces
Multi-Unit Residential
Studio and less than 500 sq. ft. 1 space per unit maximum General Requirements for all Multi-Unit
Residential Parking:
One covered space shall be designated for
each unit.
One-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq.
ft.)
1 space minimum, 1.5 spaces
maximum per unit
Two-bedroom (up to 1,100 sq.
ft.)
1.5 spaces minimum, 1.8
spaces maximum per unit
Three or more bedrooms and
1,101 sq. ft. or larger
1.5 spaces minimum, 2 spaces
maximum per unit
(4) Amend Section 20.330.007 “Downtown Parking” to permit unbundled parking for
multi-family residential.
A. Required Parking. Each land use in a Downtown District shall be provided at least the
number of on-site parking spaces stated in Table 20.330.007. The parking requirement
for any use not listed in Table 20.330.007 shall be the same as required for the land use
in any other district as stated in Table 20.330.004.
B. In-Lieu Fees. In the Downtown Parking District, the City may establish a parking
mitigation fund and allow payment of a fee in lieu of providing required parking on-site
or off-site.
1. In-Lieu Fee Amount. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated and paid as
set forth in a resolution of the City Council.
2. Use of Funds. In-lieu fees shall be used for programs to reduce parking impacts
including, but not limited to, any of the following:
a. Off-street parking facilities, including acquisition, development, and
maintenance of parking facilities located in the Downtown Parking District;
b. Mass transit equipment, including stock and attendant facilities serving the area
in which the buildings for which the payments are made are located;
c. Transit or paratransit passes, coupons, and tickets to be made available at a
discount to employees and customers and to promote and support incentives for
employee ride-sharing and transit use; or
d. Transportation system management projects, all costs including, but not limited
to, personnel, equipment, and physical facilities.
C. Parking Reduction. For the Downtown Parking District, the Planning Commission shall
review any request for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and make a
determination whether there is sufficient parking within the District to accommodate the
proposed use.
D. Shared Parking. Where a shared parking facility serving more than one use will be
provided, the total number of required parking spaces may be reduced up to 50 percent
with a Conditional Use Permit, if the Planning Commission finds that all of the following
are true:
1. The peak hours of use will not overlap or coincide to the degree that peak demand
for parking spaces from all uses will be greater than the total supply of spaces;
2. The adequacy of the quantity and efficiency of parking provided will equal or exceed
the level that can be expected if parking for each use were provided separately;
3. If the Chief Planner requires a parking demand study, the study shall be prepared by
an independent traffic engineering professional approved by the City supports the
proposed reduction; and
4. In the case of a shared parking facility that serves more than one property, a parking
agreement has been prepared consistent with the provisions of off-site parking
facilities.
E. Unbundling Parking from Residential Uses. For residential condominium or other
multi-family ownership projects, parking in excess of one space per unit may be sold or
rented separate from the residential unit. For apartment develo pments, 50 percent or more
of the provided parking may be unbundled, subject to approval of a parking management
and monitoring plan by the Planning Commission.
(5) Amend Section 20.330.010 (D) “Size of Parking Spaces and Maneuvering Aisles” to
permit compact parking spaces, remove a reference to parking space setbacks in the
“Setback of Cross Drive Aisles” section, and revise the vertical clearance for garage
and carport spaces to be consistent with the Building Code.
D. Size of Parking Spaces and Maneuvering Aisles. Parking spaces and maneuvering
aisles shall be provided to meet the minimum dimensions required by this subsection.
Screening walls, roof support posts, columns, or other structural members shall not
intrude into the required dimensions for parking spaces.
1. Standard Parking Spaces. The minimum basic dimension for standard parking
spaces is 8 1/2 feet by 18 feet.
2. Compact Parking Spaces. The minimum basic dimension for compact parking
spaces is 8 feet by 16 feet. For uses requiring 10 or more parking spaces, a maximum
of 35 percent of those spaces may be compact parking. Compact parking spaces shall
be permanently identified.
3. Parking Space Widths. Parking space width is measured from the inside edge of the
parking space striping to the outside edge of parking space striping.
4. Table 20.330.010 provides the dimensions of spaces (stalls) and aisles according to
angle of parking spaces. The required aisle width may be modified upon a finding by
the City Engineer that sufficient space is provided so that maneuvering areas will not
interfere with traffic and pedestrian circulation.
5. Setback of Cross Drive Aisles. Cross drive aisles along main drive aisles connecting
directly to a street shall be set back at least 50 feet from the lot line abutting the street.
This setback may be reduced through a Use Permit if the Review Authority finds that
sufficient setback is provided so that traffic and pedestrian circulation will not be
impeded.
6. Parking Spaces Abutting Wall or Fence. Each parking space adjoining a wall,
fence, column, or other obstruction higher than 0.5 feet shall be increased by two feet
on each obstructed side, provided that the increase may be reduced by 0.25 feet for
each one foot of unobstructed distance from the edge of a required aisle, measured
parallel to the depth of the parking space.
7. Minimum Dimensions for Residential Carports. Each single-car carport shall
measure at least 10 feet wide by 20 feet long. Each double carport shall measure at
least 20 feet wide by 20 feet long. The width of the carport is to be measured from
inside face of support to inside face of opposite support. The carport roof shall cover
the entire 20-foot length of the space. Unless adequate enclosed storage area is
provided elsewhere on-site, the carport shall include a minimum 80 cubic feet of
enclosed, un-inhabitable and non-conditioned storage space.
8. Minimum Dimensions for Residential Enclosed Garages. Enclosed garages serving
residential uses shall be constructed to meet the following minimum inside
dimensions.
a. A single-car garage shall be at least 10 feet wide and 20 feet long.
b. A double-car garage shall be at least 20 feet wide and 20 feet long.
c. Each garage space shall be equipped with an automatic door opener and a roll-up
sectional or similar garage door which does not extend onto the apron. On
multifamily dwellings, a security gate on a multispace garage is permitted.
d. For the purpose of determining the existing number of garage spaces for an
existing dwelling unit the following dimensions shall apply:
i. An existing garage with minimum interior dimensions of 8 1/2 feet in width
and 18 feet in length shall qualify as one existing enclosed parking space.
ii. An existing garage with minimum interior dimensions of 17 feet in width and
18 feet in length shall qualify as two existing enclosed parking spaces.
iii. If the minimum interior dimensions of an existing garage parking space
exceeds the minimum dimensions in this subsection, the existing enclosed
space dimensions shall be maintained.
iv. The vertical clearance for garage or carport parking spaces shall not be less
than seven feet.
(6) Amend Section 20.330.010.L.8 “Parking Garage Rooftop Planting” to allow exceptions
to the standard subject to Planning Commission approval.
8. Parking Garage Rooftop Planting. Uncovered parking on the top level of a parking
structure shall have rooftop planters with a minimum dimension of 24 inches around the
entire perimeter of the top floor. Exceptions to this standard are subject to Planning
Commission approval.
P. Revise Chapter 20.350 Standards and Requirements for Specific Uses and Activities
as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.350.008, Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing, to allow Chief Planner
approval of landscaping less than ten percent of the site.
A. Landscaping. At least ten percent of the site shall be landscaped, unless the Chief
Planner determines that due to the characteristics of a specific site, a lower percentage of
proposed landscaping is sufficient to adequately screen the site.
(2) Amend Section 20.350.030 “Outdoor Seating” to increase the base square footage area
allowed to be used for outdoor seating, and to require approval of a Minor Use Permit,
rather than a Conditional Use Permit, to exceed the base permitted outdoor seating
area:
Eating and drinking establishments with outdoor seating areas shall be located, developed,
and operated in compliance with the following standards:
A. Size. Outdoor seating areas shall not exceed 30 percent of the total building floor area
occupied by the eating and drinking establishment, or 150 square feet of outdoor seating
area, whichever is greater, unless approved with a Minor Use Permit.
B. Minor Use Permit. A Minor Use Permit is required when the outdoor seating area is
located immediately abutting the property line of a residential district.
(3) Amend Section 20.350.035 “Accessory Dwelling Units” to clarify that the maximum size
of the ADU is based on total floor area of the primary unit.
D. Maximum Floor Area. The total area of floor space of an attached or detached accessory
dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the floor area of the primary unit, with a
maximum allowable floor area of 900 square feet.
Q. Revise Chapter 20.360 Signs as follows:
(1) Amend Table 20.360.008 “Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zoning Districts” to
revise the title of the final column as follows:
Zoning Districts
(Frontage)
Sign Area
Allowed (sq. ft.
per 1 linear ft. of
building
frontage)
Total Maximum
Sign Area (sq.
ft.)
Permitted Sign
Types
Maximum
Number of Signs
Maximum Sign
Area per Sign
Type
(sq. ft.)
R. Revise Chapter 20.370 Antennas and Wireless Communications Facilities as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.370.003.D.2 “Location Preferences” to correct the language in the
final location preference standard regarding the required distance of a new antenna
located in any nonresidential district.
2. Location Preferences.
a. In an Employment district and co-located with existing wireless telecommunication
facilities that conform to the requirements of this chapter.
b. In any other Nonresidential district and co-located with existing conforming
facilities.
c. In an Employment district and located more than 600 feet from a Residential district.
d. In any other Nonresidential district and located more than 600 feet from a Residential
district.
e. On Nonresidential structures in Residential districts and located more than 600 feet
from a Residential structure.
f. In any Nonresidential district and located less than 600 feet from a Residential
district.
S. Revise Chapter 20.400 Transportation Demand Management
(1) Amend Table 20.400.003 “Minimum Alternative Mode Use” to make the FAR bonus
request rows consistent with the maximum floor area ratios allowed in the base zoning
district standards.
Project Base District Requested FAR Minimum Alternative
Mode Use (percent of
total trips)
Nonresidential projects
resulting in more than 100
average daily trips
All n/a 28.0
FAR bonus request Business and Professional
Office
1.01 – 1.59 30.0
1.60 – 1.99 36.5
2.00 – 2.30 45.0
Business Commercial and
Freeway Commercial
0.51 – 0.69 30.0
0.70 – 0.80 32.0
0.81 – 1.00 35.0
Hotels and Motels in
Business Commercial and
Freeway Commercial
1.21 – 1.49 30.0
1.50 – 1.69 32.0
1.70 – 1.80 35.0
1.81 – 2.00 38.0
2.01 – 2.20 40.0
Business and Technology
Park
0.51 – 0.69 30.0
0.70 – 0.80 32.0
0.81 – 1.00 35.0
1.01 – 1.12 38.0
1.13 – 1.25 40.0
T. Revise Chapter 20.440 Planning Agency as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.440.011 to include provisions for Concurrent Processing of multiple
entitlements.
Concurrent Processing. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, whenever an
application filed pursuant to this Ordinance seeks multiple entitlements, if any of the
entitlements require review and action by different decision makers, all of the associated
entitlements shall be reviewed and acted upon by the highest approval body with authority
over any of the entitlements. When an application seeking multiple entitlements is transferred
to a higher approval body for determination, the lower approval body shall serve as an
advisory body on those entitlements that it would typically review and act upon.
(2) Re-number Section 20.440.011 “Summary of Review Authorities for Decisions and
Appeals”, and Table 20.440.011 “Review Authority” to accommodate the Concurrent
Processing provisions.
20.440.012 Summary of Review Authorities for Decisions and Appeals
Table 20.440.012 Review Authority
(3) Amend Table 20.440.012 “Review Authority” to reference concurrent processing
requirements for projects seeking multiple entitlements and include Transportation
Demand Management Plans.
Application or Action
Type
Found in
Chapter Advisory Body Decision Maker Appeal Body
Type One: Ministerial Actions
Site Clearance 20.470 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Sign Permit 20.360 N/A Chief Planner City Council
Interpretations 20.030 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Minor Changes to an
Approved Permit 20.440 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions
Waiver from Dimensional
Standards 20.510 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Permit Modifications 20.440 Chief Planner Chief Planner or Planning
Commission City Council
Parking District Parking
Exceptions 20.330 N/A Planning Commission City Council
Temporary Use Permits 20.520 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Design Review 20.480 Design Review
Board
Chief Planner or Planning
Commission
Planning Commission
or City Council
Minor Use Permits 20.490 N/A Chief Planner Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permits 20.490 Chief Planner Planning Commission City Council
Variances 20.500 Chief Planner Planning Commission City Council
Certificates of Alteration 2.56 N/A Planning Commission City Council
Master Sign Program 20.360
Advisory Body of
Associated Project
Permit
Review Authority of
Associated Project Permit
Appeal Body of
Associated Project
Permit
Precise Plans (excluding
Terrabay)
20.210
20.220
20.230
Chief Planner Planning Commission City Council
Transportation Demand
Management Plan 20.400
Advisory Body of
Associated Project
Permit
Review Authority of
Associated Project Permit
Appeal Body of
Associated Project
Permit
Type Three: Discretionary Legislative Actions
Precise Plans (Terrabay) 20.240 Planning
Commission City Council Superior Court
Specific Plans and Plan
Amendments 20.530 Planning
Commission City Council Superior Court
General Plan Text and
Map Amendments 20.540 Planning
Commission City Council Superior Court
Zoning Ordinance and
Map Amendments 20.550 Planning
Commission City Council Superior Court
Prezoning 20.560 Planning
Commission City Council Superior Court
1. For review authority for applications seeking multiple entitlements from different decision makers, see Section
20.440.011.
(4) Amend Section 20.440.005 “Design Review Board”, to clarify DRB terms and
membership.
The Design Review Board is established and organized to conduct design review of proposed
development pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 20.480 (“Design Review”). It is
organized and has the powers and responsibilities as follows:
A. Membership and Terms of Office. The Design Review Board shall consist of five
members appointed by the Planning Commission. Each member shall be appointed for a
term of four years and until a successor is appointed and qualified. Terms shall be
staggered and shall expire in even-numbered years. Following the effective date of this
Ordinance, the next two Design Review Board appointments shall be made for less than
a full four year term to assure that the Design Review Board has staggered terms.
B. Officers. At least two members shall be architects licensed by the State. At least two
members shall be either a landscape architect, designer, contractor, horticulturist, or
person with equivalent landscaping expertise or background. No more than one member
may be a building or engineering contractor. At least one of the members shall also be a
resident and elector of the City.
C. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Board shall review design review applications,
related drawings, and other matters related thereto and make recommendations to the
Planning Commission and Chief Planner in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
20.480 (“Design Review”) and the design review guidelines.
D. Compensation. The Design Review Board members shall be compensated according to
the schedule adopted by the City Council.
U. Revise Chapter 20.450 Common Procedures as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.450.005 “Public Notice” to remove the on-site posting requirement:
B. Posted Notice. Notices shall be posted at three public places within the City of South
San Francisco. The notice shall include all of the information listed in subsection E
below.
(2) Amend Table 20.450.005 “Hearing Scheduling Responsibilities and Notice
Requirements” to include Transportation Demand Management Plans.
Application or Action Type Scheduling Responsibility Required Notice
Type One: Ministerial Actions
Site Clearance
Sign Permit
Interpretations
Minor Changes to an Approved Permit
N/A N/A
Type Two: Discretionary Quasi-Judicial Actions
Waiver from Dimensional Standards N/A N/A
Parking District Parking Exceptions Chief Planner A, B, and C
Temp. Use Permits N/A N/A
Design Review Chief Planner Same as underlying permit
If no other discretionary action,
notice shall be posted in the Planning
Division at least 10 days prior to the
date of action.
Negative Declaration Chief Planner Same as underlying permit
Master Sign Program Chief Planner Same as underlying permit
Minor Use Permits Chief Planner A, B, and C
Conditional Use Permits Chief Planner A, B, and C
Variances Chief Planner A, B, and C
Appeals Planning Commission Hearing:
Chief Planner
A, B, and C
City Council Hearing
City Clerk
A, B, and C
Transportation Demand Management
Plan
Chief Planner Same as underlying permit
If no other discretionary action,
notice shall be posted in the Planning
Division at least 10 days prior to the
date of action.
Type Three: Discretionary Legislative Actions
Specific Plans and Plan Amendments
General Plan Text and Map Amendments
Zoning Ordinance and Map Amendments
Prezoning
Planning Commission Hearing:
Chief Planner
C; A, B, and C if permitted uses of
real property are affected.
City Council Hearing
City Clerk
C
V. Revise Chapter 20.480 Design Review as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.480.003 “Assignment of Design Review Responsibilities” to assign
design review of signs up to 100 square feet to the Chief Planner.
A. Chief Planner.
1. The Chief Planner may approve, conditionally approve, or deny sign programs with
less than 100 square feet of total sign area and additions to one-, two- and three-unit
residential structures not elsewhere exempted from the procedures of this chapter,
without the Design Review Board’s review and recommendations.
W. Revise Chapter 20.490 Use Permits as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.490.002 “Use Permit Applicability” to clarify that a new use or
change in use within 300 feet of a residential district requires a Minor Use Permit:
Use permit approval is required for the following:
A. A Minor Use Permit is required for any new use or change of use from one use
classification to another nonresidential use classification within 300 feet of a residential
district. A change in occupancy is not considered a change in use unless the new occupant
is in a different use classification than the former occupant.
X. Revise Chapter 20.620 Use Classifications as follows:
(1) Amend Section 20.620.002 “Residential Use Classifications” to revise the definition of
Single-Unit Dwelling uses to be consistent with California Health and Safety Code
Section 17021.5 regarding employee housing for six or fewer employees, and add a
definition for a micro-unit as a type of multi-family residential development
Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit designed for occupancy by one household, where all
rooms are internally connected and internally accessible via habitable space, and located on
a separate lot from any other unit (except second living units, where permitted). This
classification includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation
system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code, and the use of a
single-family residential structure as employee housing for six or fewer employees consistent
with Section 17021.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Detached. A single-unit dwelling, on a single lot, within which all rooms are internally
accessible and that is not attached to any other dwelling unit.
Attached. A single-unit dwelling on a single lot that is attached through common vertical
walls to one or more dwellings on abutting lots. An attached single-unit dwelling is
sometimes called a “townhouse.”
Semi-Attached. A single-unit dwelling with only the garage wall abutting, or in common
with, the garage of the dwelling unit on the adjacent lot.
Multiple-Unit Residential. Two or more dwelling units on a single lot. Multi-unit
development types include townhouses, single-unit groups, garden apartments, senior citizen
residential developments, multi-story apartment buildings, and transitional residential
development.
Duplex. A single building on a separate lot that contains two dwelling units or two single-
unit dwellings on a single lot. This use is distinguished from a Second Dwelling Unit, which
is an Accessory residential unit as defined by State law and this ordinance.
Multi-Unit. Three or more dwelling units on a site or lot. Types of multiple family dwellings
include townhouses, garden apartments, senior housing developments, micro-units, and
multi-story apartment buildings.
Senior Citizen Residential. A multi-unit development in which individual units are occupied
exclusively by one or more persons 62 years of age or older.
(2) Amend Section 20.620.004 “Commercial Use Classifications” to clarify the definition of
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals uses.
Automobile/Vehicle Rentals. Point of sale for rental of automobiles, including storage and
maintenance.
(3) Amend Section 20.620.005 “Employment Use Classifications” to revise the definition
of Wholesaling and Distribution to reference Building Materials and Services uses
rather than Construction Sales and Services uses.
Wholesaling and Distribution. Indoor storage and sale of goods to other firms for resale;
storage of goods for transfer to retail outlets of the same firm; or storage and sale of materials
and supplies used in production of operation, including janitorial and restaurant supplies.
Wholesalers are primarily engaged in business-to-business sales, but may sell to individual
consumers through mail or internet orders. They normally operate from a warehouse or office
having little or no display of merchandise, and are not designed to solicit walk-in traffic. This
classification does not include wholesale sale of building materials. (See Building Materials
and Services).
Y. Amend Chapter 20.630 Definitions as follows:
(1) Add a definition of “micro-unit”:
Micro-Unit. Small studio apartment, up to 350 square feet, with a fully functioning and
accessibility compliant kitchen and bathroom.
(2) Amend the definition of outdoor storage to be consistent with Section 20.350.031
“Outdoor Storage”:
Outdoor Storage. The keeping, in an unroofed area, of any goods, junk, material,
merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than 72 hours, except for the keeping of
building materials reasonable required for construction work on the premises pursuant to a
valid and current building permit issued by the City.
Z. Amend Chapter 20.375 Small Cell Wireless Communications Facilities as follows:
(1) Amend the definition of “small cell wireless facility” in Section 20.375.002 to further
consistency with federal telecommunication regulations:
G. Small Cell Wireless Facility. A Small Cell Wireless Facility means a wireless
telecommunications facility, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65850.6 of
the Government Code, as amended, or a wireless facility that uses licensed or unlicensed
spectrum and that meets the following requirements:
1. The structure on which antenna facilities are mounted:
(a) Is 50 feet or less in height, or
(b) Is no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
(c) Is not extended to a height of more than 10 percent above its preexisting
height as a result of the collocation of new antenna facilities; and
2. Each antenna (excluding associated antenna equipment as defined by 47 C.F.R.
§1.1320(d)) is no more than three cubic feet in volume; and
3. All other wireless equipment associated with the facility are cumulatively no more
than 28 cubic feet in volume; and
4. The facility does not require antenna structure registration under 47 C.F.R. Chapter 1,
Subchapter A, Part 17.
5. The facility is not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(x);
and
6. The facility does not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of
the applicable safety standards specified in 47 C.F.R. §1.1307(b).
7. A micro wireless facility, which shall be defined as a small cell that is no larger than
24 inches long, 15 inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any,
no longer than 11 inches.
8. For the purposes of this subsection, the following types of Ancillary Equipment are
excluded from the calculation of equipment volume:
a. Electric meters and any required pedestal;
b. Concealment elements such as a stealth facility;
c. Any telecommunications demarcation box;
d. Grounding equipment, power transfer switch;
e. Cutoff switch;
f. Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; and
g. Equipment concealed within an existing building or structure.
9. For the purposes of this chapter, a Small Cell Wireless Facility does not include the
following:
a. Wireline backhaul facility, which shall mean a facility used for the transport
of communications data by wire from wireless facilities to a network.
b. Coaxial or fiber optic cables that are not immediately adjacent to or directly
associated with a particular antenna or collocation.
c. Wireless facilities placed in any historic district listed in the National Park
Service Certified State or Local Historic Districts or in any historical district listed on the
California Register of Historical Resources or placed in coastal zones subject to the
jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.
d. Underlying vertical infrastructure, which shall mean poles or similar facilities
owned or controlled by the City that are in the public rights-of-way or public utility
easements and meant for, or used in whole or in part for, communications service,
electric service, lighting, traffic control, or similar functions.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
Report regarding a resolution rejecting all bids for the Linden Ave.Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller)Phase II/
Spruce Ave (Lux Ave to Maple Ave) Project.(Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution rejecting all bids for the Linden Ave.
Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller)Phase II/Spruce Ave (Lux Ave to Maple Ave)Project (Project No.
st1602).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Linden Avenue and Spruce Avenue Traffic Calming Improvement Project was designed to install bulb-outs,
new ADA-compliant curb ramps,advanced stop bars,high-visibility ladder crosswalks,median pedestrian
refuge islands,advanced yield lines,and signage of uncontrolled crossings on Linden Avenue between
California Avenue and Miller Avenue.In addition,the project would install high-visibility crosswalks with
pedestrian-actuated beacons or all-way stop control,median refuge islands,striped edge lines,staggered
sidewalk bulbs to reinforce edge lines,and new ADA-accessible curb ramps at all crossings and high-visibility
crosswalks on Spruce Avenue between Lux Avenue and Maple Avenue.See Attachment 1 for Project Location
Map.
Staff advertised a notice inviting new bids for the project on June 25,2019.On August 8,2019,the City
received the following three bids:
CF Contracting, Inc. of San Francisco, CA (non-responsive)$2,543,825
Golden Bay Construction of Hayward, CA $3,362,553
Sposeto Engineering, Inc. of Livermore, CA $3,434,565
The engineer’s estimate for the contract work was $2,049,500.
Staff reviewed the bids,comparing its individual bid items with those in the engineer’s estimate,and
determined some bid item prices were unusually higher than expected.Staff will work with the designer to
evaluate the cause of these high prices and then revise the contract scope of work for the purpose of the project
to be rebid successfully.
It is recommended that all bids be rejected.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:11.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the current Capital Improvement Plan budget.
CONCLUSION
Rejection of all bids is recommended so that the project can be rebid in the winter of FY 2019-20 before the
start of the summer construction season. This will allow staff to seek more competitive bids.
Attachment: Project Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
ATTACHMENT 1 – LOCATION MAP
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-682 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:11a.
Resolution rejecting all bids for the Linden Ave. Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller) Phase II/ Spruce Ave (Lux
Ave to Maple Ave) Project. (Matthew Ruble, Principal Engineer)
WHEREAS,on June 25,2019,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)staff issued a Notice Inviting Bids for
the Linden Ave.Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller)Phase II/Spruce Ave (Lux Ave to Maple Ave)Project,
Project No. st1602 and on August 8, 2019 received three (3) bids in response; and
WHEREAS,the three bids received were substantially higher than the engineer’s estimate and the project
construction budget; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20166,a legislative body of a public entity may reject
any bids received for a public project; and
WHEREAS,the City has determined that it will need to review and revise the contract scope of work and then
rebid the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby rejects all bids for the Linden Ave. Complete Streets (Aspen to Miller) Phase II/ Spruce Ave
(Lux Ave to Maple Ave) Project and authorizes City staff to readvertise the Project.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 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 #:19-715 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:12.
Report recommending the adoption of a resolution to approve consulting services agreement with Matrix
Consulting to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and Impact Fee Study Review in
an amount not to exceed $100,000.(Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to approve consulting services agreement
with Matrix Consulting to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and Impact
Fee Study Review in an amount not to exceed $100,000.(Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP)for a Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and
Impact Fee Study Review on July 17,2019.The services sought are for a qualified firm to conduct an analysis
on the cost of providing all City services and determine the appropriate amount of cost recovery for each
service.The study will consider costs that are hard to capture,as well as recommendations for implementing
cost recovery policies.The firm would conduct internal stakeholder outreach and complete the report prior to
the next budget cycle.The scope of work also includes a review and report on the City’s impact fees and
ultimately tools and outreach materials that will ensure predictable and intuitive fees that are easily accessible
and understandable to customers interested in calculating fees on their own for a particular type of project.
The City received three timely responses in response to the RFP.Proposals were received by Matrix Consulting
Group; Harris and as a sub-contractor, Clearsource; and Willdan.
The firms were evaluated and by an internal panel comprised of:
·Director of Finance
·Financial Services Manager
·Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development
·Management Analyst II
Panel Members evaluated each prospective firm according to criteria listed below and weighed each value
accordingly:
·Quality of proposal and responses to specific questions included in the RFP and experience on similar
fiscal analyses and reports for local government agencies in California.
·Relevant qualifications of key personnel assigned to the project and accessibility of key personnel to the
staff during the project.
·Fit.
·Reasonableness of fees and cost proposal.
Based on the evaluation panel scores provided in Attachment 1,Matrix Consulting Group demonstrated that
they had the appropriate experience level desired and demonstrated that they were wholly available to staff
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-715 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:12.
they had the appropriate experience level desired and demonstrated that they were wholly available to staff
throughout the entire project and beyond.As due diligence,staff conducted in person interviews with all firms
on August 18th.As staff’s top contender,Courtney Ramos,Vice President of Matrix Consulting Group,led the
presentation for Matrix singlehandedly and quite convinced staff of her firm’s capabilities.Staff then contacted
references for each of the top two candidates and found that Matrix Consulting Group ultimately was the top
choice. The contract agreed upon is in an amount not to exceed $100,000.
Matrix is located out of San Mateo,California.They have worked with over 1,200 government agencies in the
past few decades,conducting cost of service and management studies providing recommendations relating to
operations, improvements, and cost recovery.
FISCAL IMPACT
The consulting services agreement for a Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and Impact Fee
Study Review would be in an amount not to exceed $100,000 funded by General Fund appropriations in the FY
2019-2021 Adopted Budget.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The development of a comprehensive user fee study,cost allocation plan,and impact fee study review supports
the city’s fiscal stability and aligns with CPI increases.
CONCLUSION
Adopting the attached resolution to approve a consulting services agreement ensures that South San Francisco
follows good business practice by periodically adjusting service fees to align actual cost with the fee charged.
Attachments:
1.Evaluation Panel Scores
2.Contract Draft with Scope of Services
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Evaluation CriteriaPoints per Evaluator*Possible PointsWilldan Matrix HarrisQuality of proposal and responses to specific questions included in this RFP and experience on similar fiscal analyses and reports for local government agencies in California.3514032.533.25 31.25Relevant qualifications of key personnel assigned to this project and accessibility of key personnel to the City’s staff during the project.2510020.523.75 21.75Fit2510020.2524.75 21.75Reasonableness of fees and cost proposal.156014.514 14.75Total Score100 40087.7595.75 89.5*Three (4) evaluatorsAttachment 1Attachment 1
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 of 16
ATTACHMENT 2
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) and Matrix Consulting Group(“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of
August 29, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).
Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant
shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in
or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall
end on August 29, 2020, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall
complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement
is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to
Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s
right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this
Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent
practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in
which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products
required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the
standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform
services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time
during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant
shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such
person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided
in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $100,000
notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal, for services to be
performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this
Agreement and Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, or Consultant’s compensation schedule
attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 of 16
Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein.
The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein.
Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by
more than one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this
Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder,
including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties
further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions
and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City
therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the
term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice,
etc.);
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings,
the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the
percentage of completion;
At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries
or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work,
the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each
reimbursable expense;
The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant
and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services
hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by
Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant
reaches or exceeds eight hundred (800) hours, which shall include an estimate of
the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A;
The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought;
The Consultant’s signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for
services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall
have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements
above to pay Consultant. City shall have no obligation to pay invoices submitted ninety (90)
days past the performance of work or incurrence of cost.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last ten percent (10%) of the total sum due pursuant to
this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City
of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 of 16
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever
incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make
no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum
amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless
the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed
change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed
the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit B.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. The following constitute reimbursable expenses authorized by
this Agreement - none. Reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $0. Expenses not listed
above are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount
of compensation provided under Section 2 of this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes, Tax Withholding. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of
employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. To
be exempt from tax withholding, Consultant must provide City with a valid California
Franchise Tax Board form 590 (“Form 590”), as may be amended and such Form 590 shall
be attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit ____. Unless Consultant provides
City with a valid Form 590 or other valid, written evidence of an exemption or waiver from
withholding, City may withhold California taxes from payments to Consultant as required by
law. Consultant shall obtain, and maintain on file for three (3) years after the termination of
this Agreement, Form 590s (or other written evidence of exemptions or waivers) from all
subcontractors. Consultant accepts sole responsibility for withholding taxes from any non-
California resident subcontractor and shall submit written documentation of compliance with
Consultant’s withholding duty to City upon request. .
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this
Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all
outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as
of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and
timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any
services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of
authorization from the Contract Administrator.
2.10 Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of
laborers, workmen, or mechanics on the work contemplated by this Agreement, shall be not
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 of 16
less than the prevailing rate for a day’s work in the same trade or occupation in the locality
within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be performed as determined by the
Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under Labor Code Section
1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Consultant or by any
subcontractor shall receive the wages herein provided for. The Consultant shall pay two
hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by Labor Code Section 1775, as
may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per diem
wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to
each worker shall be paid by the Consultant to each worker.
An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Consultant from responsibility
for payment of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 1770 1775. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation
because of the payment by the Consultant for any wage rate in excess of prevailing wage
rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by
the Consultant.
a. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of
prevailing wage rates is not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the
Consultant shall post at appropriate conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule
showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the various classes of laborers and
mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all deductions, if
any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and
mechanics so engaged.
b. Payroll Records. Each Consultant and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll
record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per
diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by
the Consultant in connection with the public work. Such records shall be certified and
submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776.”
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost
and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by
this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section,
and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and
the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall
be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve
incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other
communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 of 16
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the 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 work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents,
representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall
provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, indicating that
Consultant 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. Consultant shall maintain the insurance
policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be
included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any
subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s).
4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant 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 Consultant. 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,
Consultant 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 Contract Administrator (as defined in Section 10.9).
The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, 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.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, 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.
4.2.2 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
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 of 16
as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8
and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
4.2.3 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 Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy
shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees,
agents, and volunteers.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, 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.
4.3.2 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 Agreement or the work, 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, Consultant 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 Consultant’s sole cost and
expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant
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.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 of 16
4.4.1 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.
4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant shall furnish City with complete copies of all policies delivered to
Consultant 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 Consultant
beginning work, it shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The
City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies
at any time.
4.4.3 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 thirty (30) 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, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working
days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage.
4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents,
and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the
following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant,
including the insured’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by
Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant 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.
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant 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
Consultant’s 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
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 of 16
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 Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles
or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in
deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant
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.
4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant 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.
4.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a “wasting”
policy limit.
4.4.8 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.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails 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
Consultant’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;
b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that
becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment,
until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or
c. Terminate this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 of 16
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses,
liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury,
loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the
extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or
its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality
or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of
life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of
the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees,
subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation
of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend
as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and
endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this
indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any
damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply.
By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and
that it is a material element of consideration.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under
this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions
for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the
payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of
City.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right
to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant
to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however,
otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant
and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this
Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all
claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but
not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for
employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 of 16
6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent
or to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with
all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by
fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall
comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such
fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its
employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and
approvals, including from City, of what-so-ever nature that are legally required to practice
their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and
its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in
effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals
that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing,
Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the
basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or
disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee,
applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient
of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement.
Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and
requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting,
and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not
limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by
the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written
notification to Consultant.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 of 16
Consultant may cancel this Agreement for cause upon 30 days’ written notice to City and
shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services
performed to the date of notice of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant delivering to City all materials described in Section 9.1.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this
Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a
written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and
agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide
Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement.
Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to
reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the
extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the
parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this
Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a
determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized
personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this
Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant.
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written
approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any
portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the
subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract
Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions
of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms
of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any
other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not
finished by Consultant; or
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 of 16
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described
in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would
have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models,
charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records,
files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant
prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered
hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those
documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that
the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not
necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final
approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential
and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless
required by law.
9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books
of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents
evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged
to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this
Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit,
and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the
City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds
expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the
Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request
of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment
under the Agreement.
9.4 Records Submitted in Response to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals. All
responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) or invitation to bid issued by the City become
the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City selects a bid, all proposals
received become a matter of public record, and shall be regarded as public records, with
the exception of those elements in each proposal that are defined by Consultant and
plainly marked as “Confidential,” "Business Secret" or “Trade Secret."
The City shall not be liable or in any way responsible for the disclosure of any such
proposal or portions thereof, if Consultant has not plainly marked it as a "Trade Secret" or
"Business Secret," or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 of 16
Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret
information may be protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish
that the information that a prospective bidder submits is a trade secret. If a request is
made for information marked "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," and the requester takes
legal action seeking release of the materials it believes does not constitute trade secret
information, by submitting a proposal, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its agents and employees, from any judgment, fines, penalties, and
award of attorneys fees awarded against the City in favor of the party requesting the
information, and any and all costs connected with that defense. This obligation to
indemnify survives the City's award of the contract. Consultant agrees that this
indemnification survives as long as the trade secret information is in the City's possession,
which includes a minimum retention period for such documents.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including arbitration or 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.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this
Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state
courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
10.3 Severability. 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.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this
Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term
of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies
and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost
than virgin paper.
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within
the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 of 16
in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at
California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this
Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement
that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12)
months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an
employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve (12) months,
Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement.
Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code
§1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any
compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement
of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the
Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to
criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be
disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or
interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Heather Enders
("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract
Administrator or his or her designee.
10.10 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when
received if personally delivered; (ii) when received if transmitted by telecopy, if received
during normal business hours on a business day (or if not, the next business day after
delivery) provided that such facsimile is legible and that at the time such facsimile is sent
the sending Party receives written confirmation of receipt; (iii) if sent for next day delivery
to a domestic address by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., Federal Express);
and (iv) upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. In
each case notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows: Consultant
Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148
Mountain View, CA 94040
City:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 of 16
South San Francisco, CA 94080
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator,
the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of
construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional
responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled
"Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the
following example.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, and incorporated
herein, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral
pertaining to the matters herein.
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by facsimile or
other electronic means, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such
counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with
other signed counterpart, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and
effective as to all Parties..
10.14 Construction. The headings in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference only and
shall not limit or otherwise affect any of the terms of this Agreement. The parties have had
an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement; therefore any
construction as against the drafting party shall not apply to this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 of 16
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Consultants
____________________________ _____________________________________
City Manager NAME: Richard Brady or Designee
TITLE: President
Attest:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
____________________________
City Attorney
2729962.1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
and
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
The City of South San Francisco is looking to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study,
Full Cost Allocation Plan, and Development Impact Fee Study. These scopes of work will
allow the City to accurately account for the full cost of providing fee and non-fee related
services, as well as identify areas where services are currently being subsidized. The
following points provide an overview of the scope of work desired by the City.
• A User Fee Study will document direct and indirect costs associated with fee-
based services.
• The development of a Full Cost Allocation Plan will identify indirect costs
associated with all City funds, Departments, and Services;
• A Development Impact Fee Study will serve to identify the appropriate portion of
costs that should be shared between existing residents and new development
within the community.
• In addition to these studies, the City would also like to have electronic models
which will allow City staff to update the results of these studies as needed.
The following table breaks out by study type our detailed tasks and descriptions for each.
Task Description
COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY WORK PLAN
Determine and
Review Initial
Documentation
The project team will provide the City with a written “Data Collection List” outlining
documents and information needed prior to our first onsite visit. Before our first on-
site visit, we will review this information to familiarize ourselves with strengths,
weaknesses and opportunities for improvement related to the City’s existing fee
structure. In addition, we will familiarize ourselves with the budgetary and staffing
structures relevant to fees for service.
Project Initiation
To effectively analyze and present the full cost of providing City services, it is
important that the project team develops an understanding of key issues which
impact and shape the City’s service delivery and cost recovery policies. Based
upon this meeting, the project team will provide the project management plan and
schedule and begin meeting with Departments to conduct the fee study.
Task Description
Develop a
Schedule of
Current and
Potential Fees
for Service
The scope of this effort will be all fees for service charged by the City. Current as
well as potential fees and charges will be identified and documented. The project
team will work with staff to go through their current fee schedules in line-item by
line-item detail. Options will be discussed regarding renaming of fees, elimination
of fees, or addition of new or expanded categories to better reflect the services
being provided.
Conduct Time
and Activity Data
Gathering
Workshops
The project team will conduct workshops to gather time and activity estimates for
each service included in the study, interviewing key personnel from each
department and analyzing the various activities being performed within it that are
both revenue and non-revenue generating.
Perform a Total
Cost Analysis
The Matrix Consulting Group’s costing model is built based on the City’s
operations, budget detail and intended uses for the results. This method is a
customized approach, specific to each jurisdiction, for cost analysis of user fee
services. This costing method uses time and annual activity level data to establish
the cost of providing services on both a unit and annual level. Once the time spent
for a fee activity is determined for each individual or position, the team uses its fee
and rate software to apply applicable City costs to the calculation of the full cost of
providing each service. Resulting costs are presented on a unit and annual level
and are compared to the existing fee schedule and revenue reports.
Analysis of
Recoverable
Revenue
Utilizing each department’s billing statistics, receivables, and workload data, the
project team will analyze potential and actual recoverable revenue. This will help
the City understand how workload volume impacts revenue and cost subsidies.
Staff can use this information to shape current or future policies on cost recovery.
Conduct a
Market Rate
Survey to Other
Cities
The project team will work with each Department to identify comparable agencies
for the fee comparison survey. We will also develop the survey tools and select the
most appropriate fee items for benchmarks. Then, we will administer the survey,
collect comparative data, conduct the comparison, and review the results.
Review / Revise
Fee Study
Results
Because the analysis of fees for service is based on estimates and information
provided by City staff, it is extremely important that all participants are comfortable
with our methodology and with the data they have provided. Once the departments
agree that the analysis reflects the reasonable costs of providing services, City
management will have an opportunity to review the results. The project team will
address implementation strategies that consider both policy issues and goals for
optimum cost recovery. While it is generally desirable to eliminate any subsidies,
discussions regarding the feasibility of raising fees based on political climate, legal
restrictions, and social and economic consequences.
Prepare a Final
User Fee Study
Upon conclusion of the fee study, we will prepare a detailed report that summarizes
the results of each of the previous work tasks described above. The report will be
reviewed, revised and finalized with Department and City management.
Present Final
Report
The presentation of results to City officials and/or stakeholders is critical to the
success of the overall engagement. Because the product from the study is often
controversial, the objective of this final step is to present a succinct summary that
provides decision makers with key information. The Matrix Consulting Group will
attend and present the Study at up to two (2) Council or Committee Meetings.
FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN WORK PLAN
Task Description
Data Collection
The Matrix Consulting Group will provide the City with a list of initial data
requirements for the study, including items such as: expenditure information,
staffing information, organizational chart, and copies of previous cost allocation
studies. Collecting this information, prior to our initial meetings with City staff, will
help the project team familiarize itself with the current Cost plan process.
Study Objectives
and Project
Schedule
Once the data has been collected, the project team will then meet with designated
City staff to discuss any issues identified by the project team, as well as to clarify
any existing concerns held by the City in regards to the current cost allocation
methodology. Discussions will include reviewing the City’s specific needs / critical
issues concerning the development and implementation of the plan and
opportunities for improvement from previous plans or methodologies. After, the
meeting, the project team will put together a detailed schedule showing week by
week, the deliverables for both the City and the project team.
Interview Staff
and Gather Data
The project team will work with City staff to develop and structure a custom cost
allocation plan for the City, our project team would work with the City to review and
discuss the current accounting and staffing structure. We would identify and meet
with central services departments to develop allocation bases and ensure that the
plan is reflective of all current services being provided by the City. Lastly, the project
team will discuss the collection of appropriate and defensible metrics to be utilized
for allocation of services.
Review Draft
Allocation
Metrics
Based upon units of service identified and the allocation metrics collected, the
project team would put together allocation statistic workbooks for review with the
Central Service Departments. The purpose of these workbooks is to review the
initial results of the allocation metrics gathered by the project team. Once these
workbooks have been created, the project team would have in-person review
meetings with each central and administrative functional area to go through these
workbooks. As the City has prepared Cost Allocation Plan(s) in the past, the project
team would also provide as part of this review, a comparison of the current
allocation metrics to the previous allocation metrics. This type of comparison can
also help provide additional context when reviewing results.
Draft Cost
Allocation Plan
Once the Central Service departments and administrative functional areas have
agreed upon the appropriate allocation metrics for their services, the draft plan
would be developed. The draft Cost Allocation Plan will provide clear
documentation regarding the basis for allocations, and the methodologies applied
to achieve the plan’s final result. The Draft Cost Allocation Plan is a report that will
be developed that will include an introduction on cost allocation principles,
methodologies, organizational chart, detailed narrative of services, and numerical
results of the analysis. The purpose of this detailed draft report is to ensure that
there is clear and defensible documentation for all the information included in the
Cost Allocation Plan. The project team will distribute this report to all participating
central service departments, as well as the executive team for review and
discussion.
Task Description
Comparison of
Draft CAP to
Current Plan
Similar to the allocation metrics, as the City annually prepares cost allocation plans,
the project team would develop a comparison between the draft cost allocation plan
being developed to the City’s most recent version of the Cost Allocation Plan. This
type of comparative or “flux” analysis enables City staff to review the implications
of the proposed draft cost allocation plan prior to finalizing the draft cost allocation
plan. It can also serve as a way for the City to address any major shifts in costs as
a result of the proposed cost allocation prior and prepare any internal funds or
departments for those increases or decreases in allocations.
Finalize Full Cost
Plan
Once management has reviewed the metrics, the draft cost allocation plan, and the
comparison between the plans, the project team will finalize the Full Cost Allocation
Plan. The final deliverables associated with the Cost Allocation Plan will be the Full
Cost Plan report, Summary of Results in Excel, and Comparative Excel Analysis.
These deliverables will allow the City to have clear documentation of not only the
final Cost Plan developed, but also documentation regarding any key differences
and results from the Cost Plan.
Present Full Cost
Plan
Similar to the Comprehensive Fee Study, the project team will present the results
of the Full Cost Allocation Plan upon the City’s request to internal and external
stakeholders. The results of this analysis will be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Fee study and can be presented concurrently with the Fee study.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY WORK PLAN
Project Initiation
The purpose of this task is to develop an initial understanding of the City’s current
projected growth levels and any future developments that will impact that
population growth. The project team will review the City’s specific needs and critical
issues surrounding development and implementation of the Impact Fee Study.
Based on the results of these discussions, the project team will have a greater
understanding of the goals and objectives of the City in conducting this impact fee
study and will provide the City with a detailed implementation plan.
Data Collection
To begin developing a defensible Impact Fee Study, our project team would collect
and compile several key components of data. Where possible, we would like to use
City-specific data and will ask City staff for access to City documents.
Assess Current
Facilities and
Service Levels
To provide a comprehensive basis for the Impact Fee Study, the project team will
develop a detailed understanding of the current organization, including evaluation
of current infrastructure and service levels associated with that infrastructure. This
step in the process will allow the City to evaluate the philosophy behind its existing
service levels and decide if it wants to continue providing the same level of service
or alter them. These discussions are crucial to calculating impact fees.
Develop Draft
Impact Fee
Analysis
Utilizing the data collected in the previous task and depending upon the City’s
choice to either continue with or alter its existing service levels, the project team
will develop service and demand standards to identify any facilities or apparatus
that would be required based upon new growth and development. During the
development of the Impact Fees Analysis the project team will work with City staff
to identify all funding opportunities for these future facilities and land including
property tax, grants, donations, and impact fee revenues. As part of this task the
project team will deliver initial draft assumptions regarding service levels and start
meeting with City staff to discuss those initial results at an initial submittal meeting.
Task Description
Calculate Draft
Maximum
Allowable Impact
Fees
There are two components to the calculation of impact fees: the total cost of
facilities and their cost basis. Impact fees will be presented in separate
components: administrative and facilities. This will allow the City flexibility to choose
to recover either the full or a portion of the cost associated with implementing
impact fees, allowing the City to address any economic development barriers. The
project team will work with City staff to ensure that development impact fees
calculated meet the desired service levels, and goals of the City.
Final Impact Fee
Report and
Implementation
Plan
Once the Draft Impact fees have been approved by City management, the project
team will develop the Final Impact Fee Report. The Final Impact Fee Report will
provide the legal justification for the development impact fees, ensuring compliance
with state statutes, including its ability to meet the five findings required by the
Mitigation Fee Act. The final report will also identify the best management practices
associated with calculation and collection of impact fees. The project team will
discuss different implementation options of impact fees, policy changes needed, as
well as include alternatives to impact fees, if there is no nexus for an impact fee.
Presentation of
Impact Fee
Results
The project team will present the results of the Final Impact Fee Study to the
Development Community as well as to City Council. The presentation and
acceptance of the results by external stakeholders is critical for successful
implementation.
MODEL(S) AND TRAINING WORK PLAN
Delivery of
Analytical
Models and
Training
The City of South San Francisco is requesting the ability to update the Cost
Allocation Plan and User Fee models. These model(s) would allow the City to more
defensibly and accurately (double step down allocation methodology) capture the
full cost of services to other funds and departments as there are any changes in
costs.
Our technical models, produced in Microsoft Excel, provide the ability for the City
to adapt and continuously update the studies from year to year as the organization
changes. While the model is structured in Excel, the technical model is proprietary
and for internal use by City staff only. By having our model based in Excel, the
requirements for software training, cost of new software products, updates,
licensing or other support, would be minimized.
After the final drafts of the indirect cost allocation plan and user fee study is
approved, at the discretion of City staff, the project team will meet with and train
designated City employees on use of the Excel models.
Staff will be provided with initial training that includes: a step-by-step PowerPoint
presentation; a User’s Manual which explains key concepts and defines basic
terms; and a customized updated checklist of data that needs to be entered.
While staff training typically takes about four hours, the Matrix Consulting Group is
committed to supporting City staff well after project completion, including answering
questions and providing model support, at no additional costs.
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
The following chart provides a breakdown of project staff hours by team member and
costs for each task area to prepare a Comprehensive Fee Study, Full Cost Allocation
Plan, and Development Impact Fee Study: PM Lead Analyst Total Cost
COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY
Initial Documentation 0 2 2 $500
Project Kick-off 2 2 2 $900
Current & Potential Fees 10 16 18 $6,200
Data Workshops 16 20 24 $8,600
Total Cost Analysis 4 24 32 $7,600
Analysis of Recoverable Revenue 0 6 16 $2,500
Rate Comparison 0 4 24 $3,000
Review / Revise Results 10 12 16 $5,400
Prepare Final Report 12 14 12 $5,700
Present Final Report 8 12 2 $3,600
Fee Study Subtotal 62 112 148 $44,000
FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Data Collection 0 0 2 $200
Study Objectives & Schedule 2 2 0 $700
Interview Staff & Gather Data 8 8 8 $3,600
Review Draft Allocation Metrics 4 6 12 $2,900
Draft Cost Allocation Plan 2 4 16 $2,600
Comparison of Draft CAP 0 0 8 $800
Finalize CAP 4 8 8 $2,800
Present CAP 4 4 0 $1,400
CAP Subtotal 24 32 54 $15,000
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Project Initiation 2 2 2 $900
Data Collection 0 4 8 $1,400
Assess Current Facilities and Services 8 16 22 $6,200
Draft Impact Assumptions 10 24 12 $6,800
Calculate Draft Impact Fees 4 16 18 $5,000
Final Report 8 10 10 $4,100
Presentation of Results 8 16 6 $4,600
Development Impact Fee Subtotal 40 88 78 $29,000
Total Hours 126 232 280
Hourly Rate $200 $150 $100
Total Professional Fees $25,200 $34,800 $28,000 $88,000
PM Lead Analyst Total Cost
Model & Training $3,500
Travel $1,500
Total Project Cost $93,000
The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to perform the above tasks and services for a
fixed-price fee of $93,000. This price includes all on-site meetings including 2 council
presentations and meetings for final report presentations. Our typical practice is to bill for
hours worked on a monthly basis.
Should the City require additional services, the above rates would be applied for work
conducted in relation to the above outlined scope.
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE CERTIFICATES
EXHIBIT D
FORM 590
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-716 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:12a.
Resolution approving a consulting services agreement with Matrix Consulting Group for a Comprehensive
User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and Impact Fee Study Review in an amount not to exceed $100,000 and
authorizing the City Manager to execute said agreement.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)issued a Request for Proposals (“RFP”)for
municipal advisory and consulting services relating to a Comprehensive User Fee Study,Cost Allocation Plan,
and Impact Fee Study Review.
WHEREAS,three vendors submitted timely proposals,and all three were interviewed by an evaluation
panel; and
WHEREAS,based on the interviews and the qualifications submitted,Matrix Consulting Group
demonstrated that they have the appropriate experience level desired and expertise to provide the services
sought and best serve the City’s needs; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends that Matrix undertake consulting services on a Comprehensive User Fee
Study,Cost Allocation Plan,and Impact Fee Study Review based on the vendor’s qualifications,experience,
and expertise.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does
hereby take the following action:
1.Approves the Consulting Services Agreement,attached herewith as Exhibit A,with Matrix Consulting
Group,in an amount not to exceed $100,000,conditioned on Matrix Consulting Group’s timely
execution of the consulting services agreement and submission of all required documents,including but
not limited to, certificates of insurance and endorsements.
2.Authorizes the City Manager,or his designee,to execute the agreement in substantially the same form
as that in Exhibit A,and any other related documents on behalf of the City,upon timely submission by
Matrix Consulting Group’s signed agreement and all other documents,subject to approval as to form by
the City Attorney.
3.Authorizes the City Manager to take any other actions necessary to carry out the intent of this
resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 1 of 16
EXHIBIT A
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) and Matrix Consulting Group(“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of
August 29, 2019 (the “Effective Date”).
Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant
shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and
incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in
or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall
end on August 29, 2020, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall
complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement
is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to
Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s
right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this
Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent
practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in
which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products
required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the
standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform
services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time
during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant
shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such
person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided
in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed $100,000
notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant’s proposal, for services to be
performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this
Agreement and Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit A, or Consultant’s compensation schedule
attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 2 of 16
Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein.
The payments specified below shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein.
Except as specifically authorized by City, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by
more than one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this
Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder,
including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties
further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions
and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City
therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the
term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information:
Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice,
etc.);
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings,
the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the
percentage of completion;
At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries
or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work,
the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each
reimbursable expense;
The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant
and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services
hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by
Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant
reaches or exceeds eight hundred (800) hours, which shall include an estimate of
the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A;
The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought;
The Consultant’s signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for
services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall
have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements
above to pay Consultant. City shall have no obligation to pay invoices submitted ninety (90)
days past the performance of work or incurrence of cost.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the last ten percent (10%) of the total sum due pursuant to
this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City
of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 3 of 16
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever
incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make
no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement.
In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum
amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless
the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed
change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed
the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit B.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. The following constitute reimbursable expenses authorized by
this Agreement - none. Reimbursable expenses shall not exceed $0. Expenses not listed
above are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount
of compensation provided under Section 2 of this Agreement that shall not be exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes, Tax Withholding. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of
employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. To
be exempt from tax withholding, Consultant must provide City with a valid California
Franchise Tax Board form 590 (“Form 590”), as may be amended and such Form 590 shall
be attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit ____. Unless Consultant provides
City with a valid Form 590 or other valid, written evidence of an exemption or waiver from
withholding, City may withhold California taxes from payments to Consultant as required by
law. Consultant shall obtain, and maintain on file for three (3) years after the termination of
this Agreement, Form 590s (or other written evidence of exemptions or waivers) from all
subcontractors. Consultant accepts sole responsibility for withholding taxes from any non-
California resident subcontractor and shall submit written documentation of compliance with
Consultant’s withholding duty to City upon request. .
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this
Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all
outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as
of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and
timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any
services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of
authorization from the Contract Administrator.
2.10 Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of
laborers, workmen, or mechanics on the work contemplated by this Agreement, shall be not
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 4 of 16
less than the prevailing rate for a day’s work in the same trade or occupation in the locality
within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be performed as determined by the
Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under Labor Code Section
1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Consultant or by any
subcontractor shall receive the wages herein provided for. The Consultant shall pay two
hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by Labor Code Section 1775, as
may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per diem
wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to
each worker shall be paid by the Consultant to each worker.
An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Consultant from responsibility
for payment of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 1770 1775. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation
because of the payment by the Consultant for any wage rate in excess of prevailing wage
rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by
the Consultant.
a. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of
prevailing wage rates is not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the
Consultant shall post at appropriate conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule
showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the various classes of laborers and
mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all deductions, if
any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and
mechanics so engaged.
b. Payroll Records. Each Consultant and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll
record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per
diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by
the Consultant in connection with the public work. Such records shall be certified and
submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776.”
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost
and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by
this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section,
and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and
the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall
be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve
incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other
communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 5 of 16
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the 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 work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents,
representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall
provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, indicating that
Consultant 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. Consultant shall maintain the insurance
policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be
included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any
subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s).
4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant 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 Consultant. 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,
Consultant 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 Contract Administrator (as defined in Section 10.9).
The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, 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.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, 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.
4.2.2 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
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 6 of 16
as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8
and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
4.2.3 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 Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy
shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees,
agents, and volunteers.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, 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.
4.3.2 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 Agreement or the work, 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, Consultant 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 Consultant’s sole cost and
expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant
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.
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 7 of 16
4.4.1 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.
4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant shall furnish City with complete copies of all policies delivered to
Consultant 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 Consultant
beginning work, it shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The
City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies
at any time.
4.4.3 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 thirty (30) 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, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working
days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage.
4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents,
and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the
following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant,
including the insured’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by
Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant 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.
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant 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
Consultant’s 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
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 8 of 16
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 Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles
or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in
deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant
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.
4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant 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.
4.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a “wasting”
policy limit.
4.4.8 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.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails 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
Consultant’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;
b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that
becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment,
until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or
c. Terminate this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 9 of 16
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses,
liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury,
loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the
extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or
its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality
or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of
life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of
the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees,
subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation
of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend
as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and
endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this
indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any
damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply.
By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and
that it is a material element of consideration.
In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under
this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall
indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions
for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the
payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of
City.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right
to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant
to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however,
otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant
and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this
Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all
claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but
not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for
employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 10 of 16
6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent
or to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with
all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by
fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall
comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such
fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its
employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and
approvals, including from City, of what-so-ever nature that are legally required to practice
their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and
its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in
effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals
that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing,
Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the
basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or
disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee,
applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient
of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement.
Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and
requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting,
and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not
limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by
the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written
notification to Consultant.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 11 of 16
Consultant may cancel this Agreement for cause upon 30 days’ written notice to City and
shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services
performed to the date of notice of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such
compensation upon Consultant delivering to City all materials described in Section 9.1.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this
Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a
written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and
agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide
Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement.
Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to
reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the
extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the
parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this
Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a
determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized
personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this
Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant.
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written
approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any
portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the
subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract
Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions
of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms
of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any
other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not
finished by Consultant; or
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 12 of 16
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described
in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would
have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models,
charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records,
files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant
prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered
hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those
documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that
the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not
necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final
approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential
and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless
required by law.
9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books
of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents
evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged
to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this
Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit,
and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the
City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds
expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the
Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request
of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment
under the Agreement.
9.4 Records Submitted in Response to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals. All
responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) or invitation to bid issued by the City become
the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City selects a bid, all proposals
received become a matter of public record, and shall be regarded as public records, with
the exception of those elements in each proposal that are defined by Consultant and
plainly marked as “Confidential,” "Business Secret" or “Trade Secret."
The City shall not be liable or in any way responsible for the disclosure of any such
proposal or portions thereof, if Consultant has not plainly marked it as a "Trade Secret" or
"Business Secret," or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 13 of 16
Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret
information may be protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish
that the information that a prospective bidder submits is a trade secret. If a request is
made for information marked "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," and the requester takes
legal action seeking release of the materials it believes does not constitute trade secret
information, by submitting a proposal, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its agents and employees, from any judgment, fines, penalties, and
award of attorneys fees awarded against the City in favor of the party requesting the
information, and any and all costs connected with that defense. This obligation to
indemnify survives the City's award of the contract. Consultant agrees that this
indemnification survives as long as the trade secret information is in the City's possession,
which includes a minimum retention period for such documents.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including arbitration or 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.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this
Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state
courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
10.3 Severability. 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.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this
Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term
of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies
and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost
than virgin paper.
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within
the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 14 of 16
in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at
California Government Code Section 81000 et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this
Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement
that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq.
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12)
months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an
employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve (12) months,
Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement.
Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code
§1090 et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any
compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement
of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the
Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to
criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be
disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or
interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Heather Enders
("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract
Administrator or his or her designee.
10.10 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when
received if personally delivered; (ii) when received if transmitted by telecopy, if received
during normal business hours on a business day (or if not, the next business day after
delivery) provided that such facsimile is legible and that at the time such facsimile is sent
the sending Party receives written confirmation of receipt; (iii) if sent for next day delivery
to a domestic address by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., Federal Express);
and (iv) upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. In
each case notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows: Consultant
Richard Brady, President
Matrix Consulting Group
201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148
Mountain View, CA 94040
City:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 15 of 16
South San Francisco, CA 94080
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator,
the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of
construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional
responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled
"Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the
following example.
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including all Exhibits attached hereto, and incorporated
herein, represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral
pertaining to the matters herein.
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by facsimile or
other electronic means, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such
counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with
other signed counterpart, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and
effective as to all Parties..
10.14 Construction. The headings in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference only and
shall not limit or otherwise affect any of the terms of this Agreement. The parties have had
an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement; therefore any
construction as against the drafting party shall not apply to this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:11.14.2016] August 29, 2019
City of South San Francisco and Matrix Consulting Group Page 16 of 16
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Consultants
____________________________ _____________________________________
City Manager NAME: Richard Brady or Designee
TITLE: President
Attest:
_____________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
____________________________
City Attorney
2729962.1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
and
MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP
The City of South San Francisco is looking to conduct a Comprehensive User Fee Study,
Full Cost Allocation Plan, and Development Impact Fee Study. These scopes of work will
allow the City to accurately account for the full cost of providing fee and non-fee related
services, as well as identify areas where services are currently being subsidized. The
following points provide an overview of the scope of work desired by the City.
• A User Fee Study will document direct and indirect costs associated with fee-
based services.
• The development of a Full Cost Allocation Plan will identify indirect costs
associated with all City funds, Departments, and Services;
• A Development Impact Fee Study will serve to identify the appropriate portion of
costs that should be shared between existing residents and new development
within the community.
• In addition to these studies, the City would also like to have electronic models
which will allow City staff to update the results of these studies as needed.
The following table breaks out by study type our detailed tasks and descriptions for each.
Task Description
COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY WORK PLAN
Determine and
Review Initial
Documentation
The project team will provide the City with a written “Data Collection List” outlining
documents and information needed prior to our first onsite visit. Before our first on-
site visit, we will review this information to familiarize ourselves with strengths,
weaknesses and opportunities for improvement related to the City’s existing fee
structure. In addition, we will familiarize ourselves with the budgetary and staffing
structures relevant to fees for service.
Project Initiation
To effectively analyze and present the full cost of providing City services, it is
important that the project team develops an understanding of key issues which
impact and shape the City’s service delivery and cost recovery policies. Based
upon this meeting, the project team will provide the project management plan and
schedule and begin meeting with Departments to conduct the fee study.
Task Description
Develop a
Schedule of
Current and
Potential Fees
for Service
The scope of this effort will be all fees for service charged by the City. Current as
well as potential fees and charges will be identified and documented. The project
team will work with staff to go through their current fee schedules in line-item by
line-item detail. Options will be discussed regarding renaming of fees, elimination
of fees, or addition of new or expanded categories to better reflect the services
being provided.
Conduct Time
and Activity Data
Gathering
Workshops
The project team will conduct workshops to gather time and activity estimates for
each service included in the study, interviewing key personnel from each
department and analyzing the various activities being performed within it that are
both revenue and non-revenue generating.
Perform a Total
Cost Analysis
The Matrix Consulting Group’s costing model is built based on the City’s
operations, budget detail and intended uses for the results. This method is a
customized approach, specific to each jurisdiction, for cost analysis of user fee
services. This costing method uses time and annual activity level data to establish
the cost of providing services on both a unit and annual level. Once the time spent
for a fee activity is determined for each individual or position, the team uses its fee
and rate software to apply applicable City costs to the calculation of the full cost of
providing each service. Resulting costs are presented on a unit and annual level
and are compared to the existing fee schedule and revenue reports.
Analysis of
Recoverable
Revenue
Utilizing each department’s billing statistics, receivables, and workload data, the
project team will analyze potential and actual recoverable revenue. This will help
the City understand how workload volume impacts revenue and cost subsidies.
Staff can use this information to shape current or future policies on cost recovery.
Conduct a
Market Rate
Survey to Other
Cities
The project team will work with each Department to identify comparable agencies
for the fee comparison survey. We will also develop the survey tools and select the
most appropriate fee items for benchmarks. Then, we will administer the survey,
collect comparative data, conduct the comparison, and review the results.
Review / Revise
Fee Study
Results
Because the analysis of fees for service is based on estimates and information
provided by City staff, it is extremely important that all participants are comfortable
with our methodology and with the data they have provided. Once the departments
agree that the analysis reflects the reasonable costs of providing services, City
management will have an opportunity to review the results. The project team will
address implementation strategies that consider both policy issues and goals for
optimum cost recovery. While it is generally desirable to eliminate any subsidies,
discussions regarding the feasibility of raising fees based on political climate, legal
restrictions, and social and economic consequences.
Prepare a Final
User Fee Study
Upon conclusion of the fee study, we will prepare a detailed report that summarizes
the results of each of the previous work tasks described above. The report will be
reviewed, revised and finalized with Department and City management.
Present Final
Report
The presentation of results to City officials and/or stakeholders is critical to the
success of the overall engagement. Because the product from the study is often
controversial, the objective of this final step is to present a succinct summary that
provides decision makers with key information. The Matrix Consulting Group will
attend and present the Study at up to two (2) Council or Committee Meetings.
FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN WORK PLAN
Task Description
Data Collection
The Matrix Consulting Group will provide the City with a list of initial data
requirements for the study, including items such as: expenditure information,
staffing information, organizational chart, and copies of previous cost allocation
studies. Collecting this information, prior to our initial meetings with City staff, will
help the project team familiarize itself with the current Cost plan process.
Study Objectives
and Project
Schedule
Once the data has been collected, the project team will then meet with designated
City staff to discuss any issues identified by the project team, as well as to clarify
any existing concerns held by the City in regards to the current cost allocation
methodology. Discussions will include reviewing the City’s specific needs / critical
issues concerning the development and implementation of the plan and
opportunities for improvement from previous plans or methodologies. After, the
meeting, the project team will put together a detailed schedule showing week by
week, the deliverables for both the City and the project team.
Interview Staff
and Gather Data
The project team will work with City staff to develop and structure a custom cost
allocation plan for the City, our project team would work with the City to review and
discuss the current accounting and staffing structure. We would identify and meet
with central services departments to develop allocation bases and ensure that the
plan is reflective of all current services being provided by the City. Lastly, the project
team will discuss the collection of appropriate and defensible metrics to be utilized
for allocation of services.
Review Draft
Allocation
Metrics
Based upon units of service identified and the allocation metrics collected, the
project team would put together allocation statistic workbooks for review with the
Central Service Departments. The purpose of these workbooks is to review the
initial results of the allocation metrics gathered by the project team. Once these
workbooks have been created, the project team would have in-person review
meetings with each central and administrative functional area to go through these
workbooks. As the City has prepared Cost Allocation Plan(s) in the past, the project
team would also provide as part of this review, a comparison of the current
allocation metrics to the previous allocation metrics. This type of comparison can
also help provide additional context when reviewing results.
Draft Cost
Allocation Plan
Once the Central Service departments and administrative functional areas have
agreed upon the appropriate allocation metrics for their services, the draft plan
would be developed. The draft Cost Allocation Plan will provide clear
documentation regarding the basis for allocations, and the methodologies applied
to achieve the plan’s final result. The Draft Cost Allocation Plan is a report that will
be developed that will include an introduction on cost allocation principles,
methodologies, organizational chart, detailed narrative of services, and numerical
results of the analysis. The purpose of this detailed draft report is to ensure that
there is clear and defensible documentation for all the information included in the
Cost Allocation Plan. The project team will distribute this report to all participating
central service departments, as well as the executive team for review and
discussion.
Task Description
Comparison of
Draft CAP to
Current Plan
Similar to the allocation metrics, as the City annually prepares cost allocation plans,
the project team would develop a comparison between the draft cost allocation plan
being developed to the City’s most recent version of the Cost Allocation Plan. This
type of comparative or “flux” analysis enables City staff to review the implications
of the proposed draft cost allocation plan prior to finalizing the draft cost allocation
plan. It can also serve as a way for the City to address any major shifts in costs as
a result of the proposed cost allocation prior and prepare any internal funds or
departments for those increases or decreases in allocations.
Finalize Full Cost
Plan
Once management has reviewed the metrics, the draft cost allocation plan, and the
comparison between the plans, the project team will finalize the Full Cost Allocation
Plan. The final deliverables associated with the Cost Allocation Plan will be the Full
Cost Plan report, Summary of Results in Excel, and Comparative Excel Analysis.
These deliverables will allow the City to have clear documentation of not only the
final Cost Plan developed, but also documentation regarding any key differences
and results from the Cost Plan.
Present Full Cost
Plan
Similar to the Comprehensive Fee Study, the project team will present the results
of the Full Cost Allocation Plan upon the City’s request to internal and external
stakeholders. The results of this analysis will be incorporated into the
Comprehensive Fee study and can be presented concurrently with the Fee study.
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY WORK PLAN
Project Initiation
The purpose of this task is to develop an initial understanding of the City’s current
projected growth levels and any future developments that will impact that
population growth. The project team will review the City’s specific needs and critical
issues surrounding development and implementation of the Impact Fee Study.
Based on the results of these discussions, the project team will have a greater
understanding of the goals and objectives of the City in conducting this impact fee
study and will provide the City with a detailed implementation plan.
Data Collection
To begin developing a defensible Impact Fee Study, our project team would collect
and compile several key components of data. Where possible, we would like to use
City-specific data and will ask City staff for access to City documents.
Assess Current
Facilities and
Service Levels
To provide a comprehensive basis for the Impact Fee Study, the project team will
develop a detailed understanding of the current organization, including evaluation
of current infrastructure and service levels associated with that infrastructure. This
step in the process will allow the City to evaluate the philosophy behind its existing
service levels and decide if it wants to continue providing the same level of service
or alter them. These discussions are crucial to calculating impact fees.
Develop Draft
Impact Fee
Analysis
Utilizing the data collected in the previous task and depending upon the City’s
choice to either continue with or alter its existing service levels, the project team
will develop service and demand standards to identify any facilities or apparatus
that would be required based upon new growth and development. During the
development of the Impact Fees Analysis the project team will work with City staff
to identify all funding opportunities for these future facilities and land including
property tax, grants, donations, and impact fee revenues. As part of this task the
project team will deliver initial draft assumptions regarding service levels and start
meeting with City staff to discuss those initial results at an initial submittal meeting.
Task Description
Calculate Draft
Maximum
Allowable Impact
Fees
There are two components to the calculation of impact fees: the total cost of
facilities and their cost basis. Impact fees will be presented in separate
components: administrative and facilities. This will allow the City flexibility to choose
to recover either the full or a portion of the cost associated with implementing
impact fees, allowing the City to address any economic development barriers. The
project team will work with City staff to ensure that development impact fees
calculated meet the desired service levels, and goals of the City.
Final Impact Fee
Report and
Implementation
Plan
Once the Draft Impact fees have been approved by City management, the project
team will develop the Final Impact Fee Report. The Final Impact Fee Report will
provide the legal justification for the development impact fees, ensuring compliance
with state statutes, including its ability to meet the five findings required by the
Mitigation Fee Act. The final report will also identify the best management practices
associated with calculation and collection of impact fees. The project team will
discuss different implementation options of impact fees, policy changes needed, as
well as include alternatives to impact fees, if there is no nexus for an impact fee.
Presentation of
Impact Fee
Results
The project team will present the results of the Final Impact Fee Study to the
Development Community as well as to City Council. The presentation and
acceptance of the results by external stakeholders is critical for successful
implementation.
MODEL(S) AND TRAINING WORK PLAN
Delivery of
Analytical
Models and
Training
The City of South San Francisco is requesting the ability to update the Cost
Allocation Plan and User Fee models. These model(s) would allow the City to more
defensibly and accurately (double step down allocation methodology) capture the
full cost of services to other funds and departments as there are any changes in
costs.
Our technical models, produced in Microsoft Excel, provide the ability for the City
to adapt and continuously update the studies from year to year as the organization
changes. While the model is structured in Excel, the technical model is proprietary
and for internal use by City staff only. By having our model based in Excel, the
requirements for software training, cost of new software products, updates,
licensing or other support, would be minimized.
After the final drafts of the indirect cost allocation plan and user fee study is
approved, at the discretion of City staff, the project team will meet with and train
designated City employees on use of the Excel models.
Staff will be provided with initial training that includes: a step-by-step PowerPoint
presentation; a User’s Manual which explains key concepts and defines basic
terms; and a customized updated checklist of data that needs to be entered.
While staff training typically takes about four hours, the Matrix Consulting Group is
committed to supporting City staff well after project completion, including answering
questions and providing model support, at no additional costs.
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
The following chart provides a breakdown of project staff hours by team member and
costs for each task area to prepare a Comprehensive Fee Study, Full Cost Allocation
Plan, and Development Impact Fee Study: PM Lead Analyst Total Cost
COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE STUDY
Initial Documentation 0 2 2 $500
Project Kick-off 2 2 2 $900
Current & Potential Fees 10 16 18 $6,200
Data Workshops 16 20 24 $8,600
Total Cost Analysis 4 24 32 $7,600
Analysis of Recoverable Revenue 0 6 16 $2,500
Rate Comparison 0 4 24 $3,000
Review / Revise Results 10 12 16 $5,400
Prepare Final Report 12 14 12 $5,700
Present Final Report 8 12 2 $3,600
Fee Study Subtotal 62 112 148 $44,000
FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN
Data Collection 0 0 2 $200
Study Objectives & Schedule 2 2 0 $700
Interview Staff & Gather Data 8 8 8 $3,600
Review Draft Allocation Metrics 4 6 12 $2,900
Draft Cost Allocation Plan 2 4 16 $2,600
Comparison of Draft CAP 0 0 8 $800
Finalize CAP 4 8 8 $2,800
Present CAP 4 4 0 $1,400
CAP Subtotal 24 32 54 $15,000
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
Project Initiation 2 2 2 $900
Data Collection 0 4 8 $1,400
Assess Current Facilities and Services 8 16 22 $6,200
Draft Impact Assumptions 10 24 12 $6,800
Calculate Draft Impact Fees 4 16 18 $5,000
Final Report 8 10 10 $4,100
Presentation of Results 8 16 6 $4,600
Development Impact Fee Subtotal 40 88 78 $29,000
Total Hours 126 232 280
Hourly Rate $200 $150 $100
Total Professional Fees $25,200 $34,800 $28,000 $88,000
PM Lead Analyst Total Cost
Model & Training $3,500
Travel $1,500
Total Project Cost $93,000
The Matrix Consulting Group proposes to perform the above tasks and services for a
fixed-price fee of $93,000. This price includes all on-site meetings including 2 council
presentations and meetings for final report presentations. Our typical practice is to bill for
hours worked on a monthly basis.
Should the City require additional services, the above rates would be applied for work
conducted in relation to the above outlined scope.
EXHIBIT C
INSURANCE CERTIFICATES
EXHIBIT D
FORM 590
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-540 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:13.
Report regarding a resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real,authorizing the City
Manager to execute the improvement agreement,encroachment and maintenance agreement,storm drain
easement encroachment agreement,COM (construction,operation,and maintenance)agreement,stormwater
treatment measures maintenance agreement,and authorizing the recordation of the final parcel map,the
improvement agreement and all related documents.(Jason Hallare, Associate Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El
Camino Real,authorize the City Manager to execute the improvement agreement,encroachment and
maintenance agreement,storm drain easement encroachment agreement,COM agreement,stormwater
treatment measures maintenance agreement,authorizing the recordation of the final parcel map,the
improvement agreement and all related documents.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On February 28,2018,the City Council approved an entitlements request by Summerhill Homes (“Developer”)
to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with a total of 172 residential units and approximately 10,900
square feet of retail at 988 El Camino Real.
The City of South San Francisco (“City”)is working extensively with the Developer to ensure that the
Developer reaches the construction milestone as quickly as possible.The Developer has completed several
building permit submittals and is anticipating approval of the building permit shortly.The approval of the final
parcel map,improvement agreement,encroachment and maintenance agreement,and storm drain easement
encroachment agreements are required for the Developer to obtain the building permit and begin vertical
construction.
The City Engineer and the City’s technical reviewer,with concurrence of all affected City departments and
divisions,have determined that the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real,described in Exhibit A of the
attached resolution,the on-site and off-site improvements,and all related documents and plans are in
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act,the City’s Subdivision Ordinance,and all applicable tentative map
conditions of approval for said development.
The final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real will merge the existing parcels into one (1)parcel to construct a
mixed-use building,which includes one-hundred seventy-two (172)residential units and two (2)commercial
units.All units will be served by public roads (El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue),sewers,storm drains,and
other private utilities.
Pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.44.090,the Subdivider is required to execute a
subdivision improvement agreement for all improvements to be constructed in the subdivision.The subdivision
improvement agreement has been reviewed by the Engineering Division and City Attorney’s office.
Additionally,the Engineering Division and City Attorney’s Office have reviewed the preliminary title report
and the deed restrictions;both are acceptable and the final parcel map is ready for submission to the City
Council.Lastly,the subdivider will provide the City with appropriate security for the faithful performance ofCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-540 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:13.
Council.Lastly,the subdivider will provide the City with appropriate security for the faithful performance of
the improvements contemplated in the improvement agreement.
The improvement agreement is an agreement between the Developer and the City which requires that the
Developer construct the various public improvements (“Improvements”)adjacent to the subdivision.The
Improvements are described in Exhibit B of the attached resolution,which consists of the civil improvement
plans and cost estimate related to the public improvements the Developer will perform.The developer has
placed a bond in the amount of 110% of the cost of the Improvements.
The encroachment and maintenance agreement is an agreement between the Developer and the City which
allows the Developer to install certain improvements within the City Right-of-Way (“ROW”)and requires the
Developer to maintain these certain improvements and all landscape along the frontage of the property.The
limits of the encroachment and maintenance agreement are described in Exhibit C of the attached resolution.
The storm drain easement encroachment agreement is an agreement between the Developer and the City that
provides indemnification regarding an existing box culvert within the property,and includes proposed
improvements serving the development and memorializes an understanding between the City and the
Developer regarding future repairs to the existing box culvert and surface improvements installed by the
development.The location of storm drain easement encroachment agreement is described in Exhibit D of the
attached resolution.
The construction,operation,and maintenance agreement (COM agreement)is an agreement between the
Developer and the City that provides consent from City to allow the Developer to install and maintain
enhancements and fitness equipment to the Centennial Trail at a location where City holds a Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART)permit over BART property.The location of the BART encroachment is described in Exhibit E
of the attached resolution.
The stormwater treatment measures maintenance agreement is an agreement between the Developer and the
City that requires the Developer to maintain and inspect the private stormwater treatment measures on the
Development and report to the Water Quality Control Plant annually.The stormwater treatment measures and
maintenance is described in Exhibit F of the attached resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El Camino
Real,authorize the City Manager to execute the improvement agreement,encroachment and maintenance
agreement,storm drain easement encroachment agreement,COM agreement,stormwater treatment measures
maintenance agreement,and authorizing the recordation of the final parcel map,the improvement agreement
and all related documents.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 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 #:19-541 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:13a.
Resolution approving the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real,authorizing the City Manager to execute the
improvement agreement,the encroachment and maintenance agreement,the storm drain easement
encroachment agreement,the construction,operation and maintenance (COM)agreement,and the stormwater
treatment measures maintenance agreement,and authorizing the recordation of the final parcel map,the
improvement agreement and all related documents.
WHEREAS,the City Engineer and the City of South San Francisco’s (“City”)technical reviewer,with
concurrence of all affected City departments and divisions,have determined that the final parcel map for 988 El
Camino Real,described in Exhibit A of the attached resolution,the on-site and off-site improvements,and all
related documents and plans are in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act,the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance, and all applicable tentative map conditions of approval for said development; and
WHEREAS,the final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real will merge the existing parcels into one (1)parcel to
construct a mixed-use building,which includes one-hundred seventy-two (172)residential units and two (2)
commercial units.All units will be served by public roads (El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue),sewers,
storm drains, and other private utilities; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 19.44.090,the Subdivider is required to
execute a subdivision improvement agreement for all improvements to be constructed in the subdivision; and
WHEREAS,the improvement agreement is an agreement between SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,also
known as Summerhill Homes,(“Developer”)and the City,described in Exhibit B which requires the Developer
to construct the various public improvements (“Improvements”)adjacent to the subdivision consisting of the
civil, landscape, and joint trench improvement plans and cost estimate related to the public improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has placed a bond in the amount of 110% of the cost of the Improvements; and
WHEREAS,the encroachment and maintenance agreement is an agreement between the Developer and the
City,described in Exhibit C,which allows the Developer to install certain improvements within the City Right-
of-Way (“ROW”)and requires the Developer to maintain these certain improvements and all landscape along
the frontage of the property; and
WHEREAS,the storm drain easement encroachment agreement is an agreement,described in Exhibit D,that
provides indemnification regarding an existing box culvert within the property and includes proposed
improvements serving the development and memorializes an understanding between the City and the
Developer regarding future repairs to the existing box culvert and surface improvements installed by the
development; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-541 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:13a.
WHEREAS,the construction,operation,and maintenance agreement (COM Agreement)is an agreement
between the Developer and the City,described in Exhibit E,that provides consent from City to allow the
Developer to install and maintain enhancements and fitness equipment to the Centennial Trail at a location
where City holds a Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) entry permit over BART property; and
WHEREAS,the stormwater treatment measures maintenance agreement is an agreement between the
Developer and the City,described in Exhibit F,that requires the Developer to maintain and inspect the private
stormwater treatment measures on the Development and report to the Water Quality Control Plant annually; and
WHEREAS,the aforementioned improvement agreement,encroachment and maintenance agreement,storm
drain easement encroachment agreement,COM agreement,and stormwater treatment measures maintenance
agreement were reviewed by the City Attorney’s office; and
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves the improvement agreement and authorizes the City Manager to execute the
improvement agreement, on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council hereby approves the encroachment and maintenance
agreement and authorizes the City Manager to execute the encroachment and maintenance agreement,on behalf
of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council hereby approves the storm drain easement encroachment
agreement and authorizes the City Manager to execute the storm drain easement encroachment agreement,on
behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council hereby approves the COM agreement and authorizes the City
Manager to execute the COM agreement, on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council hereby approves the stormwater treatment measures
maintenance agreement and authorizes the City Manager to execute the stormwater treatment measures
maintenance agreement, on behalf of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,subject to execution of the improvement agreement,encroachment and
maintenance agreement,and storm drain easement encroachment agreement,the City Council approves the
final parcel map for 988 El Camino Real; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Council authorizes recordation of the final parcel map for 988 El
Camino Real, the aforementioned agreements as applicable, and all related documents; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Manager is authorized to take any other action consistent with the
intent of this Resolution, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-541 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:13a.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
SITE
OWNER'S STATEMENT
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
1
SOILS REPORT
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
CITY ENGINEER'S STATEMENT
CITY CLERK'S STATEMENT
TECHNICAL REVIEWERS STATEMENT
COUNTY RECORDER'S STATEMENT
2718-000 SHEET OF 4
PARCEL MAP NO. 17-0004
988 EL CAMINO REAL
CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A LOT MERGER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO.
2006-010133, DOCUMENT NO. 2006-010135, AND DOCUMENT NO. 2007-069341.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON WEST SACRAMENTO
JULY 2019 VICINITY MAP
OMITTED SIGNATURES
STATEMENT OF MAP INENT
OWNER'S ACKNOWLEDGMENT
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
LCHESTNUT AVENUEANTIONETTE LANE
2
40'
GRAPHIC SCALE
160'0'80'40'20'40'0'
PARCEL MAP NO. 17-0004
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SCALE: 1" =
CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A LOT MERGER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO.
2006-010133, DOCUMENT NO. 2006-010135, AND DOCUMENT NO. 2007-069341.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JULY 2019
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON WEST SACRAMENTO
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
REFERENCES:
2718-000 SHEET OF 4
DETAIL A
NOTES:
ABANDONMENT NOTE:
CHESTNUT AVENUEANTIONETTE LANE
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
PARCEL A
3
40'
GRAPHIC SCALE
160'0'80'40'20'40'0'
PARCEL MAP NO. 17-0004
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SCALE: 1" =
CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A LOT MERGER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO.
2006-010133, DOCUMENT NO. 2006-010135, AND DOCUMENT NO. 2007-069341.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JULY 2019
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON WEST SACRAMENTO
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
REFERENCES:
2718-000 SHEET OF 4
CHESTNUT AVENUEEL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL
4
40'
GRAPHIC SCALE
160'0'80'40'20'40'0'
PARCEL MAP NO. 17-0004
988 EL CAMINO REAL
SCALE: 1" =
CONSISTING OF 4 SHEETS
BEING A LOT MERGER OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENT NO.
2006-010133, DOCUMENT NO. 2006-010135, AND DOCUMENT NO. 2007-069341.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
JULY 2019
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON WEST SACRAMENTO
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
LEGEND
REFERENCES:
2718-000 SHEET OF 4
DETAIL C DETAIL D
DETAIL E
DETAIL A DETAIL B
1
This Space For Recorder’s Use Only
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
SHAC 988 ECR APARTMENTS LLC IN CONNECTION WITH
PARCEL MAP NO. 17-0004
This OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is dated ____________, 2019
by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, hereinafter designated
“City,” and SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, collectively
hereinafter designated “Developer.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of the real property located in the City of South
San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, more particularly described on Exhibit A
attached hereto (the “Property”), and Developer is proposing to construct a high-density mixed-use
residential development at the Property (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the Project, Developer is required, and proposes, to
construct various improvements in and adjacent to the Property. The improvements are described
generally in the approved civil improvement plan set, attached here to as Exhibit B (collectively, the
“Improvements”) and incorporated herein. The Improvements are required by the South San
Francisco Municipal Code and the vesting tentative parcel map approved by the City; and
WHEREAS, to construct the Improvements, Developer has requested to utilize a portion of
the site of a project commonly known as the Centennial Trail, as described more particularly in
Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, for temporary construction access and staging.
A majority of the Centennial Trail area is located in the public right-of-way owned by the Bay Area
Rapid Transit District (“BART”), over which the City has a Permit to Enter issued by BART (Permit
No. W-20.0-001SSF) (“Entry Permit”). Pursuant to a separate permit (Permit No. W-19-6-005-SSF)
to enter issued by BART to Developer, both BART and the City have consented to Developer utilizing
a portion of the Centennial Trail area as indicated in Exhibit C for construction access and staging;
and
WHEREAS, Developer has presented to the City a parcel map for approval, hereinafter
designated “map”, entitled Parcel Map No. 17-0004 988 El Camino Real, and which map dedicates to
public use, easements for Public Utilities across those areas designated on the map as “PUE”; and
WHEREAS, Developer has requested approval of the map prior to the construction and
completion of various improvements and utility connections, which are appurtenant to the Property
designated in the map, all in accordance with, and as required by, the plans and specifications for all
or any of the improvements in, appurtenant to, or outside the limits of the Property; and
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Attention: City Clerk
2
WHEREAS, this Agreement is executed pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map
Act of the State of California and Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to ensure that the Improvements will be completed in a good
workmanlike manner and in accordance with the conditions of approval and applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the approval of the maps, and of the
acceptance of the dedications and easements for street and highway purposes and public facility and
utility easements therein offered, excepting those dedicated to other agencies, and in order to ensure
satisfactory performance by Developer and Developer’s obligations under the Subdivision Map Act
and Title 19 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Performance of Work
Developer shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish or cause to be furnished, all labor supplies,
equipment and materials, and do or cause to be done, in a good and workmanlike manner all of the
Improvements as shown on the approved improvement plans for the Property, and attached hereto
as Exhibit B. The cost of such improvements and required items of work is estimated to be Four
Hundred Forty Thousand Dollars ($440,000.00). Developer shall also do all the work and shall, at
its sole cost and expense, furnish all materials necessary in the opinion of the City Engineer to
complete the Improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The City and Developer acknowledge that the City and BART has consented to allow, under
the BART Permit W-20.0-001-SSF held by the City and the BART Permit W-19-6-005-SSF held by
Developer, the Developer to utilize a portion of the Centennial Trail adjacent to the Project site, as
depicted in Exhibit C, for construction access and staging. Developer shall, prior to the issuance of
a certificate of occupancy by the City, restore such area used for construction access and staging to
the same condition prior to use, and shall replace the pedestrian walkways, landscaping, and irrigation
system in such area as described in Exhibit C. Developer shall complete the foregoing work at its
sole cost and expense, furnish all materials necessary in the opinion of the City Engineer.
All of the work described herein is to be done at the places, and with the necessary materials,
in the manner and at the grades shown on the plans and specifications to be approved by the City
Engineer. All work shall be done to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2. Time for Commencement and Performance
City hereby fixes the time for the commencement of the work to be done on or before the
later of April 31, 2019 or the date this Agreement is recorded in the Official Records, and for its
completion to be within 36-months thereafter commencement. At least fifteen (15) calendar days
prior to the commencement of work hereunder, Developer shall notify the City Engineer in writing
of the date fixed for commencement thereof, so that the City Engineer shall be able to provide
inspection services.
3. Injury to Public Improvements, Public Property or Public Utilities Facilities
Developer shall replace or repair, or have replaced or repaired, all public improvements, public
utility facilities, and surveying or subdivision monuments which are destroyed or damaged in the
3
performance of any work under this Agreement. Developer shall bear the entire cost of replacement
or repairs of any and all public or private utility property damaged or destroyed in the performance of
any work done under this Agreement. Any repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction of the
City.
4. Time of Essence - Extension
Time is of the essence in this Agreement, and the dates for commencement and completion
of the Improvements herein may not be extended except as provided in this paragraph. In the event
good cause is shown, the City Engineer in its reasonable discretion may extend the time for completion
of the Improvements hereunder. Requests for extension of Dates shall be in writing and delivered to
City in the manner hereinafter specified for service of notices. Any such extension may be granted
without notice to Developer’s sureties, and extensions so granted without notice to the Developer’s
sureties shall not relieve the sureties’ liability on the bonds to secure the faithful performance of this
Agreement and to assure payment of all persons performing labor and materials in connection with
this Agreement. The City Engineer shall be the sole and final judge as to whether or not good cause
has been shown to entitle Developer to an extension. In granting any extension of the dates set forth
under this Agreement for commencement and completion of the Improvements, City may require a
new or amended improvement security in amounts to reflect increases in the costs of constructing the
Improvements, and/or impose other conditions to protect City’s interests and ensure the timely
completion of the Improvements.
5. Repairs and Replacements
Developer shall replace or have replaced, or repair or have repaired, all pipes and monuments
which are destroyed or damaged by reason of improvements constructed hereunder, and Developer
shall replace or have replaced, repair or have repaired, or pay to the owner the entire cost of
replacement or repairs, of any and all property damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done
hereunder, whether such property be owned by the United States or any agency thereof, by the State
of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by any combination of such owners.
Any such repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval of, the City
Engineer or the corporation, person or agency.
6. Utility Deposits - Statement
Developer shall file with the City Clerk, on or before December 31, 2019, a written statement
signed by Developer and each public utility corporation involved, to the effect that Developer has
made all deposits legally required by such public utility corporation for the connection of any and all
public utilities to be supplied by such public utility corporation within the Property.
7. Permits, Compliance with Laws
Developer shall comply with all generally applicable laws and regulations in the performance
of this Agreement and constructing the improvements herein and shall, at Developer’s sole cost and
expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the construction of improvements, give all
necessary notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law.
4
8. Superintendence by Developer
Developer shall personally supervise the work on the improvements, or have a construction
contractor, competent foreman or superintendent on the work site at all times during construction,
with authority to act for Developer.
9. Inspection by City
Developer shall at all times maintain proper facilities, and shall provide safe access, for
inspection by City, to all parts of the work and to the shops wherein the work is in preparation.
10. Contract Security
(a) Concurrently with the execution hereof, 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 described in Exhibit B, 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 described in Exhibit B as security for the payment of all persons performing labor and
providing materials in connection with this Agreement. Upon the written request of Developer, the
City Engineer shall release a portion or portions of the security provided for hereunder as the
Improvements or portions thereof are completed and approved by the City.
(b) The Developer may fulfill the requirements of subsection (a) of this section by providing
a Standby Irrevocable Letter of Credit in favor of the City and in a form approved by the City Attorney.
(c) Developer may also file a cash deposit with the City.
11. Hold Harmless Agreement
(a) Developer shall hold harmless, indemnify and, at the City’s request, defend City (with
Counsel selected by City), its officers, employees, agents, boards and commissions, whether elected
or appointed, from and against all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, losses, damages,
liabilities, costs and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorney’s fees or obligations,
for or in connection with personal injury (including, but not limited to, death) or damage to property
(both real and personal) to the extent arising out of or is in any way connected with the negligent act,
error or omission of Developer, its agents, contractors, subcontractors, or employees in connection
with the performance of this Agreement.
(b) In order to make certain that Developer has adequate resources to fully carry out its
responsibilities pursuant to subparagraph (a) above, Developer shall file with the City proof that
Developer’s professional consultants (including any soils engineer or civil engineer) employed by
Developer in connection with the work described herein, maintain professional liability (e.g. errors
and omissions) insurance during the life of this Agreement. If the work is accomplished by contractors
or subcontractors, Developer shall assure that the contractors and/or subcontractors carry general
liability insurance. The insurance shall be in an amount of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000), shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except
5
upon thirty (30) days written notice to City and shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney
as to form, amount and carrier, as such approval not to be unreasonably withheld.
(c) The foregoing hold harmless statement of Developer shall apply to all damages and claims
for damages of every kind suffered or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the construction
operations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement, regardless of whether or not City has approved
the plans or specifications for the improvements, and regardless of whether or not such insurance
policies have been determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages. The
foregoing hold harmless statement shall not apply to the extent that such damage and claims are the
result of any negligent act, error or omission of City or its employees, agents or representatives.
12. Environmental Warranty.
Prior to City’s acceptance of dedications or improvements, Developer shall certify and warrant
that:
(a) The development and Developer are not in violation of any environmental law, and neither
are subject to any existing, pending, or threatened investigation by any federal, state or local
governmental authority under or in connection with any environmental law;
(b) Developer nor any third party, will not use, generate, manufacture, produce, or release, on,
or under the Subdevelopment, any hazardous substance, except in compliance with all applicable
environmental laws; and
(c) Developer has not caused or permitted the release of, and has no knowledge of the release
or presence of, hazardous substance(s) on the Subdevelopment or the migration of any hazardous
substance from or to any other property adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, the Subdevelopment.
13. Developer’s Insurance
Developer shall not commence work under this Agreement until Developer has obtained all
insurance required under this paragraph, and such insurance has been approved by the City Attorney
as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Developer allow any contractor or subcontractor to
commence work until all similar insurance required of the contractor or subcontractor has been so
obtained and approved, as such approval not to be unreasonably withheld. All requirements shall
appear either in the body of the insurance policy or in endorsements and shall specifically bind the
insurance carrier.
Developer shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following policies
of insurance:
(a) Worker’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurance in the statutory coverage. In
signing this Agreement, Developer makes the following certification:
6
“I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for
Worker’s Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance
with the provisions of the Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this
Agreement.”
(b) Commercial General Liability Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to any one person and subject
to the same limit for each person; in an amount not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS
($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage.
(c) Automobile Liability (Code 1) Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(d) Contractual Liability Insurance: Developer shall take out and maintain during the life of
this Agreement an insurance policy in the amount of at least TWO MILLION DOLLARS
($2,000,000), insuring Developer against damages sustained as a result of any action or actions at law
or in equity, any claims or demands brought as a result of any breach or alleged breach of any contract,
or provisions thereof, and/or as a result of any contractual liability, or alleged contractual liability
arising out of any contract entered into by Developer and/or any of its agents or employees in order
to perform the work defined herein.
(e) It is agreed that the insurance required by Subsection (b)shall be in an aggregate amount of
not less than Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) and shall be extended to include as additional insureds
the City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, employees and
volunteers, with respect to operations performed by the Developer as described herein. Evidence of
the insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution of this Agreement and shall
be subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form, amount and carrier, as such approval not to
be unreasonably withheld. The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such
insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to City. In
addition, the following endorsement shall be made on the policy of insurance:
“Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the insurance
afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco shall be primary
as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering or available to the
City of South San Francisco, and such other insurance or reinsurance
shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until and
unless the approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is
exhausted.”
14. Evidence of Insurance
Developer shall furnish City concurrently with the execution hereof, satisfactory evidence of
the insurance required and evidence that each carrier is required to give City at least thirty (30) days
prior notice of the cancellation or reduction in coverage of any policy during the effective period of
this Agreement.
7
15. Title to Improvements
Title to, and ownership of, all improvements within a public easement constructed hereunder
by Developer in accordance with this Agreement shall vest absolutely in City, or to such other public
agencies, persons, partnerships, associations or corporations to which dedications of easements were
made or reserved upon the completion and acceptance of such improvements by City or the agency,
person, partnership, association or corporation. Such improvements shall be considered final and
vested to City upon issuance of a certificate of acceptance from the City Engineer or the City Engineer
otherwise determines,, that all work required hereunder has been completed in accordance with all
laws and regulations.
16. Repair or Reconstruction of Defective Work
If, within a period of one (1) year after final acceptance of the work performed under this
Agreement, the improvements installed or constructed, or caused to be installed or constructed by
Developer, or any of the work done under this Agreement, fails to fulfill any of the requirements of
this Agreement or the specifications referred to herein, or proves to be defective or become damaged
because of differential settlement, action of the elements, or ordinary usage, except for catastrophic
events and ordinary wear and tear, Developer shall without delay and without any cost to City repair
or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or
structure. Should Developer fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement, or should
the exigencies of the case require repairs or replacements to be made before Developer can be notified,
City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work,
and Developer shall pay to City the actual cost of such repair plus fifteen (15%) percent. Developer
shall at the time of acceptance of the improvements by City or other public agency, provide the City
with a corporate surety bond in the principal sum of One Hundred and Fifty One Thousand Dollars
($151,000.00) to secure the undertaking and obligations set forth in this provision for a period of one
(1) year after final acceptance of the work.
17. Trenching and Backfilling
Developer shall require that all trenching and backfilling within and outside the property lines
for utility lines, including sanitary, storm, water and any other purposes, shall be done under the
inspection of a soils engineer who shall test the trenching and backfilling with a sufficient number of
soil tests to secure the proper compaction. If required as a condition to any permit issued by City,
Developer shall further require that a certificate be filed with the City stating that said trenching and
backfilling has been performed in accordance with the soils engineer’s recommendations.
18. Developer not Agent of City
Neither Developer nor any of Developer’s agents or contractors shall be considered agents of
City in connection with the performance of Developer’s obligations under this Agreement.
19. Cost of Engineering and Inspection
Developer shall pay City the actual cost to City for all inspections and other services furnished
by City in connection with the construction of the above-required improvements, plus twenty-two
8
percent thereof for administrative overhead. City shall furnish periodic statements of all charges for
services performed by City, and Developer shall complete payment of such charges within ten (10)
days after receipt thereof.
20. Notice of Breach and Default
If Developer refuses or fails to obtain prosecution of the work, or any severable part thereof,
with such diligence as will insure its completion within the time specified, or any extensions thereof,
or fails to obtain completion of the work within such time, or if the Developer should be adjudged as
bankrupt, or if Developer should make a general assignment for the benefit of Developer’s creditors,
or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of Developer’s insolvency, or if Developer or any of
Developer’s contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees should violate any of the provisions of
the Agreement, the City Engineer or City Manager may serve written notice upon Developer and
Developer’s sureties of breach of this Agreement, or of any portion thereof, and default of Developer,
and Developer shall have thirty (30) days thereafter to cure or substantially commence such cure.
21. Breach of Agreement; Performance by Sureties or City
In the event of such notice which is not cured by Developer, Developer’s sureties shall have
the duty to take over the work and complete the work and the improvement herein specified; provided,
however, that if the sureties, within five (5) days after being served notice of such breach, do not give
City written notice of their intention to take over the performance of the Agreement, and do not
commence performance thereof within five (5) days after notice to the City of such election, City may
take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or by any other method City
may deem advisable, for the account and at the expense of Developer. In such event, in addition to
any legal or equitable remedies or claims available to it, City, without liability for so doing, may take
possession of, and use in completing the work, such materials, appliances, plant and other property
belonging to Developer as may be on site of the work and necessary therefor.
22. Erosion Control
If applicable, Developer shall furnish landscape plans and adequately provide for erosion
control. Landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City’s
Landscape Architect.
23. Trenching and Backfilling
Developer shall require that all trenching and backfilling within and outside the property lines
for utility lines, including sanitary, storm, water and any other purposes, shall be done under the
inspection of a soils engineer who shall test the trenching and backfilling with a sufficient number of
soil tests to secure the proper compaction. Developer shall further require that a certificate be filed
with the City stating that said trenching and backfilling has been performed in accordance with the
soils engineer’s recommendations.
24. Water Lines
Developer shall dedicate to the California Water Service (CWS) the easements required for the
water lines, facilities and appurtenant works, unless the lines, facilities and appurtenant works are to
9
be installed within existing easements or the Public Utility Easements on the Parcel Map. Developer
shall construct and install, at its sole cost and expense, the improvements in the easements as set forth
on the approved improvement plans, subject to the approval of the CWS.
25. Notices
All notices herein required shall be in writing, and delivered in person or sent by certified mail,
postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
ATTN: COO
Copy to:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
ATTN: General Counsel
Any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices shall
be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
26. As-Built Drawings
Developer shall furnish City reproducible plastic film as-built drawings of the public
improvements of a quality acceptable to the City Engineer together with a certification by Developer’s
engineer that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications. Developer shall furnish City with the as-built drawings concurrently with Developer’s
request for acceptance of the improvements by the City.
27. Parties Obligated
Developer agrees that this Agreement shall bind Developer and Developer’s successors in
interest, heirs and assigns.
28. Attorneys’ Fees
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
10
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.
29. Governing Law
The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
30. Severability
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.
31. Release
After acceptance of the Improvements and completion of the one (1) year
maintenance period in Section 16, the City shall within 60 days thereafter record a release of this
Agreement in the Official Records of San Mateo County.
32. Liens Not Impaired. No breach of the covenants or terms of this Agreement or any
enforcement thereof shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in
good faith and for value, now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion thereof. None
of the covenants or terms of this Agreement shall supersede or in any way reduce the security or affect
the validity of any such mortgage or deed of trust; provided, however, that any such covenant or term
shall be binding upon and effective against the owner of the Property or any portion thereof whose
title to the Property or such portion thereof is acquired by foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise.
[signatures on following page]
11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:
Charles M. Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
12
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Venture LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Member LLC
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SummerHill Apartment Communities,
A California corporation, its managing member
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Legal Description
Exhibit B – Improvement Plans
Exhibit C – Centennial Trail Area/Construction Access And Staging Restoration Work
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Property
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as
follows:
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LANDS FORMERLY OF JAMES L.
FLOOD AND THE LANDS OF THE UNITED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 215.23 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 IN DEED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES FROM JAMES L. FLOOD TO
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY 19, 1913 IN BOOK 225
OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; RUNNING THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 193.77
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 20' WEST 68.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY (NOW EL CAMINO REAL); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF
3033 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 11' 49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 169.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, AT WHICH POINT THE RADIAL BEARING
BEARS SOUTH 44° 36' 58" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, TANGENT TO THE PROCEEDING COURSE, ALONG THE ARC OF
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 102° 06' 02", AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 35.64 FEET AND NORTH 56° 43' EAST 5.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THAT CERTAIN DEED OF DEDICATION
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1955 IN BOOK 2878, PAGE 166 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL TWO:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 5 AND 6, SAN MATEO COUNTY LANDS, DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, RECORDED IN BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1 AND A PORTION OF
PARCEL 24 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM THE SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY TO THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RECORDED IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT
PAGE 1 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL D-3106-4C DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A-15
ATTACHED TO THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ENTITLED "SAN
MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
DEFENDANT," CASE NO. 405695 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 11, 2004 UNDER RECORDER'S
SERIES NO. 2004-025111 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE THROUGH THE
FOLLOWING NUMBERED COURSES:
1) NORTH 54° 47' 38" WEST FOR 362.58 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 3859.53 FEET,
2) ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 27" FOR AN ARC
LENGTH OF 44.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, 112 FEET
WIDE,
Exhibit A
3) SOUTH 57° 58' 43" WEST ALONG SAID AVENUE FOR 91.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3944.52 FEET FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT
BEARS NORTH 36° 21' 52" EAST, 4) SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 09' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 79.75 FEET,
5) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 175.96 FEET TO THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF MISSION
ROAD,
6) SOUTH 21° 23' 10" EAST ALONG SAID LINE FOR 9.08 FEET,
7) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 179.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL
D-3108-4 DESCRIBED IN SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION,
8) NORTH 35° 12' 22" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL AND ALONG SAID PARCEL D-3106-4C
FOR 89.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL THREE:
PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP OF LANDS
OF GIGLI AND LANDS OF PETROCCHI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED IN
DECEMBER 20, 1983 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN BOOK 54 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 15 AND 16.
PARCEL FOUR:
BEING PORTIONS OF EL CAMINO REAL AND MISSION ROAD AS EXISTING ON DECEMBER 31,
1983 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE ON THE CENTER LINE OF MISSION ROAD (66 FEET WIDE) AT
THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE
DIVIDING LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 1, AS SAID ROAD, LOTS AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON
THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "SECTION, WEST OF RAILROAD, OF THE TOWN OF BADEN,
PART OF RANCHO BURI BURI, SAN MATEO CO., CAL.", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1891, IN BOOK "E" OF MAPS, AT
PAGE 62; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE DIVIDING
LOTS 39 AND 40, SOUTH 63° 38' 30" WEST, 38.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS EL CAMINO REAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40° 36' 30" WEST,
12.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83° 14' 30" WEST 13.00 FEET; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT THAT
BEARS SOUTH 38° 13' 19" EAST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 3033.00
FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 0° 18' 42", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO SAID
PROLONGATION OF LINE BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 40; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION
NORTH 63° 38' 30" EAST, 11.89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT.
PARCEL FIVE:
SO MUCH OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL “A” AS LIES WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL “B”
PARCEL “A”:
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL CONVEYED BY JAMES L. FLOOD,
ET AL, TO JOHN FLOURNOY, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1900 AND RECORDED
DECEMBER 13, 1900 IN BOOK 88 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 219 (MARKET STREET RAILWAY LINE);
ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF
LAND CONVEYED BY ALVINA M. BORTIS TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS BY DEED
DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1966 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 IN BOOK 5214 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 708 (FILE NO. 95676-Z), RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
AND ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY JAMES L.
Exhibit A
FLOOD, TO COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BY DEED DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY
19, 1913 IN BOOK 225 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14 (EL CAMINO REAL).
PARCEL “B”:
A PORTION OF PARCEL 24 AS SET FORTH IN DEED FROM SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY,
A CORPORATION, TO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
DATED MARCH 3, 1930 AND RECORDED MARCH 3, 1930 IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AT PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF THE
LANDS CONVEYED FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1944 IN
BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID ABOVE LANDS WHICH IS BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF OLD MISSION ROAD; BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED FROM
FLOOD REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, TO EMILIO A. PETROCCHI, ET AL, RECORDED
JANUARY 22, 1954 IN BOOK 2527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 491, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; (FILE NO. 31864-L); AND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE
SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
EXTENSION AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1971 IN BOOK 5892 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 452, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FILE NO. 80162-AD).
APN: 011-325-030 (Affects Parcel One)
011-325-070 (Affects Parcels Two and Five)
014-011-260 (Affects Parcel Three)
014-011-280 (Affects Parcel Four)
JPN:
011-032-325-03A
093-033-331-04A
014-001-011-01.01A, 11.02A, 13.01A and 15A
014-001-011-17A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
Improvement Plans
[SEE ATTACHED]
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
VICINITY MAP
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS
988 EL CAMINO REAL
N
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2019988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP01.DWGCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSSITE TITLE, GENERAL NOTES, SHEET INDEX & VICINITY MAPPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS1
SHEET INDEX
SHEET NO.SHEET DESCRIPTION
CIVIL
LANDSCAPE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
JOINT TRENCH
STREET LIGHT
FIBER OPTIC
TRAFFIC CONTROL
CIVIL ENGINEER
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO FIRE PREVENTION
GENERAL NOTES:
ENGINEER'S GENERAL NOTES:
CITY CONSTRUCTION & OPERATION NOTES GEOTECHNICAL REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
03-01-2019
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP02.DWG2/5/2019 2:08 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSCITY NOTES & CONDITIONS OF APPROVALPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS2
CITY SIDEWALK GENERAL NOTES
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLANNING:
’
’
“”
’
’
’
’
•
•
•
•
•
•
’
•
•
’
•
•
•
·
•
•
•
•’
•
•
•
•
•
’
“”
’
’
’
ENGINEERING:
’
ENGINEERING CONDITIONS CONT:
’
’
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
” ”
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
’“”
’
“”
•
•
•
•
•
•
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS:
“”
“
“”
’
“”
“”
“”
“”
“
”
“”
“
”
“”
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP03.DWG2/5/2019 2:08 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSCONDITIONS OF APPROVALPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS3
TYPICAL EL CAMINO REAL SECTION
TYPICAL CHESTNUT AVENUE SECTION
TYPICAL EL CAMINO REAL & CHESTNUT AVENUE INTERSECTION SECTION
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP04.DWG2/5/2019 2:41 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSLEGEND, STREET SECTIONS, STRUCTURE SCHEDULE, & DETAILSPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS4
PIPE SCHEDULE
PIPE TYPE DESCRIPTION
STORM DRAIN STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION STANDARD DETAIL
SANITARY SEWER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION STANDARD DETAIL
WATER STRUCTURE SCHEDULE
STRUCTURE DESCRIPTION STANDARD DETAIL
CAL WATER APPLICABLE STANDARD DETAILS
NOTES:
LEGEND
EXISTING PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
ABBREVIATIONS
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP05.DWG2/5/2019 2:08 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSAPPLICABLE CITY STANDARD DETAILSPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS5
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP06.DWG2/5/2019 2:08 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSAPPLICABLE CITY & CALTRANS STANDARD DETAILSPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS6
CHESTNUT AVENUEEL CAMINO REAL
LIMITS OF CALTRANS
RIGHT OF WAYCHESTNUT AVENUEEL CAMINO REAL
LIMITS OF CALTRANS
RIGHT OF WAY
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP07.DWG2/12/2019 9:20 AMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSLEGEND, STREET SECTIONS, STRUCTURE SCHEDULE, & DETAILSPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS7
SCALE:
CHESTNUT AVENUE & EL CAMINO REAL EASTERN CURB RETURN DETAIL
1" = 5'SCALE:
CHESTNUT AVENUE & EL CAMINO REAL INTERSECTION DETAIL
1" = 20'
WATER IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY. SUBJECT TO FINAL
CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY DESIGN.
1
1
1
1
12
SCALE:
PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION DETAIL
1" = 10'PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION DETAILPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS8
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP08.DWG2/5/2019 3:10 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSSCALE: 1" = 10'
0'20'10'5'10'0'0'0'0'
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT A PART OF THIS
CONTRACT AND ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY.
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT
PLANS FOR ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
2
GENERAL NOTES
ANTOINETTE LANE
CENTENN
I
A
L
WAY TRA
I
L
SCALE:
EL CAMINO REAL
1" = 20'DEMOLITION PLANPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS9
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP09.DWG2/5/2019 3:09 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSSCALE:
CHESTNUT AVENUE
1" = 20'
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0'40'20'10'20'0'
LEGEND
DEMOLITION NOTES:
SCALE:
CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL
1" = 20'
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
ROUGH GRADING PLANS FOR
ON-SITE DEMOLITION PLAN.
FOR CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
ROUGH GRADING PLANS FOR
ON-SITE DEMOLITION PLAN.
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
ROUGH GRADING PLANS FOR
ON-SITE DEMOLITION PLAN.
FOR BART ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
FOR CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
3
1
4
2
4
4
2
5
CHESTNUT AVENUE
SEE SHEET 11
4
6 7
LEGEND
SCALE:1" =
VERTICAL 1" =
HORIZONTAL
PROFILE
20'
4'
SCALE:
EL CAMINO REAL (STATE ROUTE 82)
1" = 20'
20
30
40
50
60
20
30
40
50
60
10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 13+00 13+50 14+00 14+50 15+00 EL CAMINO REAL (STATE ROUTE 82)PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS10
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP10.DWG2/5/2019 3:08 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSSCALE: 1" = 20'
0'40'20'10'20'0'
NOTES
1
2
3
4
5
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT A PART OF
THIS CONTRACT. SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
WATER IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN FOR
REFERENCE ONLY. SUBJECT TO FINAL
CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY DESIGN.
FOR CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
6
7
GENERAL NOTES
EL CAMINO REAL
SEE SHEET 10
SEE RIGHT
2
3
1
4
5
6
3
4
ANTOINETTE LANE
SEE
L
E
F
T
CENTE
N
N
I
A
L
WAY T
R
A
I
L
3
3
1
A
12
6
SCALE:1" =
VERTICAL 1" =
HORIZONTAL
PROFILE
20'
4'
SCALE:
CHESTNUT AVENUE
1" = 20'
20
30
40
50
20
30
40
50
10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 12+00 12+50 10+00 10+50 11+00 11+50 CHESTNUT AVENUE & CENTENNIAL WAY TRAILPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS11
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP11.DWG2/5/2019 3:05 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSSCALE: 1" = 20'
0'40'20'10'20'0'
NOTES
1
2
3
4
5
6
SCALE:
CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL
1" = 20'
12+00
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
NOT A PART OF THIS CONTRACT.
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANSLEGEND
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE
NOT A PART OF THIS CONTRACT.
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS
FOR CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY FOR BART ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
GENERAL NOTES
SCALE:
EL CAMINO REAL (STATE ROUTE 82)
1" = 20'EL CAMINO REAL & CHESTNUT AVENUE TC PLANPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS11A
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP11A.DWG2/5/2019 2:10 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT A PART OF
THIS CONTRACT. SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
SCALE:
CHESTNUT AVENUE
1" = 20'
SEE SHEET 10 FOR UTLITY DETAILS.
SEE SHEET 11 FOR UTLITY DETAILS.
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT A PART OF
THIS CONTRACT. SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0'40'20'10'20'0'
EARTHWORK SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION CUT FILL NET
SCALE:
FUTURE CHESTNUT AVENUE & ANTIONETTE LANE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
1" = 20'
(FOR REFERENCE ONLY)
CHESTNUT AVENUE
SANITARY SEWER CROSSING 1 SANITARY SEWER CROSSING 2
30
40
50
30
40
50
BART CROSS SECTION A
CURB RETURN 1
40
50
40
5040
50
40
50
30 30 30
40
50
30
40
50
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP12.DWG2/5/2019 2:10 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSUTILITY CROSSING & CURB RETURN PROFILESPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS12
EL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVENUEANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
CENTENN
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT A PART OF
THIS CONTRACT. SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL
PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR ON-SITE
SIGNING & STRIPING PLAN
SIGNING AND STRIPING PLANPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS13
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP13.DWG2/5/2019 2:11 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSLEGEND & ABBREVIATIONS
SIGNING AND STRIPING NOTES
SSF BIKE ROUTE 80 SIGN
SCALE: 1" = 30'
0'60'30'15'30'0'FOR CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLYFOR CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ONLY
EROSION CONTROL NOTESPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS14
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP14.DWG2/5/2019 2:11 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSAPPLICABLE (BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
CURRENT CASQA STORMWATER BMP
CONSTRUCTION HANDBOOK
RISK LEVEL 1 SITES -
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE NOTES:
37.937.837.937.8EL CAMINO REAL
ANTOINE
T
T
E
L
A
N
E
CHESTNUT AVENUECENTENN
I
A
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NOT PART OF THIS CONTRACT.
SEE 988 EL CAMINO REAL PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR
ON-SITE EROSION CONTROL DETAILS.EROSION CONTROL PLANPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS15
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP15.DWG2/5/2019 2:11 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERSC
LEGEND
QUALIFIED SWPPP PRACTITIONER (QSP)
MARK KNOWN LOCATIONS*
SCALE: 1" = 20'
0'40'20'10'20'0'FOR CITY ENCROACHMENTPERMIT ONLYFOR CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT ONLY
CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESPUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PLANS16
JOB NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
OF
2718-000 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCALIFORNIADRAWN BY:DATE:SDCPROJ. ENGR:PROJ. MGR:RTHFEB 2018988 EL CAMINO REAL16RAB
F:\2718-000\ACAD\IP\IP16.DWG2/5/2019 2:11 PMCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSSAN RAMONSACRAMENTO(925) 866 - 0322(916) 375 - 1877www.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.PLANNERS
UPUPDNUPUPUPEL CAMINO REALCHESTNU
T
A
V
E
PRO
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
EEL CAMINO REALCON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSOFF-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPRO
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SIT
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
SL100L200L300L101L201L301 SHEET INDEX:L000SHEET INDEX, KEY PLAN & NOTESL100OFFSITE MATERIALS PLANL101OFFSITE MATERIALS PLAN, NOTES & LEGENDL200OFFSITE PLANTING PLANL201OFFSITE PLANTING PLAN, NOTES & LEGENDL300OFFSITE IRRIGATION PLANL301OFFSITE IRRIGATION PLANL302OFFSITE IRRIGATION NOTES & LEGENDL303OFFSITE IRRIGATION DETAILSL304OFFSITE IRRIGATION DETAILSL305OFFSITE IRRIGATION DETAILSL306OFFSITE IRRIGATION WATER CALCULATIONL400CONSTRUCTION DETAILSL500 PLANTING DETAILSALIGN / FLUSHBWBOTTOM OF WALLCENTERLINECIPCAST IN PLACECJCONTROL JOINTDETAIL CALLOUTDIADIAMETEREQEQUAL(E)EXISTINGEJEXPANSION JOINTFOWFACE OF WALLFGFINISH GRADEFSFINISH SURFACEFIRE LADDER PADHBHOSE BIBHDRHEADERHPHIGH POINTSYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONSCLPOBPOINT OF BEGINNINGPOCPOINT OF CONNECTIONPROPERTY LINEPTPRESSURE TREATEDREVISION CLOUDREVISION DELTAPL1KEY PLAN: LEVEL 1HTHEIGHTLOWLIMIT OF WORKMAXMAXIMUMMINMINIMUMNICNOT IN CONTRACTOCON CENTERPAPLANTING AREASWPASTORM WATER PLANTING AREAPAEPUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTPIPPOURED IN PLACERRADIUSROWRIGHT-OF-WAYRIMRIM ELEVATIONSADSEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSCDSEE CIVIL DRAWINGSSIDSEE INTERIOR DRAWINGSSPDSEE PLUMBING DRAWINGSSIMSIMILARSPECSSPECIFICATIONSSSDSEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSTBDTO BE DETERMINEDTCTOP OF CURBTWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALWPWATER PROOFINGScale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3SHEET INDEX,KEY PLAN &NOTESL000GENERAL NOTES:1.DESIGN SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES.2.SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND ADA PATH OF TRAVEL.3.PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.4.VERIFY EXISTING SITE INFORMATION, INCLUDING GRADES, UTILITIES, PROPERTY LINES, SETBACKS, EASEMENTS, LIMITS OFROADWAYS, CURBS AND GUTTERS.5.ALL MATERIALS, FINISHES, MANUFACTURED ITEMS AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THESUPPLIER'S OR MANUFACTURER'S WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS OR THESE DOCUMENTS, WHICHEVER IS MOST STRINGENT.6.PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION BARRIERS AS REQUIRED. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY.7.INFORMATION ON THE DRAWINGS RELATIVE TO EXISTING CONDITIONS IS APPROXIMATE ONLY. DRAWINGS ARE GENERALLYDIAGRAMMATIC AND INDICATIVE OF THE WORK TO BE INSTALLED. BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK, THE CONTRACTORSHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND INFORM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCYBETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE IN EXCAVATING ANDWORKING NEAR EXISTING UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES.8.ALL DRAIN LINES, IRRIGATION SUPPLY LINES, CONDUIT, SLEEVES, POWER AND WATER SERVICE POINTS SHALL BE IN PLACEPRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WALL AND CURB PENETRATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF WATERPROOFING, SLEEVESCONDUIT AND ANCHOR BOLTS.10.SCALE APPLIES TO FULL-SIZED DRAWINGS ONLY. DO NOT SCALE FROM REDUCED DRAWINGS.p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L000 SHEET INDEX, KEY PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:12:07 PM,MarionT, ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUP UPDNCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIALLEASING,LOBBY
&WIFI
LOUNGEFITNESS RES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM
.
INT
AKE GAS M
E
T
E
R
S
DNLOAD
ING LOADINGBACK UPMBTRRRRTTTRRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE ROOM 1BIKE
ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMP
FIRE BOOSTER ROOM/ BOILER
ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANUPDNUPEL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVE PROPERTY LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSMATCHLINE L101MATCHLINE L101HYDRANT,SCDHYDRANT, SCDPUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPAPAPAPAPROPERTY LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSN.I.C.A-3A-3A-3A-3PV-1PV-2A-3A-32" IRRIGATION LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS19'-0"27'-7"24'-10"25'-0"25'-11"19'-10"10'-7"16'-8"36'-4"16'-4"12'-0"CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLEQEQEQEQ
A-2A-1A-2A-1TYP.SEE ON-SITE PACKAGEEJEJEJEJ EJ4'-0"10'-0"EJ
EJEJ4'-0"10'-0"EJGREASE INTERCEPTOR,SCDDRIVEWAY,SCD1'-6"CLCLCL2' X 2' SCORING GRIDPER CITY STANDARD4'-0"4'X4' SCORING GRIDAT CORNER PLAZAA-3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3OFFSITEMATERIALSPLANL100p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L100 OFFSITE MATERIALS PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:12:38 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUPUPDN
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIALLEASING
,LOBBY
&WIFI LOUNGEFITNESS RES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM.INTAKE GAS M
E
TERS
DNLOADINGLOADING
BACK UPMBT
RRRRTTT
RRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE
ROOM
1BIKE ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMPFIRE BOOSTER ROOM/ BOILER
ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANUPEL CAMINO REALOFF-
S
I
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S MATCHLINE L100MATCHLINE L100PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPROPERTY LINEPAPAJOINT TRENCHOFF-
S
I
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
SN.I.C.N.I.C.PROP
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
EA-3PV-1A-2A-1PV-12" IRRIGATION LINEHYDRANT, SCD12'-2"11'-1"11'-8"10'-1"14'-9"CLCLCLCLEJ
EJ GREASE INTERCEPTOR,SCDWATER LINE, SCDEQEQOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS ON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSA-3TYP.EJDRIVEWAY,SCD29'-9"8'-3"MATERIALS LEGENDCALLOUTSYMBOLDESCRIPTIONDETAILMANUFACTURERPRODUCTMATERIAL / COLOR / FINISHSIZEQTY.NOTESPAVING + EDGINGPV-1CONCRETE PAVING ON GRADE: SIDEWALKGRANITE ROCKREADY-MIX CONCRETEGRANITE ROCK READY-MIX CONCRETE / COLOR: NATURAL /BROOM FINISH2' X 2' CITY GRIDSEE PLAN4,169 SFSIDEWALKS: NATURAL WITH BROOM FINISH TO MEET CITY STANDARD. SCD.WWW.GRANITEROCK.COMPV-2CONCRETE PAVING ON GRADE: CORNERGRANITE ROCK / DAYTONSUPERIORREADY-MIX CONCRETE AND TOP CASTFINISHGRANITE ROCK READY-MIX CONCRETE / COLOR: NATURAL /FINISH: GRACE TOP CAST 05- SANDBLAST4' X 4'SEE PLAN1,070 SFWWW.GRANITEROCK.COM; WWW.DAYTONSUPERIOR.COMAMENITIESA-1WOOD BENCH-LANDSCAPE FORMSNEOLIVIANO BENCHJARRAH WOOD & ALUMINUM69" BACKED3WWW.LANDSCAPEFORMS.COM/EN-US/PRODUCTDATA/PAGES/NEOLIVIANO-BENCH.ASPXA-2TRASH RECEPTACLE-LANDSCAPE FORMSFGP LITTERJARRAH & POWDERCOATED METAL: SILVER19" X 20"HEIGHT: 37"3WWW.LANDSCAPEFORMS.COM/EN-US/PRODUCT/PAGES/FGP-LITTER.ASPXA-3ROOT BARRIERDEEPROOTUB 36-236" DEEP ROOT BARRIER / BLACK36" ROLL: CUT IN 8'LENGTHS144 LFWWW.DEEPROOT.COM ; (800) 458-76681/L4002/L4003/L4004/L5005/L5001/L4002/L400SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3OFFSITEMATERIALSPLAN, NOTES& LEGENDL101LAYOUT NOTES:1.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, GRADES AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK ANDSHALL NOTIFY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF DISCREPANCIES.3.WHERE 'VERIFY' OR 'FIELD VERIFY' IS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DIMENSION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYTHE MEASUREMENT PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE WORK. IMMEDIATELY BRING DISCREPANCIES TO THE ATTENTION OFTHE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.4.DIMENSIONS ARE TAKEN FROM FACE OF BUILDING. COLUMN GRID LINE OR WALL AND BACK OF CURB UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.5.ALL CURVES SHALL BE SMOOTH AND CONTINUOUS WITH NO ABRUPT CHANGES IN DIRECTION.6.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING FINISH GRADES WHERE PLANTER WALLS ARE LOCATED. FINAL GRADES MAY BEDIFFERENT THAN DESIGN GRADES SHOWN. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING INFORMATION. CONTRACTOR TOBRING ANY GRADE DISCREPANCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW, AS ITAFFECTS WALL HEIGHTS.7.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE ON ALL PAVED SURFACES AND ENSURE THAT NO PONDING OFWATER OCCURS.8.ALL UTILITY HATCHES, COVERS AND BOXES SHALL RESIDE IN PLANTING AREAS OR PAVING AREAS, NOT IN BOTH.ALIGN HATCHES AND CENTER UTILITIES IN PAVING SCORE PATTERNS.p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L100 OFFSITE MATERIALS PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:12:49 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUPUPDN
COMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIALLEASING
,LOBBY
&WIFI LOUNGEFITNESS RES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM.
INTAKE GAS M
E
TERS
DNLOADINGLOADING
BACK UPMBT
RRRRTTT
RRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE
ROOM
1BIKE ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMPFIRE BOOSTER ROOM/ BOILER
ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANUPDNUPEL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVE PROPERTY LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSMATCHLINE L201MATCHLINE L201HYDRANT,SCDHYDRANT, SCDPUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPROPERTY LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSN.I.C.2" IRRIGATION LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS TRI CON2PLA ACE5LIM CAL27LIM CAL58LIM CAL27RHA IND18LIM CAL22RHA IND9LIM CAL20RHA IND5LIM CAL17RHA IND13LIM CAL2019'-0"27'-7"24'-10"25'-0"25'-11"19'-10"10'-7"16'-8"36'-4"16'-4"12'-0"CLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLCLEQEQEQEQ
RHA IND2TYP.SEE ON-SITE PACKAGE4'-0"4'-0"GREASE INTERCEPTOR,SCDDRIVEWAY,SCD1'-6"CLCLCL2' X 2' SCORING GRIDPER CITY STANDARD4'X4' SCORING GRIDAT CORNER PLAZASCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3OFFSITEPLANTINGPLANL200p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L200 OFFSITE PLANTING PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:13:21 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUPUPDNCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIALLEASING,LOBBY &WIFI
LOUNGEFITNESSRES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM.
INTAK
E
GA
S
METER
S
DNLOADING
LOADING
BACK U
PMB
TRRRRTTTRRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE ROOM 1BIKE ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMP
FIRE BOOSTER
ROOM
/ BO
ILER ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANUPEL CAMINO REALOFF-
S
I
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S MATCHLINE L200MATCHLINE L200PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPROPERTY LINEJOINT TRENCHOFF-
S
I
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
SN.I.C.N.I.C.PROP
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
EHYDRANT, SCDPLA ACE2LIM CAL30LIM CAL23RHA IND17RHA IND19LIM CAL7RHA IND512'-2"11'-1"11'-8"10'-1"14'-9"CLCLCLCLGREASE INTERCEPTOR,SCDWATER LINE, SCDEQEQOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS ON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSTYP.DRIVEWAY,SCD29'-9"8'-3"ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S PLANT LEGENDCALLOUTSYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEQTY.CONTAINERSIZESPACINGWUCOLSIRRIGA.TYPECALI.NATIVEMATUREWIDTHREMARKS TREESPLA ACEPLATANUS ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA'LONDON PLANE TREE748" BOXSTANDARDSEEPLANMODERATEBUBBLERN30-40'TRI CONTRISTANIA CONFERTABRISBANE BOX248" BOXSTANDARDSEEPLANMODERATEBUBBLERN25' SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERRHA INDRHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'BALLERINA'BALLERINA INDIAN HAWTHORNE905 GAL3' O.C.LOWDRIPN5-6'LIM CALLIMONIUM CALIFORNICUMSEA LAVENDER2521 GAL2' O.C.LOWDRIPY2'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3OFFSITEPLANTINGPLAN, NOTES& LEGENDL201PLANTING NOTES:1.ALL PLANT GROUPS ARE DESIGNED FOR LOW TO MODERATE WATER USE, AND LAID OUT BY WATER ZONESDEPENDING ON WATER NEEDS. ALL PLANTING IS WATERED BY DRIP, BUBBLERS OR SUB-SURFACE IRRIGATION.2.PLANT MATERIAL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE IN THE FIELD BYTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PLANT LOCATIONS ARE TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD AS NECESSARY TO SCREENUTILITIES BUT NOT TO BLOCK WINDOWS, SIGNS NOR IMPEDE ACCESS.3.TREE PLANTING AND INSTALLATION WITHIN RIGHT OF WAY IS SUBJECT TO CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCODES AND STANDARDS.4.TREES ARE MEANT TO ALIGN WITH EACH OTHER UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE.5.TREES NEED TO BE STAKED IN LOCATION AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BEFORE PLANTING. TREESAT BUILDING FACADE ARE NOT TO BLOCK WINDOWS AND MAY BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD.6.ALL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREAS ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN TWO (2)YEARS. ALL SHRUB PLANTING AREAS ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN FIVE (5)YEARS.7.FINISH GRADE OF ALL SHRUB AREAS ON SITE SHALL BE 1-1/2 INCHES BELOW ADJACENT PAVING OR HEADER.8.ALL NEW PLANTING AREA SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3" DEPTH LAYER OF ORGANIC MULCH APPLIED.STABILIZING MULCH PRODUCTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO SLOPES OF 3 TO 1 OR GREATER.9.A SOIL ANALYSIS SHOULD BE PERFORMED DETERMINING THE SOIL TEXTURE, ORGANIC MATTER AND ESSENTIALNUTRIENTS, SOIL INFILTRATION RATE, MEASURE OF PH AND TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS. ALL RECOMMENDATIONSSHALL BE ORGANIC AND NON-SYNTHETIC AND BASED ON RECYCLED WATER USE. TOP SOIL SHALL BESTOCKPILED ON SITE AS SPACE ALLOWS, SEE SPECIFICATIONS.10.AMENDMENTS OF SOILS DESIGNED TO PROMOTE HEALTHY WATER AND AIR ACCESS TO THE ROOT ZONE OFTREES TO BE PLANTED WITHIN 5 FEET OF ANY PAVEMENT OR OTHER COMPACTED AREA AND THE AMOUNT OFCOMPOST SHALL ACHIEVE A MINIMUM OF 3.5% ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT BY DRY WEIGHT UNLESS SOILREPORT RECOMMENDS AN ALTERNATIVE PERCENT OF ORGANIC MATTER TAILORED TO THE PLANT MATERIALSSPECIFIED IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN.11.SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR STREETSCAPE STORMWATER AND GRADING INFORMATION.12.TREES MUST BE LOCATED AT LEAST 10' FROM FIRE HYDRANTS, UTILITY POLES, DRIVEWAYS, AND HIGHWAYSIGNS.p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L200 OFFSITE PLANTING PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:13:29 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUP UPDNCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIALLEASING,LOBBY
&WIFI
LOUNGEFITNESS RES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM
.
INT
AKE GAS M
E
T
E
R
S
DNLOAD
ING LOADINGBACK UPMBTRRRRTTTRRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE ROOM 1BIKE
ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMP
FIRE BOOSTER ROOM/ BOILER
ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANMATCHLINE L301MATCHLINE L301UPDNUPEL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVE PROPERTY LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS2" IRRIGATION LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS
OFF-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS
ON-SITE LIMIT OF
IMPROVEMENTS OFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSSCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L300OFFSITEIRRIGATIONPLANFOR CONNECTION OF MAIN LINE ANDLOCATION OF P.O.C AND CONTROLLERSERVICING THE OFF-SITE IRRIGATION.(REFER TO ON-SITE IRRIGATION DRAWINGSHEET L3.0).fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:NOTES:7.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL IRRIGATION PIPING TO GOAROUND ALL UTILITY BOX, LIGHTS, SIGNS, ETC. (DRAWINGSARE DIAGRAMMATIC).6.EACH DRIP ZONE SHALL RECEIVE A SET OF AIR VENT/VACUUMRELIEF VALVE AT THE HIGHS POINT AND FLUSH VALVES ANDOPERATION INDICATOR AT FARTHEST ENDS OF EACH SYSTEM.1.ONE BUBBLER SYMBOL IS SHOWN AT TREES FOR GRAPHICCLARITY ONLY. INSTALL MINIMUM TWO BUBBLERS AT EACHTREE. INSTALL REQUIRED NUMBER OF BUBBLERS AS DETAILED.2.IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT MAY BE SHOWN WITHIN HARDSCAPEFOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. INSTALL ALL IRRIGATIONEQUIPMENT WITHIN PLANTED AREAS. IRRIGATION PIPE ANDWIRE CROSSING BENEATH HARDSCAPE SURFACES SHALL BECONTAINED WITHIN SLEEVING OR SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT.SLEEVING SIZE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO TIMES THEAGGREGATE DIAMETER OF ALL PIPES CONTAINED WITH SLEEVE.PROVIDE VERTICAL SWEEP FOR ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ONEACH SIDE OF HARDSCAPE AND TERMINATE ENDS AT 12"MINIMUM DEPTH AND 12" FROM HARDSCAPE SURFACE.3.UNSIZED LATERAL LINE PIPING LOCATED DOWN STREAM OF 1"PIPING SHALL BE 3/4" IN SIZE (TYPICAL).4.SIZING OF LATERAL PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:5.SIZING OF LATERAL LINE PIPE FOR DRIPLINE (12" O.C. GRIDWITH 0.6 GPM OR LESS EMITTERS) SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:0.75"1"1.25"1.5"0-6 GPM7-12 GPM13-20 GPM21-32 GPM0.75"1"1.25"1.5"0-500 FT501-1100 FT1101-2000 FT2001-3000 FTp:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L300 OFFSITE IRRIGATION PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:03 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
DNUPUP UPDNCOMMERCIALCOMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIA
LLEASING,LOBBY
&WIFI LOUNGEFITNESS RES. TRASHCOMM.TRASHSPAEQUIP.SWITCH-GEAR RM
.
INT
AKE GAS ME
T
E
R
S
DNLOADING LOADINGBACK UPMBTRRRRTTTRRTTTTTRELEV.RMBIKE ROOM
1
BIKE ROOM
2MENS RRWOMENSRRMBFIREPUMPFIRE BOOSTER ROOM/ BOILER
ROOMMBGROUND FLOOR - KEY PLANMATCHLINE L300MATCHLINE L300UPEL CAMINO REALOFF-
S
I
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S2" IRRIGATION LINEOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS ON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTSGREASE INTERCEPTOR,SCDOFF-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS ON-SITE LIMIT OFIMPROVEMENTS29'-9"8'-3"ON-SI
T
E
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
IMPR
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'- 0"04'8'16'Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3OFFSITEIRRIGATIONPLANL301IRRIGATION PERFORMANCE NOTES:1.ALL PLANT GROUPS ARE LAID OUT BY WATER ZONES DEPENDING ON WATER NEEDS. ALL PLANTING IS WATERED BY DRIP, BUBBLERS OR SUB-SURFACE IRRIGATION. TIE TO EXISTINGIRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEM. CONNECT TO WEATHER BASED CONTROLLER AND BACKFLOW PREVENTOR. COORDINATE WITH CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE.2.ALLOW ONE VALVE MINIMUM PER HYDRO ZONE IN EACH PLANTER. THERE ARE SIX TYPES OF WATER ZONE GROUPINGS FOR THIS WORK.3.ALLOW ONE OVERFLOW DRAIN AND DRAIN PER PLANTER. COORDINATE WITH PLUMBER AND ASSOCIATED TRADES.4.CONTROLLER SYSTEM TO BE WEATHERTRAK OR EQUAL WITH RAIN SENSOR. CONTROLLER SHALL BE A TYPE WHICH DOES NOT LOSE PROGRAMMING DATA IN THE EVENT THE PRIMARYPOWER SOURCE IS INTERRUPTED. SUPPLY 2-YEAR SUBSCRIPTION. LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED.5.USE NETAFIM PRESSURE COMPENSATING DRIP LINES WITH EMITTERS AT 12" O.C. AND 0.9 GPH FOR IRRIGATION OR APPROVED EQUAL. ALL IRRIGATION LINES AND HEADS SHALL BEINSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS ENSURING EQUIPMENT & INSTALLATION MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE CODES. ALL IRRIGATION EMISSION DEVICES MUST MEET THEREQUIREMENTS SET IN THE ANSI STANDARD. ASABE/ICC 802-2014. "LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD," ALL SPRINKLER HEADS INSTALLED IN THE LANDSCAPEMUST DOCUMENT A DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY LOW QUARTER OR 0.65 OR HIGHER USING THE PROTOCOL DEFINED IN ASABE/ICC 802-2014.6.IRRIGATION LINES UNDER PAVING SHALL BE PLACED IN A SLEEVE THAT IS AT LEAST 2 SIZES LARGER THAN PIPE.7.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY PRESSURE ON SITE BEFORE BEGINNING ANY IRRIGATION WORK. PRESSURE REGULATORS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE THEDYNAMIC PRESSURE OF THE SYSTEM IS WITHIN THE MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE. CONDUCT PRESSURE TEST.8.ALL THREADED JOINTS SHALL BE COATED WITH TEFLON TAPE.9.AREAS LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET IN WIDTH IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION OR OTHER MEANS THAT PRODUCES NO RUNOFF OR OVERSPRAY.10.MANUAL SHUT-OFF VALVES (SUCH AS GATE VALVE, BALL VALVE, OR BUTTERFLY VALVE) SHALL BE INSTALLED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THE WATERSUPPLY.fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:NOTES:7.CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL ALL IRRIGATION PIPING TO GOAROUND ALL UTILITY BOX, LIGHTS, SIGNS, ETC. (DRAWINGSARE DIAGRAMMATIC).6.EACH DRIP ZONE SHALL RECEIVE A SET OF AIR VENT/VACUUMRELIEF VALVE AT THE HIGHS POINT AND FLUSH VALVES ANDOPERATION INDICATOR AT FARTHEST ENDS OF EACH SYSTEM.1.ONE BUBBLER SYMBOL IS SHOWN AT TREES FOR GRAPHICCLARITY ONLY. INSTALL MINIMUM TWO BUBBLERS AT EACHTREE. INSTALL REQUIRED NUMBER OF BUBBLERS AS DETAILED.2.IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT MAY BE SHOWN WITHIN HARDSCAPEFOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. INSTALL ALL IRRIGATIONEQUIPMENT WITHIN PLANTED AREAS. IRRIGATION PIPE ANDWIRE CROSSING BENEATH HARDSCAPE SURFACES SHALL BECONTAINED WITHIN SLEEVING OR SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT.SLEEVING SIZE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO TIMES THEAGGREGATE DIAMETER OF ALL PIPES CONTAINED WITH SLEEVE.PROVIDE VERTICAL SWEEP FOR ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ONEACH SIDE OF HARDSCAPE AND TERMINATE ENDS AT 12"MINIMUM DEPTH AND 12" FROM HARDSCAPE SURFACE.3.UNSIZED LATERAL LINE PIPING LOCATED DOWN STREAM OF 1"PIPING SHALL BE 3/4" IN SIZE (TYPICAL).4.SIZING OF LATERAL PIPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:5.SIZING OF LATERAL LINE PIPE FOR DRIPLINE (12" O.C. GRIDWITH 0.6 GPM OR LESS EMITTERS) SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:0.75"1"1.25"1.5"0-6 GPM7-12 GPM13-20 GPM21-32 GPM0.75"1"1.25"1.5"0-500 FT501-1100 FT1101-2000 FT2001-3000 FTp:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L300 OFFSITE IRRIGATION PLAN.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:20 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L302fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:3/4" AND LARGER:1120-SCHEDULE 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE WITHSCHEDULE 40 PVC SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS.12" COVER. (18 COVER UNDER PAVEMENT SECTION)PURPLELATERAL LINE:33 DNPRAIN BIRD QUICK COUPLING VALVEIRRIGATION LEGEND - RECYCLED WATERTORO BUBBLER(SHRUB) 2 PER SHRUB30TRICKLEPURPLESLEEVING:NOTE:ALL PIPE SHALL BE PW PIPE "PW PURPLE PLUS", APACHE "PURPLE PIPE",OR APPROVED EQUAL FOR USE WITH RECYCLED WATER SYSTEMS.1120-CL. 200 PVC PLASTIC PIPE. COVER TO BE ASINDICATED IN SPECIFICATIONS OR AS INDICATEDABOVE FOR PIPE DEPTH OF COVER.P220-27-EZR-100W/RW-60 KITTORO REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH PRESSURE REGULATOR.2530TRICKLEDB-15-PC-ETORO TREE BUBBLER(TWO PER TREE)DZK-TPV-1-MF/W/RW-60 KITTORO REMOTE CONTROL VALVE DRIP ZONE KITBASELINE 1 STATION BICODERBL-5201BL-5202BASELINE 2 STATION BICODERDB-04-PC-E0.066CLASS 315 PVC PLASTIC PIPE WITHSCHEDULE 80 PVC SOLVENT WELD FITTINGS.18" COVER. (24" COVER UNDER PAVEMENT SECTION)PURPLEMAIN LINE:2" AND SMALLERREMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE (IN INCHES)FLOW (GPM)CONTROLLER AND STATION NUMBERCONTROLLER AND STATION NUMBERAREA (SQ. FT.)FLOW (GPM)REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE (IN INCHES)ASSOCIATED REMOTE CONTROL VALVEASSOCIATED REMOTE CONTROL VALVEAPPROXIMATE CONNECTION POINT BETWEEN DRIPLINE TUBING AND PVCSUPPLY. REFER TO DRIPLINE TUBING CONNECTION DETAIL FOR MOREINFORMATION.DRIP ZONE:TORO DL2000 SERIES DRIPLINE WITH TRI-LOCFITTINGS, PART #RGP-212-05-E. TUBING TO BEINSTALLED 4" BELOW GRADE IN A 12" O.C. GRIDACCORDING TO DETAILS. SIZE EXHAUST HEADERSAS FOLLOWS: 1": 0-10 GPM, 1.25": 11-20 GPM. ALLEXHAUST HEADERS SHALL BE 1" SCH 40 PVC OR 1"SCH 40 FLEXIBLE PVC. USE SCH. 40 PVC SOLVENTWELD FITTINGS. EXTEND PVC HEADERS TO THEENDS OF ALL DRIP ZONES TO BALANCE FLOW IFREQUIRED. SEE DETAILS FOR FURTHERINFORMATION.DRIPLINE REMOTE CONTROL VALVESUPPLYHEADEREXHAUSTHEADER570Z-6P-SI-PRX/O-T-5-QPTORO POP-UP SPRINKLER WITH SIDE INLET AND A CLOSED 5' NOZZLE TOBE USED AS DRIPLINE INDICATORT-YD-500-34TORO AIR RELIEF VALVELGT-XX-SSLEEMCO STAINLESS STEEL GATE VALVE (LINE SIZE)-2.5" AND SMALLERWLT-0500-TNDS SCH 40 BALL VALVE OR APPROVED EQUAL1.THESE IRRIGATION DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ANDINDICATIVE OF THE WORK TO BE INSTALLED. ALL PIPING,VALVES, AND OTHER IRRIGATION COMPONENTS MAY BESHOWN WITHIN PAVED AREAS FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLYAND ARE TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN PLANTING AREAS. DUE TOTHE SCALE OF THE DRAWINGS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TOINDICATE ALL OFFSETS, FITTINGS, SLEEVES, CONDUIT, ANDOTHER ITEMS WHICH MAY BE REQUIRED. IN THE EVENT OFFIELD DISCREPANCY WITH CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, PLANTHE INSTALLATION WORK ACCORDINGLY BY NOTIFICATIONAND APPROVAL OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE AND ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACTSPECIFICATIONS. NOTIFY AND COORDINATE IRRIGATIONCONTRACT WORK WITH APPLICABLE CONTRACTORS FOR THELOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF PIPE, CONDUIT OR SLEEVESTHROUGH OR UNDER WALL, ROADWAYS, PAVING ANDSTRUCTURES BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. IN THE EVENT THESENOTIFICATIONS ARE NOT PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTORASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR REQUIRED REVISIONS.2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLECODES, STANDARDS, AND REGULATIONS. ALL WORK ANDMATERIALS SHALL BE IN FULL ACCORDANCE WITH THELATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONALELECTRIC CODE; THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE, PUBLISHEDBY THE WESTERN PLUMBING OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION; ANDOTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS. NOTHINGIN THESE DRAWINGS IS TO BE CONSTRUED TO PERMIT WORKNOT CONFORMING TO THESE CODES OR REGULATIONS. THECONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH WITHOUT ANY EXTRA CHARGE,ANY ADDITIONAL MATERIAL AND LABOR WHEN REQUIRED BYTHE COMPLIANCE WITH THESE CODES AND REGULATIONS.3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE INSTALLATION OFIRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH LAYOUT AND INSTALLATION OFTHE PLANT MATERIALS TO INSURE THAT THERE WILL BECOMPLETE AND UNIFORM IRRIGATION COVERAGE OFPLANTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE DRAWINGS, ANDCONTRACT DOCUMENTS. THE IRRIGATION LAYOUT SHALL BECHECKED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINEIF ANY CHANGES, DELETIONS, OR ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED.IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND TESTEDPRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIAL.4.THE INTENT OF THIS IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO PROVIDE THEMINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER REQUIRED TO SUSTAIN GOODPLANT HEALTH.5.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAINTENANCECONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER TO PROGRAM THE IRRIGATIONCONTROLLER(S) TO PROVIDE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OFWATER NEEDED TO SUSTAIN GOOD PLANT HEALTH. THISINCLUDES MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROGRAM FORSEASONAL WEATHER CHANGES, PLANT MATERIAL, WATERREQUIREMENTS, MOUNDS, SLOPES, SUN, SHADE AND WINDEXPOSURE.6.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A LICENSED ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 120 VOLT A.C. (2.5 AMP DEMANDPER CONTROLLER) ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO THECONTROLLER LOCATION(S). IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THE ELECTRICALSERVICE STUB-OUT TO THE CONTROLLER(S). PROVIDEPROPER GROUNDING PER CONTROLLER MANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL CODES.7.PROVIDE EACH CONTROLLER WITH ITS OWN GROUND ROD.SEPARATE THE GROUND RODS BY A MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET.THE GROUND ROD SHALL BE AN EIGHT FOOT LONG BY 5/8"DIAMETER U.L. APPROVED COPPER CLAD ROD. INSTALL NOMORE THAN 6" OF THE GROUND ROD ABOVE FINISH GRADE.CONNECT #6 GAUGE WIRE WITH A U.L. APPROVED GROUNDROD CLAMP TO ROD AND BACK TO GROUND SCREW AT BASEOF CONTROLLER WITH APPROPRIATE CONNECTOR. MAKETHIS WIRE AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE, AVOIDING KINKS ORBENDING.8.PROVIDE EACH IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH ITS OWNINDEPENDENT LOW VOLTAGE COMMON GROUND WIRE.9.SCHEDULE A MEETING WHICH INCLUDES REPRESENTATIVESOF THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER MANUFACTURER, THEMAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR, THE OWNER AND THEIRRIGATION CONTRACTOR AT THE SITE FOR INSTRUCTION ONTHE PROPER PROGRAMMING AND OPERATION OF THEIRRIGATION CONTROLLER.10.IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRES: SOLID COPPER WITH U.L.APPROVAL FOR DIRECT BURIAL IN GROUND. COMMONGROUND WIRE: SIZE #12-1 WIRE WITH A WHITE INSULATINGJACKET. CONTROL WIRE SERVICING REMOTE CONTROLVALVES: SIZE #14-1 WIRE WITH INSULATING JACKET OFCOLOR OTHER THAN WHITE. SPLICES SHALL BE MADE WITH3M-DBY SEAL PACKS OR APPROVED EQUAL.11.INSTALL TWO SPARE CONTROL WIRES OF A DIFFERENTCOLOR ALONG THE ENTIRE MAIN LINE. LOOP 36" EXCESSWIRE INTO EACH SINGLE VALVE BOX AND INTO ONE VALVEBOX IN EACH GROUP OF VALVES.12.SPLICING OF LOW VOLTAGE WIRES IS PERMITTED IN VALVEBOXES ONLY. LEAVE A 36" LONG, 1" DIAMETER COIL OFEXCESS WIRE AT EACH SPLICE AND A 36" LONG EXPANSIONLOOP EVERY 100 FEET ALONG WIRE RUN. TAPE WIRESTOGETHER EVERY TEN FEET. DO NOT TAPE WIRESTOGETHER WHERE CONTAINED WITHIN SLEEVING ORCONDUIT.13.INSTALL GREEN PLASTIC VALVE BOXES WITH BOLT DOWN,NON HINGED COVER MARKED "IRRIGATION". BOX BODYSHALL HAVE KNOCK OUTS. ACCEPTABLE VALVE BOXMANUFACTURER'S INCLUDE NDS, CARSON OR APPROVEDEQUAL.14.INSTALL REMOTE CONTROL VALVE BOXES 12" FROM WALK,CURB, BUILDING OR LANDSCAPE FEATURE. AT MULTIPLEVALVE BOX GROUPS, INSTALL EACH BOX AN EQUAL DISTANCEFROM THE WALK, CURB, BUILDING OR LANDSCAPE FEATUREAND PROVIDE 12" BETWEEN BOX TOPS. ALIGN THE SHORTSIDE OF RECTANGULAR VALVE BOXES PARALLEL TO WALK,CURB, BUILDING OR LANDSCAPE FEATURE.15.VALVE LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. INSTALL INGROUND COVER/SHRUB AREAS (AVOID LAWN AREAS WHEREPOSSIBLE).16.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LABEL CONTROL LINE WIRE ATEACH REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH A 2 1/4" X 2 3/4"POLYURETHANE I.D. TAG, INDICATING IDENTIFICATIONNUMBER OF VALVE (CONTROLLER AND STATION NUMBER).ATTACH LABEL TO CONTROL WIRE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALLPERMANENTLY STAMP ALL VALVE BOX LIDS WITHAPPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION AS NOTED IN CONSTRUCTIONDETAILS.17.INSTALL A GATE VALVE TO ISOLATE EACH REMOTE CONTROLVALVE OR GROUP OF RCV'S LOCATED TOGETHER. GATEVALVE SIZE SHALL BE SAME AS THE LARGEST REMOTECONTROL VALVE IN MANIFOLD.18.FLUSH AND ADJUST IRRIGATION OUTLETS AND NOZZLES FOROPTIMUM PERFORMANCE AND TO PREVENT OVER SPRAYONTO WALKS, ROADWAYS, AND/OR BUILDINGS. SELECT THEBEST DEGREE OF THE ARC AND RADIUS TO FIT THE EXISTINGSITE CONDITIONS AND THROTTLE THE FLOW CONTROL ATEACH VALVE TO OBTAIN THE OPTIMUM OPERATINGPRESSURE FOR EACH CONTROL ZONE.19.SET SPRINKLER HEADS PERPENDICULAR TO FINISH GRADE.20.LOCATE BUBBLERS ON UPHILL SIDE OF PLANT OR TREE.21.INSTALL A HUNTER HCV SERIES, KBI CV SERIES, ORAPPROVED EQUAL SPRING LOADED CHECK VALVE INSPRINKLER RISER ASSEMBLIES WHERE LOW OUTLETDRAINAGE WILL CAUSE EROSION AND/OR EXCESS WATER.22.NOTIFY LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR INSPECTION AND TESTINGOF INSTALLED BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE.23.THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON THE MINIMUMOPERATING PRESSURE SHOWN ON THE IRRIGATIONDRAWINGS. VERIFY WATER PRESSURE PRIOR TOCONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEWATER PRESSURE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND THEACTUAL PRESSURE READING AT THE IRRIGATION POINT OFCONNECTION TO THE OWNER'S.24.PIPE SIZING SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS IS TYPICAL. ASCHANGES IN LAYOUT OCCUR DURING STAKING ANDCONSTRUCTION THE SIZE MAY NEED TO BE ADJUSTEDACCORDINGLY.25.PIPE THREAD SEALANT COMPOUND SHALL BE RECTOR SEAL#5.26.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORMINOR CHANGES IN THE IRRIGATION LAYOUT DUE TOOBSTRUCTIONS NOT SHOWN ON THE IRRIGATION DRAWINGSSUCH AS LIGHTS, FIRE HYDRANTS, SIGNS, ELECTRICALENCLOSURES, ETC.27.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FORCHANGES IN THE IRRIGATION LAYOUT AND VALVE ZONINGDUE TO VARIATIONS IN THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS SUCHAS EXPOSURE FROM BUILDINGS, TRELLISES, TREES, ETC., ASWELL AS SLOPE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. THE CONTRACTORSHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND IRRIGATIONCONSULTANT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES PRIOR TOINSTALLATION FOR APPROVAL.28.THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORADJUSTING THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN IF THEPLANTING DESIGN CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN ANDNEEDS TO ADAPT TO THE NEW PLANTING DESIGN. THELANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR NEEDS TO NOTIFY THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND IRRIGATION CONSULTANT OFPROPOSED CHANGES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FORAPPROVAL.29.WHEN WORK OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED ANDSUCH OTHER TIMES AS MAY BE DIRECTED, REMOVE ALLTRASH, DEBRIS, SURPLUS MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FROMSITE.30.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLEMENTALHAND WATERING OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL WITHIN DRIPLINEAREAS UNTIL THE PLANTS.31.PROVIDE TRAINING TO CITY ON THE OPERATION OFIRRIGATION SYSTEM AND CONTROLLER.IRRIGATION NOTESRAIN MASTER EAGLE PLUS 12 STATION WITH iCARD. IN A STAINLESS STEELENCLOSURE. (INSTALLED WITHIN THE ON-SITE IRRIGATION REFER TOSHEET L3.0)EGP12i-SPEDOFFSITEIRRIGATIONNOTES &LEGENDp:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L302 OFFISTE IRRIGATION DETAILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:34 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L303fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:SCALE: NONE4WEATHERPROOF WIRE SPLICE ASSEMBLY12345INSTRUCTIONS:STRIP WIRES APPROXIMATELY 1/2" (13 mm) TO EXPOSE WIRE.TWIST CONNECTOR AROUND WIRES CLOCKWISE UNTIL HAND TIGHT, DO NOTOVERTIGHTEN.INSERT WIRE ASSEMBLY INTO PLASTIC TUBE UNTIL WIRE CONNECTOR SNAPSPAST LIP IN BOTTOM OF TUBE.PLACE WIRES WHICH EXIT TUBE IN WIRE EXIT HOLES AND CLOSE CAP UNTIL ITSNAPS.INSPECT FINAL SPLICE ASSEMBLY TO BE SECURE AND FINISHED.1.2.3.4.5.2SCALE: NONEREMOTE CONTROL VALVE (DRIPZONE)1FINISH GRADE21334568910111213141516DISC FILTER162SCHEDULE 80 PVC UNION BALL VALVE(ONE PER VALVE)VALVE I.D. TAG (CONTROLLER ANDSTATION NUMBER).REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH FLOWCONTROL AND MANUAL BLEED(PRESSURE REGULATOR WHERESHOWN ON PLANS).SCHEDULE 80 PVC 90° ELBOW(TxT).PVC MAIN LINE.PEA GRAVEL OR 3/4" DRAIN ROCK-4" [100mm] DEEP BELOW VALVE (NOSOIL IN VALVE BOX).UPC APPROVED SCHEDULE 40 PVCTEE.VALVE CONTROL WIRE- PROVIDE SEALPACKS AT ALL SPLICES AND 3' [1m] OFEXCESS UF WIRE IN A 1" [25mm]DIAMETER COIL.REFER TO IRRIGATION SPECS.SCHEDULE 80 PVC THREADEDUNION.PVC LATERAL LINE.BRICK-1 EACH CORNER.19 GAUGE 1/2" [12mm] SQUARE WIREMESH.SCHEDULE 80 PVC NIPPLE-LENGTH AS REQUIRED.FINISH GRADE.123456789101112131415161754327111210981314151617SCHEDULE 80 PVC UNION BALLVALVE (ONE PER VALVE).1818SCHEDULE 80 PVC NIPPLE (4 TOTAL).3" [75mm] MIN, 6" [150mm] MAX.SCALE: NONE1REMOTE CONTROL VALVE5REMOTE CONTROL VALVE6VALVE I.D. TAG (CONTROLLER ANDSTATION NUMBER).SCHEDULE 40 MALE ADAPTER7PVC MAIN LINE.BRICK-1 EACH CORNER.8910UPC APPROVED SCHEDULE 40 PVCTEE.SCHEDULE 80 PVC NIPPLE-(4-TOTAL)LENGTH AS REQUIRED.1112PEA GRAVEL OR 3/4" [20mm] DRAINROCK - 4" [102mm] DEEP BELOWVALVE (NO SOIL IN VALVE BOX).19 GAUGE 1/2" [13mm] SQUARE WIREMESH.13SCHEDULE 80 PVC 90° ELBOW(TxT).1415VALVE CONTROL WIRE- PROVIDE3M-DBY SEAL PACKS AT ALLSPLICES AND 3' [1m] OF EXCESS UFWIRE IN A 1" [25mm] DIAMETER COIL.USE A 14" X 19" RECTANGULARPLASTIC VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWNLID FOR 1" VALVES. FOR 1.5" ANDLARGER VALVES INSTALL BALL VALVEWITHIN A SEPARATE 10" ROUND BOXOR ONE BALL VALVE PER MANIFOLDOF VALVES. GATE VALVE SIZE SHALLBE SAME AS LARGEST VALVE WITHINMANIFOLD. ONE VALVE PER BOX- NOEXCEPTIONS. INSTALL BOX AS SHOWNIN BOX INSTALLATION DETAIL.RECTANGULAR JUMBO PLASTICVALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID.ONE VALVE PER BOX- NOEXCEPTIONS. INSTALL BOX ASSHOWN IN BOX INSTALLATION DETAIL.74SCHEDULE 80 PVC THREADED UNIONPRESSURE REGULATOR (40 PSI)1717SCALE: NONE8VALVE BOX INSTALLATIONA112" TYPICALINSTRUCTIONS:1.CENTER VALVE BOX OVER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE TO FACILITATESERVICING VALVE.2.SET BOXES 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR MULCH COVER IN GROUNDCOVER/SHRUB AREA AND FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREA.3.SET RCV AND VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY IN GROUND COVER/SHRUB AREAWHERE POSSIBLE. INSTALL IN LAWN ONLY IF GROUND COVER DOES NOTEXIST ADJACENT TO LAWN.4.SET BOXES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER AND PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE OFLAWN, WALK, FENCE, CURB, ETC.5.AVOID HEAVILY COMPACTING SOIL AROUND VALVE BOXES TO PREVENTCOLLAPSE AND DEFORMATION OF VALVE BOX SIDES.6.INSTALL EXTENSION BY VALVE BOX MANUFACTURER AS REQUIRED TOCOMPLETELY ENCLOSE ASSEMBLY FOR EASY ACCESS.12"1CONTROLLER ID.3RECTANGULAR VALVE BOXROUND VALVE BOX FORQCV AND GATE VALVE.HEAT BRAND VALVE TYPEINTO INTO LID PER TABLE.EDGE OF LAWN, WALK,FENCE, CURB, ETC.1TREE22ALL TREE VALVES TO HAVETREE BRANDED INTO LID.3VALVE IDENTIFICATION12"12"55TOP VIEW OF BOXES77GATE VALVEGVPRESSURE REDUCERPRVMASTER VALVEMVFLOW SENSORFSSPLICE BOXSBQUICK COUPLERQCPULL BOXPBLIGHTNING ARRESTORLAMAIN LINE AIR RELIEFARVHYDROMETERHMGROUND RODGRREMOTE CONTROL VALVEA___A144HEAT BRAND VALVE TYPEPER TABLE ORCONTROLLER ID ANDSTATION NUMBER INTO LID.66STATION NUMBER.SCALE: NONE5TREE AND SHRUB BUBBLERUPHILLTREE BUBBLER PLACEMENT EXAMPLESUPHILLLEVEL GRADESLOPED GRADEBUBBLER (TO BE INSTALLED ON TOPOF ROOTBALL).FINISH GRADE.TREE OR SHRUB ROOTBALL.1/2" [13mm] IPS FLEXIBLE PVC.PVC TEE (SST), ELBOW (ST) OR FEMALEADAPTER.PVC LATERAL LINE.TREE OR SHRUB.EDGE OF ROOTBALL (TYPICAL).1567810111/2" [13mm] SCH. 40MALE ADAPTER.2346" [150mm] STEEL STAPLE.9TREE STAKES.1NOTE:SUGGESTED QUANTITY OFBUBBLERS PER TREES ANDSHRUBS SIZE:·SHRUBS = 1 BUBBLER·15 GAL OR 24" BOX = 2BUBBLERS·36 GAL OR 48" BOX = 4BUBBLERS·60 GAL OR 72" BOX = 6BUBBLERSREFER TO IRRIGATIONLEGENDSCALE: NONE7GATE VALVE3"10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID.8" [200mm] CLASS 160 OR SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE (NOTCH TO FIT OVER MAINLINE PIPE).PVC MAIN LINE.FINISH GRADE.PEA GRAVEL OR 3/4" [20mm] DRAIN ROCK - 4" [100mm] DEEP (NO SOIL IN VALVEBOX).BRICK-2 TOTAL.GATE VALVE.MALE ADAPTER. REFER TO LEGEND FOR FITTING TYPE.REFER TOIRRIGATIONLEGEND12345689[75mm]719 GAUGE 1/2" [13mm] SQUARE WIRE MESH.SCALE: NONE6QUICK COUPLING VALVENOTE:SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW 1" [25mm]10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOXWITH BOLT DOWN LID.1 1/4" x 1 1/4" x 3/16" [30mm x 30mm x5mm] ANGLE IRON 30" [760mm]LONG W/2 STAINLESS STEELSTRAPS (ONE AROUND QCV).PVC MAIN LINE.3" [75mm] LONG SCHEDULE 80 PVCTHREADED NIPPLE.QUICK COUPLING VALVE.SCHEDULE 80 PVC THREADEDNIPPLE.10" [250mm] LONG SCHEDULE 80 PVCTHREADED NIPPLE.UPC APPROVED SCHEDULE 40 PVCTEE OR ELBOW.SCHEDULE 80 PVC THREADED 90°ELL.NIPPLES AND FITTINGS TO BE SAME SIZE AS VALVE IPT INLET THREAD SIZE.REFER TOIRRIGATIONLEGEND1234659101112FINISH GRADE.7819 GAUGE 1/2" [13mm] SQUARE WIREMESH.BRICK - 2 TOTAL.EXTERIOR WALLINSTALL 12" [300mm] BEYONDEDGE OF HARDSCAPE120 VOLT LOCKABLE WEATHERPROOF ON/OFF SWITCH PROVIDED UNDERIRRIGATION CONTRACT.120 VOLT SERVICE TO CONTROLLER LOCATION PROVIDED BY CONTRACTOR.IRRIGATION CONTROLLER.120 VOLT SERVICE IN RIGID STEEL CONDUIT.FINISH GRADE OR HARDSCAPE.56432114325650" MAX.[1270mm]18"[450mm] MIN.SCALE: NONE3CONTROLLER - EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTEDLOW VOLTAGE WIRE IN SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT. PAINT CONDUIT ABOVE GRADETO MATCH BUILDING SURFACE COLOR.OFFSITEIRRIGATIONDETAILS16p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L302 OFFISTE IRRIGATION DETAILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:34 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L304SCALE: NONETRENCHING4"2345CLEAN BACKFILL MATERIAL.FINISH GRADE.LATERAL LINE.MAIN LINE.LOW VOLTAGE CONTROL WIRE. TAPE AND BUNDLE TUBING OR WIRING AT 10 FT.INTERVALS. WIRING SHALL BE LAID OUT LOOSELY IN THE TRENCH.12345[300mm]12"[100mm][450mm]18"6TYPICAL DISTANCE BETWEEN PIPES.6NOT TO SCALESECTIONSCALE: NONEDRIPLINE TO PVC CONNECTION1FINISH GRADE1234587692CARSON 708 OR EQUAL.COLOR: BLACK. USEPURPLE FOR RECYCLEDWATER SYSTEMS.3DRIPLINE TUBING4TORO TRI-LOC TEE X 1/2"FPT ADAPTER5TORO 1/2" CHECK VALVE(PCV-500)61/2" SCH 40 MALEADAPTER.78BRICK (1 OF 2)1/2" SCH 40 PVC (LENGTHAS REQUIRED)9PVC LATERAL LINESUPPLY. MINIMUM SIZETO BE 1" UNLESS SIZEDDIFFERENTLY ONDRAWINGS. USE SCH 40PVC 1"x1"x1/2" TEE OR 90°ELBOW.SCALE: NONEDRIPLINE MANIFOLD TO ELBOW CONNECTION123456FINISH GRADETORO TRI-LOC MPTADAPTER (TL-M50)DRIPLINE TUBINGTORO BLUE STRIPE POLYTUBING (EHD1645)SECTION/ELEVATIONNOT TO SCALE18236TORO TRI-LOC ELBOW(TL-E)574DEPTH OF TUBING PERIRRIGATION LEGEND.7SCH 40 PVC TEE (SxSxT)WITH 1/2" FPT OUTLET.8DEPTH OF PVC LATERALLINE PER IRRIGATIONLEGENDSCALE: NONEDRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATORSCALE: NONEAIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE IN DRIPLINE2543712SECTION/ELEVATIONTORO 6" POP UP SPRINKLER WITH SIDE INLET (MODEL570Z-6P-SI-PRX WITH 5' PRECISION NOZZLE (MODEL O-T-5-QP)TURNED COMPLETELY OFF WITH ADJUSTMENT SCREW.SPRINKLER SHALL OPERATE AS THE DRIPLINE INDICATOR. USE AMINIMUM OF ONE PER ZONE AND LOCATED AT END OF ZONE.SOIL BACKFILL.FINISH GRADE.TORO TRI-LOC X 1/2" MPT ADAPTER (TL-M50)DRIPLINE.DEPTH OF DRIPLINE. REFER TO IRRIGATION LEGEND.3SECTION/ELEVATION123456789123456789NOTE:USE ONE AIR/RELIEF VALVE FOR EVERY 7 GPM PER ZONE.LOCATE AT HIGH POINTS.6" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX.HEAT BRAND "AR" ON LID IN 1" HIGHCHARACTERS.TORO DL2000 AIR/VACUUM RELIEFVALVE (YD-500-34).TORO TRI-LOC TEE X 1/2" FPTADAPTER (TL-T-F50)TORO DL2000 TUBING (RGP-XX-XXX)OR TORO BLUE STRIPE POLYTUBING (EHD1645-XXX) AIR-RELIEFLATERAL.BRICK SUPPORTS (2 COMMONBRICKS REQUIRED).SCALE: NONEDRIPLINE-FLUSH POINT3754211" IPS PVC HOSE FROM EXHAUST HEADER.BRICK (1 OF 2)NOTE:ALLOW A MINIMUM OF PVC HOSE INVALVE BOX IN ORDER TO DIRECTFLUSHED WATER OUTSIDE VALVE BOX.24516671/2" SCH 40 THREADED BALL VALVE.6" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX.FINISH GRADE.1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE.PEA GRAVEL (4" DEEP).NATIVE SOIL PER SPECIFICATIONS.PEA GRAVEL SUMP (6" DEEP).FINISH GRADE46156KEEP PLUG IN SPRINKLER. ONLY USE SIDE INLET.731/2" SCH 40 MALE ADAPTER.fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:OFFSITEIRRIGATIONDETAILS1p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L302 OFFISTE IRRIGATION DETAILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:35 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L305SCALE: NONETORO DL 2000 CENTER FEED LAYOUTSCALE: NONETORO DL 2000 END FEED LAYOUTSCALE: NONETORO DL 2000 ISLAND LAYOUTSCALE: NONETORO DL 2000 CENTER FEED MANIFOLD1110891234567FLUSH VALVE PLUMBEDTO FLUSH MANIFOLD ATLOW POINTMANIFOLD-TO-ELBOWCONNECTION (TYP).PVC LATERAL LINE FROMVALVE. MINIMUM SIZE TOBE 1" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.MANIFOLD-TO-TEECONNECTION.DRIPLINE LATERAL.AIR/VACUUM RELIEFLATERAL, BLANK POLYTUBING CENTERED ONMOUND OR BERM.AIR/VACUUM RELIEFPLUMBED TO BLANK 5/8"POLY TUBING AT EACHHIGH POINT.PERIMETER LATERALS 2"[50mm] TO 4" [100mm]FROM EDGE.AREA PERIMETER.12DRIPLINE OPERATIONINDICATOR LOCATED ATTHE ENDS OF EACHDRIPLINE ZONE.PLAN7654321981011121314PVC TEE (SxSxS).PVC ELL (SxS).TORO TRI-LOC ELL(TL-E).TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T).BLANK 5/8" [16mm] POLYTUBING AT SUPPLY ANDFLUSH END OF EACHISLAND.REFER TO DRIPLINE TOPVC CONNECTION DETAIL.AIR/VACUUM RELIEFVALVE PLUMBED TOTUBING AT HIGH POINT.DRIPLINE LATERAL.MANUAL FLUSH VALVEPLUMBED TO TUBING ATLOW POINT.DRIPLINE OPERATIONINDICATOR LOCATED ATTHE ENDS OF EACHDRIPLINE ZONE.ISLAND PERIMETER.FVFVAVFVAVAV1412134321567891011123456789ISOMETRIC987654312NOTE:THE TOTAL LENGTH OF A SINGLE DRIP LINE RUN SHALL NOT EXCEED 300 FT.FINISH GRADE.DEPTH OF TUBING PERIRRIGATION LEGEND.DEPTH OF PVC LATERALLINE PER IRRIGATIONLEGENDDRIPLINE TUBING.BLANK 5/8" [16mm] POLYTUBING, LENGTH ASNECESSARY.PVC TEE (SxSxT) WITH 1/2"[13mm] FPT OUTLET.PVC LATERAL LINE FROMREMOTE CONTROLVALVE.1110891234567MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOWCONNECTION (TYP).DRIPLINE LATERAL.AIR/VACUUM RELIEFVALVE PLUMBED TOBLANK 5/8" TUBING ATEACH HIGH POINT.AIR/VACUUM RELIEFLATERAL, BLANK 5/8"POLY TUBING CENTEREDON MOUND OR BERM.PERIMETER LATERALS 2"[50mm] TO 4" [100mm]FROM EDGE.AREA PERIMETER.DRIP OPERATIONINDICATOR LOCATED ATTHE ENDS OF EACHDRIPLINE ZONES.AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVEPLUMBED TO FLUSHMANIFOLD AT LOW POINT.TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T)NOTE:1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE OFF A SINGLEPVC SUPPLY LINE CONNECTION OR A SINGLE RUN OF DRIPLINE SHALLNOT EXCEED 300 FT.2.INSTALL DRIPLINE 2-4" BELOW GRADE AND STAKE DOWN EVERY 4' ORAS REQUIRED.NOTE:1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF A SINGLE DRIP LINE RUN SHALL NOT EXCEED300 FT.2.INSTALL DRIPLINE 2-4" BELOW GRADE AND STAKE DOWN EVERY 4' ORAS REQUIRED.PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD.MINIMUM SIZE TO BE 1"UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.PVC LATERAL LINE FROMVALVE. MINIMUM SIZE TOBE 1" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.PVC LATERAL LINE FROMVALVE. MINIMUM SIZE TOBE 1" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD.MINIMUM SIZE TO BE 1"UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.1" FLEXIBLE PVC IPSHOSE FLUSH MANIFOLD.1" FLEXIBLE PVC IPSHOSE FLUSH MANIFOLD.AVFVNOT TO SCALEPLANAVFV7654321NOTE:1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE OFF A SINGLEPVC SUPPLY LINE CONNECTION OR A SINGLE RUN OF DRIPLINE SHALLNOT EXCEED 300 FT.2.INSTALL DRIPLINE 2-4" BELOW GRADE AND STAKE DOWN EVERY 4' ORAS REQUIRED.NOTE:1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE OFF A SINGLEPVC SUPPLY LINE CONNECTION OR A SINGLE RUN OF DRIPLINE SHALLNOT EXCEED 300 FT.2.INSTALL DRIPLINE 2-4" BELOW GRADE AND STAKE DOWN EVERY 4' ORAS REQUIRED.SCALE: NONETORO DL2000 TRIANGULAR LAYOUT1110891234567FLUSH VALVE PLUMBEDTO FLUSH MANIFOLD ATLOW POINTPVC LATERAL LINE FROMVALVE. MINIMUM SIZE TOBE 1" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD.DRIPLINE LATERAL.PERIMETER LATERALS 2"[50mm] TO 4" [100mm]FROM EDGE.AREA PERIMETER.DRIPLINE OPERATIONINDICATOR LOCATED ATTHE ENDS OF EACHDRIPLINE ZONE.1" SCH 40 PVC ORFLEXIBLE PVC IPS HOSEFLUSH MANIFOLD.MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOWCONNECTION.TORO DL2000AIR/VACUUM RELIEFVALVE (YD-500-34)PLUMBED TO SUPPLYMANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT.TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T)NOTE:1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE OFF A SINGLEPVC SUPPLY LINE CONNECTION OR A SINGLE RUN OF DRIPLINE SHALLNOT EXCEED 300 FT.2.INSTALL DRIPLINE 2-4" BELOW GRADE AND STAKE DOWN EVERY 4' ORAS REQUIRED.SCALE: NONETORO DL2000 ODD CURVE LAYOUT10891234567FLUSH VALVE PLUMBEDTO FLUSH MANIFOLD ATLOW POINTPVC SUPPLYLINE/HEADER FROMVALVE. MINIMUM SIZE TOBE 1" UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED.DRIPLINE LATERAL.PERIMETER LATERALS 2"[50mm] TO 4" [100mm]FROM EDGE.AREA PERIMETER.DRIPLINE OPERATIONINDICATOR LOCATED ATTHE ENDS OF EACHDRIPLINE ZONE.1" SCH 40 PVC ORFLEXIBLE PVC IPS HOSEFLUSH/EXHAUSTMANIFOLD.MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOWCONNECTION.TORO DL2000AIR/VACUUM RELIEFVALVE (YD-500-34)PLUMBED TO SUPPLYMANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT.TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T)123456798410TORO TRI-LOC MPTADAPTER (TL-M50)PLANFVFVAVPVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD.EXTEND TO END OFZONE/EXHAUST HEADER.12345678910111212PLANFVAV1098765432111fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:OFFSITEIRRIGATIONDETAILSp:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L302 OFFISTE IRRIGATION DETAILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:35 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3L306fax 925.932.5671tel 925.939.3985www.rmairrigation.com2760 Camino DiabloWalnut Creek, CA 94597tRussell D. Mitchell Associates, Inc.Irrigation Consultant:OFF-SITEIRRIGATIONWATERCALCULATIONp:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L302 OFFISTE IRRIGATION DETAILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:36 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
5'-9"WOOD BENCHALUMINUM CASTING5'-634"4 SURFACE MOUNT TABS WITH 12" HOLE FORANCHORING. NON-CORROSIVE HARDWARESUPPLIED BY OTHERSGRADE2'-214"2'-21
2"
1'-6"
2'-63
4"EXPANSION JOINT(20' O.C. MAX. SPACING EACH WAY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN)VARIESVARIES
COLD JOINTSCORE / CONTROL JOINT(10' O.C. MAX. SPACING EACH WAY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLAN)1/4" ROUND TOOLEDJOINT 1/4 DEPTH OF SLAB1" MIN., TYP.1/4" ROUND TOOLED JOINTSEALANT COLOR TO MATCHCONCRETE, SEE SPECSBACKER ROD#4 @ 24" DOWELS AT 24" O.C.1/2" THICK PRE-MOLDEDEXPANSION JOINT FILLER14"12"1
2"
1
16" MAX.
3"CONCRETE PAVING EDGE CONDITIONREFER TO SPECS ANDMATERIALS LEGEND FORCOLOR, AND FINISH.6" VEHICULAR
4" PEDESTRIANVARIES PEDESTRIAN & VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVING#4 REBAR, 12" E.W.,CENTERED IN SLAB. SEEGEOTECH REPORT FORREBAR AND THICKNESSESAGGREGATE BASECOMPACTED SUBGRADETURN DOWN REINFORCINGAT CONCRETE THICKENEDEDGECONCRETE PAVING2L4.0CONCRETE PAVING JOINTSScale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3CONSTRUCTIONDETAILSL4003WOOD BENCH SURFACE MOUNT3/4" = 1'-0"1CONCRETE PAVING JOINTS1" = 1'-0"2CONCRETE PAVING ON GRADE1" = 1'-0"p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L400 DETAIL.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:46 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
8' LODGEPOLE PINE TREE STAKES- ORIENT TO PREVAILING WINDDIRECTIONPLANSTAKE"ARBOR TIE"4"2'-6"PREVAILING WINDROOTBALL - SET ON COMPACTEDBOTTOM OF PIT; TOP OF ROOTBALL1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE. BREAKTHROUGH ANY HARDPAN ANDSCARIFY BOTTOM OF TREE PIT.MULCH (3" DEPTH)3" HIGH EARTH SAUCERCOMPACTED SUBGRADEAMENDED BACKFILL"ARBOR TIE" ROPES - 2 PERTREE, SEE PLAN ABOVEROOTBALL4'-0"CURB, SCDROOT BARRIERCONTAINER DEPTH 2L4004-2X ROOTBALL WIDTHMULCH(3" DEPTH)3" HIGH EARTH SAUCERNOTE: SEE PLANTING LEGENDFOR PLANT SPACING1'-6"AMENDED BACKFILL,SEE SPECSROOTBALL, SET 1"ABOVE FINISH GRADE1
2 EQ
RECTANGULARBUILDING ORPAVEMENT EDGEQ.EQ."EQ.": EQUALSHRUB ORGROUNDCOVERPLANT SPACING,SEE LEGENDEQ.BUILDING ORPAVEMENT EDGESHRUB ORGROUNDCOVERSPACING,SEE PLANT LEGEND"EQ." : EQUALE
Q
.EQ.TRIANGULAR1
2 EQ
3"NOTES:1.ROOT BARRIERS TO BE CONTINUOUS AND INSTALLED ATWALKS AND CURBS WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN, FOR ADISTANCE OF 3'-9" MIN EACH SIDE OF TREE.2.REMOVE DEFECTS FROM CONCRETE EDGE & PLACE ROOTBARRIER FLUSH AGAINST VERTICAL, SMOOTH CONCRETESURFACE TYP.CONCRETE PAVINGOR CURB, SEE PLANSFINISH GRADE OFPLANTING AREA2'-0"
2.5"1" REDHEAD AT 2'O.C.INTO CONCRETEROOT BARRIER- PLACEAGAINST CONC PAVING ORCURB (ROOT DEFLECTORSTOWARDS TREE)A-3AMENDED BACKFILLPA4'-0"CONCRETE CURB, SCDROOT BARRIERPAVING, PER PLAN4'-0"5'OR LESSSTREETPANOTES:1.INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS AT ALL TREESWITHIN 5' OF ALL CURBS, SIDEWALKS,ROADS OR BUILDINGS.2.INSTALL ROOT BARRIERS FLUSH W/EDGE OF CURBS AND 1" BELOW GRADE.A-39L5.0Scale:Checked by:Drawn by:Project Number:Date:01/31/202012/17/2018988 EL CAMINO REAL
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080Date:12/17/201818dw276MT/GYAPAs Noted06/20/2018Issue:OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 110/10/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 212/17/2018OFF-SITE SUBMITTAL 3PLANTINGDETAILSL5006TREE PLANTING & STAKING ON GRADE3/4" = 1'-0"3SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER PLANTING3/4" = 1'-0"1RECTANGULAR SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER SPACING1/2" = 1'-0"2TRIANGULAR SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER SPACING1/2" = 1'-0"5ROOT BARRIER AT CONCRETE1 1/2" = 1'-0"4ROOT BARRIER PLAN3/8" = 1'-0"p:\17dw276\CAD\OFF-SITE\SHEETS\L500 PLANTING DEATILS.dwg, 12/17/2018 4:14:52 PM, MarionT,ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF 3
988 EL CAMINO REAL TS1COVER SHEET
1
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED
FOR ELECTRICAL FEAT8RES AFFECTING STATE FACILITIES DATE
CO8NTY RO8TE PM PERMIT N8MBEREA
EL CAMINO REAL
(STATE ROUTE 82)WESTBOROUGHBOULEVARDCHESTNUTAVENUEGAS STATION
MARKET
EMPTY LOT
PROJECT
CORNER
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF 3
988 EL CAMINO REAL TS2TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION
2
EL CAMINO REAL AND CHESTN8T AVEN8E
PHASE DIAGRAM
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED
FOR ELECTRICAL FEAT8RES AFFECTING STATE FACILITIES DATE
CO8NTY RO8TE PM PERMIT N8MBEREA
SEE ABOVE FOR CONTIN8ATIONSEE BELOW FOR CONTIN8ATIONCABINET DETAIL
CALTRANS STANDARD NOTES
STANDARD PLANS 21
APPLICABLE CALTRANS
EMERGENCY VEHICLE PREEMPT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF 3
988 EL CAMINO REAL TS3TRAFFIC SIGNAL SCHED8LES
3
EL CAMINO REAL AND CHESTN8T AVEN8E
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED
FOR ELECTRICAL FEAT8RES AFFECTING STATE FACILITIES DATE
CO8NTY RO8TE PM PERMIT N8MBEREA
El Camino Real
IISNS DETAIL
GATE
DN
UP
UPDNUP UPTWELVE MILE CREEKGIACALONE
GIACALONE
GIACALONE
CENTENNIA
L
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
EL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVEPROPERTY LINEPROPER
T
Y
L
I
N
E
EL CAMINO REAL
OFF-SITE ON-SITE
PROPER
T
Y
L
I
N
E
PULL-UP
/
D
I
P
CHEST /
B
A
C
K
P
R
E
S
S
CARDIO
S
T
E
P
P
E
R
AB CRUN
C
H
/
L
E
G
L
I
F
T
TAI CHI
W
H
E
E
L
S
PLYOMET
R
I
C
S
BALANCE
S
T
E
P
S
ELLIPTIC
A
L
SQUAT P
R
E
S
S
WAVE
24''X36''WAVE24''X36''WAVE
24''X36''
UP
UP
UP
DN
UP
UP
UP
2R
UP
2R UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP
N
STORAGE
ELEC.
MECH.
ELEC.TWELVE MILE CREEKGIACALONE
GIACALONE
UP
UP
UP
DN
UP
UP
UP
2R
UP2R UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP
N
STORAGE
ELEC.
MECH.
ELEC.TWELVE MILE CREEKGIACALONE
E2E2E2E2E1E1E1E1E1E1CCCCCC-TCC-T1.441.151.411.341.150.821.031.261.170.960.780.510.340.630.830.941.060.950.710.520.360.291.000.680.660.790.770.830.790.570.440.350.310.301.621.140.880.690.720.700.700.670.650.520.380.320.300.410.561.661.361.260.920.760.670.720.660.620.620.510.410.320.320.430.640.810.721.131.061.010.760.680.690.690.680.600.550.390.340.370.480.580.811.071.010.880.850.720.670.720.680.660.610.530.370.350.450.580.781.051.391.481.790.720.700.690.750.760.790.720.750.660.450.370.510.690.981.391.710.570.640.770.930.960.950.900.750.570.420.480.821.121.510.490.650.791.001.251.231.060.860.740.610.530.810.821.071.271.401.351.190.940.800.651.541.461.281.180.881.190.971.010.420.430.800.560.391.691.270.850.310.130.092.372.261.700.680.180.100.110.201.762.381.871.110.330.080.100.140.220.290.801.421.741.290.330.090.070.110.170.230.260.230.640.951.090.520.140.060.090.150.200.220.200.400.480.600.440.170.070.100.160.220.230.220.350.390.410.360.220.120.130.180.250.270.250.290.360.330.280.190.130.150.240.330.350.320.310.360.340.280.190.100.090.250.490.510.420.330.370.370.300.200.110.070.300.851.080.720.450.400.410.330.240.130.070.150.811.811.551.060.710.530.460.280.170.100.170.641.642.262.161.411.150.830.450.200.140.150.421.232.012.342.062.221.550.840.280.140.130.250.621.161.581.842.412.031.270.450.120.110.170.360.540.730.920.901.561.891.350.400.140.070.140.230.370.420.430.711.071.130.540.130.060.100.180.270.330.370.420.500.590.400.160.060.100.160.240.280.290.340.360.360.290.160.090.110.170.240.260.290.350.340.300.220.140.110.140.190.260.290.290.380.370.350.250.170.130.160.230.320.330.320.530.490.410.340.230.140.150.310.480.460.400.650.640.590.470.350.240.190.440.870.890.560.380.870.860.730.650.550.370.270.381.141.651.270.800.890.980.950.820.710.590.410.511.161.912.301.710.870.950.860.720.570.500.941.852.332.530.900.830.670.540.621.101.481.940.720.520.510.630.730.950.500.520.520.400.200.130.830.380.290.210.190.310.530.840.920.770.790.750.530.390.360.370.410.640.931.050.940.890.870.920.850.730.510.470.490.530.690.860.960.990.950.880.650.490.930.820.870.870.670.540.560.640.700.770.870.900.900.720.560.480.440.870.710.760.880.940.850.630.580.610.660.750.830.840.750.640.560.500.420.320.790.910.891.011.020.910.740.620.590.590.660.750.790.720.620.580.520.410.280.921.121.080.990.890.780.660.600.570.550.620.720.780.690.600.570.560.781.031.030.900.860.780.660.610.590.560.570.660.750.770.730.740.750.640.660.850.900.860.820.770.680.650.670.660.610.590.680.870.840.931.030.990.460.650.730.830.830.780.810.820.790.810.800.740.630.690.781.041.061.251.350.700.780.740.710.730.901.091.121.030.920.870.710.660.790.981.291.361.531.460.740.620.670.811.051.221.391.341.201.050.870.630.740.901.121.351.470.590.761.021.171.221.341.481.621.361.220.910.570.730.881.130.891.011.161.291.341.521.561.831.581.220.850.550.680.870.931.281.451.541.701.781.921.621.180.890.750.951.211.371.651.972.061.871.561.961.81E
7
7
2
C3
2
6
EX. T/SIGNALW/LUMINAIRE(TYP)EX. T/SIGNALW/LUMINAIRE(TYP)APPROXIMATE BARTUNDERGROUND BARTTUNNEL SYSTEMEX. 50' PG&EGAS EASEMENTEX. R/WF/CEX. R/WPROPOSEDRETAINING WALLPROPOSEDRETAININGWALL40' BARTEASEMENTSTORM DRAIN EASEMENTDRIVEWAYPARKING LOT AT GRADEDRIVEWAYEL CAMINO REAL(CALTRANS)CENTENNIAL WAY TRAILANTIONETTE LANECHESTNUTAVENUECAMARITASAVENUEMMAPARTMENT BUILDINGW/ PODIUM, COURTYARD, POOL, BASEMENT& LEVEL PARKING GARAGE(172 RESIDENTIAL UNITS)(12,200 SF OF RETAIL)SPRR R/W (FORMERLY)29 DEEDS 442PARCEL 254 PM 15-16LANDS OF C OF SAN FRANC DEPARTMENTBURGER KINGRESTAURANTGARAGEENTRANCEFROMTOLuminaire Schedule - LEDProject: 988 EL CAMINO REAL - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSymbolQtyLabelArrangementLum. WattsLum. LumensLLFLLDLDDUDFDescriptionFilename8E1SINGLE9066000.8500.8501.0001.000EXISTING 91 LED COBRAHEAD @ 30' + 10' ARMGE456231.IES4E2SINGLE87.283130.9000.9001.0001.000EXISTING EC3-10M-MV-NW-3-GY-700 @ 34'-3'' + 15' ARMIES EC3-10M-MV-NW-3-GY-700 0122CCSINGLE87.198120.9000.9001.0001.000LEOTEK EC3-10M2-MV-NW-2-XX-700 S @ 30' + 10' ARMEC3-10M2-MV-NW-2-XX-700.ies2CC-TSINGLE87.198120.9000.9001.0001.000LEOTEK EC3-10M2-MV-NW-2-XX-700 S @ 34'-3'' + 15' ARMEC3-10M2-MV-NW-2-XX-700.iesCalculation SummaryProject: 988 EL CAMINO REAL - SOUTH SAN FRANCISCODescriptionCalcTypeUnitsGrid ZAvgMaxMinAvg/MinMax/MinCHESTNUT AVEIlluminanceFc00.811.790.292.796.17EL CAMINO REALIlluminanceFc00.602.530.0610.0042.17INTERSECTION AT CHESTNUT AVE AND EL CAMINO REALIlluminanceFc00.872.060.136.6915.85AGI32 VERSION 19.2AGI (C) 1999-2018 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC.10268 W. CENTENNIAL ROAD, SUITE 202LITTLETON, CO 80127* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; JOHN BENSON differences will occur between measured values and calculated values.lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data,dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect thevariations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as roommeasurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperaturetolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance,Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due toCalculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice.BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATAREPORT FOR: GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICESPHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908OAKLAND, CA 94621P.O. BOX 22657777 PARDEE LANEASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INCALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADELAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUALIS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHEDPHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONSDATE12.05.20181" = 30'1 OF 12REVSHEETSCALEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE988 EL CAMINO REALSOUTH SAN FRANCISCO15240BEN-R2.DWG / 15240BEN-R2.A32
OFF-SITE ON-SITE
WAVE
24''X36''
C# 2
WAVE
24''X36''
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP
N TWELVE MILE CREEKGIACALONE
REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2019
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF X
988 EL CAMINO REAL TC1TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
X
GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND
CHESTNUTAVENUE(30 MPH)SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD
CROSS HERE
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
SIDEWALK CLOSED
USE OTHER SIDE
LANE
CLOSED
KEEP
LEFT
SIDEWALK CLOSED
USE OTHER SIDE
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
ANT
O
I
N
E
T
T
E
LAN
E
(30
M
P
H
)
END
ROAD WORK
END
ROAD WORK
EL CAMINO REAL
(35 MPH)
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
FN
B
NO
R
C
A
L
DRI
V
E
W
A
Y
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
(35
M
P
H
)SOUTHWOODDRIVE(25 MPH)1ST STREET(25 MPH)ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD
CROSS AT
W. ORANGE AV.
DETOUR
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
CLOSED
AHEAD
RIGHT LANE
840
E
LCAM
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
2ND STREET(25 MPH)ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
SIDEWALK CLOSED
AT 1ST ST.
CROSS AT
W. ORANGE AV.
DETOUR W. ORANGEAVENUE(25 MPH)SIDEWALK CLOSED
AT 1ST ST.
CROSS HERE
REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2019
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEE ABOVE FOR CONTINUATIONCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF X
988 EL CAMINO REAL TC2TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
X
FRONTAGE AND SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WORK
PLAN A NORTHBOUND CURB LANE AND SIDEWALK CLOSURESEE BELOW FOR CONTINUATION
LANE
CLOSED
END
ROAD WORK
EL CAMINO REAL
(35 MPH)CHESTNUTAVENUE(30 MPH)ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
EL CA
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
(35
M
P
H
)SOUTHWOODDRIVE(25 MPH)1ST STREET(25 MPH)ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
CLOSED
AHEAD
CENTER
LANE
840
E
LCAM
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
2ND STREET(25 MPH)ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2019
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF X
988 EL CAMINO REAL TCTRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
X
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WORK
PLAN B NORTHBOUND NO. 2 LANE CLOSURESEE ABOVE FOR CONTINUATIONSEE BELOW FOR CONTINUATION
WESTBOROUG
H
BOULEVARD
(30 MPH)
CHEST
N
U
T
AVENU
E
(30 MP
H
)ANTOINETTELANE(30 MPH)FNBNORCALDRIVEWAY
SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD
CROSS HERE SIDEWALK
CLOSED
SIDEWALK
CLOSED
KEEP
LEFT
SIDEWALK CLOSED
USE OTHER SIDE
LANE
CLOSED
SIDEWALK CLOSED
CROSS HERE
SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD
CROSS HERE
DETOUR
DETOUR
DETOUR
ROAD
WORK
AHEADWE
S
T
B
O
RO
U
G
H
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(
3
0
M
P
H
)
CALIFORNIA
GOLF
CLUB
CLOSED
AHEAD
RIGHT LANE
CALIFORNIA
GOLF
CLUB
91
WESTBROUGH
BOULEVARD
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
EL CAMINO REAL(35 MPH)988 EL
CAMINO
REAL
CHEST
N
U
T
AVENU
E
(30 MP
H
)
SIDEWALK CLOSED
AHEAD
CROSS HERE
END
ROAD WORK
REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2019
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF X
988 EL CAMINO REAL TCTRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
X
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WORK
PLAN C EASTBOUND CURB LANE AND SIDEWALK CLOSURE MATCH LINE AA SEE BELOWMATCH LINE AA SEE ABOVEMATCH LINE BB SEE SHEET TC
ROAD
WORK
AHEAD
EL CAMI
N
O
R
E
A
L
(35 MPH
)
LANE
CLOSED
LANE
CLOSED
REVIEW SUBMITTAL
FEBRUARY 2019
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONMATCH LINE BB SEE SHEET TCCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DRAWING NO.R E V I S I O N S
NO.DATE BY D E S C R I P T I O N APPR.DATE
SCALE
CONTRACT NO.
DESIGNEDDRAWN
DATECHECKED
APPROVED
ENGINEER DATE
PREPARED BY:
HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION
CONSULTANTS, INC.
4 North Second Street, Suite 400
San Jose, California 95113
Ph: (408) 971-6100 www.hextrans.com
R E Y A
E
L
I
AJEFFLIICVS
T
TA
E OF C A L I F O R N IAREGISTERED P R O FESSIONAL
E
NGI
NEERSHEET OF X
988 EL CAMINO REAL TCTRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
X
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL WORK
PLAN C EASTBOUND CURB LANE AND SIDEWALK CLOSURE
Exhibit “B”
EXHIBIT C
(Centennial Trail area/construction access and staging restoration work)
NO MOW TURF(DELTA BLUEGRASS PRESERVATION MIX OR SIMILAR)CRAPE MYRTLE | QTY 15 | 15 GAL, 20' OCRED OAK | QTY 8 | 15GAL, 35' OCFITNESS PARKNATIVE PLANTING AREA | SPECIES TBD | 1-5GAL, 2-5' OCSUMMERHILL DEVELOPMENTCHESTNUT AVE
ANTOINETTE LANECENTENNIAL WAY CONCEPTUALRESTORATION PLAN7/31/2019100'NNO MOW TURF (DELTA BLUEGRASS PRESERVATION MIX OR SIMILAR)NATIVE PLANTING AREA (SPECIES TBD, 1-5 GALLON, 2-5' ON CENTER)
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
Attention: COO
CC: General Counsel
This Space For Recorder’s Use Only
ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered
into as of this ____ day of ___________, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by and between SHAC 988
ECR APARTMENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Owner"), and CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”), with reference to the facts set
forth in the Recitals below.
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of certain real property in the City of South San Francisco,
County of San Mateo, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto (“Property”); and
B. Owner intends to develop the Property with a mixed-use building that includes
residential units, retail spaces, parking improvements, landscaping, and other improvements
(“Project”) in accordance with the Conditions of Approval applying to applications P17-0060,
UP17-0013, DR17-0049, PM17-0004, and TDM17-0006 for 988 El Camino Real (as approved by
the City Council on February 28, 2018) (“Conditions of Approval”); and
C. Owner has proposed to install certain tiebacks and structural elements within the
City’s public right-of-way, which are described more particularly in the attached Exhibit C, to be
utilized as temporary construction support for the Project; and
D. The City has the authority to regulate the terms and conditions for the use of the
surface, the air space above the surface, and the area below the surface of the public streets, roads,
sidewalks, lanes, courts, ways, alleys, and boulevards, including, without limitation, all public
utility easements and public service easements as the same now or may thereafter exist that are
under the jurisdiction of the City (“Public Right-of-Way”) for the construction, installation and
maintenance of private buildings and improvements; and
E. The City has agreed to allow the tiebacks and structural elements to remain in place
in the Public Right-of-Way at a depth greater than 10-feet after completion of the Project, and
Developer has agreed to release and relinquish all ownership of the tiebacks and structural
elements within the Public Right-of-Way upon completion of construction; and
F. The Conditions of Approval obligate Owner to install and maintain landscaping
constructed as a part of the Project (“Project Improvements”), which are located within the Public
2
Right-of-Way areas which are further described in Exhibit B, attached hereto (“Encroachment
and Maintenance Area”).
G. The City has approved the encroachment of the Project Improvements into the
Encroachment and Maintenance Area (the “Encroachments”), subject to the terms and conditions
of this Agreement; and
H. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions
upon which Owner will maintain the Project Improvements and upon which City consents to the
Encroachments.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
1. Construction and Maintenance Obligations. Owner shall, at its sole cost and
expense, construct, install, maintain and locate the Project Improvements located within the
Encroachment and Maintenance Area as depicted in the 988 El Camino Real Public Improvement
Plans dated March, 1 2019,(the “Maintenance Obligations”).
2. Consent to Encroachments. City hereby consents to the existence of the
Encroachments within the Encroachment and Maintenance Area, subject to the terms and
conditions of this Agreement.
3. Use and Maintenance of Encroachments. Owner and City hereby agree that so
long as this Agreement remains in effect, Owner may use, maintain, repair, replace and/or remove
the Encroachments located within the Encroachment and Maintenance Area. Owner shall not
construct or add any improvements in the Encroachment and Maintenance Area other than the
Encroachments without the City’s prior express written consent, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld, conditioned or delayed, provided that the work complies with all applicable laws and
Owner obtains or causes to be obtained all required permits.
4. Damage to Facilities in Encroachment and Maintenance Area. Owner shall be
responsible for (i) any damage to City street pavements, existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks
caused by Owner’s installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the Project Improvements, (ii)
costs for issuance of permits and inspection of the Project Improvements, and (iii) repair,
replacement and restoration in kind of damaged Project Improvements (other than to the extent
such damage is caused by the City, its employees, officers or agents), in each case, at its sole
expense. Owner shall notify all utilities of any damage caused by Owner’s installation,
maintenance, repair or removal of the Project Improvements. Owner shall be responsible to all
utilities for any damage caused to facilities owned by utilities caused by Owner’s installation,
maintenance, repair or removal of the Project Improvements.
Owner shall be responsible for verifying the location of any pre-existing improvements or
installations within the Encroachment and Maintenance Area and to notify the City and any third
party owner of such pre-existing improvements of the Project Improvements that will be installed
within the Encroachment and Maintenance Area. The reasonable documented cost to perform any
3
work required by such third party in order for the City to provide adequate space or clearance
necessary to accommodate Owner’s installation of the Project Improvements in the Encroachment
and Maintenance Area shall be borne solely by Owner. City shall inform Owner of any such costs
that may be incurred at least 30 days prior to performing the work related to such costs and any
such cost to be borne by Owner or reimbursed to City by Owner shall be paid by Owner within 60
days after receipt of such invoice by Owner that includes reasonable detail and documentation of
such costs incurred.
5. Records and Field Locations. Owner shall maintain accurate maps and
improvement plans of the Encroachments and Project Improvements. Owner shall submit to the
City at the conclusion of installation of the Project Improvements copies of all maps accurately
depicting the actual location of the Project Improvements as-built. Further, Owner shall submit
such maps and plans as may be required by the City to show in detail the location, depth, and
description of all Encroachments installed within said Encroachment and Maintenance Area.
6. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Owner, jointly and severally, for itself, its
successors, agents, contractors and employees, agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected
by Owner and acceptable to City) and hold harmless City, its officers, employees and agents (each
a “City Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages,
liabilities, fines, penalties, charges, administrative and judicial proceedings and orders, judgments,
remedial actions of any kind, and all costs and cleanup actions of any kind, all costs and expenses
incurred in connection therewith, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs of defense (collective, the “Losses”) to the extent associated with the Encroachments and/or
resulting from the activities of Owner described in this Agreement, except to the extent arising
from the City’s or any City Indemnified Party’s willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts or
omissions.
7. Insurance. Owner shall ensure that all contractors performing work on the
Encroachments shall procure and maintain the following insurance during the performance of such
work:
a. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Owner shall maintain limits no less than:
1) Commercial General Liability: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to
any one person and subject to the same limit for each person; in an amount
not less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single
limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
2) Automobile Liability (Code 1) Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
3) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker’s compensation
and Employers liability insurance in the limits as required by the Labor
Code of the State of California.
4
b. Deductibles and Self–Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Risk Manager, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. At the option
of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-
insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, and employees; or
Owner shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
c. Other Insurance Provisions: The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,
the following provision:
1) General Liability Coverage and Automobile Liability Coverage.
a) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of Owner; products and
completed operations of Owner, premises owned, occupied or used
by Owner. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of the protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
b) Each insurance policy shall contain the following endorsement
language: “Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the
insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco
shall be primary as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering
or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other
insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any
liability or loss until and unless the approximate limit of liability
afforded hereunder is exhausted.”
c) Owner’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees of volunteers shall be excess of Owner’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
d) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees, or volunteers.
e) Owner’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the
limits of the insurer’s liability.
2) Worker’s Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage: The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers,
5
officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the
Encroachments or Facilities.
3) All Coverages: Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’
prior written notice by regular mail, has been given to the City.
d. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests’
rating of no less than A:VII.
e. Verification of Coverage: Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance
and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and
endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before execution of this
Agreement.
f. Subcontractors: Owner shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
g. The City’s Risk Manager may approve a variation in those insurance requirements
upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits and forms of such insurance
are either not commercially available or that the City’s interests are otherwise fully
protected.
8. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in perpetuity unless and
until an agreement terminating this Agreement is executed and acknowledged by the City and all
of the respective legal owners of the Property, and such agreement is recorded in the Official
Records of San Mateo County. Upon mutual termination of the Agreement, and upon written
request by City, Owner (or the successor owner of the Property if Owner no longer owns the
Property), at its own cost and expense, agrees to remove or, at City’s discretion, abandon in place,
some or all of the Project Improvements and restore the Encroachment and Maintenance Area to
substantially the same condition it was in prior to Owner’s installation of the Project
Improvements. Should Owner or the successor owner of the Property, if Owner no longer owns
the Property, in such event fail, neglect or refuse to make such removals or restoration within one
hundred twenty (120) days of City’s written request, at the sole option of City, such removal and
restoration may be performed by City at the expense of Owner, which reasonable and documented
expense Owner agrees to pay to City within 30 days after receipt of written demand. Upon removal
of the Project Improvements in accordance with this Agreement, the City shall within 60 days
thereafter record a release of this Agreement in the Official Records of San Mateo County.
9. Severability. If any one or more of the covenants or agreements or portions
thereof provided in this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final
judicial action to be void, voidable or unenforceable, such covenant or covenants, such agreement
6
or agreements, or such portions thereof shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from
the remaining covenants or agreements or portions thereof and shall in no way affect the validity
or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement.
10. Notices. All notices given or which may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall
be in writing and transmitted by United States mail or by private delivery systems or by facsimile
if followed by United States mail or by private delivery systems as follows:
To the City: Attn: Engineering Division
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
To Owner:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
ATTN: COO
Copy to:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
ATTN: General Counsel
11. Successors and Assigns. Each of the agreements, covenants and obligations of
Owner and City, respectively, set forth in this Agreement shall be covenants that run with the land
and shall be binding upon all successors of Owner and City, respectively, for the benefit of the
owner of the other property and such owner’s successors in accordance with Section 1468 of the
California Civil Code. Owner agrees that whenever the Property or any portion thereof is held,
sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, the Property shall be subject to this Agreement which
shall apply to, bind and be obligatory to all subsequent owners of the Property. Notwithstanding
any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, nothing contained herein shall be deemed to be a
gift or dedication of any portion of the Encroachment and Maintenance Area to the general public
or for the general public or for any public purpose whatsoever, and this Agreement shall be strictly
limited to and for the purposes expressed in this Agreement.
12. Cooperation. If any additional documents are reasonably necessary to accomplish
the express purposes of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to cooperate reasonably and in
good faith in the preparation of any such documents, and agree to promptly sign and deliver any
such documents.
13. Entire Document/Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to the Maintenance Obligations, Encroachments and the
Encroachment and Maintenance Area, and supersedes as of the date hereof any prior agreement(s)
between the parties, written or oral, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement. Any
subsequent modification of this Agreement shall be in a writing signed by both parties or their
respective successors in interest.
7
14. Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect and shall in no way be impaired or invalidated, and the parties agree to substitute
for the invalid or unenforceable provision a valid and enforceable provision that most closely
approximates the intent and effect of the invalid or unenforceable provision.
15. Liens Not Impaired. No breach of the covenants or terms of this Agreement or
any enforcement thereof shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust
made in good faith and for value, now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion
thereof. None of the covenants or terms of this Agreement shall supersede or in any way reduce
the security or affect the validity of any such mortgage or deed of trust; provided, however, that
any such covenant or term shall be binding upon and effective against the owner of the Property
or any portion thereof whose title to the Property or such portion thereof is acquired by foreclosure,
trustee’s sale or otherwise.
16. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of
this Agreement or any breach hereof, the prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to
recover from the losing party its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
17. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to principles of conflicts of
law.
18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of such counterparts, taken together,
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[signatures on following page]
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:
Charles M. Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Venture LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Member LLC
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SummerHill Apartment Communities,
A California corporation, its managing member
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF )
On _____________________, 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) are/is
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)
10
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF )
On _____________________, 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) are/is
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)
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as
follows:
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LANDS FORMERLY OF JAMES L.
FLOOD AND THE LANDS OF THE UNITED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 215.23 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 IN DEED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES FROM JAMES L. FLOOD TO
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY 19, 1913 IN BOOK 225
OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; RUNNING THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 193.77
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 20' WEST 68.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY (NOW EL CAMINO REAL); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF
3033 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 11' 49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 169.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, AT WHICH POINT THE RADIAL BEARING
BEARS SOUTH 44° 36' 58" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, TANGENT TO THE PROCEEDING COURSE, ALONG THE ARC OF
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 102° 06' 02", AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 35.64 FEET AND NORTH 56° 43' EAST 5.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THAT CERTAIN DEED OF DEDICATION
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1955 IN BOOK 2878, PAGE 166 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL TWO:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 5 AND 6, SAN MATEO COUNTY LANDS, DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, RECORDED IN BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1 AND A PORTION OF
PARCEL 24 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM THE SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY TO THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RECORDED IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT
PAGE 1 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL D-3106-4C DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A-15
ATTACHED TO THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ENTITLED "SAN
MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
DEFENDANT," CASE NO. 405695 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 11, 2004 UNDER RECORDER'S
SERIES NO. 2004-025111 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE THROUGH THE
FOLLOWING NUMBERED COURSES:
1) NORTH 54° 47' 38" WEST FOR 362.58 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 3859.53 FEET,
2) ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 27" FOR AN ARC
LENGTH OF 44.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, 112 FEET
WIDE,
Exhibit A
3) SOUTH 57° 58' 43" WEST ALONG SAID AVENUE FOR 91.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3944.52 FEET FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT
BEARS NORTH 36° 21' 52" EAST, 4) SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 09' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 79.75 FEET,
5) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 175.96 FEET TO THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF MISSION
ROAD,
6) SOUTH 21° 23' 10" EAST ALONG SAID LINE FOR 9.08 FEET,
7) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 179.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL
D-3108-4 DESCRIBED IN SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION,
8) NORTH 35° 12' 22" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL AND ALONG SAID PARCEL D-3106-4C
FOR 89.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL THREE:
PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP OF LANDS
OF GIGLI AND LANDS OF PETROCCHI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED IN
DECEMBER 20, 1983 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN BOOK 54 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 15 AND 16.
PARCEL FOUR:
BEING PORTIONS OF EL CAMINO REAL AND MISSION ROAD AS EXISTING ON DECEMBER 31,
1983 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE ON THE CENTER LINE OF MISSION ROAD (66 FEET WIDE) AT
THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE
DIVIDING LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 1, AS SAID ROAD, LOTS AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON
THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "SECTION, WEST OF RAILROAD, OF THE TOWN OF BADEN,
PART OF RANCHO BURI BURI, SAN MATEO CO., CAL.", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1891, IN BOOK "E" OF MAPS, AT
PAGE 62; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE DIVIDING
LOTS 39 AND 40, SOUTH 63° 38' 30" WEST, 38.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS EL CAMINO REAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40° 36' 30" WEST,
12.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83° 14' 30" WEST 13.00 FEET; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT THAT
BEARS SOUTH 38° 13' 19" EAST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 3033.00
FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 0° 18' 42", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO SAID
PROLONGATION OF LINE BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 40; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION
NORTH 63° 38' 30" EAST, 11.89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT.
PARCEL FIVE:
SO MUCH OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL “A” AS LIES WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL “B”
PARCEL “A”:
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL CONVEYED BY JAMES L. FLOOD,
ET AL, TO JOHN FLOURNOY, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1900 AND RECORDED
DECEMBER 13, 1900 IN BOOK 88 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 219 (MARKET STREET RAILWAY LINE);
ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF
LAND CONVEYED BY ALVINA M. BORTIS TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS BY DEED
DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1966 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 IN BOOK 5214 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 708 (FILE NO. 95676-Z), RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
AND ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY JAMES L.
Exhibit A
FLOOD, TO COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BY DEED DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY
19, 1913 IN BOOK 225 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14 (EL CAMINO REAL).
PARCEL “B”:
A PORTION OF PARCEL 24 AS SET FORTH IN DEED FROM SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY,
A CORPORATION, TO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
DATED MARCH 3, 1930 AND RECORDED MARCH 3, 1930 IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AT PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF THE
LANDS CONVEYED FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1944 IN
BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID ABOVE LANDS WHICH IS BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF OLD MISSION ROAD; BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED FROM
FLOOD REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, TO EMILIO A. PETROCCHI, ET AL, RECORDED
JANUARY 22, 1954 IN BOOK 2527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 491, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; (FILE NO. 31864-L); AND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE
SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
EXTENSION AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1971 IN BOOK 5892 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 452, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FILE NO. 80162-AD).
APN: 011-325-030 (Affects Parcel One)
011-325-070 (Affects Parcels Two and Five)
014-011-260 (Affects Parcel Three)
014-011-280 (Affects Parcel Four)
JPN:
011-032-325-03A
093-033-331-04A
014-001-011-01.01A, 11.02A, 13.01A and 15A
014-001-011-17A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
Encroachment And Maintenance Area
[SEE ATTACHED]
CENTENNIAL
W
A
Y
T
R
A
I
L
988 EL CAMINO REAL
ANTOINETTE
L
A
N
EL CAMINO REALCHESTNUT AVENUEEXHIBIT B
ENCROACHMENT AND MAINTENANCE AREA
988 EL CAMINO REAL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA
DATE: JUNE 27, 2019 SCALE: 1" = 30'
F:\2718-000\ACAD\EXHIBIT\XB-048_MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT_2019-06-27.DW
CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS
SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM
SACRAMENTO
(925) 866-0322
(916) 375-1877
Exhibit “C”
EXHIBIT “C”
TIE BACK PLANS
[SEE ATTACHED]
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Attention: City Clerk
This Space For Recorder’s Use Only
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
This STORM DRAIN EASEMENT ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is
made and entered into as of __________________, by and between SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Developer”), and the City of South San Francisco
(“City”), a municipal corporation. City and Developer are hereinafter collectively referred to as
“Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City currently holds a Storm Drain Easement (hereinafter referred to as
“Easement”) over, upon and across a vacated portion of Mission Road between El Camino Real
and Chestnut Avenue on the developer’s property, the legal description for which is included
below as Exhibit A. The Easement is more particularly described in Exhibit B and is as shown
on the map entitled “Section West of Railroad of the Town of Baden, Part of Rancho Buri Buri,
San Mateo Co. Cal.” filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of
California, in Book 19 of Maps at Page 8.
WHEREAS, public storm drainage facilities have been constructed and installed in the
Easement; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the construction and installation of the public storm drainage
facilities, Developer has requested permission from the City to build certain improvements
including concrete retaining wall, curb/gutter, flatwork, and fencing, (“Private Improvements”)
over, upon and across a portion of the Easement held by the City, as more particularly described
on the plans attached hereto as Exhibit C to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, to accommodate the needs of Developer, the City has considered allowing
the Private Improvements to be constructed, subject to the terms and conditions of this
Agreement including that upon demand by the City as set forth herein the Private Improvements
be removed.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
2
AGREEMENT
1. Authorization to Encroach. The City hereby acknowledges and consents to the
construction of the Private Improvements over, upon and across Easement and authorizes
Developer to build and maintain the Private Improvements over, upon and across the Easement
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement solely in the area depicted on Exhibit A. Developer
shall repair any damage to the City’s storm drain facilities damaged by or resulting from the
installation, maintenance or use of Developer’s Private Improvements. Repairs required to fully
ameliorate any such damage and to restore the City’s storm drain facilities shall be performed to
the City’s satisfaction upon demand made by the City to Developer and at sole cost of
Developer.
2. Temporary Removal of Encroachment by Developer. Developer shall, upon written
notice from the City, remove any or all of the Private Improvements over, upon and across the
Easement within ten (10) days of such notice. All requests made to Developer by the City to
remove the Private Improvements shall be made pursuant to a need of the City to use, service,
repair, modify, and/or connect to the storm drain facilities located throughout the Easement,
and/or to access the Easement for the purpose of accessing a connected easement, and/or to
maintain and facilitate the flow of surface water for drainage purposes. After the City has
completed its work, it will backfill the work area and restore the area to sub-grade level only.
The City will then notify the Developer in writing that the encroachment may be reconstructed.
The cost of such reconstruction shall be borne by the Developer.
3. Emergency. In a situation deemed to be an emergency in the sole discretion of the City,
the Private Improvements may be removed without notice by the City and the Developer shall
bear all costs of demolition, relocation and/or reconstruction from subgrade henceforth.
4. Destruction of Encroachment. In the event of destruction of the Private Improvements,
Developer may apply for and shall be granted a building permit to reconstruct the Private
Improvements destroyed in the Easement under the then existing building code regulations.
5. Failure to Remove. In the event the Developer fails to remove the Private Improvements
when required by this Agreement, the City shall have the right to remove the Private
Improvements and the Developer shall reimburse the City within thirty (30) days of notice
thereof for the costs incurred in removing the Private Improvements.
6. Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of
South San Francisco and its officers, employees and agents from any and all causes of action,
damages, losses, liens, liabilities expenses or claims whatsoever arising out of the construction of
the Private Improvements over, upon and across the Easement and the resulting encroachment
thereon. Any removal costs incurred by the Developer relating to the construction and existence
of the Private Improvements shall be borne at no cost to the City. Developer waives and releases
all rights, causes of action or claimed against the City based on the construction of the Private
Improvements over, upon and across the Easement and the resulting encroachment thereon.
3
7. Insurance. Developer shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement, and
shall furnish City concurrently with the execution hereof, satisfactory evidence of, the following
policies of insurance:
(a) Worker’s Compensation and Employers’ Liability Insurance in the statutory coverage.
(b) Commercial General Liability Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to any one
person and subject to the same limit for each person; in an amount not less than TWO MILLION
DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage.
(c) Automobile Liability (Code 1) Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and
property damage.
(d) Contractual Liability Insurance: Developer shall take out and maintain during the life
of this Agreement an insurance policy in the amount of at least TWO MILLION DOLLARS
($2,000,000), insuring Developer against damages sustained as a result of any action or
actions at law or in equity, any claims or demands brought as a result of any breach or
alleged breach of any contract, or provisions thereof, and/or as a result of any contractual
liability, or alleged contractual liability arising out of any contract entered into by
Developer and/or any of its agents or employees in order to perform the work defined herein.
(e) The insurance required by Subsections (b), (c) and (d) shall be in an aggregate amount
of not less than Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) and shall be extended to include as
additional insureds the City of South San Francisco, its officers, employees and agents,
with respect to operations performed by the Developer as described herein. Evidence of
the insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution of this
Agreement and shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney as to form, amount and
carrier. The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such
insurance shall not be reduced or canceled except upon thirty (30) days written notice to
City.
8. Perpetual Obligation. This Agreement shall be binding upon all owners, successors, and
assigns taking title to the Property after the execution of this Agreement, and this Agreement
shall run in perpetuity with the land.
9. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded in the public records of San Mateo County,
California by the Developer and Developer shall pay any costs incurred by such recording.
10. Breach. In the event that Developer breaches this Agreement and Developer does not
cure or commence the cure of such breach within thirty (30) days after notice thereof, the City
shall have the following remedies: (a) all remedies provided for by California law; (b) money
damages for any and all damages caused by the breach; (c) injunctive relief necessary to protect
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of South San Francisco; (d) attorney’s fees incurred
4
by the City as a result of the breach; and (e) litigation expenses and court costs incurred by the
City as a result of the breach.
11. Notices. All notices herein required shall be in writing, and delivered in person or sent by
certified mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Notices required to be given to Developer shall be addressed as follows:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
ATTN: COO
Copy to:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
ATTN: General Counsel
Any party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party and thereafter notices
shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address.
12. Parties Obligated. Developer agrees that this Agreement shall bind Developer and
Developer’s successors in interest, heirs and assigns. Developer agrees that whenever the
Property or any portion thereof is held, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, the Property
shall be subject to this Agreement which shall apply to, bind and be obligatory to all subsequent
owners of the Property.
13. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement and all
claims, proceedings, disputes, and lawsuits related to this Agreement shall be venued in the state
or federal courts encompassing the City of South San Francisco.
14. Severability. 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.
15. Execution in Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by
facsimile or other electronic means, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one
5
such counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with
other signed counterpart, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and
effective as to all Parties.
16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement
between the Parties. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a subsequent written
agreement signed by both Parties.
17. Knowing and Voluntary Execution. Both parties to this Agreement have had the
opportunity to be advised by and to have this Agreement reviewed by legal counsel of their
choosing.
18. Liens Not Impaired. No breach of the covenants or terms of this Agreement or any
enforcement thereof shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made
in good faith and for value, now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion thereof.
None of the covenants or terms of this Agreement shall supersede or in any way reduce the
security or affect the validity of any such mortgage or deed of trust; provided, however, that any
such covenant or term shall be binding upon and effective against the owner of the Property or
any portion thereof whose title to the Property or such portion thereof is acquired by foreclosure,
trustee’s sale or otherwise.
[signatures on the following page]
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:
Charles M. Futrell, City Manager
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Venture LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Member LLC
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SummerHill Apartment Communities,
A California corporation, its managing member
By: ________________________
Name: _____________________
Its: ________________________
By: _________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: _________________________
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as
follows:
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LANDS FORMERLY OF JAMES L.
FLOOD AND THE LANDS OF THE UNITED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 215.23 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 IN DEED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES FROM JAMES L. FLOOD TO
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY 19, 1913 IN BOOK 225
OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; RUNNING THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 193.77
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 20' WEST 68.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY (NOW EL CAMINO REAL); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF
3033 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 11' 49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 169.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, AT WHICH POINT THE RADIAL BEARING
BEARS SOUTH 44° 36' 58" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, TANGENT TO THE PROCEEDING COURSE, ALONG THE ARC OF
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 102° 06' 02", AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 35.64 FEET AND NORTH 56° 43' EAST 5.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THAT CERTAIN DEED OF DEDICATION
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1955 IN BOOK 2878, PAGE 166 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL TWO:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 5 AND 6, SAN MATEO COUNTY LANDS, DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, RECORDED IN BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1 AND A PORTION OF
PARCEL 24 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM THE SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY TO THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RECORDED IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT
PAGE 1 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL D-3106-4C DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A-15
ATTACHED TO THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ENTITLED "SAN
MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
DEFENDANT," CASE NO. 405695 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 11, 2004 UNDER RECORDER'S
SERIES NO. 2004-025111 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE THROUGH THE
FOLLOWING NUMBERED COURSES:
1) NORTH 54° 47' 38" WEST FOR 362.58 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 3859.53 FEET,
2) ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 27" FOR AN ARC
LENGTH OF 44.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, 112 FEET
WIDE,
Exhibit A
3) SOUTH 57° 58' 43" WEST ALONG SAID AVENUE FOR 91.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3944.52 FEET FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT
BEARS NORTH 36° 21' 52" EAST, 4) SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 09' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 79.75 FEET,
5) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 175.96 FEET TO THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF MISSION
ROAD,
6) SOUTH 21° 23' 10" EAST ALONG SAID LINE FOR 9.08 FEET,
7) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 179.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL
D-3108-4 DESCRIBED IN SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION,
8) NORTH 35° 12' 22" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL AND ALONG SAID PARCEL D-3106-4C
FOR 89.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL THREE:
PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP OF LANDS
OF GIGLI AND LANDS OF PETROCCHI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED IN
DECEMBER 20, 1983 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN BOOK 54 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 15 AND 16.
PARCEL FOUR:
BEING PORTIONS OF EL CAMINO REAL AND MISSION ROAD AS EXISTING ON DECEMBER 31,
1983 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE ON THE CENTER LINE OF MISSION ROAD (66 FEET WIDE) AT
THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE
DIVIDING LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 1, AS SAID ROAD, LOTS AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON
THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "SECTION, WEST OF RAILROAD, OF THE TOWN OF BADEN,
PART OF RANCHO BURI BURI, SAN MATEO CO., CAL.", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1891, IN BOOK "E" OF MAPS, AT
PAGE 62; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE DIVIDING
LOTS 39 AND 40, SOUTH 63° 38' 30" WEST, 38.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS EL CAMINO REAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40° 36' 30" WEST,
12.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83° 14' 30" WEST 13.00 FEET; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT THAT
BEARS SOUTH 38° 13' 19" EAST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 3033.00
FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 0° 18' 42", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO SAID
PROLONGATION OF LINE BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 40; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION
NORTH 63° 38' 30" EAST, 11.89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT.
PARCEL FIVE:
SO MUCH OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL “A” AS LIES WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL “B”
PARCEL “A”:
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL CONVEYED BY JAMES L. FLOOD,
ET AL, TO JOHN FLOURNOY, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1900 AND RECORDED
DECEMBER 13, 1900 IN BOOK 88 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 219 (MARKET STREET RAILWAY LINE);
ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF
LAND CONVEYED BY ALVINA M. BORTIS TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS BY DEED
DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1966 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 IN BOOK 5214 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 708 (FILE NO. 95676-Z), RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
AND ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY JAMES L.
Exhibit A
FLOOD, TO COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BY DEED DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY
19, 1913 IN BOOK 225 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14 (EL CAMINO REAL).
PARCEL “B”:
A PORTION OF PARCEL 24 AS SET FORTH IN DEED FROM SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY,
A CORPORATION, TO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
DATED MARCH 3, 1930 AND RECORDED MARCH 3, 1930 IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AT PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF THE
LANDS CONVEYED FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1944 IN
BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID ABOVE LANDS WHICH IS BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF OLD MISSION ROAD; BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED FROM
FLOOD REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, TO EMILIO A. PETROCCHI, ET AL, RECORDED
JANUARY 22, 1954 IN BOOK 2527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 491, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; (FILE NO. 31864-L); AND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE
SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
EXTENSION AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1971 IN BOOK 5892 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 452, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FILE NO. 80162-AD).
APN: 011-325-030 (Affects Parcel One)
011-325-070 (Affects Parcels Two and Five)
014-011-260 (Affects Parcel Three)
014-011-280 (Affects Parcel Four)
JPN:
011-032-325-03A
093-033-331-04A
014-001-011-01.01A, 11.02A, 13.01A and 15A
014-001-011-17A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
City’s Storm Drain Easement
[SEE ATTACHED]
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT C
Description of Proposed Private Improvements
[SEE ATTACHED]
EL CAMINO REALEXHIBIT C988 EL CAMINO REALCITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIADATE: AUGUST 16, 2019 SCALE: 1" =20'F:\2718-000\ACAD\EXHIBIT\EXHIBIT C.DWGCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMSACRAMENTO(925) 866-0322(916) 375-1877LEGEND
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
Attention: COO
CC: General Counsel
This Space For Recorder’s Use Only
CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
THIS CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
(“Agreement”) is entered into as of this ____ day of ___________, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by
and between SHAC 988 ECR APARTMENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Owner"), and CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation (“City”), with
reference to the facts set forth in the Recitals below.
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of certain real property in the City of South San Francisco,
County of San Mateo, State of California, as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto (“Property”); and
B. Owner intends to develop the Property with a mixed-use building that includes
residential units, retail spaces, parking improvements, landscaping, and other improvements
(“Development”) in accordance with the Conditions of Approval associated with applications
P17-0060, UP17-0013, DR17-0049, PM17-0004, and TDM17-0006 for 988 El Camino Real (as
approved by the City Council on February 28, 2018) (“Conditions of Approval”); and
C. The City is engaged in construction of a Bike Path/Linear Park along the property
that is described in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference, commonly known as the
Centennial Trail (“Project”); and
D. Most of the construction for the Project will be located on public right-of-way
adjacent to the Property and owned by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) where
BART owns, operates and maintains its subway system (“BART Property”); and
E. In 2006, the City obtained a Permit to Enter from BART (Permit No. W-20.0-
001SSF) (“Entry Permit”) to construct the Project on the BART Property, for a duration of thirty
(30) years; and
F. Since 2006, the City has proposed to enhance the Project by installing certain
improvements thereto, including a fitness park, as more particularly described in Exhibit C and
incorporated herein (“Project Improvements”); and
2
G. The plan set prepared by the Owner and the Conditions of Approval for the
Development obligate Owner to install, operate and maintain certain community benefits facilities,
including the fitness park for the Project on the BART Property where the City holds the Entry
Permit; and
H. The City has obtained an additional permit from BART that would allow Owner to
construct, operate and maintain the fitness park and related equipment on the BART Property
(Amendment to Permit No. W-20.0-001-SSF); and
I. The parties desire to enter into this Agreement to set forth the terms and conditions
upon which Owner will construct, operate, and maintain the Project on the BART Property.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth herein and other
good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows:
1. Construction, Operation and Maintenance Obligations. Owner shall, at its sole
cost and expense, construct, install, maintain and locate the Project Improvements located within
the BART Property as depicted in Exhibit C (the “Construction, Operation and Maintenance
Obligations”).
2. Use and Maintenance of the Project and related facilities. Owner and City
hereby agree that so long as this Agreement remains in effect, Owner may use, maintain, repair,
replace and/or remove the equipment and facilities located within the Project Area. Owner shall
not construct or add any improvements in the Project Area other than as depicted in Exhibit C
without the City’s prior express written consent which, subject to BART’s discretion and consent,
shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, provided that the work complies with
all applicable laws and Owner obtains or causes to be obtained all required permits.
3. Damage to Facilities in Project Area. Owner shall be responsible for (i) any
damage to street pavements, existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks in the Project area caused
by Owner’s installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the Project Improvements, including
fitness equipment and related facilities, (ii) costs for issuance of permits and inspection of the
Project, and (iii) repair, replacement and restoration in kind of damaged Project facilities (other
than to the extent such damage is caused by the City, its employees, officers or agents), in each
case, at its sole expense. Owner shall notify all utilities of any damage caused by Owner’s
installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the Project Improvements. Owner shall be
responsible to all utilities for any damage caused to facilities owned by utilities caused by Owner’s
installation, maintenance, repair or removal of the Project facilities.
Owner shall be responsible for verifying the location of any pre-existing improvements or
installations within the Project area and to notify the City and any third party owner of such pre-
existing improvements of the Project that will be installed within the Project area. The reasonable
documented cost to perform any work required by such third party in order for the City to provide
adequate space or clearance necessary to accommodate Owner’s installation of the Project in the
Project area shall be borne solely by Owner. City shall inform Owner of any such costs that may
3
be incurred at least 30 days prior to performing the work related to such costs and any such cost to
be borne by Owner or reimbursed to City by Owner shall be paid by Owner within 60 days after
receipt of such invoice by Owner that includes reasonable detail and documentation of such costs
incurred.
4. Records and Field Locations. Owner shall maintain accurate maps and
improvement plans of the Project Improvements. Owner shall submit to the City at the conclusion
of installation of the Project Improvements copies of all maps accurately depicting the actual
location of the Project Improvements facilities as-built. Such maps and plans as may be required
to show in detail the location, depth, and description of all facilities and equipment installed for
the Project in the BART right-of-way.
5. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Owner, jointly and severally, for itself, its
successors, agents, contractors and employees, agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel selected
by Owner and acceptable to City) and hold harmless City, its officers, employees and agents (each
a “City Indemnified Party”) from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, damages,
liabilities, fines, penalties, charges, administrative and judicial proceedings and orders, judgments,
remedial actions of any kind, and all costs and cleanup actions of any kind, all costs and expenses
incurred in connection therewith, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs of defense (collective, the “Losses”) to the extent associated with the Construction, Operation
and Maintenance Obligations of the Project Improvements, and/or resulting from the activities of
Owner described in this Agreement, except to the extent that such Losses are: (1) arising from the
City’s or any City Indemnified Party’s willful misconduct or grossly negligent acts or omissions;
(2) arising from the use of the Project by the public, unless such Losses are the result of a breach
of Owner’s obligation to maintain or repair the Project in accordance with this Agreement or arise
from the performance of the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Obligation by Owner or
its members, contractors, invitees, successors and assigns; and (3) arising from the acts or
omissions of BART. The City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Owner, and its officers,
directors, shareholders, members, managers, agents, and employees harmless from and against any
and all Losses that results from the City’s breach of its obligations under this Agreement.
6. Insurance. Owner shall ensure that all contractors performing work on the Project
shall procure and maintain the following insurance during the performance of their on the Project.
a. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Owner shall maintain limits no less than:
1) Commercial General Liability: In an amount not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) for injuries including, but not limited to, death to any
one person and subject to the same limit for each person; in an amount not
less than TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single limit per
occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage.
2) Automobile Liability (Code 1) Insurance: In an amount not less than ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for
bodily injury and property damage.
4
3) Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker’s compensation
and Employers liability insurance in the limits as required by the Labor
Code of the State of California.
b. Deductibles and Self–Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Attorney, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. At the option of the
City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured
retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, and employees; or Owner shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
c. Other Insurance Provisions: The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain,
the following provision:
1) General Liability Coverage and Automobile Liability Coverage.
a) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of Owner; products and
completed operations of Owner, premises owned, occupied or used
by Owner. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the
scope of the protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
b) Each insurance policy shall contain the following endorsement
language: “Notwithstanding any other provisions in this policy, the
insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco
shall be primary as to any other insurance or reinsurance covering
or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other
insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any
liability or loss until and unless the approximate limit of liability
afforded hereunder is exhausted.”
c) Owner’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects
the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers shall be excess of Owner’s
insurance and shall not contribute with it.
d) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall
not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees, or volunteers.
5
e) Owner’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against
whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the
limits of the insurer’s liability.
2) Worker’s Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage: The insurer
shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the Project.
3) All Coverages: Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’
prior written notice by regular mail, has been given to the City.
d. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests’
rating of no less than A:VII.
e. Verification of Coverage: Owner shall furnish City with certificates of insurance
and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The
certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and
endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before execution of this
Agreement.
f. Subcontractors: Owner shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
g. The City’s Risk Manager or the City Attorney may approve a variation in those
insurance requirements upon a determination that the coverages, scope, limits and
forms of such insurance are either not commercially available or that the City’s
interests are otherwise fully protected.
7. Duration of Agreement. This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect
until: (1) mutually terminated in writing by the parties, or (2) upon BART rescinds permission for
Owner to construct, operate or maintain the Project and related facilities, or upon the Permit to
Enter issued by BART to the City has been terminated, withdrawn, or otherwise revoked or ended
by BART, whichever occurs first. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of San
Mateo County; upon termination of this Agreement, the City shall within 60 days thereafter record
a release of this Agreement in the Official Records of San Mateo County.
8. Severability. If any one or more of the covenants or agreements or portions
thereof provided in this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final
judicial action to be void, voidable or unenforceable, such covenant or covenants, such agreement
or agreements, or such portions thereof shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from
the remaining covenants or agreements or portions thereof and shall in no way affect the validity
or enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement.
6
9. Notices. All notices given or which may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall
be in writing and transmitted by United States mail or by private delivery systems or by facsimile
if followed by United States mail or by private delivery systems as follows:
To the City: Attn: Engineering Division
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
To Owner:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
ATTN: COO
Copy to:
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments
777 California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
ATTN: General Counsel
10. Successors and Assigns. Each of the agreements, covenants and obligations of
Owner and City, respectively, set forth in this Agreement shall be covenants that run with the
land and shall be binding upon all successors of Owner and City, respectively, for the benefit of
the owner of the other property and such owner’s successors in accordance with Section 1468 of
the California Civil Code. Owner agrees that whenever the Property or any portion thereof is
held, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, the Property shall be subject to this Agreement
which shall apply to, bind and be obligatory to all subsequent owners of the Property.
11. Cooperation. If any additional documents are reasonably necessary to accomplish
the express purposes of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to cooperate reasonably and in
good faith in the preparation of any such documents, and agree to promptly sign and deliver any
such documents.
12. Entire Document/Modification. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties hereto with respect to the Construction, Operation and Maintenance
Obligations, the Project and related facilities, and supersedes as of the date hereof any prior
agreement(s) between the parties, written or oral, concerning the subject matter of this Agreement.
Any subsequent modification of this Agreement shall be in a writing signed by both parties or their
respective successors in interest.
13. Invalidity. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full
force and effect and shall in no way be impaired or invalidated, and the parties agree to substitute
7
for the invalid or unenforceable provision a valid and enforceable provision that most closely
approximates the intent and effect of the invalid or unenforceable provision.
14. Liens Not Impaired. No breach of the covenants or terms of this Agreement or
any enforcement thereof shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust
made in good faith and for value, now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion
thereof. None of the covenants or terms of this Agreement shall supersede or in any way reduce
the security or affect the validity of any such mortgage or deed of trust; provided, however, that
any such covenant or term shall be binding upon and effective against the owner of the Property
or any portion thereof whose title to the Property or such portion thereof is acquired by foreclosure,
trustee’s sale or otherwise.
15. Attorneys’ Fees. In the event of any controversy, claim or dispute arising out of
this Agreement or any breach hereof, the prevailing party in any legal action shall be entitled to
recover from the losing party its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
16. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to principles of conflicts of
law.
17. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall, for all purposes, be deemed an original and all of such counterparts, taken together,
shall constitute one and the same instrument.
[signatures on following page]
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:
Charles M. Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Venture LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Member LLC
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SummerHill Apartment Communities,
A California corporation, its managing member
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
By: ________________________
Name: ______________________
Its: ________________________
9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF )
On _____________________, 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) are/is
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)
10
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.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF )
On _____________________, 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) are/is
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)
Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California,
described as follows:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as
follows:
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN LANDS FORMERLY OF JAMES L.
FLOOD AND THE LANDS OF THE UNITED RAILROAD RIGHT-OF WAY DISTANT THEREON
SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 215.23 FEET FROM THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF THE LANDS
DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 IN DEED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES FROM JAMES L. FLOOD TO
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY 19, 1913 IN BOOK 225
OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; RUNNING THENCE
FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING ALONG SAID DIVIDING LINE SOUTH 55° 30' EAST 193.77
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47° 20' WEST 68.60 FEET TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE RIGHT-OF-
WAY OF THE STATE HIGHWAY (NOW EL CAMINO REAL); THENCE NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG
SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT WITH A RADIUS OF
3033 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3° 11' 49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 169.23 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, AT WHICH POINT THE RADIAL BEARING
BEARS SOUTH 44° 36' 58" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, TANGENT TO THE PROCEEDING COURSE, ALONG THE ARC OF
A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 20 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 102° 06' 02", AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 35.64 FEET AND NORTH 56° 43' EAST 5.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION THEREOF CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION IN THAT CERTAIN DEED OF DEDICATION
RECORDED SEPTEMBER 19, 1955 IN BOOK 2878, PAGE 166 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL TWO:
PORTIONS OF PARCELS 5 AND 6, SAN MATEO COUNTY LANDS, DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, RECORDED IN BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1 AND A PORTION OF
PARCEL 24 DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM THE SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY TO THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RECORDED IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT
PAGE 1 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL D-3106-4C DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A-15
ATTACHED TO THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FILED IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, ENTITLED "SAN
MATEO COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT, PLAINTIFF, VS. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
DEFENDANT," CASE NO. 405695 AND RECORDED FEBRUARY 11, 2004 UNDER RECORDER'S
SERIES NO. 2004-025111 IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE THROUGH THE
FOLLOWING NUMBERED COURSES:
1) NORTH 54° 47' 38" WEST FOR 362.58 FEET TO A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A
RADIUS OF 3859.53 FEET,
2) ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00° 39' 27" FOR AN ARC
LENGTH OF 44.29 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE, 112 FEET
Exhibit A
WIDE,
3) SOUTH 57° 58' 43" WEST ALONG SAID AVENUE FOR 91.58 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF
A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 3944.52 FEET FROM WHICH THE RADIUS POINT
BEARS NORTH 36° 21' 52" EAST, 4) SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01° 09' 30" FOR AN ARC LENGTH OF 79.75 FEET,
5) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 175.96 FEET TO THE FORMER CENTERLINE OF MISSION
ROAD,
6) SOUTH 21° 23' 10" EAST ALONG SAID LINE FOR 9.08 FEET,
7) SOUTH 54° 47' 38" EAST FOR 179.03 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL
D-3108-4 DESCRIBED IN SAID FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION,
8) NORTH 35° 12' 22" EAST ALONG SAID PARCEL AND ALONG SAID PARCEL D-3106-4C
FOR 89.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL THREE:
PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP ENTITLED, "PARCEL MAP OF LANDS
OF GIGLI AND LANDS OF PETROCCHI SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA", RECORDED IN
DECEMBER 20, 1983 IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN BOOK 54 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGES 15 AND 16.
PARCEL FOUR:
BEING PORTIONS OF EL CAMINO REAL AND MISSION ROAD AS EXISTING ON DECEMBER 31,
1983 AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING FOR REFERENCE ON THE CENTER LINE OF MISSION ROAD (66 FEET WIDE) AT
THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE
DIVIDING LOTS 39 AND 40, BLOCK 1, AS SAID ROAD, LOTS AND BLOCK ARE SHOWN ON
THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED, "SECTION, WEST OF RAILROAD, OF THE TOWN OF BADEN,
PART OF RANCHO BURI BURI, SAN MATEO CO., CAL.", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 30, 1891, IN BOOK "E" OF MAPS, AT
PAGE 62; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE LINE DIVIDING
LOTS 39 AND 40, SOUTH 63° 38' 30" WEST, 38.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE
STATE HIGHWAY, KNOWN AS EL CAMINO REAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
COMMENCEMENT; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE NORTH 40° 36' 30" WEST,
12.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 83° 14' 30" WEST 13.00 FEET; THENCE, FROM A TANGENT THAT
BEARS SOUTH 38° 13' 19" EAST, ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT WITH A RADIUS OF 3033.00
FEET, THROUGH AN ANGLE OF 0° 18' 42", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 16.50 FEET TO SAID
PROLONGATION OF LINE BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 40; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION
NORTH 63° 38' 30" EAST, 11.89 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF COMMENCEMENT.
PARCEL FIVE:
SO MUCH OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL “A” AS LIES WITHIN THE HEREIN DESCRIBED
PARCEL “B”
PARCEL “A”:
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN
MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL CONVEYED BY JAMES L. FLOOD,
ET AL, TO JOHN FLOURNOY, BY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 2, 1900 AND RECORDED
DECEMBER 13, 1900 IN BOOK 88 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 219 (MARKET STREET RAILWAY LINE);
ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF
LAND CONVEYED BY ALVINA M. BORTIS TO KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS BY DEED
DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1966 AND RECORDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1966 IN BOOK 5214 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 708 (FILE NO. 95676-Z), RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA;
Exhibit A
AND ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY JAMES L.
FLOOD, TO COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BY DEED DATED MARCH 10, 1913 AND RECORDED MAY
19, 1913 IN BOOK 225 OF DEEDS AT PAGE 14 (EL CAMINO REAL).
PARCEL “B”:
A PORTION OF PARCEL 24 AS SET FORTH IN DEED FROM SPRING VALLEY WATER COMPANY,
A CORPORATION, TO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
DATED MARCH 3, 1930 AND RECORDED MARCH 3, 1930 IN BOOK 491 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS
AT PAGE 1, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND A PORTION OF THE
LANDS CONVEYED FROM THE MARKET STREET RAILWAY COMPANY TO THE CITY AND
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BY THAT CERTAIN DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1944 IN
BOOK 1161 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 1, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS A WHOLE AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SAID ABOVE LANDS WHICH IS BOUNDED NORTHEASTERLY BY THE
NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF OLD MISSION ROAD; BOUNDED SOUTHERLY BY THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN QUITCLAIM DEED FROM
FLOOD REALTY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, TO EMILIO A. PETROCCHI, ET AL, RECORDED
JANUARY 22, 1954 IN BOOK 2527 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS AT PAGE 491, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA; (FILE NO. 31864-L); AND BOUNDED NORTHWESTERLY BY THE
SOUTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF CHESTNUT AVENUE
EXTENSION AS ESTABLISHED BY DEED TO THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 1971 IN BOOK 5892 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS AT PAGE 452, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (FILE NO. 80162-AD).
APN: 011-325-030 (Affects Parcel One)
011-325-070 (Affects Parcels Two and Five)
014-011-260 (Affects Parcel Three)
014-011-280 (Affects Parcel Four)
JPN:
011-032-325-03A
093-033-331-04A
014-001-011-01.01A, 11.02A, 13.01A and 15A
014-001-011-17A
Exhibit B
EXHIBIT B
Centennial Trail Fitness Park Area Description
[SEE ATTACHED]
EXHIBIT B
Exhibit C
EXHIBIT C
Centennial Trail Fitness Park Improvements Description
[SEE ATTACHED]
2L5.01L5.017'-0"4'-0"20'-0"4'-0"4'-0"
4'-0"10'-0"11'-7"9 BIKE RACKS(18 SPACES)38" DEEP INFILTRATION PLANTERCOURTYARDFURNISHINGS, TYP.PERMEABLEPAVING38" DEEP INFILTRATIONPLANTERSPECIAL PAVING, TYP.38" DEEP INFILTRATIONPLANTERPLANTER POT, TYP.SPECIAL ENTRYPAVING, TYP.SITE FURNISHINGSBENCHES(TOTAL 3)24'-5"VARIES
REMOVE AND REPLACEEXISTING FENCE WITH6' FENCE ON RETAININGWALLLOAD
I
N
G SPAPROPERTY LINECENTENNIAL WAY TRAILCHESTNUT AVEEL CAMINO REALTYP.TYP.RIGHT OF WAYPROP
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E 24" DEEP PLANTER988 EL CAMINO REALOUTDOOR DINING10'-0"8'-0"10'-0"
8'-0"OUTDOORFITNESS PODS WITHEQUIPMENT TYP.10 BIKE RACKS(20 SPACES)PLAZASCULPTURAL SEATING, TYP.GREENSCREEN, TYP.EASEMENT FORPUBLIC ACCESS10'50' PGE EASEMENT10'CLENTRY SIGN,TYP. (TOTAL 2)PLANTERPOT, TYP.VEHICULARDRIVE PAVING, TYP.8'-0"BBQHIGH TOP BARWITH STOOLSWINDSCREEN, TYP.4' M
I
N
.SEATING PLATFORM,TYP.12'-0"24" DEEP PLANTER10'-0"NORTH COURTYARDSOUTH COURTYARDPARKING LEVEL 110'-0"10'-0"
8'-0"5' TALL SPA FENCEGLASS PANELS + PLANTERREMOVE EXISTING FENCESTRETCHING AREAFENCE BEGINSBBQ WITH TRELLISBENCHES IN DOG PARK(2)DOG LAWN (±800SF)DOG WASTE SYSTEMSPECIAL ENTRYPAVING, TYP.DOG PARK DOUBLE GATE10'-0"5'-0"BIKE RACK(1)2 SPACESOUTDOORDINING TABLESAND CHAIRS(4)DG2' SHOULDER FEBRUARY 16, 2018SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA988 EL CAMINO REALSummerHill Apartment Communities777 S. California Ave.Palo Alto, CA 94304Architecture + PlanningCIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSwww.cbandg.comCarlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc.ILLUSTRATIVE PL 07.51530
1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Attention: City Clerk
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
(Space Above This Line for Recorder’s Use Only)
Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code § 27383.
STORMWATER TREATMENT MEASURES
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Address: 988 El Camino Real
APNs: 011-325-030, 011-325-070, 011-325-260, and 011-014-280
RECITALS
This Stormwater Treatment Measures Maintenance Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered
into this ________________________ by and between the City of South San Francisco, a
municipal corporation (“City”) and SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, (collectively “Property Owner”), a property owner of real property described in this
Agreement.
WHEREAS, On November 19, 2015, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region, adopted Order R2-2015-00249 (NPDES Permit No. CAS612008), amending the
Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit applicable to the City (“NPDES permit”); and
WHEREAS, Provision C.3.h. of this NPDES permit, and as it may be amended or reissued,
requires the City and other permittee public agencies to implement an Operation and Maintenance
Verification Program (“O&M Verification Program”) to ensure that all required stormwater treatment
measures are properly installed and maintained by the owner, buyer or lessee of real property containing
a “Regulated Project” as defined in Provision C.3.b.ii of the NPDES permit; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner is the owner of real property commonly known as 988 El
Camino Real, hereinafter the “Property”, and more particularly described in the attached legal
description Exhibit A.
WHEREAS, the Property is a “Regulated Project” as defined in Provision C.3.b.ii. of the
NPDES permit; and
WHEREAS, attached hereto as Exhibit B is a legible reduced-scale copy of the Site Plan
showing the stormwater treatment measures that are to be located or to be constructed on the
Property; and
WHEREAS, the City is the permittee public agency with jurisdiction over the Property;
and
2
WHEREAS, the Property Owner recognizes that the stormwater treatment measure(s) more
particularly described and shown on Exhibit C, of which full-scale plans and any amendments thereto
are on file with the Planning Department of the City of South San Francisco must be installed and
maintained as indicated in this Agreement and as required by the NPDES permit; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Property Owner agree that the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the City require that the stormwater treatment measure(s) detailed in the Site Plan be
constructed and maintained on the Property; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Stormwater Management Ordinance, guidelines, criteria and other written
directions require that the stormwater treatment measure(s), as shown on the approved Site Plan, be
constructed and maintained by the Property Owner
THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefit received by the Property Owner as a result of
the City’s approval of the Site Plan, the Property Owner hereby covenants and agrees with the City as
follows:
SECTION 1: CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT MEASURES
The on-site stormwater treatment measure(s) shown on the Site Plan shall be constructed by the
Property Owner in strict accordance with the approved plans and specifications identified for the
development and any other requirements thereto which have been approved by the City as of the date
hereof in conformance with appropriate City ordinances, guidelines, criteria and other written direction.
SECTION 2: OPERATION & MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY
This agreement shall serve as the signed statement by the Property Owner accepting
responsibility for installation, operation and maintenance of stormwater treatment measures as set
forth in this Agreement until the Property is legally transferred to another person or entity. Before
the Property is legally transferred to another person or entity, the Property Owner shall provide to
the City at least one of the following:
1) A signed statement from the public entity assuming post-construction responsibility for
treatment measure maintenance and that the treatment measures meet all local agency design
standards; or
2) Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement requiring the buyer or lessee to assume
responsibility for operation and maintenance (O&M) consistent with this provision, which
conditions, in the case of purchase and sale agreements, shall be written to survive beyond the close
of escrow; or
3) This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of the San Mateo County.
4) Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism that assigns responsibility for the
maintenance of treatment measures.
3
SECTION 3: MAINTENANCE OF TREATMENT MEASURES
The Property Owner shall not destroy or remove the stormwater treatment measures from the
Property nor modify the stormwater treatment system in a manner that lessens its effectiveness, and
shall, at Property Owner’s sole expense, adequately maintain the stormwater treatment measure(s) in
good working order acceptable to the City and in accordance with the maintenance plan agreed
hereto and attached as Exhibit D. This includes all pipes, channels or other conveyances built to
convey stormwater to the treatment measure(s), as well as all structures, improvements, and
vegetation provided to control the quantity and quality of the stormwater. Adequate maintenance is
herein defined as maintaining the described facilities in good working condition so that these
facilities continue to operate as originally designed and approved. The maintenance plan shall
include a detailed description of and schedule for long-term maintenance activities.
SECTION 4: SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
Sediment accumulation resulting from the normal operation of the stormwater treatment
measure(s) will be managed appropriately by the Property Owner. The Property Owner will provide for
the removal and disposal of accumulated sediments. Disposal of accumulated sediments shall not
occur on the Property, unless provided for in the maintenance plan. Any disposal or removal of
accumulated sediments or debris shall be in compliance with all federal, state and local law and
regulations.
SECTION 5: ANNUAL INSPECTION AND REPORT
The Property Owner shall, on an annual basis, complete the Treatment Measure Operation and
Maintenance Inspection Report (annual report), attached to this agreement as Exhibit E. The annual
report shall include all completed Inspection and Maintenance Checklists for the reporting period and
shall be submitted to the City in order to verify that inspection and maintenance of the applicable
stormwater treatment measure(s) have been conducted pursuant to this agreement. The annual report
shall be submitted no later than December 31st of each year to Environmental Compliance
Supervisor, Department of Environmental Compliance, South San Francisco / San Bruno
WQCP, 195 Belle Air Road, South San Francisco, CA 94080 or another member of the City staff as
directed by the City. The Property Owner shall provide in the annual report a record of the volume of
all accumulated sediment removed as a result of the treatment measure(s). The Property Owner shall
conduct a minimum of one annual inspection of the stormwater treatment measure(s) before the wet
season. This inspection shall occur between August 1st and October 1st each year. More frequent
inspections may be required by the maintenance plan, Exhibit D. The results of inspections shall be
recorded on the Inspection and Maintenance Checklist(s) attached as Exhibit F.
SECTION 6: NECESSARY CHANGES AND MODIFICATIONS
At its sole expense, the Property Owner shall make changes or modifications to the
stormwater treatment measure(s) and/or the long-term maintenance plan, Exhibit D as may be
determined as reasonably necessary by the City to ensure that treatment measures are properly
maintained and continue to operate as originally designed and approved.
4
SECTION 7: ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY
The Property Owner hereby grants permission to the City; the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Board); the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District (Mosquito
Abatement District); and their authorized agents and employees to enter upon the Property at reasonable
times and in a reasonable manner to inspect, assess or observe the stormwater treatment measure(s) in
order to ensure that treatment measures are being properly maintained and are continuing to perform in
an adequate manner to protect water quality and the public health and safety. This includes the right to
enter upon the Property whenever there is a reasonable basis to believe that a violation of this Agreement,
the City’s stormwater management ordinance, guidelines, criteria, other written direction, or the NPDES
permit (Regional Board Order No. R2-2015-0049, and any amendments or reissuances of this permit) is
occurring, has occurred or threatens to occur. The above listed agencies also have a right to enter the
Property when necessary for abatement of a public nuisance or correction of a violation of the ordinance
guideline, criteria or other written direction. The City, Regional Board, or the Mosquito Abatement
District shall provide reasonable (as may be appropriate for the particular circumstances) notice to the
Property Owner before entering the property.
SECTION 8: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN TREATMENT MEASURES
In the event the Property Owner fails to maintain the stormwater treatment measure(s) as shown
on the approved Site Plan in good working order acceptable to the City and in accordance with the
maintenance plan incorporated in the Agreement within 60 days after written notice by City of such
failure, the City, and its authorized agents and employees with reasonable notice, may enter the
Property and take whatever steps it deems necessary and appropriate to return the treatment measure(s)
to good working order. Such notice will not be necessary if emergency conditions require immediate
remedial action. This provision shall not be construed to allow the City to erect any structure of a
permanent nature on the Property. It is expressly understood and agreed that the City is under no
obligation to maintain or repair the treatment measure(s) and in no event shall this Agreement be
construed to impose any such obligation on the City.
SECTION 9: REIMBURSEMENT OF CITY EXPENDITURES
In the event the City, pursuant to this Agreement, performs work of any nature (direct or
indirect), including any reinspections or any actions it deems necessary or appropriate to return the
treatment measure(s) in good working order as indicated in Section 8, or expends any funds in the
performance of said work for labor, use of equipment, supplies, materials, and the like, the Property
Owner shall reimburse the City, or shall forfeit any required bond upon demand within thirty (30) days of
receipt thereof for the costs incurred by the City hereunder. If these costs are not paid within the
prescribed time period, the City may assess the Property Owner the cost of the work, both direct and
indirect, and applicable penalties. Said assessment shall be a lien against the Property or may be placed
on the property tax bill and collected as ordinary taxes by the City. The actions described in this section
are in addition to and not in lieu of any and all legal remedies as provided by law, available to the City as
a result of the Property Owner’s failure to maintain the treatment measure(s).
SECTION 10: INDEMNIFICATION
The Property Owner shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its authorized agents,
officers, officials and employees from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, damages, liabilities,
5
losses, accidents, casualties, occurrences, claims and payments, including attorney fees claimed or which
might arise or be asserted against the City that are alleged or proven to result or arise from the construction,
presence, existence or maintenance of the treatment measure(s) as shown on the Site Plan by the Property
Owner or the City. In the event a claim is asserted against the City, its authorized agents, officers, officials
or employees, the City shall promptly notify the Property Owner and the Property Owner shall defend
at its own expense any suit based on such claim. If any judgment or claims against the City, its authorized
agents, officers, officials or employees shall be allowed, the Property Owner shall pay for all reasonable
costs and expenses in connection herewith. This section shall not apply to any claims, demands, suits,
damages, liabilities, losses, accidents, casualties, occurrences, claims and payments, including attorney fees
claimed which arise due solely to the negligence or willful misconduct of the City.
SECTION 11: NO ADDITIONAL LIABILITY
It is the intent of this agreement to insure the proper maintenance of the treatment measure(s)
by the Property Owner; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be deemed to create or effect
any additional liability not otherwise provided by law of any party for damage alleged to result from or
caused by storm water runoff.
SECTION 12: PERFORMANCE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
The City may request the Property Owner to provide a performance bond, security or other
appropriate financial assurance providing for the maintenance of the stormwater treatment measure(s)
pursuant to the City’s ordinances, guidelines, criteria or written direction.
SECTION 13: TRANSFER OF PROPERTY
This Agreement shall run with the title to the land and any portion thereof. The Property
Owner further agrees whenever the Property or any portion thereof is held, sold, conveyed or
otherwise transferred, it shall be subject to this Agreement which shall apply to, bind and be obligatory
to all present and subsequent owners of the Property or any portion thereof.
SECTION 14: SEVERABILITY
The provisions of this Agreement shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, section,
subsection, paragraph, subdivision, sentence or provision is adjudged invalid or unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, or the applicability to any Property Owner is held invalid, this shall
not affect or invalidate the remainder of any phrase, clause, section, subsection, paragraph,
subdivision, sentence or provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 15: RECORDATION
This Agreement shall be recorded by the Property Owner within 30 days after the execution date
of this Agreement in the County Recorder’s Office of the County of San Mateo, California at the Property
Owner’s expense. The City reserves the option to record this Agreement.
SECTION 16: RELEASE OF AGREEMENT
In the event that the City determines that the stormwater treatment measures located on the
6
Property are no longer required, then the City, at the request of the Property Owner shall execute a
release of this Maintenance Agreement, which the Property Owner shall record in the County
Recorder’s Office at the Property Owner’s expense. The City reserves the option to record such release
of this Maintenance Agreement. The stormwater treatment measure(s) shall not be removed from the
Property unless such a release is so executed and recorded.
SECTION 17: EFFECTIVE DATE AND MODIFICATION
This Agreement is effective upon the date of execution as stated at the beginning of this
Agreement. This Agreement shall not be modified except by written instrument executed by the City and
the Property -Owner at the time of modification. Such modifications shall be effective upon the date of
execution and shall be recorded.
SECTION 18: LIENS NOT IMPAIRED
No breach of the covenants or terms of this Agreement or any enforcement thereof shall
defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value,
now or hereafter executed upon the Property or any portion thereof. None of the covenants or terms
of this Agreement shall supersede or in any way reduce the security or affect the validity of any such
mortgage or deed of trust; provided, however, that any such covenant or term shall be binding upon
and effective against the owner of the Property or any portion thereof whose title to the Property or
such portion thereof is acquired by foreclosure, trustee’s sale or otherwise.
[signatures on the following page]
7
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By:
Charles M. Futrell, City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
SHAC 988 ECR Apartments LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Venture LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SHAC 988 ECR Apartments Manager LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, its manager
By: SummerHill Apartment Communities,
a California corporation, its managing member
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Its: ____________________________
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Its: ____________________________
3000 Executive Parkway #450, San Ramon, CA
________________________________________________________
Type or print Owner Address
8
Exhibits
Exhibit A – Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B – Site Plan
Exhibit C – Stormwater treatment measures plan
Exhibit D – Maintenance plan
Exhibit E – Standard Treatment Measure Operation and Maintenance Inspection
Report
Exhibit F – Inspection and Maintenance Checklists
3165494.2
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
Report regarding an ordinance increasing the Minimum Wage to $15 per hour effective January 1,2020.
(Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code increasing the minimum wage citywide to $15 per hour effective January 1,
2020, and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Currently the State’s minimum wage is $12.00 per hour.At a Special City Council meeting on April 9,2019,
City Council directed staff to increase the minimum wage to $15 per hour for all city employees effective July
1,2019.This was accomplished through the FY 2019-2020 City Budget,passed by City Council on June 26,
2019.In addition,Council directed staff to explore the increase of the minimum wage to $15 per hour for all
businesses citywide with a targeted effective date of January 1, 2020.
At a Special City Council meeting on July 22,2019,Council received a staff presentation on increasing the
minimum wage citywide to $15 per hour. Council provided the following direction:
-Beginning January 1,2020,employers who are subject to the City of South San Francisco Business License or
who maintain a facility in the City of South San Francisco must pay each employee who performs at least two
hours of work per week in the City of South San Francisco,minimum wages not less than $15.00 per hour.
Thereafter, the minimum wage will be adjusted annually based on the National Consumer Price Index (CPI-W).
-Per California State regulation (California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No.4-2001),an employee
who is defined as a “learner”shall be paid no less than 85%of the applicable Minimum Wage for the first 160
hours of employment. Thereafter, the learner shall be paid the applicable minimum wage.
State Law
In April 2016,then Governor Jerry Brown signed into law Senate Bill 3 which increased the state’s minimum
wage to $15 per hour for all employers with greater than 26 employees by January 1,2022 (January 1,2023 for
employers with 25 or fewer employees).Thereafter,the minimum wage will be adjusted annually based on the
National Consumer Price Index (CPI-W).
In addition to California state law,several California cities have passed minimum wage ordinances that have
moved ahead of the state’s timeframe of 2023.
Minimum Wage Policies in Other Jurisdictions
In San Mateo County,the cities of San Mateo,Belmont,and Redwood City have adopted Minimum Wage
Ordinances.Outside of San Mateo County,San Francisco and several Santa Clara County cities have adopted
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
Ordinances.Outside of San Mateo County,San Francisco and several Santa Clara County cities have adopted
higher minimum wage standards.
On August 16,2016,the City of San Mateo became the first city in San Mateo County to adopt a Minimum
Wage Ordinance requiring annual increases in the Minimum Wage to be paid within the City boundaries,
beyond the state minimum wage requirement.The ordinance requires employers who are subject to the City of
San Mateo’s Business License Tax or who maintain a facility in the City of San Mateo to pay each employee
who performs at least two hours of work in the City of San Mateo,minimum wages not less than $15 per hour.
Both minors and adult employees are subject to this ordinance and tips are not included.Covered employees
are entitled to these rights regardless of immigration status.The minimum wage will be adjusted annually
beginning on January 1 of each year according to the schedule adopted by the San Mateo City Council.
Enforcement of the City of San Mateo’s minimum wage is provided by the City of San José’s Equality
Assurance department as a complaint based system.The City of San Mateo contracts with the City of San
José’s Equality Assurance department and the rates vary depending on the number of cases.
Non-profit organizations that are tax exempt per Section 501(c)3 of the tax code must pay their employees no
less than $13.50 per hour.The City of San Mateo took a phased-in approach to the hourly minimum wage rates
for 501(c)3 employers:
-January 2017 = $10.00
-January 2018 = $10.50
-January 2019 = $13.50
-January 2020 = $15.00
-January 2021 = $15.00 + CPI
For all other businesses citywide, the following schedule applies:
-January 2017 = $12.50
-January 2018 = $15.00
-January 2019 = $15.00
-January 2020 = $15.00
-January 2021 = $15.00 + CPI
The City of San Mateo’s minimum wage reached $15 for all employees,except 501(c)3 nonprofit employees,
who have a minimum wage of $13.50.Since implementation,staff have received feedback from business
owners about the impact of the wages on their business.In order to comply with the policy,several San Mateo
restaurants added a 3%wage fee on checks to cover the increased labor costs,reduced hours of operations,and
condensed employee hours in order to remain profitable.All of these businesses have remained in business.
Restaurant owners have voiced that the minimum wage is unnecessary because businesses pay $15 or more in
order to be competitive for talent in a tight labor market.Tipped workers are often paid several times higher
than the minimum wage due to tips.Restaurant owners have also reported that the minimum wage policy
compromises their ability to provide raises to untipped staff in the kitchen and makes it difficult to compete
with restaurants in the surrounding cities without a minimum wage policy.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
City of Daly City
On January 14,2019,the Daly City Council adopted the Daly City Minimum Wage Ordinance that increases
the minimum wage to $15 by 2021.The local minimum wage will increase at a faster pace than the state’s
minimum wage schedule.The ordinance applies to all businesses and employees that perform at least two hours
of work within the City of Daly City.
Daly City’s Minimum Wage schedule is as follows:
-February 13, 2019 = $12.00 per hour
-January 1, 2020 = $13.75 per hour
-January 1, 2021 = $15.00 per hour
-January 1, 2022 and thereafter = Adjusted annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index
Daly City employers may not include tips,or fringe benefits such as health insurance,vacation,sick leave,or
other benefits to offset or use as a credit towards the employer’s obligation to pay the City’s minimum wage.
Employees are protected from retaliation and may file a civil lawsuit against any employers for any violation of
the ordinance or may file a complaint with the City of Daly City.The City of Daly City will investigate possible
violations and require access to payroll records.Remedies include reinstatement,the payment of back wages
unlawfully withheld,and payment of a civil penalty of $40 for each day the employer was in violation.
Employers must also retain employee records specifying their name, hours worked, and pay rate.
City of Redwood City
In April 2018,the City of Redwood City passed a new minimum wage ordinance increasing the wage to $15
per hour faster than the requirements under state law.Starting on January 1,2019,Redwood City’s minimum
wage increased to $13.50 per hour and applies to all businesses within the geographic boundaries of Redwood
City for any employee who works at least two or more hours per week.
Redwood City’s Minimum Wage schedule is as follows:
-January 1, 2019 = $13.50 per hour
-January 1, 2020 = $15 per hour + CPI
-After 2020 = Adjusted annually based on the regional Consumer Price Index
An employee classified as a “learner”as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No.4-
2001 is to be paid no less than 85%of the applicable Minimum Wage for the first 160 hours of employment.
Thereafter, the applicable Minimum Wage applies.
Fringe benefits such as vacation,health insurance,and paid leave does not offset the employer’s obligation to
pay the City’s minimum wage.In addition,tips and gratuities do not count towards hourly wages.The
minimum wage applies to all businesses located in the City of Redwood City regardless of size.
The City of Redwood City contracts with the City of San José’s Office of Equality Assurance to provide
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 3 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
The City of Redwood City contracts with the City of San José’s Office of Equality Assurance to provide
enforcement for the Minimum Wage Ordinance.However,the City may conduct investigations and request the
City Attorney to subpoena books,papers,and other records.Redwood City highly encourages its businesses to
keep records for three years of each employee.
Penalties may include:
-An administrative citation of $50 for each day and for each employee to whom the violation occurred
-The City may issue an administrative compliance order
-The City may initiative civil action for injunctive relief
-Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney’s fees
-The City may revoke or suspend registration certificates, permits or licenses
City of Belmont
On November 14,2017,the Belmont City Council adopted a Minimum Wage Ordinance increasing the
minimum wage to $15.00 per hour by 2020.
Beginning January 1,2019,all employers who perform at least 2 hours of work per week within the City of
Belmont must pay those employees minimum wages of not less than $13.50 per hour.The minimum wage
requirement applies to adult and minor employees who perform two or more hours per week.Tips and
gratuities do not count as credit towards the minimum wage.Beginning January 1,2021,and annually
thereafter, the Belmont minimum wage will be adjusted on the Regional Consumer Price Index.
Belmont’s Minimum Wage schedule is as follows:
-July 1, 2018 = $12.50
-January 1, 2019 = $13.50
-January 1, 2020 = $15.00
-January 1, 2021 = $15.90
-January 1, 2022 and each following year = Regional CPI Increase, up to 3.5%
The City of Belmont contracts with the City of San José’s Office of Equality Assurance to provide enforcement.
In addition,employees may file a civil lawsuit against their employers for any violation of the ordinance or
may file a complaint with the City of Belmont.The City may investigate and require access to payroll records.
The City will enforce violations of the minimum wage ordinance by ordering reinstatement of employees and
payment of back wages unlawfully withheld.
Business Town Hall Meetings
The City Manager’s office,in coordination with the Economic and Community Development Department,
hosted a series of four Business Town Hall meetings on July 17,2019,June 24,2019,June 27,2019 and June
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 4 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
28, 2019. Two meetings were held in the morning and two in the evening.
The City advertised the town hall meetings through mailers sent to every business license holder citywide.
Approximately 6,000 mailers were sent via U.S.Postal Mail to every business license address.Please see
Attachment 2 for a copy of the mailer.In addition,the non-profit organization Gatepath personally handed out
mailers to every business along Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue.
Further,the City advertised the business town hall meetings on social media platforms including the City’s
Facebook page,the Economic and Community Development Facebook page,NextDoor and the City’s Website
Calendar of Events.The Economic and Community Development department and the City Manager’s office
also provided e-blasts to their distribution lists.Lastly,the City also called businesses along Grand Avenue to
inform them of the business town hall meeting dates.
Representatives from the hotel,restaurant,tobacco retail,and grocer industries participated in the Business
Town Hall meetings.However,despite the above named outreach efforts,fewer than 20 businesses
cumulatively participated.
The City of South San Francisco - Proposed Minimum Wage Ordinance
The proposed minimum wage ordinance increases the City’s minimum wage to $15.00 per hour effective
January 1,2020 for all employees who perform at least two hours of work per week within the geographic
boundaries of the city.Beginning on January 1,2021,and each January thereafter,the minimum wage will
increase by a percentage amount equal to the prior year’s increase,if any,in the Consumer Price Index (CPI)
for San Francisco-Oakland- San José’s as determined by the Department of Labor.
The City will publish and make available to employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate
to take effect January 1 of the following year.In conjunction with the bulletin,the City will by November 1 of
each year make available to employers a notice suitable for posting by employers in the workplace informing
employers of the current minimum wage rate and of their rights.
The employer will also give written notification to each employee of his or her rights under this ordinance.The
City is authorized to prepare and make available to employers in the top three languages spoken by residents of
the City per the U.S. Census Data a notice suitable for posting in the workplace.
The City’s ordinance will not count tips or gratuities as part of the minimum wage for employees.California
law prohibits an employer from using an employee’s tips and gratuities as a credit against any wages due the
employee from the employer.(Labor Code section 351)Thus,employers may not use tips and gratuities to
discount their obligations to pay the minimum wage.
The City’s ordinance will apply to all businesses regardless of size and type of business.While there is not a
special exemption made for employees under the age of 18,per California Industrial Welfare Commission
Order No.4-2001,an employee who is defined as a “learner”shall be paid no less than 85%of the applicable
Minimum Wage for the first 160 hour of employment.Thereafter,the learner shall be paid the applicable
minimum wage. This carve-out may be applied to employees under the age of 18.
The City of South San Francisco may contract with the City of San José’s Office of Equality Assurance to
conduct initial investigations of complaints,resolve complaints,and provide restitution of wages to employees.
Cases where the employer refuses to pay wage restitution are to be administered by the City under an existing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 5 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
administrative enforcement provision set forth in Chapter 1.24.
The City may take any enforcement action set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code to address
violations.An employee may also bring an action against the employer in court to enforce the Minimum Wage
Ordinance seeking remedies such as back pay,reinstatement,injunctive relief,or civil penalties.In addition,to
back wages unlawfully withheld payment of an additional civil penalty in the amount of $50 to each employee
per day in violation.
Business Feedback
Restaurants
Small,independent restaurants oppose raising the minimum wage.Restaurants assert they pay well above the
proposed $15.00 per hour to their “back of the house” employees due to difficulties filling those positions.
Servers paid the state minimum wage of $12 per hour are receiving much more in wages due to tips.
Anecdotally, one restaurant estimated their servers earn up to $40 per hour with tips.
Independently owned restaurants and hotels state that the minimum wage will have a greater impact on small
and medium sized businesses as larger businesses may more easily absorb an increase in wages.
The California Restaurant Association points to the City of Redwood City as an example of unintended
consequences.The California Restaurant Association asserts that their members had to cut labor hours,reduce
operating hours,remove menu items,and delay expanding their businesses.In addition,many businesses began
to explore electronic ordering.
As a result,the California Restaurant Association proposed a shared cost compensation model to “even the
playing field”between tipped and non-tipped employees.The city’s attorneys have reviewed the notion of
crediting tips as a portion of wages and found that California law prohibits an employer from using an
employee’s tips and gratuities as a credit toward its obligation to pay the minimum wage.
Grocers
The grocery industry employs part time employees under the age of 18.A cashier must be 18 years or older in
order to sell alcohol,therefore the positions minors currently hold include tasks such as cleaning,bagging,or
cart returners.If a $15 minimum wage is implemented,then the grocer will terminate those positions held by
minors in order to hire a cashier at $15 per hour.Other benefits such as a 401K and yearly raises may no longer
be offered to full time,long term employees.The grocer would like to see a slower ramp up period aligned with
the state mandate.In addition,the grocer would like to provide a provision for “learners”in order to be able to
employ those with little or no experience.
Hotels
Hotel owners assert that a $1 increase is really much more when a business accounts for benefits such as
worker’s compensation and health care.For those employees without employer-based health care,many are
refusing to work more hours for fear of losing their Medi-Cal benefits.In addition,many businesses are losing
their employees to the “gig” economy.
Additionally,they assert housing as the root of all of these problems.Rising rents are causing the talent pool to
shrink.Many owners are now filling vacancies themselves because they cannot fill positions.Businesses
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 6 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
shrink.Many owners are now filling vacancies themselves because they cannot fill positions.Businesses
believe raising the minimum wage will exacerbate this problem by leading to higher living costs.
The proposed effective date of January 1,2020 is reported as too soon for all businesses.Businesses would
prefer a more phased in approach similar to the City of San Mateo.More incremental increases over a longer
ramp up period was favored among businesses.
A Note about Tips and Gratuities
California Labor Code section 351 prohibits employers from keeping any portion of a gratuity left for
employees by a patron.Specifically,it prohibits employers from using such gratuities as a credit against any
wages due to the employee.Instead,state law requires employees to receive the minimum wage and any tips or
gratuities left from them by business patrons.The law further states that gratuities are the “sole property”of the
employee or employees to whom they are given.It is illegal for employers to make wage deductions from
gratuities as direct or indirect credits against an employee’s wages.Additionally,if patrons pay gratuity without
deducting any credit card payment processing fees or costs that may be charged to the employer by the credit
card company.Gratuity payments made by credit cards must be paid to the employees by the next regular
payday.
If employers include tips or gratuities as part of the minimum wage,employees may file a wage claim with the
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (the Labor Commissioner’s Office)or they may file a lawsuit again
their employers to recover the lost wages.
Competing Minimum Wage Ordinances
City of South San Francisco employers are subject to Federal,State,and the City of South San Francisco
minimum wage laws.When there are conflicts in the laws,the employer must follow the strictest standard,
meaning the employers must follow the standard that is the most favorable to the employee.Since the City of
South San Francisco ordinance is higher than federal and state law,covered employers are required to pay the
City’s minimum wage.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the Council introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code relating to a citywide minimum wage ordinance, and waive further reading.
FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated financial impact to the City of South San Francisco is $20,000 per year,which includes $10,000
for the printing and mailing of minimum wage collateral and an estimated $10,000 to use the Office of Equality
Assurance as an investigative and enforcement agency.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Implementation of a Minimum Wage Ordinance citywide meets strategic plan initiative of providing a high
quality of life.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code increasing the minimum wage citywide to $15 per hour effective January 1,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 7 of 8
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-651 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14.
2020, and waive further reading.
Attachments:
1.Matrix of Minimum Wage Ordinances
2.Business Town Hall Mailer
3.Minimum Wage PowerPoint Presentation
Associations:
SR 19-437 Minimum Wage Ordinance
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 8 of 8
powered by Legistar™
MINIMUM WAGE
Raises the Minimum Wage citywide
for all businesses to $15 per hour.
SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO
AND E-CIGARETTES
Prohibits the sale of flavored
tobacco and e-cigarettes in any
business in South San Francisco with
the exception of adult only (21+)
tobacco retailers.
DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE
Prohibits the distribution of
disposable food service ware
including plastic straws, plastic
stirrers, and other plastic accessories
by all food service providers.
Please contact the City Manager’s Office at
(650)829-6616 for more information.
BusinessCommunit y,
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
The City of South San Francisco is
proposing some changes to the
minimum wage, the sale of flavored
tobacco and e-cigarettes, and the
use of disposable plastic food
service ware.
BusinessCommunit y,
WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU!
JOIN THE CONVERSATION ON
MINIMUM WAGE,
FLAVORED TOBACCO, AND
PLASTIC FOOD SERVICE WARE!
YOU ARE INVITED TO ATTEND ONE OF THE BELOW
MEETINGS THAT WORKS WITH YOUR SCHEDULE!
DATE : Monday, June 17 at 9:00 a.m.
Monday, June 24 at 5:00 p.m.
Thursday, June 27 at 5:00 p.m.
Friday, June 28 at 11:00 a.m.
PLACE : 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco
Council Chambers
PRSRT STDU.S. PostagePAIDSan Bruno, CAPermit #138
City Manager’s Office
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
CITY HALL
Minimum Wage
City of South San Francisco
1
Background
State Law
Local Efforts
City Council Study Sessions
Business Outreach
Introduction of an Ordinance
Proposed Ordinance
$15 per hour -all employers
CPI adjusted annually –2021+
Effective January 1, 2020
“Learners”
Learners
“Employees during their first 160 hours of
employment in occupations in which they have no
previous similar or related experience, may be
paid not less than 85% of the minimum wage.”
If the minimum wage is $15:
•Learner: $12.75 per hour for the first 160 hours
(4 weeks FT)
Next Steps
2nd reading –September 25, 2019
Effective: January 1, 2020
Questions and Answers
Thank You
Christina Fernandez
Assistant to the City Manager
Christina.Fernandez@ssf.net
650-829-6616
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-437 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14a.
Ordinance adding Chapter 8.70 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code relating to a citywide minimum
wage.
WHEREAS, the State of California has enacted a minimum wage that will reach $15.00 per hour in June of
2022; and
WHEREAS, in an effort to help working households achieve economic security and acknowledging the higher
relative cost of living on the Peninsula, the City Council wishes to enact a citywide minimum wage to reach
$15.00 per hour before 2022; and
WHEREAS, a higher minimum wage rate protects the public health, safety, and welfare by requiring that
employees are compensated in such a manner as to enable and facilitate their individual self-reliance within the
City of South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco may adopt a higher minimum wage pursuant to the powers vested
in the City under the laws and Constitution of the State of California, including but not limited to the police
powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7, of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, based upon the recitals above, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments are necessary
for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare of employees within the City; and
WHEREAS, based on all of the information presented at the July 22, 2019 City Council meeting, both written
and oral, including without limitation the public comment, staff reports, minutes, and other relevant materials
(hereafter the “Record”), the City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines because the
activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and
Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because the activity is not a “project” as defined in Section 15378
of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment,
directly or indirectly.
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:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-437 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14a.
SECTION 1.Incorporation of Recitals.
The City Council of South San Francisco finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 2.Amendments
Chapter 8.70 is hereby added to 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.
Chapter 8.70 Minimum Wage
Section 8.70.010 Title and Purpose
Section 8.70.020 Definitions
Section 8.70.030 Minimum Wage
Section 8.70.040 Notice and Posting
Section 8.70.050 Implementation
Section 8.70.060 Enforcement
Section 8.70.070 No Preemption of Higher Standard
Section 8.70.010 Title and Purpose
This ordinance shall be known as the "Minimum Wage Ordinance."
The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the public health, safety and welfare. It does this by requiring that
employees are compensated by their employers or respective subcontractors in such a manner as to enable and
facilitate their individual self-reliance within the City of South San Francisco.
Section 8.70.020 Definitions
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) “Calendar week” shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday.
(b) “City” means the City of South San Francisco.
(c) “Employee” means any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City
for an employer; and
(2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the
California Minimum Wage law, as provided by the State of California Industrial Welfare Commission.
(d) “Employer” means any person (including a natural person, corporation, non-profit corporation, general
partnership limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-437 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14a.
trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality or any other legal or commercial entity, whether
domestic or foreign) who directly or indirectly (including through the services of a temporary services or
staffing agency or similar entity) employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of
any Employee.
(x) “Learner” shall mean an employee who is a Learner as defined by California Welfare Commission Order
No. 4-2001.
(e) “Minimum wage” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 8.76.020 of this chapter.
Section 8.70.030 Minimum Wage
(a) Employers shall pay Employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in this Chapter for each hour
worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.
(b) On January 1, 2020, the Minimum Wage shall be an hourly rate of fifteen dollars ($15.00).
(c) Beginning on January 1, 2021, and each January thereafter, the minimum wage shall increase by a
percentage amount equal to the prior year’s increase , if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San
Francisco-Oakland-San Jose as determined by the United States Department of Labor. The change shall be
calculated by using the August to August change in the CPI to calculate the annual increase, if any, and rounded
to the nearest nickel. A decrease in the CPI shall not result in a decrease in the minimum wage.
(d) An Employer may not deduct an amount from wages due an Employee on account of any tip or gratuity, or
credit the amount or any part thereof, of a tip or gratuity, against, or as part of, the wages due the Employee
from the Employer.
(x) An Employer must pay an Employee who is a Learner no less than 85 percent of the City Minimum Wage
for the first 160 hours of employment. Thereafter, the Employer must pay the Learner Employee the City
Minimum Wage.
(e) All requirements and provisions of this Chapter shall be preempted and ineffective if the State minimum
wage is or becomes greater than the minimum wage established by this Chapter.
Section 8.70.040 Notice and Posting
(a) Following the effective date of this ordinance, the City shall publish and make available to employers a
bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate, to take effect January 1 of the following year. In
conjunction with this bulletin, the City shall, by January 1 of each year, publish and make available to
employers a notice suitable for posting by employers in the workplace informing employees of the current
minimum wage rate and of their rights under this chapter.
(b) Each employer shall give written notification to each current employee, and to each new employee at time
of hire, of his or her rights under this chapter. Failure to post such notice shall constitute a violation of this
chapter. Employers’ use of such notice shall constitute compliance with this subsection.
(c) The City is authorized to prepare and make available to employers, in the top three (3) languages spoken by
residents of the City as determined by the City Manager or designee after reviewing the most recent United
States Census Data, a notice suitable for posting by employers in the workplace informing employees of the
current minimum wage rate and of their rights under this Chapter.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-437 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14a.
Section 8.70.050 Implementation
The City Manager, or designee, may promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement of this
chapter. Any regulation promulgated by the City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by
employers, employees, and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any
regulations may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this
chapter, for monitoring employee compliance with this chapter, and for providing administrative hearings or
determining whether an employer has violated the requirements of this chapter.
Section 8.70.060 Enforcement
(a) Enforcement by the City. A violation of this Chapter by an employer may be remedied by any means
available to remedy a violation of this Code.
(b) Private Right of Action. An employee claiming harm from a violation of this chapter may bring an action
against the employer in court to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies
available to correct any violation of this chapter, including, but not limited to, back pay, reinstatement,
injunctive relief, or civil penalties as provided herein. An employee who is a prevailing party in an action to
enforce this chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and costs.
(c) Remedies. The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to:
(1) Reinstatement, the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and payment of an additional sum
as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) to each employee whose rights under this
chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines
imposed pursuant to other provisions of state law.
(2) Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interested specified in subdivision (b) of Section
3289 of the California Civil Code, as amended by state law, which shall accrue from the date that the
wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the
California Labor Code, as amended by state law, to the date the wages are paid in full.
(3) Reimbursement of the City’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney fees. The
remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to
be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be
pursued to address violations of this chapter.
(d) Retention of Records. Each employer shall maintain for at least three (3) years for each employee, a record
of his or her name, hours worked and pay rate. Each employer shall provide each employee with a copy of the
records relating to such employee upon the employee's reasonable request.
Section 8.70.070 No Preemption of Higher Standard
Violation of, or noncompliance with, any of the requirements of this chapter or applicable provisions of this
code, shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the City’s Municipal Code.
In addition, the City may enforce the violation of this chapter by means of civil enforcement through a
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-437 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:14a.
restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction or by any other means authorized by the law.
SECTION 3.Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the
remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
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 8/29/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-680 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15.
Report regarding an Ordinance adding Chapter 2.81 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code establishing a
Traffic Safety Commission.(Sarah Henricks, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce an Ordinance adding Chapter 2.81 to the South San
Francisco Municipal Code establishing a Traffic Safety Commission, and waive further reading.
DISCUSSION
The City of South San Francisco (“City”)Municipal Code currently includes a three-member Parking Place
Commission (PPC),which provides recommendations to the City Council and staff on the acquisition,
administration,maintenance,operation,management and enforcement of the rules governing parking spaces
and parking lots located within Parking District No.1,encompassing most of the downtown business district.
The duties of the PPC are set forth in the California Streets and Highway Code,Sections 35100,et seq.,also
known as the Parking District Law of 1951.
During a recent Boards and Commissions recruitment,the City Council expressed an interest in exploring the
possibility of expanding the role of the PPC.At a May 22,2019 Study Session,the City Attorney presented an
analysis of the Parking District Law and pointed out that there is no language in state law that explicitly permits
a parking place commission to assume additional duties beyond those specified in the Streets and Highway
Code.The City Attorney did however state that the City could provide the members of the PPC with more
duties by forming a new commission composed of those commissioners and additional appointees.The new
commission would assume any additional duties beyond parking district oversight set forth in the Parking
District Law.
Upon direction from the City Council,staff has prepared an Ordinance establishing a five (5)member Traffic
Safety Commission (TSC)that will be composed of the three (3)members of the PPC with two (2)additional at
-large members.Staff proposes that meetings of the TSC immediately follow the PPC meetings to avoid
scheduling conflicts and to ensure staff and commissioner attendance efficiency.The terms of appointing the
two (2)at-large commissioners would mirror those of the PPC for efficient and consistent administration of
appointments:three-year terms with a four consecutive term limit.Comments from the City Council suggested
that this combination of Parking Place Commissioners and two (2)at-large members would be ideal to provide
greater responsibility to the Parking Place Commissioners while providing community members a forum to
voice their thoughts and concerns regarding traffic issues and potential solutions.
Staff modeled the duties of the TSC on those outlined in the Cities of San Bruno and Burlingame ordinances
establishing their own Traffic Safety and Parking Commissions.Staff proposes giving the TSC a broader
subject matter for study and consideration,including,but not limited to policy,programming,improvements,
operation,and maintenance of traffic facilities throughout the City.As an advisory body to City staff,major
TSC duties include (1)providing a venue for the public to bring traffic related concerns,questions,or
suggestions to the City,(2)providing recommendations to staff on traffic improvements,and (3)suggesting
design and improvement techniques for lighting and traffic flow on City streets,among others.The proposed
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-680 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15.
ordinance provides a more detailed description of proposed duties.
Otherwise,the proposed ordinance models the structure of the TSC after those of the PPC under SSFMC
Chapter 2.64, including term limits and compensation to commissioners.
Creating a TSC with an expanded purview focused on traffic safety,while maintaining the specific parking
district oversight of the PPC ensures that the PPC properly exercises its explicit authority granted by the
Parking District Law. It also gives the City a new forum for exploring broader traffic related issues.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the administration of this commission as the printing of agenda
packets and staff-time to prepare agenda materials and meetings is nominal and can be absorbed into the regular
operating budget.
However,as outlined below,there is potential fiscal impact based on the compensation to be paid to
commissioners under the proposed ordinance.This impact could vary depending on whether the City Council
adopts the compensation structure as-is or amends it.
As currently drafted,all TSC commissioner would receive a $50 stipend for each regular meeting attended
under the proposed ordinance.This would result in an annual impact of approximately $3,000 based on the
compensation paid to all five (5) commissioners.
In the alternative,the City Council may determine that only the two (2)at-large members would be paid the
$50 stipend,and the three (3)PPC Commissioners who also serve on the TSC would not.If so determined,then
the annual fiscal impact would be approximately $1,200 based on the compensation paid only to the two (2)at-
large members.
Finally,if the City Council determines that no TSC commissioners would be paid a stipend,then there would
be no fiscal impact.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Establishing a Traffic Safety Commission supports the City’s Strategic Plan to improve Community
Connections by encouraging and supporting citizen engagement through service on Boards or Commissions.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and waive further reading f an Ordinance adding Chapter
2.81 to the South San Francisco Municipal Code.This ordinance would establish a Traffic Safety Commission
to ensure the Parking Place Commission retains its current roles and duties established by the Parking District
Law, while creating a separate, overlapping commission focused on broader traffic related issues.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Establishing a Traffic Safety Commission
City Council Regular Meeting
August 28,2019
Timeline
•February 25 and 26, 2019 –Boards and Commission Recruitment –
Council request for discussion of composition and duties of Parking
Place Commission, Personnel Board, and Conference Center
Authority
•May 22, 2019 –presentation from CAO detailing limitations on
expansion of PPC duties, but possibility of including current PPC
members in new Commission
•August 28, 2019 –presentation of ordinance establishing new Traffic
Safety Commission, to include participation by the PPC members
and two additional at-large members
Composition of Traffic Safety Commission
The 5-member body of the TSC would be made up of the
following:
•The Parking Place Commission (3 members)
•At -large member (2 members)
Terms:
•Three-year terms, and until a successor is appointed and qualified
•Four consecutive term limit
Main duties of Transportation Safety Commission
•Provide venue for public to bring traffic related concerns, questions, or
suggestions
•Provide recommendations to staff on traffic improvements
•Suggest design and improvement techniques for lighting and traffic flow
on city streets
•Receive complaints on traffic matters
•Make recommendations to staff on the design, establishment or
enactment of traffic facilities
Commission Stipend Options
1.Issue all 5 members a $50 stipend/regular meeting attended (as
currently written) -$3,000 annually
2.Issue 2 at-large members a $50 stipend/regular meeting attended -
$1,200 annually
3.Issue no stipend to any members of the Commission -$0 annually
Questions?
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15a.
Ordinance adding Chapter 2.81 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code establishing a Traffic Safety
Commission.
WHEREAS,the City desires to establish by ordinance a Traffic Safety Commission (“TSC”)to advise and
make recommendations to City staff on topics such as traffic and safety of motor vehicles,generally,and on the
design and improvement of, including lighting of, traffic flow on any public streets; and
WHEREAS,the City desires that the TSC be comprised of the three members of the Parking Place Commission
and two members at large; and
WHEREAS,the two additional members of the TSC shall be residents and qualified electors of the City,whose
business experience and ability reasonably assure that the affairs of the City will be administered in the interests
of the City; and
WHEREAS, the TSC Commissioners shall be appointed by the City Council; and
WHEREAS,the Parking Place Commissioners serve a term of three years with a four consecutive term limit
and a term is defined as three years plus one day; and
WHEREAS,the members of the TSC shall be subject to the same limitation of terms,and definition of a
complete term for efficient administration of appointments and consistency with the Parking Place
Commission; and
WHEREAS,the TSC shall serve as an advisory commission and make recommendations to City staff on
policy,programming,improvements,operation,maintenance,accessibility,and usage of the City’s streets and
roadways as it pertains to traffic; and
WHEREAS,based on all of the information presented at the ______,2019 City Council meeting,both written
and oral,including without limitation the public comment,staff reports,minutes,and other relevant materials
(hereafter the “Record”),the City Council finds that under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and 15061(b)(3),
this Ordinance amendment does not constitute a project under CEQA as it is an organizational structure change
that will not result in any direct or indirect physical change in the environment and therefore review under
CEQA is not required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060.
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:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15a.
SECTION 1. Amendments
The City Council hereby makes the findings contained in this Ordinance and adds Chapter 2.81 to the
Municipal Code to read as follows.
Chapter 2.81 Traffic Safety Commission
Section 2.81.010 Established-Member appointments
Section 2.81.020 Terms
Section 2.81.030 Limitation of terms; Vacancies
Section 2.81.040 Chairperson, chairperson pro tem, and secretary
Section 2.81.050 Meetings
Section 2.81.060 Compensation
Section 2.81.070 Commission role and responsibilities
Section 2.81.080 Clerk’s duties
Section 2.81.010 Established-Member appointments
The Traffic Safety Commission is established.The City Council shall appoint the Commission members.The
Commission shall consist of five (5)members who,at the time of their appointment and continuously through
their incumbency,must reside within the City of South San Francisco.Three (3)of the members shall be
comprised of members of the Parking Place Commission as appointed by the City Council and two (2)of the
members shall be at-large.The at-large members shall have a demonstrated interest in traffic facilities and
planning.In selecting the at-large members,the City Council shall strive to maintain geographic representation
of South San Francisco’s neighborhoods.
Section 2.81.020 Terms
Except as provided in Section 2.81.030 below,the term of each member of the Commission shall be three years
and until a successor is appointed and qualified.Terms shall be staggered and shall expire in even-numbered
years.
Section 2.81.030 Limitation of terms; Vacancies
Commission members shall be limited to four consecutive terms.For purposes of calculating consecutive
terms,service of eighteen months plus one day during a term shall be counted as a complete term;all prior
continuous service of existing Commission members shall be counted.Upon serving the maximum number of
consecutive terms,a Commission member shall not be eligible for re-appointment to the Traffic Safety
Commission for a period of two years.If a vacancy occurs on the Commission,the City Council shall appoint
an individual to serve the remaining unexpired term of the former incumbent.
Section 2.81.040 Chairperson, chairperson pro tem, and secretary
(a)At the first meeting of each calendar year,the Commission shall elect a chairperson and a chairperson pro
tem.The term of said offices shall be one year.The chairperson pro tem shall serve in the absence of the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15a.
tem.The term of said offices shall be one year.The chairperson pro tem shall serve in the absence of the
chairperson.
(b)The person serving as the Public Works Deputy Director or their designee shall serve as the secretary of the
Commission. The secretary shall keep a correct record of all proceedings and meetings.
Section 2.81.050 Meetings
(a)The Commission shall meet on the second Tuesday of each month,immediately following completion of
the Parking Place Commission meeting,which begins at 5:00 p.m.,in the Corporation Yard Conference Room,
550 North Canal Street,South San Francisco,California,94080.A majority of the Commission members shall
constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.All meetings shall be open to the public.Legal notice of an
emergency meeting shall be given at least twenty-four hours prior to the time of the meeting.If a meeting is set
for the regular meeting place of the Commission,or duly noticed for an alternate meeting place,and because of
necessity or emergency,the Commission is required to meet in another place within the corporate limits of the
City,then the secretary shall appear at the regular or alternate meeting place,whichever is the case,at the time
set for the meeting,and publicly announce the new meeting place and post a notice of same on the door of the
regular meeting place.Notices of all meetings,except regular meetings,shall be served on each commission
member and to each person who has requested notice in writing of such meetings,at least twenty-four hours
prior to the time specified for the proposed meeting.Notices shall comply with Government Code Section
54950 et seq., also referred to as the Ralph M. Brown Act.
(b)If the day designated as a regular,adjourned regular,special or study meeting falls upon a legal holiday,the
Commission shall meet upon the next succeeding day which is not a holiday,unless otherwise ordered by the
Commission.
Section 2.81.060 Compensation
Commission members shall receive for their services compensation in the amount of fifty dollars for each
regular meeting actually attended.
Section 2.81.070 Commission role and responsibilities
The Traffic Safety Commission shall be an advisory body to City staff on matters relating to traffic facilities
and planning.The fundamental responsibility of the Traffic Safety Commission shall be to advise and make
recommendations to City staff on policy,programming,improvements,operation,and maintenance of traffic
facilities throughout the City.The Commission’s role is to advise and make recommendations to City staff on
traffic safety of motor vehicles generally. These duties include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)Providing a venue for the public to bring traffic related concerns, questions, or suggestions to the City.
(b)Suggesting the most practicable means for coordinating the activities of all officers and agencies of the
City responsible for the administration or enforcement of traffic regulations.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15a.
(c)Suggesting design and improvement of, including lighting of, or traffic flow on any public streets.
(d)Receiving complaints regarding traffic matters.
(e)Recommending to relevant City staff for further review methods of improvement of traffic conditions.
(f)Recommending to relevant City staff for further review the designation,establishments,or enactment of
any of the following:
a.One-way streets,
b.Main arterial highway through streets,
c.Intersections at which vehicles are required to stop at one or more entrances thereto,
d.Railroad grade crossings at which vehicles are required to stop,
e.Areas in which parking or stopping is prohibited or restricted on streets or portions thereof,or on
parking lots,
f.Streets as to which commercial vehicles with gross weight of 6,000 pounds or more are
restricted,
g.Streets or portions thereof where the maximum speed limit shall be in excess of or less than the
speed limit which would otherwise be established by state law,based upon engineering and traffic
investigations,
h.The enactment of any other necessary traffic control deemed appropriate.
Section 2.81.080 Clerk’s duties
(a)The City Clerk shall establish and maintain a record of the names,addresses,telephone numbers,dates
of appointment and dates of termination of each commissioner,and the names of the chairperson,
chairperson pro tem, and the dates of their election and termination of service in those offices.
(b)The Clerk shall give the council written notice of the expiration of a commissioner’s term sixty days
prior thereto.
SECTION 2.Severability
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,the
remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be
affected thereby.
SECTION 3.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
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-681 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:15a.
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.
*****
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the __th day of ___
2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/29/2019Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-717 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:16.
Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue
emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement Project.(Sharon Ranals, Assistant City
Manager/Parks and Recreation Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution determining the continued existence of an
emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay)Field Light
Replacement Project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In April 2019,City staff determined there exists an emergency need for the removal and replacement of a 70-
foot tall athletic field light pole was damaged at Hillside (Terrabay)Ballfield,located at 1400 Hillside
Boulevard.This pole was damaged severely during the winter storms in the early months of 2019.The base of
the pole was compromised,resulting in a significant lean.The steel pole,fatigued from bending,presents a
hazardous condition in the event it were to fall.For this reason,the portion of the field within the pole’s fall
zone was and remains fenced with chain link construction fencing.Because the safety fencing encompasses
nearly all of left field,the field has not been made available for youth baseball or adult softball,however the
youth soccer field to the south is not within the fall zone and remains open for league play and public use.The
pole currently remains in a leaning position and is a significant hazard for public health and safety in the event
it collapses over the field.
Upon determining there exists an emergency need for the removal and replacement of the pole given the
potential for the pole to fail and harm a park visitor,City staff informally solicited bids for the project,with
only one contractor,Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.(“Interstate Grading”)submitting a bid.Staff actively
solicited bids from several other contractors,however,all of them declined the project due to the size of the
pole and the specialized equipment and expertise needed for a project of this scale.
The bid received from Interstate Grading was $105,430.A subsequent contract change order was received in
the amount of $4,700 due to the increased size and material needed for the engineered foundation,for a total
project cost of $110,130.Since the pole was damaged during a storm,the city’s liability insurance policy with
York Risk Services is expected to cover the cost of the replacement, excluding a $5,000 deductible.
In May 2019,the replacement pole was ordered.The replacement pole must be custom fabricated in order to
match the height and light spread of the existing poles at the field,which are decades old.For this reason,the
pole fabrication period was expected to take 12 weeks.Energy-efficient LED lamps will be mounted on the
pole in lieu of the existing inefficient metal halide lamps.
Mobilization and construction of the new concrete foundation is scheduled to begin the week of August 26,
2019.Once the concrete cures for approximately two weeks,the pole will be installed.Following
demobilization,those portions of the field damaged from heavy equipment will be remediated by Interstate
Grading and Paving,Inc.This work includes minor grading,irrigation repairs,and reseeding of turfed areas.City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-717 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:16.
Grading and Paving,Inc.This work includes minor grading,irrigation repairs,and reseeding of turfed areas.
This damaged portion of the field will remain closed until the turf has established,a process that typically takes
three to four months.
Public Contract Code section 22050 authorizes the City Council to take any directly related and immediate
action required by an emergency to repair or replace a public facility,and to procure the necessary equipment,
services,and supplies without procuring such contracts through the competitive bidding process.Section 22050
(b)further permits the City Council to delegate such emergency authority to the City Manager,by a four-fifths
vote.The City Council is required under state law to periodically review the emergency action to determine that
the emergency continues to exist and the action continues to be necessary.
On September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution delegating authority to the City Manager to
order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of
Section 22050.Pursuant to that authority,the City Council is being asked at this time to conduct its periodic
review required by state law,and determine that the emergency situation continues to exist and it is necessary
for the City to continue to contract with Interstate Grading for the fabrication and repair of the pole.
At this time,the pole remains in a fragile and hazardous condition,and if the work is terminated now and the
project is subject to applicable bidding procedures,the additional time that it takes to locate a new contractor
willing to undertake the project,fabricate a customized pole,and allowing time for the contractor to commence
installation would prolong the dangerous and hazardous condition in which the pole currently stands.
Therefore,staff recommends that the City Council continue to determine that the emergency exists and the
emergency action, undertaken pursuant to the City Manager’s delegated authority, remains necessary.
Staff will continue to monitor the condition of the remaining poles,and may recommend replacement of the
pole or components thereof as part of a future capital improvement program.
FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the replacement pole,electrical connections,lamps and concrete foundation is $110,130,and will
be subject to reimbursement through the York Risk Management,the City’s liability insurance provider.The
deductible for this policy is $5,000,which will be funded by the Parks and Recreation Department’s operating
budget.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution determining the continued existence of an
emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs for the Hillside (Terrabay)Field Light Replacement
Project.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 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 #:19-722 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:16a.
Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs
for the Hillside (Terrabay) Field Light Replacement Project.
WHEREAS,on September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution delegating authority to the City
Manager to order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and
restrictions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050; and
WHEREAS,in April 2019,City staff determined there exists an emergency need for the removal and
replacement of a 70-foot tall athletic field light pole was damaged at Hillside (Terrabay)Ballfield,located at
1400 Hillside Boulevard, South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS,the pole was damaged severely during the 2019 winter storms,resulting in damages to its base and
causing it to lean significantly over a large portion of the ballfield; and
WHEREAS,the pole currently remains in a leaning position and poses a significant hazard for public health
and safety in the event it collapses over the field,and the ballfield has remained closed with chain link
construction fencing; and
WHEREAS,City staff informally solicited bids for replacement of the pole and related repair work,and
received one response from Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc.; and
WHEREAS,all other contractors contacted by staff have declined the replacement work due to the size of the
pole and the specialized equipment and expertise needed for a project of such scale; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the City Manager’s delegated authority under Public Contract Code section 22050,a
contract was executed with Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.for the emergency repair and replacement of the
pole; and
WHEREAS,to date,the replacement pole has been ordered but due to the pole needing to be fabricated and
customized to match existing ballfield light pole height and light spread,the fabrication was expected to take up
to twelve weeks but expected to be completed by August 2019; and
WHEREAS,Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.will begin re-installing new concrete foundation the week of
August 26, 2019, and thereafter will install the replacement pole; and
WHEREAS,Public Contract Code Section 22050 requires the City Council to periodically review an
emergency action taken pursuant to the City Manager’s delegated authority and determine that the emergency
continues to exist and the emergency action remains necessary; and
WHEREAS,although the pole currently remains in a leaning position,it is still an extremely dangerousCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-722 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:16a.
WHEREAS,although the pole currently remains in a leaning position,it is still an extremely dangerous
condition for the public and additional emergency repair work is still needed to eliminate the dangerous
conditions; and
WHEREAS,if the work is terminated now and the project is subject to applicable bidding procedures,the
additional time that it takes to locate a new contractor willing to undertake the project,fabricate a customized
pole,and allowing time for the contractor to commence installation would prolong the dangerous condition in
which the pole currently stands.
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20168,the public interest and necessity
demanded the immediate commencement of the above-described work at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in the
City and the expenditure of public money for such work to safeguard life, health and property; and
B.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and the authority delegated by the
City Council on September 12,2018,and based on substantial evidence as set forth in the staff report prepared
concerning this resolution,and as set forth in this resolution,establishes that the City Manager was authorized
to order emergency repair work for the hazardous and threatening condition at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in
the City,and was authorized to execute a contract with Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.for such work;the
above-described emergency conditions and work would not permit additional delay resulting from competitive
solicitation for bids due to the pole’s condition and the lack of any contractors willing to undertake the project
except Interstate Grading and Paving,Inc.,and such work continues to be necessary to respond to the
emergency conditions at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field and remediate the hazardous condition that the light pole
is in; and
C.Terminating the emergency repair project now and let the remaining work at the Hillside
(Terrabay)Field to competitive bidding would jeopardize public health,safety and welfare;risk additional
damage to public and private property;and result in the public incurring additional expense,including,but not
limited to,additional expense due to delay and further damage.Therefore,it remains that competitive bidding
of such work would not produce an advantage for the public; and
D.The emergency work authorized at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field in the City continues to be
statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, subparagraphs (b) and (c).
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby does resolve,by at least a
four-fifths vote, as follows:
1.The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City Council of the
City of South San Francisco.
2.The City Council determines that the emergency conditions at the Hillside (Terrabay)Field threatening
public health and safety continue to exist and thus determines that the emergency repair work continues to be
necessary to address the hazardous and threatening condition of the pole and related repairs.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-722 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:16a.
3.City staff is directed,in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1),to place
on future regular agendas of the City Council an item concerning the contracts authorized pursuant to this
resolution so that the City Council may determine,by at least a four-fifths vote,whether there is a need to
continue the emergency work described above or whether such work may be terminated.
4.This resolution shall become effective immediately.
5.Each portion of this resolution is severable.Should any portion of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction,then the remaining resolution portions shall be
and continue in full force and effect,except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.The
City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section,subsection,clause,
sentence,phrase and other portion thereof,irrespective of the fact that one or more section,subsection,clause
sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-561 Agenda Date:8/28/2019
Version:1 Item #:17.
Designation of Voting Delegates and Alternates in advance of the League of CA Cities Annual Conference
October 16-18 (Mayor Matsumoto)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/30/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
ro address the City Council, please complete this card and submit
t to the City Clerk
ipeaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
'lease iudWate which item you'd like to speak on:
%Public Comments, or
')_ r Agenda Item — 1 4
Jame: Z Irl 5 Anic Date: g 2
'ronounced
iddress (optional
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and submit
it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which items you'd like to speak on:
1 Public Comments, or
Agenda Item I Q
Name: �A Iv � E'1'`� Date $ Z� q
Pronounced:
Address (optional
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and submit
it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
Public Comments, or
L
Agenda Item '
Name: Cam' Date: �/d`U
Pronounced: l ( P CL—
Address (optional)
CIT)r' OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD ''%�,
To address the City Council, please complete this card and submit
it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
t) Z. Public Comments, or
2) Agenda Item
/1
Name: Ed 4k.
Date:
Pronounced:
Address (optional)