HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-08-24 e-packet
AGENDA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005
7:00 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you Inay know our method of conducting Agency
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of
each month at 7:00p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South
San Francisco, California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please
complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the COlmnunity Room and submit it to the Clerk.
Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public COlnment.
California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circmnstances). Your question or probleln 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 COlne to the podium, state your name and address for
the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for
your cooperation.
The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Board action.
RAYMOND L. GREEN
Chair
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Vice Chair
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR.
Boardmember
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Boardmember
KARYLMATSUMOTO
Boarrunember
RICHARD BATTAGLIA
Investment Officer
SYLVIA M. PAYNE
Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
Executive Director
STEVEN T. MATTAS
Counsel
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMP AIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2005
2. Motion to confinn expense clailns of August 24, 2005
3. Resolution declaring intention to reilnburse redevelopment capital expenditures from the
proceeds of obligations to be issued by the Redevelopment Agency
4. Resolution authorizing execution of purchase and sale agreelnent for property located at
714 Linden Avenue at a price not to exceed the appraised value of $862,000
5. Resolution authorizing execution of contract services agreement with Seifel Consulting
Inc. to prepare and draft a fiscal consultant's report related to issuance of tax allocation
bonds in an amount not to exceed $60,000
6. Motion to cancel the regular lneeting of Septelnber 14, 2005
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 24, 2005
PAGE 2
Redevelopment Age cy
Staff Report RDAAGENDAITEM#3
DATE: . August 24,2005
TO: Redevelopment Agency Board
FROM: Jim Steele, Financial Officer
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO REII\1BURSE THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FROM THE PROCEEDS OF TAX EXEMPT DEBT FOR EXPENDITURES MADE
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THAT DEBT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board' (the Agency) approve the attached
resolution, which indicates the Board's intent to issue tax-exempt debt in the future, and use those
proceeds to reimburse the Agency in an amount not to exceed $9,250,000.00 for expenditures for
various capital projects that have already been appropriated, but have not yet been spent.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
The Agency is contemplating selling bonds in the next few months to fund a variety of redevelopment
projects, including a major land acquisition in the EI Camino Project Area. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) regulations require that if land is purchased with municipal bonds and is eventually sold to a private
party, then that portion of the land that is eventually sold must be financed with taxable bonds, rather than
tax-exempt bonds. Taxable bonds have a higher interest rate, and therefore higher debt service payments
are required. For example, the difference between a ten-year taxable vs. a comparable tax-exempt
redevelopment bond is roughly 1.0% - 1.25% in higher interest rates.
It is advantageous for the Agency to ,minimize the amount of taxable bonds sold, because the Agency will
have to pay higher debt service costs on taxable bonds. One way to minimize the need to sell taxable
bonds is to use as much cash to purchase the land as possible, rather than bond proceeds.
The City Council has already approved several capital improvement projects funded from tax increments
(cash), not from bonds. They include the projects listed in Exhibit A, incorporated into the attached
Resolution. The attached Resolution will allow the Agency to substitute bond funding for these already
appropriated project~ and use the freed up tax increment (cash) dollars for the potential land purchase, if
the land purchase is successfully completed. Approving the Resolution does not obligate the Agency to
sell bonds or to complete the land purchase; it simply provides more financial flexibility in the future.
Similarly, if the bond sale does not go through for any reason, the cash previously appropriated to
complete the projects listed in Exhibit A will still be in place, so this action does not jeopardize the funds
for those projects in any way.
Staff Report
To: Redevelopment Agency Board
Re: Resolution of Intent to Reimburse the Redevelopment Agency from the Proceeds of Tax
Exempt Debt For Expenditures Made Prior to the Issuance of that Debt
Date: August 24, 2005
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact by adopting this Resolution. Adoption of this resolution will simply
provide the Agency with the additional flexibility to maximize the issuance of tax-exempt debt at the next
bond sale the Agency enters into, and minimize the issuance of taxable bonds. This will save money for
the Agency through lower future debt service payments. No additional dollars are being appropriated as
part of this Resolution, nor is any commitment to sell bonds being made at this time. Any future action to
sell bonds will come back to the City Council and the Agency Board for approval.
~~
By: '--.%/~
Ji~teele
Financial Officer
APproved:~ ( '- ( p
, y. . Nagel
Executi ve Director
ATTACHMENT: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO REDvIBURSE REDEVELOPMENT
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE
ISSUED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("the City") has already
appropriated budgets for several capital projects, shown in Exhibit A and hereby
incorporated as part of this Resolution ("the Projects)"; and
WHEREAS, the construction work on these Projects are not yet complete; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Redevelopment Agency ("the Agency") would find
it advantageous to preserve Redevelopment tax increment dollars, and therefore the
Agency intends to issue debt and to use a portion of the proceeds of such debt to pay for,
or reimburse expenditures made for the projects prior to the issuance of debt; and
WHEREAS, United States Income Tax Regulations section 1.150-2 provides
generally that proceeds of tax-exempt debt are not deemed to be expended when such
proceeds are used for reimbursement of expenditures made prior to the date of issuance
of such debt unless certain procedures are followed, one of which is a requirement that
(with certain exceptions) prior to the payment of any such expenditure, the issuer declares
an intention to reimburse such expenditure; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and for the public benefit that the Agency
declares its official intent to reimburse the expenditures referenced herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
hereby resolves as follows:
1. The Agency intends to issue debt obligations (the "Obligations") for the purpose
of paying or reimbursing the City for paYlnent of the costs of the Projects shown in
Exhibit A.
2. The Agency hereby declares that it reasonably expects to payor that the City will
pay certain costs of the Projects prior to the date of issuance of the Obligations and to use
a portion of the proceeds of the Obligations for reimbursement of expenditures for the
projects that are paid before the date of issuance of the Obligations.
3. The maximum principal amount of Obligations to be issued for the Projects
described herein, and not expended as of August 10, 2005 is $9,250,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency Board hereby declares its intent to
reimburse Redevelopment capital expenditures from the issuance of debt Obligations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a regular
meeting held on the _ day of , 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Exhibit A: Description of the Projects
Description: Estimated Capital Expenditures
Not Expended as of 60 days Prior
to August 24, 2005:
Health Center and IT Building Improvements $500,000
Oak Ave. Extension $2,507,000
Misc. Land Acquisition not for Resale $2,500,000
New Downtown Fire Station l1nprovelnents $3,700,000
Bay Trail Improvements $18,000
Sidewalk Rehabilitation $25,000
TOTAL $9,250,000
'\
edevelopment Agency
Staff eport
RDA AGENDA ITEM #4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 24, 2005
Redevelopment Agency Board
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant Executive Director
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR 714 LINDEN AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the Executive Director to execute a.Purchase.and Sale Agreement for property
located at 714 Linden Avenue. '
"'BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION '
The residential building located at 714 Linden Avenue consists of three apartment units and was
constructed in 1941. The residential property is sited on a lot of 4,573 square feet with a building of
2,856 square feet and a double garage below the units. The property, although sixty-four years old,
has been relatively well maintained. The owner secured a CDBG rehabilitation loan approximately
ten years ago to remodel the building and has also undertaken renovations more recently. The units
are currently occupied by low income families. Upon deciding to sell the property, the owner
contacted City staffbecause she knew the City would take care of the property and not displace the
current tenants. An appraisal was conducted on the property establishing an assessed value of Eight
Hundred and Sixty Two Thousand Dollars ($862,000).
The City Building Inspector has conducted an inspection with Redevelopment Agency staff and
determined there are no items requiring immediate correction and no apparent building code
violations. Over the long term, the residential units would be maintained with improvements made
as needed or as time and resources allow.
On August 18,2005, the Planning Commission found the proposed acquisition to be in conformance
with the City's General Plan as required by State Law.
CONCLUSION
Funds are available in the current Redevelopment Agency budget for this acquisition. The property
would be managed by the Department of Economic and Community Development possibly with a
sub-contract to North Peninsula N ei~borhood Services Center who now manages the Miller Avenue
and Commercial Avenue properties for the Department.
Staff Report
Subject: 714 Linden Avenue Purchase & Sale Agreement
Page 2
Staff recommends the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt the attached Resolution authorizing
the Executive Director to execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the property located at 714
Linden Avenue at a price not to exceed th~ appraised value of$862,OOO.
BY.~
. MartyVanDuyn
Assistant Executive Drrector
Approved:
BMN:MVD:NF
Attachment: Resolution
Purchase and Sale Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO APPROVING THE PURCHASE AND
SALE AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 714 LINDEN
AVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $862,000.
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the Purchase and
Sale Agreement for acquisition of the property located at 714 Linden Avenue in the am<;>unt of
$862,000; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency budget has adequate resources to fund this
acquisition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco that. the Redevelopment Agency hereby approves the Purchase and Sale
agreement for property located at 714 Linden Avenue in the amount of $862,000;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute
the agreement and the certificate of acceptance on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco.
*****
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of August, 2005
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into
effective as of August _, 2005, (the date upon which this Agreement was approved by
Buyer's Board, and hereinafter referred to as the "Effective Date") by and between Luz Icasiano
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Seller") and the South San Francisco RedeveloPl11ent
Agency, a public body, corporate and politic ("Buyer"). Seller and Buyer are hereinafter
referred to as the "Parties."
WHEREAS, Seller is the owner of that certain real property in San Mateo County,
California, known as APN 012-145-430, located at 714 Linden Avenue in the City of South San
Francisco, and more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference (the "Property");.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained herein, Buyer
desires to purchase, and Seller desires to sell, the Property together with all improvements
located thereon and all easements, hereditaments, and appurtenances belonging to or inuring to
the benefit of Seller and pertaining to the Property (all of the foregoing collectively hereinafter,
the "Property");
\
WHEREAS, Buyer is a redevelopment agency existing pursuant to the Community
Redevelopment Law, California Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq., and pursuant to
the authority granted thereunder, Buyer has the responsibility to carry out the Redevelopment
Plan for the Downtown Central Redevelopment Project Area ("Redevelopment Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in an area governed by the Redevelopment Plan, and
the purchase of the Property as provided for in this Agreement is consistent with and furthers the
goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows.
1. A2Teement to Sell and Purchase. Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to purchase
the Property subj ect to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property shall be Eight Hundred Sixty
Two Thousand Dollars ($862,000) ("Purchase Price").
3. Conveyance of Title. At the close of escrow, Seller shall convey by grant deed to
Buyer marketable fee simple title to the Property, free and clear of all recorded and unrecorded
liens, encumbrances, assessments, leases and taxes except:
(a) the provisions and effect of the Redevelopment Plan;
(b) taxes for the fiscal year in which the escrow for this transaction closes, which shall be
602888-4 1
It shall be a condition to the close of escrow that Title Company shall deliver to Buyer,
within five (5) days after Buyer has approved the Preliminary Report pursuant to this Section,
and in no event later than seven (7) days prior to the close of escrow, a title commitment for an
AL T A Owner's Title Insurance Policy ("Title Policy") to be issued by Title Company in the
amount of the Purchase Price for the benefit and protection of Buyer, showing title to the
Property vested in Buyer, subJect only to the Permitted Exceptions, including such endorsements
as may reasonably be requested by Buyer, and committing Title Company to issue the Title
Policy to Buyer upon the close of escrow.
7. Closing Documents and Funds.
(a) Seller.
(A) Within twenty-five (25) days following the opening of escrow, Seller shall
deposit into escrow all of the following:
(i) a Grant Deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B
("Grant Deed"), duly executed and acknowledged, conveying to Buyer good and
marKetable fee simple title to the Property, subject only to exceptions approved
pursuant to this Agreement,
(ii) Seller's affidavit of non-foreign status and Seller's certification that
Seller is a resident of California, each executed by Seller under penalty of perjury
as required by state and federal law; and
(iii) Such additional duly executed instruments and documents as the
Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the transaction
contemplated hereby.
(B) Unless Seller elects to have the following charges deducted from the funds
to be distributed to Seller at close of escrow, no later than one (1) business day prior to
close of escrow, Seller shall deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the
amount necessary to pay:
(i) all governmental conveyance fees and transfer taxes;
(ii) one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and title report costs; and
(iii) one-half of all escrow fees and recording fees.
(b) Buver.
(A) Within twenty-five (25) days following the opening of escrow, Buyer shall
deposit into escrow all of the follovving:
(i) a duly executed Certificate of Acceptance in the form shown in Exhibit
C, as required by California Government Code Section 27281; and
602888-4 3
(ii) such additional duly executed instruments and documents as the
Escrow Agent may reasonably require to consummate the transaction
contemplated hereby.
(B) No less than one (1) business day prior to the close of escrow, Buyer shall
deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the amount, which together with the
Earnest Money Deposit plus interest thereon, if any, is equal to:
(i) the Purchase Price as adjusted by any prorations between the Parties;
and
(ii) one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and title report costs, escrow. fees,
and recording fees.
8. Close of Escrow. The Parties intend to close escrow within thirty-five (35) days
following the date upon which escrow is opened, unless this Agreement is terminated pursuant to
the terms hereof. The Escrow Agent shall close escrow by: (i) causing the Grant Deed to be
recorded in the official records of San Mateo County, California; (ii) issuing the Title Policy and
delivering same to Buyer; (iii) delivering to Seller the monies constituting the Purchase Price less
prorated amounts and charges to be paid by or on behalf of Seller; and (iv) delivering to Buyer
the original Grant Deed, together with a conformed copy thereof indicating ,recording
information thereon. Possession of the Property ,shall be delivered to Buyer at the close of
escrow.
9. Closine Costs. Each Party shall pay one-half (1/2) of all title insurance and title report
costs, escrow fees (including the costs of preparing documents and instruments), and recording
fees. Seller shall pay all governmental conveyance fees and all transfer taxes.
10. Prorations. At the close of escrow, the Escrow Agent shall make the following
prorations: (i) property taxes shall be prorated as of the 'close of escrow based upon the most
recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the close of
escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer;
regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; and (ii) any bond or assessment that
constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow shall be assumed by Buyer.
11. Buver's Conditions to CIosine. The close of escrow and Buyer's obligation to
purchase the Property are conditioned upon: (i) the performance by Seller of each obligation to
be performed by Seller under this Agreement within the applicable time period, or the waiver by
Buyer of such obligation; (ii) Seller's representations and warranties contained in this Agreement
being true and correct as of the Effective Date and the close of escrow; (iii) the commitment by
Title Company to issue and deliver the Title Policy, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions;
and (iv) Buyer's approval of the condition of the Property pursuant to Section 12.
Should any condition to closing fail to occur, excepting any such conditions that have
been waived by Buyer, Buyer shall have the right, exercisable by giving written notice to Seller,
to cancel the escrow, terminate this Agreement, and recover any and all amounts paid by Buyer
602888-4 4
to Seller or deposited with the Escrow Agent by or on behalf of Buyer, including the Earnest
Money Deposit and interest thereon. The exercise of this right by Buyer shall not constitute a
waiver by Buyer of any other rights Buyer may have at law or in equity.
12. Buver's Additional Conditions to Closin2. Buyer's obligation to purchase the
Property is also conditioned upon Buyer's review and approval of the condition of the Property
pursuant to this Section.
(a) Feasibility Studies. During the period commencing on the Effective Date and ending
on the twentieth (20th) day after the opening of escrow ("Due Diligence Period")
Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, undertake an inspection and review of the Property,
including without limitation (i) a review of the physical condition of the Property,
including but not limited to, inspection and examination of soils, environmental
factors, Hazardous Materials (as defined in Exhibit D attached hereto ), and
archeological information relating to the Property; (ii) a review and investigation of
the effect of any zoning, maps, permits, reports, engineering data, regulations,
ordinances, and laws affecting the Property, and (iii) an evaluation of the Property to
determine its feasibility for Buyer's intended use. Buyer may consult with or retain
civil engineers, contractors, soils and geologic engineers, architects and other
specialists in its investigation, and may consult with or retain other consultants to
determine if the Property is suitable for Buyer's intended use.
If Buyer's environmental consultants require additional time to determine the
existence and extent of any Hazardous Materials on the Property, Buyer shall have
the right, exercisable by delivering written notice to Seller prior to the expiration of
the Due Diligence Period, to extend the Due Diligence Period for up to fifteen (15)
additional days to complete the testing.
(b) Other matters. During the Due Diligence Period, Buyer may inspect, examine,
survey and review any other matters concerning the Property, including without
limitation, any and all studies or reports provided by Seller, all contracts, leases,
rental agreements and other obligations relating to the Property, and the Property's
conformity with. all applicable laws and regulations. D:uring the Due Diligence
Period, Buyer shall have the right to perform due diligence regarding the
investigation, assessment, and monitoring of the environmental condition of the
Property, and upon completion of the Due Diligence Period, unless Buyer elects to
terminate this Agreement pursuant to the terms hereof, Buyer will purchase the
Property in its "AS IS" condition as such condition exists at the end of the Due
Diligence Period.
(c) Disapproval of Property Condition. Should Buyer fail to approve the cOl1dition of
the Property or its feasibility for Buyer's intended use in writing within five (5) days
following the end of the Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall have the right, exercisable
by giving written notice to Seller, to cancel the escrow, terminate this Agreement, and
recover any and all amounts paid by Buyer to Seller or deposited with the Escrow
602888-4 5
Agent by or on behalf of Buyer, including the Earnest Money Deposit and interest
thereon. The exercise of this right by Buyer shall not constitute a waiver by Buyer of
any other rights Buyer may have at law or in equity.
13. Studies, Reuorts and Investif!ations. Seller agrees to make available to Buyer
within five (5) business days following the Effective Date, any and all information, studies,
reports, investigations, contracts, leases, rental agreements and other obligations concerning or
relating to the Property which are in Seller's possession or which are reasonably available to
Seller, including without limitation surveys, studies, reports and investigations concerning the
Property's physical, environmental or geological condition, habitability, or the presence or
absence of Hazardous Materials in, on or under the Property and the compliance by the Property
with Environmental Laws (as defined in Exhibit D).
14. Rif!ht of Entrv. Prior to close of escrow, Buyer and Buyer's agents shall have the
right, upon reasonable notice to Seller, to enter upon the Property for the purpose of inspecting,
examining, surveying and reviewing the Property in accordance with Section 12. Buyer's
inspection, examination, survey and review of the Property shall be at Buyer's sole expense.
Buyer shall obtain. Seller's advance consent in writing to any proposed physical testing of the
Property by Buyer or Buyer's agents, which consent shall not be unreasonably conditioned,
withheld or delayed. Buyer shall repair, restore and return the Property to its original condition
after sllch physical testing, at Buyer's sole expense. Buyer shall schedule any such physical tests.
during normal business hours unless otherwise approved by Seller. Buyer agrees to indemnify
Sellerand hold Seller harmless from and against all liability, loss, c;ost, damage and expense
(including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of litigation) resulting from
Buyer's or Buyer's agents entry upon the Property, except to the extent that such liability, loss,
cost, damage and expense arises as a result of the negligence or other wrongful conduct of Seller
or its agents.
15. Seller's Conditions to Closinf!. The close of escrow and Seller's obligation to sell the
Property pursuant to this Agreement are conditioned upon: (i) the performance by Buyer of each
obligation to be performed by Buyer under this Agreement within the applicable time period, or
waiver by Seller of such obligation; (ii) Buyer's representations and warranties contained in this
Agreement being true and correct as of the Effective Date and the close of escrow; and (iii) close
of escrow to occur and consummation of the transfer of the Property from Seller to Buyer no
later than April 30, 2004.
16. Seller's Reuresentations and Warranties. Seller hereby represents and warrants that
except as disclosed in writing to Buyer, as of the Effective Date and as. of the close of escrow, to
the best knowledge of Seller: (i) the Property is free and has always been free of Hazardous
Materials and is not and has never been in violation of any Environmental Law; (ii) there are no
buried or partially buried storage tanks located on the Property; (iii) Seller has received no
notice, warning, notice of violation, administrative complaint, judicial complaint, or other formal
or informal notice alleging that conditions on the Property are or have ever been in violation of
any' Environmental Law or informing Seller that the Property. is subject to investigation or
inquiry regarding Hazardous Materials on the Property or the potential violation of any
Environmental Law; (iv) there is no monitoring program required by the Environmental
602888-4 6
Protection Agency or any other governmental agency concerning the Property; (v) no toxic or
hazardous chemicals, waste, or substances of any kind have ever been spilled, disposed of, or
stored on, under or at the Property, whether by accident, burying, drainage, or storage in
containers, tanks, holding areas, or any other means; (vi) the Property has never been used as a
dump or landfill; (vii) Seller has disclosed to Buyer all information, records, and studies in
Seller's possession or reasonably available to Seller relating to the Property concerning
Hazardous Materials; (viii) Seller has not received any notice from any governmental authority
of any threatened or pending zoning, building, fire, or health code violation or violation of other
governmental regulations concerning the Property that have not previously been corrected, and
no condition on the Property violates any health, safety, fire, environmental, sewage, building, or
other federal, state or local law, ordinance or regulation; (ix) no contracts, licenses, leases or
commitments regarding the maintenance or use of the Property or allowing any third party rights
to use the Property are in force; (x) there are no threatened or pending actions, suits, or
administrative proceedings against or affecting the Property or any portion thereof or the interest
of Seller in the Property; (xi) there are no threatened or pending condemnation, eminent domain,
or similar proceedings affecting the Property or any portion thereof; (xii) Seller has not received
any notice from any insurer of defects of the Property which have not been corrected; (xiii) there
are no natural or artificial conditions upon the Property or any part thereof that could result in a
material and adverse change in the condition of the Property; (xiv) all information that Seller has
delivered to Buyer, either directly or through Seller's agents, is accurate and complete; and (xv)
Seller has disclosed all material facts concerning the Property.
Seller further represents and warrants that this Agreement and all other documents delivered or
to be delivered in connection herewith prior to or at the close of escrow: (a) have been duly
authorized, executed, and delivered by Seller; (b) are binding obligations of Seller; (c) are
collectively sufficient to transfer all of Seller's right, title and interest in and to the Property; and
(d) do not violate the provisions of any agreement to which Seller is a party or which affects the
Property. Seller further represents and warrants that the persons who have executed this
Agreement on behalf of Seller are authorized to do, that Seller has the legal right to enter into
this Agreement and to perform all of its terms and conditions, and that this Agreement is
enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms.
Seller shall notify Buyer of any facts that would cause any of the representations contained in
this Agreement to be untrue as of the close of escrow. If Buyer reasonably believes that a fact
materially and adversely affects the Property, Buyer shall have the option to terminate this
Agreement by delivering written notice thereof to Seller. In the event Buyer elects to terminate
this Agreement, the Earnest Money Deposit, including interest thereon, and all other funds and
documents deposited into escrow by or on behalf of Buyer shall be returned to Buyer, and all
rights and obligations hereunder shall terminate.
Seller shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Buyer from all loss, cost, liability, expense,
damage or other injury, including without limitation, attorneys' fees and all other costs and
expenses incurred by reason of, or in any manner resulting from the breach of any representation
or warranty contained in this Section.
602888-4
7
17. Seller's Covenants. Seller covenants that from the Effective Date and through the
close of escrow, Seller: (i) shall not permit any liens, encumbrances, or easements to be placed
on the Property, other than Permitted Exceptions; (ii) shall not enter into any agreement
regarding the use, sale, rental, management, repair, improvement, or any other matter affecting
the Property that would be binding on Buyer or the Property after the close of escrow without the
prior written consent of Buyer; (iii) shall not permit any act of waste or act that would tend to
diminish the value of the Property for any reason, except that caused by ordinary wear and tear;
and (iv) shall maintain the Property in its condition as of the Effective Date, ordinary wear and
tear excepted, and shall manage the Property substantially in accordance with Seller's established
practices.
18. Buver's Representations~ Warranties and Covenants. Buyer represents, warrants
and covenants that this Agreement and all other documents delivered in connection herewith,
prior to or at the close of escrow: (i) have been duly authorized, executed, and delivered by
Buyer; . (ii) are binding obligations of Buyer; and (iii) do not violate the provisions of any
agreement to which Buyer is a party. Buyer further represents and warrants that the persons who
have executed this Agreement on behalf of Buyer have are duly authorized to do, that Buyer has
the legal right to enter into this Agreement and to perform all of its terms and conditions, and
that Agreement is enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms.
19. Reserved.
20. Damaee and Destruction. In the event of any damage or other loss to the Property,
or any portion thereof, caused by fITe or other casualty prior to the close of escrow in an amount
not exceeding $50,000, Buyer shall not be entitled to terminate this Agreement, but shall be
obligated to close the escrow and purchase the Property as provided in this Agreement, without
abatement in the Purchase Price, provided that Seller shall: (i) assign and transfer to Buyer all of
Seller's rights under any insurance policy covering the damage or loss, and all claims for monies
payable from Seller's insurer(s) in connection with the damage or loss, and (ii) pay to Buyer at
the close of escrow the amount of Seller's deductible under the insurance policy or policies
covering the damage or loss. In the event of damage or destruction of the Property or any
portion thereof prior to the close of escrow in an amount in excess of $50,000, Buyer may elect
either to terminate tIns Agreement upon written notice to Seller, or to consummate the purchase
of the Property, in which case Seller shall (i) assign and transfer to Buyer all of Seller's rights
under any insurance policy covering the damage or loss, and all claims for monies payable from
Seller's insurer(s) in connection with the damage or loss, and (ii) pay to Buyer at the close of
escrow the amount of Seller's deductible under the insurance policy or policies covering the
damage or loss. In the event Buyer elects to terminate this Agreement, the Earnest Money
Deposit, including interest thereon, and all other funds and documents deposited into escrow by
or on behalf of Buyer shall be returned to Buyer, and all rights and obligations hereunder shall
terminate.
21. Brokers. Each Party warrants and represents to the other that no person or entity can
properly claim a right to a real estate commission, brokerage fee, finder's fee, or other
compensation with respect to the transaction contemplated by this Agreement. Each Party agrees
602888-4 8
to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the other Party from any claims, expenses, costs or
liabilities arising in connection with a breach of this warranty and representation. The terms of
this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement.
22. Assh!nment. Buyer shall have the right to assign all rights and obligations under this
Agreement to any party, provided Seller consents to such assignment which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
23. Notices. Except as otherwise specified in .this Agreement, all notices to be sent
pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective
addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice
delivered to the other parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by:
(i) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery;
(ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall
be deemed delivered on receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt;
(iii) nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to
the sender's account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is confirmed
by the delivery service;
(iv) facsimile transmission, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon
transmittal, provided that (a) a duplicate copy of the notice is promptly delivered by frrst-
class or certified mail or by overnight delivery, or (b) a transmission report is generated
reflecting the accurate transmission thereof. Any notice given by facsimile shall be
, considered to have been received on the next business day if it is received after 5 :00 p.m.
recipient's time or on a nonbusiness day.
Buyer:
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Attention: Executive Director
Telephone: (650) 829-6620
Facsimile: (650) 829-6623
with a copy to:
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
555 lih Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Attention: Steven T. Mattas, Agency Counsel
Seller:
Luz Icasiano
c/o Mario Solorio
1410 Dempsey Road
Milpitas, CA 95035
9
602888-4
24. Litieation Costs. If any legal action or any other proceeding, including arbitration or
action for declaratory relief, is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an
alleged breach or default in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled
to recover reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs, in addition to any other relief to which such
Party may be entitled.
25. Waivers~ Modification. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of
this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no
waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. An extension of time
for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for
performance of any other obligation or act, and no extension shall be valid Unless in writing and
executed by the waiving party. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written
instrument executed by the Parties.
26. Successors. The obligation of Seller to sell the Property and the obligation of Buyer
to purchase the Property pursuant to this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the
respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assignees of the Parties.
27. Provisions Not Mereed With Deeds. None of the provisions, terms, representations,
warranties and covenants of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by the Grant
Deed, and neither the Grant Deed nor any other document shall affect or impair the provisions,
terms, representations, warranties and covenants contained herein. Without limiting the
generality of the foregoing, Seller's representations, warranties and covenants contained herein
shall survive the close of escrow.
28. Construction. The section headings used herein are solely for convenience and shall
not be used to interpret this Agreement.
29. Action or Aooroval. Where action and/or approval by Buyer is required under this
Agreement, Buyer's Executive Director may act on and/or approve such matter unless the
Executive Director determines in his or her discretion that such action or approval requires
referral to Buyer's Board for consideration. The time periods afforded Buyer for any event,
inspection, feasibility, due diligence, escrow closing or otherwise shall not be extended by any
such referral to' Buyer's Board.
30. Entire Aereement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A to C attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference, contains the entire agreement between the Parties with
respect to the subj ect matter hereof, and supersedes all prior written or oral agreements,
understandings, representations or statements between the Parties with respect to the subject
matter thereto.
602888-4
10
31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute. one and the same
instrument.
32. Severability. If any term, provision, or condition 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 unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been
materially altered or abridged thereby.
33. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall
confer upon any person, other than the Parties and their respective successors and assigns, any
rights or remedies hereunder.
34. Parties N ot Co-Venturers. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall
establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another.
35. Non-Liability of Officials, Employees and A2ents. No member, official, employee
or agent of Buyer shall be personally liable to Seller or its successors in interest in the event of
any default or breach by Buyer or for any amount which may become due to Seller or its
successors in interest pursuant to this Agreement.
36. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for each condition, term, obligation and
provision of thIS A.greement.
37. Governin2 Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of laws.
38. Time for Performance. When the time for performance of any obligation under this
Agreement is to be measured from another event, such time period shall include the day of the
other event. If the day of the time for performance is not a regular business day, then the time for
such performance shall be by the regular business day following such day.
602888-4
11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first
written above.
BUYER:
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By:
Executive Director
ATTEST:
By:
Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Agency Counsel
SELLER:
By:
Luz Icasiano
602888-4
12
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
602888-4
13
.000
I
I
I
I
I
~
""l'.:
~
8
~
~
(! ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
.::> ~ ~~
:i: ~ ~~
Q ~ t....
Q. ~ ~
~ '
8 Q:i
Uj ~ ~
~ tj
it ~ lI)
A ~ ~
~ ~ t.!)
3cYO/-lSAVSC}, ~
. ~
~ Q:I
~<8<(
~
\!P
,1/7'41330'.;1
.~
. .09 .~'Zf 5:5"3Q1a'A.J ;c;:
~@ .".I"'DT/
W .~
:::i: ~ @~
'oq: ......
~ ~
.0
@
~
~ III Q ~
~ ,DVI }!l ------@-
'") . fiG
@ ~ ~ ~ :::: ~
.Of ,~ ,OZ
N30N/7 '8 ~
~
He.~IH "
~
,Oi .9. .9. .O'i I .09 ~.
0 e e c
~
I
I ~
I ~
I ~ Q
~
.09 "
"
2 "
"
,09 ..
0'1 ~
~ ~ ~
ei ~~
""l'.: .... it
e (0
.01) .04 .09 .09
3/1/70 S
@
.~
."rOr I .09
~ I ~ ......
I ......
I ~
l!!@~ @ @
.O'i .09
8 :;"/1 P'
FileNo. 0504137
APPRAISAL OF
LOCATED AT:
714 LINDEN AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94080-2969
.,,-..,,...,..._,._.,..,"'__,......v:'I.~...,"'.,.,...--~....-.,.-;""'-..,,.,.,,,.,..,,..~.."",,...~~=."'"'""'='""""'~!""'-J~.~.7.~;"..p,t;::-.~~...~=t=i"<<:::>'~.""._=~~~m:!-~~~1',~10'9l"'1'l;~~~.-.
~__...---.....-.....,.,.....".....,...._"...................~---...---..-...---.......--.=---._~--, ..,.-..-..--.----:.--.--
'; ,
".
.p- ~
Borrower: Nt A
Property Address: 714 LINDEN AVENUE
City: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Lender: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SECOND FLOOR/UNIT #3
16.0'
8.0'
.0 0 Kitchen 0
d
Den cO' . 't'"" d
12.0' 't'""
4.0'
Bath
Bath Kitchen
Bedroom
o
"
-q-
Living Room
Living Roo
Entrance
b
0)
(Y)
Entran
Bedroom
Bedroom
o
cv> 0
8.0' cv> 8.0'
SECOND FLOOR/UNIT #2
FLOORPLAN
Entrance
File No.: 0504137
Case No.:
State: CA
b
0)
't'""
10.0'
12.0'
10.0' .
Zip: 94080-2969
o
0)
't'""
602888-4
13
Redevelopment Agency
Staff eport
RDA AGENDA ITEM #5
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 24, 2005
Redevelopment Agency Board
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant Executive Director
SEIFEL CONSULTING, INC. SERVICE AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt the attached Resolution
authorizing the Executive Director to execute a Contract Services Agreement with Seifel
Consulting, Inc. (Seifel) in an amount not to exceed $60,000 to prepare and draft a Fiscal
Consultant's Report related to issuance of tax allocation bonds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
, f
The Fiscal Merger of the Redevelopment Agency's Project Areas has been completed and staff is
prepared to move forward with the first bond issue by January of2006 in order to undertake projects
and improvements outlined in the Agency's Implementation Plan. The Agency and Finance
Department are worldng with a bond counsel, financial advisor and redevelopment consultant to
determine the optimum bond sale. Public Financial Management will assist in structuring the
proposed bond deal and Jones Hall will draft the Official Statement to accompany the bond sale 'and
other legal documents. Staff will continue to work with Seifel to prepare the Redevelopment
Consultant's Fiscal Report which is required for Redevelopment Bond Sale. The Report will take a
minimum of ninety days to prepare and Seifel would begin immediately.
The scope of work for Seifel includes:
l1li Secure, revise and update historical trends in assessed value for secured and unsecured
property in the Project Areas.
l1li Update historical tax increment generation and estimate tax increment for FY 2005-06.
II Obtain and research pending and adjudicated assessment appeals for FY 2002-03, through
2004-05 for the ten largest property tax payers.
l1li Prepare a Draft Fiscal Consultant's Report and finalized Report based on comments from
Bond Team members.
l1li Review the Official Statement to ensure consistency with the Fiscal Consultant's Report.
II Provide additional advisory services to the Team and Agency as needed throughout the'
issuance process.
The estimated cost for this consultant agreement is $60,000 and funds are available in the current
year Redevelopment Agency budget for this expenditure.
Staff Report
Subject: , Beif~l C9nsUltant, Inc. SerVices ,Agre~ent I '
Page 2
. : :...... .
Given Seifel' s involvement With the R,edeve1opment Fiscal Merger and Plan Am~ndment adding
territory tQ the Downtown/Central ProjectAre~ they are the most appr9priate contractor to Uf.l4ertake
the finanCial analysis for bond issUatlce. ,', " , " " ," .
CONCLUSION
, ' It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency BOaId adopt the attached Resolution authorizing
the Executive Director to execute the attached Agreement for Services with Seifel Consulting Inc. in
an, amount not to exceed Sixty Thousand Doll~s($60,OOO)a).10wing t1J.e Agency to. m<?v:e forward ' '
with preparations for bond issuanc~., ' ' "
~..".""..",...,...",,:,
...' .' . " .' .... \ . J . . ',' '. '. . '. . , . '.,.: . ,,' .;
. . . '. - .... . - . . '. '.' " .... ',,' -."
. . ,'. . ,"'... .'. .. . " . .
" " , . . ... .. .' ."
. , '. . .' .
. .' . . "'~".. ,,'
. . ". '. " '" . .
..~
B : A " ,
, ." MartyVanDuyn. , ,"
, Assistant Executive Director ' ,
........,.
. '''\
BMN:MVD:NF
, '.I
" 'j,
Attachment: Resolution
, Cons:ultant Services Agreelnent _
, 1 '
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH SEIPEL CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 TO
PREPARE AND DRAFT FISCAL CONSULTANT'S REPORT RELATED"
TO ISSUANCE OF TAX ALLOCATION BONDS.
" WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency authorize the Executive
Director to execute a Contract Servfce~ Agreement with Seifel Consulting, Inc. to govern the
preparation and drafting of a Fiscal Consultant's Report for the issuance of tax allocation bonds.
, NOW, ~HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San FranCisco that the Redevelopment Agen~y hereby approves the execution of the Contract
Services Agreement wi~ Seifel Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $60,000 to prepare and .draft a
Fiscal Consultant's Report related to issuance of tax allocation bonds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco.
*****
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco at a"regular meeting held on the 24th day of August, 2005
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
\
. . . CONSUL TING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
.' THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN. FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AG~N~Y AND
'. ". SEIFEL CQ~SV~TI.NG, IN.C.. . .' .
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the CitY of South San
'Francisco Redevelopment Agency ("Agency') and Seifel Consulting Inc. ("Consultanf') (togeth~r
sometimes referred to.~s"the "'Part.:ie~")asQfA~g~~t~5, ?005 (the"Eff~9tiyEl. p~~e"). . .
. Section 1. . . SERVICES. Subject ~o. the terms and conditions set forth. in this Agreement, Consultant
shall provide to AgenGY th~ services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A. attClched,"
hereto and incorporated herein, at thcitime.and plac~ and in theman'ner spedfted therein_.r..ln theeve'nt.of a.'
conflict In. 9r. inconsis.t~Q.qypg~.e.~,nJh8-.t~rms.Qfthis. /;.g r13~m~ntClQd,. Exh ibit. A~ Jb~l~g r.~~ment S. hCl II. prevail ~
: ;'end on March 31,2006, 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.th~ Agency's right..~9 terrninat~ tbe Agre.ement,
. ~s provid~d fqr i,n ~ection 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
. stan~ards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.
. ,
1.3 .Assianment of Personnel. Cons~ltant shall assign only competent personnel to perform
. services pursuantto th,is Agreement. In the. event that Agency, in it$ 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 Agency of s~ch desire of Agency,
"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
proviqed in Section 1..1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder.
. . .
Section 2. "cOMPENSATION. Agency hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed SIXTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($60,000), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in
Consultanfs 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, .
regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. Agency shall pay 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 Agency to Consultan.t for services' rendered
pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit al~ invoices to Agency in the manner specified herein.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco RedevelopmentAgency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
. 8/11/2005
Page 1 of 14
: 1
Except as specifically authorized by Agency, Consultant.shall nptbill Agen~yfpr duplicate ~er.vices.
perforfQ.ed ~y. more than one per~o~.: .' '" /. . . '. . . . " .....
Consultant and Agency acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by Agency to Consultant under
this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunderj
'Including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. ConsequentlYl the parties.
further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions
and/or .annuitie~ to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be' eligible.
Agency therefore hps no r~spons.ibility for, such contr,ibutions beyond comp.~n.9ati~n. 'rE3q~ired u~.de.r.th.is '.
. Agreement. '.' . . . '. .' '.'. . ....... '.' . . . .'.
. .' . , '. 2.1 . Invoices.' Consultant'shall submit invoices', not more often than once a mo~th duringthe
. "~erm of this Agreement, based on the cost. for services performed and reimbursable cos'ts .
.' incurred pr,i.or to the invoi~e date. Invoices shaH contain the follqwirg informati9n: ".
II Serial identifications qf progress qills; i.e., Progress BiI,! No.. ,1.for trye rr~t inyoic~, .
etc:; . . "
': II The beginning and ending dates ,of the billing period; , .
II A. Task Summary containi,ng the original contract amount, the amount of prior
'. .. billings ~ the. total due this period,. the balance, available. under tb~ Ag.r~ement, 9nd
the percentage of completion;fii' ....., "><d- .... ',' '... . .' ....~..
. II'. (At Agency's optiqn,foreach work item in each task,' a copy of the applicable time
cu.' entries or time sh~etsshanbesubmitted showing the' name of 'the. person doing '.
. .... . ,tne work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the wqrk, and. .
each reimbursable expense;
'. II . 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 800 hours, which shall include an estimate qf the tim~ .
necessary to. complete the work described in Exhibit A; . . ,
. II . The Consultant's signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. Agency shall make monthly paym~nts, based on invoices received,
for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred.
Agency shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all. of th.e
requirements. abov~ to pay Consultant. . . .
2.3 Final Payment. Agency shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this .
Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to Agency
of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
.2.4 Total Payment. Agency shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant
to this Agreement. Agency shall not p~y any additional sum for any expense or cost
whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc. _ .
8/11/2005
page 20f14
,', Agency shall make ~o paym~ntfo~ any extra, further"or additional servic~ p~rs~antto this
"AgreefQent. .. , ' , ,
. , . . '. .
.' '. ".. ..' '. "
",: ,In no event shall Gonsultant 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 inyoice by a properly
, executed ch,ange order or amendment. .." . " "
.. . .
" 2~5 Hourly Fees'. Fees for work performed by Consultanton an.hourlyba$i~.sQall rot exceed ,the'
, , "'amounts shown in Exhibit A.. ' , ,
.' . ..,'.' ;
2.6 ,Reimbursable Expenses.' Reimbursable expense's listed in ExhibitA: expenses 'not listed
,'therein are not chargeable to Agency. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total,
,amount of compensation provided under this Agr~~ment th~t shall,n~t be exceeded.
2.7 'Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employm~nt, taxes
incurred under this Agreement and any s,imilar federpl or state,: taxes. ' , .
2.8 , Payment upon Termination. In the event thatthe Agency'or Consultant terminates this,
'; Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the Agency shall compensate the Co~sultant for all
:,Qutstanding 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 otthis Agreement ljntil receiptof
"authorizatio'n from the Contract Administrator. . ., ,
Section 3. ' FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its, sole'
cost and expense, provide all fadlities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services
, required by this Agreement. ,Agency shall ma~eavailable to Consultant onlyth13facilities And l3quipment
listed in thissecti9n,.~nd.9nIYHnd~rtreit~rr,]1~~ng8ondition~ se.tfoGh_h~r~in: -,
Agency shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with Agency employees and reviewing,records
and the information in possession of the Agency. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those
facilities shall be in the sole discretion of Agency. fn no event shall Agency be obligated to furnish any,'
facility that may involve i'ncurring any direct expense, including but notlimited to cornpute~, long-distanc~
telephone or other communication ,charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. ,
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 orin 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
Consulting Services Agreement between ,
City ot South San Francisco Redevel9pment Agency and Seitel Consulting Inc. r
8/11/2005
Page 3 of 14
. provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, 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 Agency. Gonsultantshall 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) and provided evidence thereof to Agency. V~rification of the required insurance.snall ~e
submitted and made part ofthisAgreement prior to execution.. . . '.. ". .
I , '.' . '.' '. '. . " '.' '.' "
. .... .
.4.1'. . . Workers' Compensation.' . Consultant shall, at its sole cost arid expense, maintain
....:.,. Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any
:"and all persons employed directly or Indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Work~rs'
,Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of
not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident. In the alternative, .
Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet tho~e requi~ements, 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. The insurer, if
insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall
. waive all rights of subrogation againstthe Agency a~d its .officers, bfficials,employees,and:
"volu~teers for Ibssarising from work p~rformed yrider thi~ Agreem.ent . .' . .
"
:i4.2 Commercial General and Automobile liability,lnsurance.
"4.2.1 General reauirements. Consultant, at its own 'c'ost 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 ($1,00'0,000.00)
.', 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 gen'eral 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,
in.cluding death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from
activities contemplated underthis Agreement, including the use of owned ~nd non-
. . 'owned automobiles.' '. . . . .
4.2.2 Minimum scope of coveraae. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as
broad as Insurance SerVices Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form.
'CG 0001 or GL0002(most recent editions) covering comprehensive General
Liability and Insurance' Services .Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad '
Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall,be' at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90)
. Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
8/11/2005
", Page 4 of 14
Each of the following shall be in the , "
coverage or ad.ded as a certified e!ldor~em~nt to the policy: '., ',: :. "
"" _'.: ... . .' '. . t' ." .... . ., .,',' "', _ -: ',' . . '.' '. ': ", ~ .: . .'
, ,
. '. ,
a;' The insurance shall 'cover on pn qccurrence or an accident I;>asis, and not
on ,8. claims-made basis. ' " " ,
'b.
Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy
::;; shall, not affect coverage provideq to Agency and its, officers, er:riployees,
ageDts, and volunt,~~r~." ',; ,
.' '.' . -.' " ..,:.,,' '.. '., . '. :'" ", t. /-'; .
, '4.3 " ',' Professional liability Insurance~ '
:':'4.3.1' General reauirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain
, ':for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for
',':',Iicensed professionals 'performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount '
, :"not less than ON,E MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed '
professionals' errors and,omissions., Any, d~qucti~leor se,lf~iosured retentioD 's.~all
", ,'notexceed $100,000 per c1aim~' , , ,,' ,," '
'4.3.2 ',Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall.apply if the professicmal' ..
, ',,' Hability coverage is written on a claims-made f~rm: .' ", ' ' ,
, a. ',The 'retroactive date of the pO,licy must be ,shown and must be before the
date of th,e Agreement. ': ,', ,
, h. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be
, ;' provided for at le~st five years after completion of the Agreement or'the
, co:, work, so long as comm,erqially available, at rea~.onable., ra~es.', ' ' ' ,
,c. 'If coverage. is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another
claill)s-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of
this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for
':8 minimum of five years after completion .of the Agreement or the work., '
"'The Agency shall have the right to exercise, atthe Consultant's sol~cost
, and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the "
,: Con~ultant c,ancels or does not renew the coverag~~ i,
d.' A copy 'of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the
Agency prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.
4.4 'All Policies Reauirements.
4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is' to be placed
with insurers with a 8e~ts' rating of no less than A:VII. '
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San
8/11/2005
P~ge 5 of 14
. '4.4.2 Verification 'of coveraae. Prior to beginning any work under thjs Agreement,
'. ':' ;Consultant shpll furnish Agency with c6mpl~te. certi~ed copies of aU poiici~s,':
incluqing complete ce.rtified copies of all endorsements. ',All ,copies of policies and
certified endorsements shall show the signature of a per~on'.authorized by that .
. ..ipsur~r. topind coverage o~ its. behalf.. . .... ....'.. ....., 1...... ,.. ..... ..... ,'" '.: ..... " .... .
, .
..... 4.4.3 Notice of Reductio~ in or Cancellation :of Coveraae.>A certified ,endorsement
., . , ",1\"",i.~naIL pe.9ttacn~d tOCllliDsurClD~e.()ptained pursuant tothis ,Agreement stating that
. ',' ''.jh{;.:./(;oyerage'~hallnot b~suspeDded,' voided, canceled by e.itherparty, or requced in
'. ;:...... cov~rage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior 'tIritten notice by certified .
.... "'medl, return receipt requested, has been given to the Agency. I~ the'e'vent that
"'any. cov~rage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, ormaterially
'~ffected h, any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to Agency at
'. ':Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten.(10)
.:. working. d:ays ?lfter Consultan~. is .n.~~ified of the chang.e i~ cqy~raQe.
.4.4.4 . Additional insured: primary insurance.' Agency and its officers, employees,
..1. .' . agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respeCt t6
.....: 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 p~rsuant to this Agreement. The .
. coverage shall contain' no special limitations on the scope of protectior;l afforded to
'.Agency or its officers, employees, agen~s, or volunteers. .
. . .
.A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that cpverage is
.primary insurance with respect to the Agency and its officers, officials, employees
.....and volunteers, and that no"insuranceor self-insurance maintained by the Agency.
:shall be called upon to contribute tq a loss under the. coverage'. . .
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self.lnsured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and
obtain the approval of Agency for the self-insured retentions and deductibles
. >before beginning. any of the services or work c.alled for by any term of this ."
. Agre~ment.' . .
.' :'. Du~ing 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 Agency, 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. .'. .
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
8/11/2005
. Page 60f14
. (,
l.. .
. \' .'.
.. .. .
. . .
. I ,4.4.6. . Subcontract~rsl Consult~nt shail include all ,subcontractors as in,sureds under its
. : policies or.sh;:ill.furnish separate certificates. and certified endorsements for each..: .
. . .'subcontractor. All coverages for ~u.bcontrap~~rs. ~hall be .s~~ject to all of the .
requirements stat~d .herein. .
\ :
4.4.7 Variation. The Agency may approve a v?ri~tion in the foregoing insurance
.:'requirements, u~on a determination that the coverage, scope, . limits, and forms of
". . ..'s~ch insurance are either not commercially ~Vpil?bl~, orth;:it the Agl?ncy's' .'
. '. '.. :'ipt~r~s.ts ar~. Qther,wi.~e fuBy prpte,cte.q. . . '. . '.' '" . '.
'. . . ~ . . ,: . ". . . :', " . '.' .; . '. '. ~ '. " " '.: "'.: . -.' '. . :. . >. .' '..
. --'.
. ~emedies~ In addition to any other remedies Agency may have:.i.f Consultant fails to'
provide ~rmaintain any insurance policies or policy ~ndorsements to the exten;t and \Vithin
.'the. time herein required, Agency may; at its sole option exercise any of the following
r~medies, which are a.lternatives to other remedies Agency may have an.d arenot the
.'.exc!u~iv.e. r~me.dy.for Consultant's breach:.i/.,..../............:'.i..i:.:.r........'.:.;-..'i.i.i......'. . \
. . ."': -. ,,: ;, '-:. ~ ;,":'~/: ,:,;~.- ,_,.' ":-.':','" .;':'. '., . ,'<:. -, .;:. ,:' ~ _' ':;, . ~:,,'. "\i --,: . _',_ _,' " _'~' ,-, ," ':',"_'_',- '" _:_:: :: ";',': .::','
':'" '..- _.,',,'_' -, .,':;
.. ".._'-" " . c, " '<~'-:,: -.......:. ", ','n" "',' '; :,::" ",_, ',',', ' ' , " '.',' - '-,',' ' '_, ,,' ", """:"', """.:'
:......i\Qb.tqi.n such..im>>uranceand. deduct.and retainth~..amoyntgf.thE3.prerniums for.suqh.
::ln~.yrc:mg~;frqm..qnY..,SHI11R9H~.Yn9~r..tb.~ Agre(3,.ITI~Dt;i.;'Y:" ....
.'" ;':,'.'_,'"',.'0',- .
. ' , , , ' " -, .
. .... : Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that'
. ..pecomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment,
. until Consultant demonstrates compliance. with the. requirements. hereof; and/or
, .. " .;) . , :"'.; . . " '-,' : '* "",..' ; " -' ' .: -," .. \, ..
. '.
T ermi~ate this Agreement. .
. SectionS. INDEMNIFICA TI.ON AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall
indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the Agency, and hold harmless the Agency 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 shan 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 Agency or its officers, employees; agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or)ts
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 Agency
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 '~my damages or claims for damages wheth~r or not such insurance policies shall have been
determined to apply. By exe~ution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agree~ to the
provisions of this Section and that it is a material efement of consideration. .
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agepcy and Seifel Consulting Inc..
. 8/11/2005
Page 7 of 14
Section 6. 'STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
'6.1 ,,' ',hldependent' Contractor. At all times during the terrn o~ this, Agr~ernent Consultant shall
',' ',be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of Agency. Age~cy 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; otherwls~ Agency shall not have the right to control the means by which
, Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding ,
','any other Agency, sta~e, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the '
, ,',Gontrary, Consultant and anY,ofitseml?loyees,agents~ and sU,bcontractors providing' "
, ",' ,services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or be.come entitled to,.and hereby agree
. ..' :.10 waive any and all claims to, any cOl)1pensation, b.enefit, or any incid.ent of employment
. 'by Agency, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees
Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of Agency and entitlement to any contribution
.to be paid by Agency for employer contribu~io~s ~nd/or.employ.e~ ~of1triputions forPI;RS.
benefits. ." . .' . .
.::6.2
.. Consultant No Aaent. Except as Agency may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
..'... apthority,~xpress or implied, to. act gn behalfgf Agengyinany capaAg.ency whatsoever as
,~r1agent.Cons'ultantshaILha,ve no authority, 6)(press orimplieq, pursu.ant to. tnis ' .
. 'Agrf:ern.~rtto.b.!nqAQencY,to.~ny,obHg~tion.YJhatso~ver: '.... ., .
. , . " .
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governina Law. The laws of the State.of California shall govern this Agreement.
. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontr'actors 'shall comply with'
. all laws appli~able to the performance of the Y"ork hereunder. . '. '
. ~ '. .
. .
7.3 Other Governmental Reaulations. 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 Agency is bound by the
terms of such fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and w~rrants to Agency that Consultant
and its employ~es, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits,'
qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that.are legally required to practice their .
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Rede.velopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
8/11/2005
. Page 8 of14
, 7.5
. ' .
respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to Agency that Consultant ,
, and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shal,I, at their sole, cost and expense, keep
: in effect at C)II times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approval~
" ;that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the, '
" foregoing, Consultant and any subqontractors shall obtain andm.C}intain qur!ng the term of
" this Agreement valid Business Licen~e~ from Agency~ " ",'
Nondiscrimination and Eciual ODDortunity. Consultant sh~II, 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 orient~tion, against any
, ,employes, applicant fQr employment, subco,ntractor, bidder for a, subcont~~ct, or participant
", in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant un.der this
" ,'Agreement. Consultant shaH comply with all applicable feder~I, state, and local laws,
policies, rules, and requirements related to equaropportunity and nondiscriminatioD in
,'employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this'
.:.., Agreement, including but not limited to the, sC)tisfactioQ"of ,any positive opHgations r~quireq,
bfConsultant the.reby. ' ' , , '
, \ ,
, I
I,
, ,/
. ~ '
I
I ,
, ,
, ,
, ,:"Consultant shali include the provisions of this Supsec;tion i,n any subcontract approved ,by
! "" '.., .,
: the Cc>r~rac;t ,Administ~at~r or this Agre~ment. '"
, .
TERMINA rlON .AND MODIFICATION.
Section'S.
, I,
,",:X8.1 Termination. Agency may cancel this AgreemeQt at any time and without cause upon
" written notification to Consultant. .". . ',,'
.. ",..-.,. . . " " . -.. :, ... . -... .. ...~ .... . .. .. ... '-.. .. .... . . .... ... . .. ~ ... . . . . . ... ...
" Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to Agency and shaH
include'in such notice the reasons for cancellation. .' . '.
" . '- ..' ,-..' .': '. .,", .' . .,. .
'In the' eve'nt of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services
performed to the effective date of termination; Agency, however, may condition payment of
, such compensation upon Consultant delivering to Agency any or all documents,
photographs, computersoftware, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided tp
Consultant or prepared ,by orfor Cqnsultant qr the Agency in conpeption with this
Agreement. ' .. ' , ' " , , ,
, '8.2 ,. Extension. Agency rnay,inits sole.and exclusivediscr~tion, 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 Agency grants such an extension, Agency 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, Agency shall have",
no obligation t6 reimburse. Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred
during the extension period. " '
Consulthlg Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
8/11/2005
Page 9 of 14
,,8.3 ,,~Ame'ndments., The PC\lrti~~ may amend thi~ Agreerpent on,ly bya ~riting signed by an tile,
pqrti~s., ..' ' '., ' ' " , ' .. '
, ','
8.4 Ass'ianment and Subcontractina., Agency and Consultant recognize and agree that this,
Agreement contemplates personal performance ,by Consultant and is bas~d upon a
, determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized
,personal knowledge. ,Moreover, a substantial inducement to Agency for entering into this
: , ,:Agreeinent was and is the profe~sional reputation and competence of Consultant. '
90nsultant may not assign this Agreement or any i~terest therein without the prior written
" " approval of. the Contract Administr~tor. Cpnsultant shall not 'subcontract any portion of the
, : ',:performance contemplated, and provided for herein, other than to,the subcontractors .noted
, ,in the prqposal, ~ithqut pri~:>r, written ,approval qf t~e GontractAdministrator.
. . . ..' . ..' .'. ',' ~...... . ~ ". .. . ." . . .' . ',' ", . - , " .. . ". "..
'''\:
. :......
, ,
\, , '
8.5 ,Survival. All obligations arising prior tq, the termination of this Agreement and all'
',pr6vi$ions of this Agreement allocating liability between Agency and Consu.ltant shall
survive the termination of th,is,Agreement. , '."
/', '
'I '
'1"
'/
. .' .' .
8.6 ,Options upo'n Breach bv Consultant~ If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms
"', ,.of. this~gr~ement, AgencY's r~l"Deqies shall inc1uqe, but not be .limited to, th~following:"
,. '. . : ....j . ......:. . ;
.' , . .
. , . '. "
8~6~'1" 'Immediat~ly terminate tne, Agr~ement;
t'
,:8.6.2 , ,Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any
other work product prepared by Consultant pursuantto this Agreement;
8.6.3 ,Retain a different consultant to complete the work d~scribed ,in Exhibit A not ,
" ,finished by Co~sultant; .or ' ' " , . " ,
, ,
'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
Agency would have paid Cons~ltant pursuantto S~cti.on 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, plan~, 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 Agency. Consultant hereby agrees to ' ,
deliver those documents to the Agency 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 Agency and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Agency and
C~nsultc3ntagreeth~t. ~rW: finBI~ppr~v~1 RyAgercy, all p~t~, plans, ~pecifications, reports
Consulting Services Agreement between '
City of South. San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
, . . 8/11/2005
Page 10 of 14
'J .
. '. . and other doc~ments are confidential and 'will not be rele?seq to third pa~ies without pri~r'
. '.. written '.consent pf both pa~ie~ .unless r~quired by law.. .:.' .' ........... ' .
. . .-:'....;. .;;" .....:-_.<~..:.... '..----~ - '.\.-----.:'.;. .::,',.. .;.,...:--.,,:- .: : -" - -, ':-'.' . .".',
9.2 '.' Consultant's Books' and Records.Consultanteh.allmaintain any .and alll~dgers, books
',Of accoqnt,inV()ices,yoyqhers,c?nqeled check~, andpther records or documents '
"i,evidencing orrelating tochC}rges Jor services or expenditures and disbursements charged
'to the Agency under this Agreemen~ for a minim,um of three (3) years, or for any longer
. " period req~,ir~d Py law, fr9fll, the date of final. payment .to. the C.o~sultant to this Agreer.n~nt.
'. ,9.3 . 'InsDectionandALidit of Records. Any records or documen,ts, that- Seqtion 9.2 of tbis
'. . . Agreement requires Consultant t9 maintain jshall be made available for inspection; audit,
" . . ': ' .and/or copying at any time during regular busin~ss ho'urs, upon' oral or written request of
, ',<the Agency. Under ,California Government Code Section 8.546.7, if the amount of public
. funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ..
'. :($1 0,000.00), the Agreement shall be, subject to the examination and"audit of the State '.
" Auditor, at the request of Agency or as part of any audit.of the"Agency, for a period pf thre~ '
.' .(3) years ~fter ~n.al payment u~der ,the Ag~eem~nt. . , , . ,
, \
. '---'
. ' ~ '.
....Section 10
. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
. ,:;:rlo.1'Attornevs' Fees. If Cl party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for
. " declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing
. 'party shall 'be entitled to reasonable attorneys'fees in additi()n to any other relief to which .
. I '. that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the ,~ame :acti9n or in a '
, . ,separate action brought for that purpose. '
"'!/10.2' ':Venue. 'In the event that ~ither party brings any action against the other under this
'. . . 'Agreement, the parties agree thqt trial of such action' shall be vested exclusively in the
'. : I . ,state courts of California in the County San Mateo. or in the United States District Court for .' .
'. the First District of California. , . . . . .." , .' . .
10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
, ,Agr~ement 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 shan 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 Assians. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shan apply to and. bind the successors and assigns of the, parties.
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
'8/11/2005
, Page 11 of 14 .
" .
. . .
\ .' 10.6 .'. Use of Recvcled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all, reports, written .... ,
, . '.. .studies and other printed material on re~ycled paper to. the ext13nt it is available, at, equal or
':' le?~ .~ost than virg.in paper.. . . , , , ,'.,,', '"
. .. '.. '. .
. . . . .
. '10.1 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients; but none whose activities within
.the corporate limits of Agency or whose business, regardless of location, would place
" '. .... '.., Cqnsultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the PoHtical Reform Act,
,'.: cpdified at Californ,i,a, (3ov,erml1ent ypde.$ectioq ~1 0.0..0 f?f~eq. ' .
'I ,~'_._,
..... . . ,:, '. ,". .. .... .. '. ".
'Consultant shall ~ot employ any Agency officialJntneworkperformeq pursuant to this
:' :Agre~ment. No officer or'employee of Agency shall,haveany financial interest in this,..,
. ,::Agre,~.m~n.t..th.~t.."Yo.Hlq ,y,plf.lre:..9~liforri~. .g8Ye.r9mer!..:89:.~.~' ,Seqtior9 " ~ p~p, ~t ~~q., .
.':Consult~.nt.herebyw~rraqts that it is nqtppW,norhas itpeeqintheprevious twelve (12)
. ',', m.onths'Cln'~I1lP!()ye~;. agem, appointee, or official of the Agency. ..' If Consultant was, an
-.: employes, agent, appointee, or official of the Agency in the previous twelve 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 viol~tioQ of .
. Goyernment Code 91090et.seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will notb~
. '... ,entitled. to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agre~ment, including
".~ reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the Agency for, "
~any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, i~addition to the
',foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code 9
'10.90. and, if applicable, will be disquaUfied from holding public office in the State of ','.
. /:.. CalifOrnia. ' . . . '. .
<~0.8 . Solicitation.. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, qr
. :.' . i.nteryiew .relat~d,to.. ~~is Ag~eement,eith.er oralfy' or thrpugh .a~y ~ritten m~terials.
.. ,
. '. . "
10.9 Contract Administration.. This Agreement shall be administered by Jim Steele, Finance
Director, City of South San Francisco ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall
be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her de$ig~ee. . ",
10.10 Notices. Any wri,tten notice to Consultant shall be sent to:
. i
I '
"/
. Seifel Consulting, Inc
. 1388 Sutter Street Suite 520 ,
, San Francisco CA 94109
. \
Any written notice to Agency shall be sent to:
Jim Steele, Finance DireCtor
City of South San Francisco'
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 940.80.
---~ .
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
. 8/11/20.05
. Page 12 of 14
'.'1.'
10.11 " Professional Seal. .Where applicable in.the determination ofthe.CQrtract administrator, .
: th~.:first page of a technical.report, first page of design specifications, and eac.h page of
cqnstruction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by th~ licensed professional .
. responsible for the report/design preparation, The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled
. '~Seal and Signature of Registerl?d Professional with reportld~sign responsib!lity,lI as in the
. following ex.ample. '. .... . . '. . . . .' .. . , .
. . ....1 .
Seal and Signature.of Registered Pr()fessi.or?lwit~
report/de,sign responsibility. . . ... , .
. ..
.10.12 .Intearation. This Agreement, including,the scope of work attachedhereto.and . . .
incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between
. .: . .' 'Agency and Consultqnt and supersedes all prip.rre.go~iC3~ions,.repres~fltations, or. ..:.....:
either writte~ pforal.' '. .' -. -. . . -. '.':... _ . .< ,"',:." ......
. .... ", " ".'. '.: ':.... '.:.... . :..,' '" - '..".: '....,..,'-'.,'.... '-'.. .... ..... .... .. .. '..
This Agreement may be executed in multiple' counterparts, each ofwhich
" . .
. '. .
.'
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc,'
8/11/2005
Page 13 of 14
The Parties have executed this .Agr~ement~s of the Effectiv.e Oat,e..
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
CONSWL T ANT
Barry M. Nagel
Executive Director
.. \"
Elizabeth M. Seifel
.President; Seifel.G9nsulting, Inc.
Attest:
\.
Sylvia Payne.
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Steven T. Mattas
City Attorney
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting Inc.
8/11/2005
Page 14 of 14
. "': .:. EXHIBIT A
. .' . : .~COPE OF SERVICES
Scop~ of Professianal Services . .
. Task.1:. Prepare the Draft an,d Final Fiscal Con~:ultant's R~port
'\ ..
, ,
CI Canfer with the Janes Hall and PFM (BQnd ream) to. agree. upan the arganizatian and cantents. of the ..'
. Fiscal Cansultant's Repart." .: ..:'.:: .. :. '.:.'.: ':' .... '.:. ....... .' " ....: .'" '. :'..:. .... . .' ... '.: ......
CI . Obtain FY 2005/06 assessed value 'far sec~~edand unsecured prop~rty in t~e. fiscally merged Project
Areas from the Caunty. ..... .. . " . .
. CI Using available data from the Agency and the Caunty Assessar's Officej revise and update histarical
trends in assessed value far secured an.duns.ecured prope~y in the fiscally merged Project Are~~ ave,r
the past five fiscal years.' . . . . '.
CD USing data provided by the Agency and the Caunty, revise and update histarical tax increment.
:generatian from the faur PrQject Areas. thr()ugh FY2004/05 and prepar~ an estimate of t9xincrement
":' far FY 2005/06. .' : ...,......,' .... .:. ".. ....:. ".', :.:.: '., .'.'.:'.' . ..... . :.:>'>':' '.' .."
41 Using data provided by the Caunty, MBIA and any ather relevant data saurces, determine the ten
. larg~st property tax payers in FY 2004/05, detailed by secured and unsecured property valuatian, land
uS~:land the respective percentage af tatal assessed valuatian in the fiscally merged Praject Areas.
III Obtain and.research pending and adjudicated assessment appeals far FY 2002103, FY2003/04 and
. FY/2004/05 and far the ten largest praperty tax payers, bath secured and .unse~ured, in the fiSC.Cilly.
me~ged Praject Areas. . ~
III ' Canfer with Agency regarding recent and projected cammercial ar industrial vacancies and dawnsizing,
'and~anticipated impacts an existing unsecured assessed value. ". ' , '.' .
III .Bas'ed on afarementianed res~arch, project patential impacts an assessed valuatian af secured and
unsecured praperty in the fiscally merged Praject Areas from pending, adjudicated.ar likely fyture
.assessment appeals." . , '.' " ., .
CI Describe the progress af new develapment in the fiscally merged Project Areas that CQuld add value
(and additianal tax increment revenue) to. the Project Areas in FY 2006/07, based an City building
permit recards and relevant planning saurces, in canjunctian with input from City/Agency staff.
· Prepare updated estimates of tax incremen~ revenue generatian far the fiscally merged Project Areas
until it reaches its tax increment cap. Prepare'supplemental dacumentation that shaws gross tax
. increment received and housing fund set-aside far the fiscally merged Project Areas.
· Based on analysis described.abave,'as well as camments from Band TearrJ prep?re a Draft Fiscal'
Consultant's Repart(Report)." , . . ..' '.
. CD Revise and fin,alize the Report based an ca~ments from Band Team members.
Task 2:
Review the Official Statement to. ensure co~sistency with the Fiscal Cansultant's Repart and any
related data utilized to. prepare the Fiscal Cansultant's Repart.
Prepare supplemental tables, if necessary. . .
Cansulting Services Agreement between
City af Sauth San Francisco. Redevelopment Agency and Seifel.Cansulting, Inc.--Exhibit A
8/11/2005
Page 1 af 4
'Task 3: Allowance for-Other Services
In Consultant's experience on similar projects, additional consultation and 'advisory services not included in
the tasks described above are often needed. However, the amount and extent of these other services will
depend on a variety of factors not yet known. In addition, these services, if required, mgy be provided either
by the City/Agency or by other Bond Team members. Consultant recommends that the Agency include a '
separate fee. allowance within th~ cont~actJo funq. a~y additional effo.~.req~este.d'.ot Gqnsultant for th~ '.. .
foUo\}Jing P9tential. othe.~ $eryi~es: '. . . " . . .' . " . . .
II Provide more than one draft of the .fiscal consultant's report.
Provide additional economic and redevelopme~t ..advisory $ervice~ to team and Agency as n~eded..
throughout the issuance process.' .,..
Provide additional research and analysis in response to the bond raters and insurers.
Expend'additional time to obtain data necessary for the Fiscal Consultant's Report, such as information
on a$sessment appeals and top property tax payers, iritis not easily forthc~ming .fromth~. c.o.unty. .
Participate in phone caUs with the bond raters and insurers.. .. ,,<.:.' ,: " ,.. , . .
. Prepare updated estimates 0ftax incr~me.nt ,generatioQ for fisc,ally, me.rged~rQject:Ar~a~ with more
tharhone development scen.ario. '... . '.- '.. ........ ....
II Attend m~etings/conferenc~ c~lIs witD taxing entities ~s nl?ed,ed.
! .
Work Product and Schedule
;\
. '.
The' products of this work effort will be the Preliminary tax increment projections, the Draft and Final Fiscal
Consultant's Report, and q s,eries of tables. The Final: Fiscal C(;msult~nt's Report and t.ables will.serve as Ci
written:;supplement to the Official $tatement .' . .', . .
The schedule of this work effort wiH be coordinated with the financing timelineprepared by the bond team.
The Draft Fiscal Consultant's Report. will be prepared within 60-90 days from receipt of the signed contract,
assuming that all data is promptly available from the County of Sari Mateo regarding assessment appeals .
and the top ten property tax payers. The Final Fiscal Consultant's Report will be prepared withil1~o weeks.,
of receipt of aU written comments frof!) A~,encY,staff cmd the. bond team.m~mb~rs.
Compensation .'
Given the natareof the assignment and the potential difficulty in obtaining data quickly from the
City/Agency and San Mateo County, it is difficult to predsely .identify the hours required to consult on each
task. Consultant will work closely with City/Agency staff to assure that we reach a common understanding
of 'fIIhat is to be accomplished with each task. '. . ' ". .' .
Based on OlJr current understanding of the work to be performed and this-scope of services, we will'bill the
services set forth under.Task 1 and 2 on a time and materials up to a fllaximum budget o.f $40,000.
( .
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redeve.lopment Agency and Seifel Consulting, Inc.--Exhibit A
8/11/2005
page 2 of 4
I.
. . -'. . . . .
. .
. .
This budget estimate far Task 1 and 2 assumes that Agency and Caunty staff.are available to. promptly
. . a~swer questians that may arise regarding assessment appeals, tap ten praperty tax pay~r~ and new .... .
. 'develapment that hasoccurred in the Project Area~ since the previaus band issue, .and Caunty and.
Agency staff can provide background regarcHng any recent assessment appeals which may have bee.n filed.
by praperty o~nersin:t~e ProjectAr~a, a~ w~1I as progre~san new.develapment..........., '. ...'.. ,"':','
'. ." .
,',' '.
To. the extent staff is nat available and/ar cannat answer these questians, additianal budget may be
'. required to. caver supplemental re~earch which may need to. be canducted by Cansultant If remaining
I budget is 'available fram :T~sk.t anq 2, this remaining budget will be applied taJask.3 services, befare any.
. a9ditianal budget will be requested. A budget allawance af $20,000 is propased far.Ta~k.3 to. caver " .'
".: ~ate.nti?I..a?di~i9n~l. Rrrxiq~~,r~~y1ttn,g!Q .~J9~?t p.r9.P8s~d..p.~.d~e.t 9f:$pO~9.9q. '. ,". . .
. .:. .":' ~ '.' ',' ,', ',', . " . __ ~'.:":' _ .-" . .,:': ,". -,'<~. -';: >Ii:. . .'. '. . ,,' " :,' :'" -. . ,-. ,:" ,:. ,;: ~ : ,i :',:' . '. ' . . "'; "::; :. ...' ", ,,' ':, ','.
," ~ ;,' \ " .' " _ . '~'. ,-; . . .
2Q05 HQurly Rates (Time) .' .'! . ". .
'.
. ..
. . .
. .
Professianal services af Cansultant are billed at the fa!lawing ..o?urly rat~s:.:
.- '. President $190 ;
. Managing Cansultant $150
..' .Seniar Cansultant $125 .
'. .'Cansultant $1'10 ....
. . Ana!yst $100..'
.- .' . :Research Assistant $ 90
'Dacument Processing/Graphics $ 65
..1
. , .
. . .
. .
. '.
. ." . . .
. '. .
" "
. . . ~
;,',1' .
.: "
, i
.. "
;'., .
',' ..
If ather.professianal cansulting services are required, Cansultant may establish, upan the client's approval,
additianal billing rates to. carrespand with the cansultant's expertise.. Testimany as expert witness at caurt .
trials, administrative he~rings, and depasitians.will be billed at 200 pefce~tof.the .~~ave rat~~. T.rav~1 tif!1.e .
isbi!led:'at 50 p.ercent of abave rates.. . . ",. "
,
i .
. . . " . ~, .. ,
. . . ,': .,'. '. .
. Billing rates are subject to. annual revisian beginning January .1, 2006. :
.\
. "
Expenses (Materials)
Cansultant bills expenses as fallows:
Telephane charges are camputed at 2 percent afbilled professianal services. .
. II Autamabile mileage. charges are.based an the Internal Heven~e. Serv~ce .Optianal Standard MUeage
: Rat~ (40.5 cents per mile far 2005). . .
Phatacapying/repart reproductian charges are 10 cents per page, except far bulk reprC?ductian af
reparts, which is charged an a. direct reimbursable basis. ..
Delivery service charges are' at cast. '.
Per diem and travel expenses, including airfare, autamabUe rental and hatel (if necessary) are charged
at actual cast.
All remaining expenses are billed an a direct reimbursable basis with receipts abave $20 pravided. as
evidence upan request. .
Cansulting Services Agreement between
City af Sauth San Francisco. Redevelapment Agency and Seifel Cansulting, Inc.--Exhibit A
8/11/2005
Page 3 af 4
'j
-- '
, Project Del,ays ,:,
A project that is delayed or otherwise put on hold by the City of South San Francisco and its, .' ,
Redevelopment Agency (CHent) may require 'an adjustment-of team members based upon the date the
project resu'mes. Consequently, additional hours will be required to familiarize and educate team members
and will be billed as additional services. Further, if the CHent's key staff member(s) originally assigned to
the project are no longer able to work on the project, the budget may need to be -revised to reflect any ,
training and education of new staff assigned to tbis project. If the project is put on hold by the '
Client ,fora term of six (6) mQnths or mort3,th~:Gon.tra~tual. fe~ arr~n9~r:nentmay be adjus~ed. :
, : ',' , ",', '.. '" ..' , , , 1,' "" " : " ": ' ,: ,,' ':', ","', ," :
, ,
" j'
Payment, T~rms,
. , . -, ,
' . '- . '.' . . . .' \', ." .
We under~tand' that payment of our work under this authorization may be paid through pr6ceeds of the,
bond issue. ,In the event payment is not received within 10 days of receipt of bond proceeds, approval of
this contract will constitute a promissory note between us, which will bear itself at the rate of ten percent
(10%) per annum until paid in full, including accrued inter~st. Furthermore, if payment were not received,
Consultant would discontinue work on any future as,signments. Shdulqlegal action be required to secure
payment, all ,legal feesrelClteclto collectionof}uncjs would p,etheJesppnsibilityofthe cHent. 'Until the bond
, is issue,d, Consultantshall p[ovidetheclierlViithprogress irlVoicesopClfTlollthly bcasis: for all' hourly , ,
services:~:performedand all reimbursable expenses incurred during the preceding month. 'In the eve'ntof any
good faith dispute with regard to any portion of any Consultant invoice, the undisputed portion shall be paid
as provided herein. Upon resolution of the disputed portion, any amounts paid to Consultant shall be paid
with interest at the rate set forth above, accruing from the 10th day after r~ceiptof bond proceeds.
, Any disputes concerning Consultant's invoices must be addressed by the Client in writing to Consultant
within thirty (30) days of the invoice date. The absence of any sucn inquiries within the thirty (30) day period
shall be deemed an unequivocal acceptance .of ~hese servic,es and an agreement with qonsulta~t's
charges for all su~h services/materials. ., , , '" " " ,\,_
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting, Inc.--:-ExhibitA
, 8/11/2005
Page 4 of 4'
. . EXHIBIT B
. I NSURANC.E. CE~TIFICA TES .'
, (
J ,
\ . . . .
; i ',.,
,.1
Consulting Services Agreement between
City of Sout~ San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and Seifel Consulting, Inc.-Exhibit B
. .
, .
8/11/2005 .
Page 1 of 1
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
6. Motion to cancel regular meeting of September 14, 2005
RDA AGENDA ITEM #6
~ 't Ii 5::4#
~~
o (')
;... ~
B g
C' ~~
4lIPOp..~
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005
7:05 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Wednesday, the 24th day August of2005, at 7:05 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400
Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the Ineeting:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public COlnments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda
4. Closed Session:
a) Pursuant to Government Code section 54957, evaluation of City
Manager
b) Pursuant to Government Code section 54957.6, labor negotiations with
City Manager
5. Adjournment
i84u~- Ih · ~
City lerk
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2005
7:30 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you lllay know our method of conducting
Council business, we proceed as follows:
The regular llleetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each lllonth at
7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, COlllillunity Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco, California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized itelll,
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 itelll not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circulllstances). Your question or problelll may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your
name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES
PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
RAYMOND L. GREEN
Mayor
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Mayor Pro Tern
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR.
Councilman
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Councilman
KARYL MATSUMOTO
Council woman
RICHARD BATTAGLIA
City Treasurer
SYL VIA M. PAYNE
City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATTAS
City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMP AIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION
PRESENTATIONS
It Day in the Park Update, September 24, 2005 - Committee n1embers Judy Bush, JilU Metz
and Paul Formoso
It Recognition of Police DepartIuent's Public Safety Progrmu - Mr. Chris Brookmu, Califolllia
DepartIuent of Alcohol Beverage Control
It "In Case of Eluergency" (ICE) - Assistant Fire Chief Dick Dennin
It Junior Fire Acadeluy - Assistant Fire Chief Dick Dennis, Captains Art Mosqueda and Brian
Metcho
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
It Announceluents
It Comluittee Reports
It Consideration of providing staff direction to take the appropriate actions to prepare design and bid
documents for the training tower and classroom at Fire Station 61
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the minutes of August 10, 2005
2. Motion to confirm expense clailus of August 24, 2005
3. Motion to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the land use
designation of 501 and 543 Forbes Boulevard from Planned Industrial (P-I) to
Genentech Research and Developluent Overlay (Genentech R & D Overlay District)
Zone District
4. Motion to adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map to change the land use
designation of501-1313 Grandview Drive from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech
Research and Developluent Overlay (Genentech R & D Overlay District) Zone District
5. Resolution designating the City Manager, Finance Director and Public Works Director
as authorized City agents related to luatters with the State Office of Eluergency Services
6. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a grant from the Peninsula Community
Foundation and the Woodlawn Foundation to suppoli Learning Wheels programming in
the muount of $70,000
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 24, 2005
PAGE 2
7. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a Library Services and Technology Act grant
fro In the California State Library to support Project Read programlning in the arnount of
$58,300
8. Motion to transfer $40,000 from the designated public art funds received frOITI Fairfield
Development to the Cultural Arts COlnInission's public art acquisition trust account
9. Resolution awarding construction agreeInent to Interstate Grading and Paving for the
Mission Road Resurfacing Project in the arnount of$376,943.50
10. Resolution authorizing acceptance of a FEMA grant for Fire DepartInent wildland gear,
fire shelters and other equipment, in the arnount of $88,532
11. Motion to cancel the regular Ineeting of SepteInber 14, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING
12. Consideration of resolution adjusting the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee to incorporate
additional roadway and intersection improvelnents that will accommodate new
developlnents in the East of 101 Area, estimated in the amount of $21 ,568,000
COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
AUGUST 24,2005
PAGE 3
taff
ort
AGENDA ITEM #3
DATE: August 24, 2005
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jayne W. WilliaIns, Interim City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance Alnending the city of South San Francisco Zoning Map to
Change the Land Use Designation of501 and 543 Forbes Boulevard from Planned
Industrial (P-I) to Genentech Research and Developlnent Overlay (Genentech R
and D Overlay Distract) Zone District
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of an Ordinance aInending the City of South San Francisco zoning map to change the
land use designation of501 and 543 Forbes Boulevard frOln planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech
Research and Developlnent Overlay (Genentech Rand D Overlay Distract) Zone District
BACI(GROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready
for adoption.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 501 AND 543
FORBES BOULEVARD FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-I) TO GENETECH
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (GENENTECH RAND D
OVERLAY DISTRACT) ZONE DISTRICT
(Introduced on 8/1 0105 Vote 5-0)
{ - tMkJ/{f
. Williams, Interim City At~~ey
~.r '(~)
. 11 agel,. ger
776386-1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE A~lENDING TI-IE CI'TY OF SOlJTI-I SAt"\J
FRANCISCO ZONING MAP TO CI-IANGE T'I-IE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF 501 AND 543 FORBES BOULEVf\RD FROM
PLANNED INDUS1'RIAL (P-I) TO GENEN1'ECI-I RESEARCI-I AND
DEVELOPMEN1' OVERLAY (GENENTECI-I R & D OVERLAY
DISTRIC'T) ZONE DISrrRIC1'
WHEREAS, the properties are designated "Planned Industrial" in the 1999 General Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, the reclassification will not change the land use classification, approved uses or
increase the approved density in the East of 1 01 Area over that analyzed in the South San Francisco
General Plan Enviromnental hnpact RepOli; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning COlnlnission held a duly noticed
public hearing July 21, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2005, the Planning Comlnission found that the above described
reclassification will ensure internal consistency in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the above described rezoning will ensure internal consistency in the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, as required by the "Adlninistrative Procedure" (SSFMC Section 20.87) and the
"Research & Development Overlay District Regulations" (SSFMC Section 20.39.040 (B) (iii), the
following findings are n1ade in support of the rezoning, based on public testilnony and materials
submitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division.
a) The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, which designates
this site for Business and Technology Park use;
b) The proposed project is compatible with the intent and purpose of the "Research
and Development Overlay District" (SSFMC Chapter 20.39.050 (a), (b) and (c)) in
the City's Zoning Ordinance which provides that "Development standards are
requirements of the underlying zoning district including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio may be amended for the
properties to be reclassified;"
c) The proposed proj ect lneets all standards of the "Genentech Research and
Development Overlay District" (SSFMC Chapter 20.40). The project complies
with the Purpose, Definitions, Design review, and Development standards and
requirements of the Genentech Research and Developlnent Overlay District; and
WHEREAS, the above described rezoning will not change the land use classification, change
the approved uses, or increase the approved density in the East of 101 Area over that which was
analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Negative Declaration in accordance with the provision
ofCEQA, as amended; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2005, the Planning Commission took public testimony and
considered the information contained in the staff repoli, orally presented by City staff and
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning Comlnission held a duly noticed
public hearing July 21,2005 on the adequacy of the proposed mnendlnent to the Zoning Map and
recommended approval of same.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby amends the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map for 501 and 543
Forbes Boulevard by changing the zoning designation frOln Planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech
Research and Development Overlay District (Genentech Rand D Overlay District).
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circulnstances 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 anyone or more sections, subsections,
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or
unenforceable.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmelnbers voting
for or against it, in the San Mateo Tilnes, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South
San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its
adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held
the 10th day of August, 2005.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the , by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Richard A. Garbarino, Pedro Gonzalez, and Karyl MatsUlTIoto,
Mayor Pro TelTI Joseph A. Femekes and Mayor RaYlTIond L. Green
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Sylvia M. Payne
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
OrdinaJ?ce this _ day of , 2005.
Mayor
taff
art
AGENDA ITEM #4
DATE:
August 24, 2005
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jayne W. Willimns, Interiln City Attorney
SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance Alnending the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map to Change the
Land Use Designation of 501-1313 Grandview Drive from Planned Industrial (P-I) to
Genentech Research and Developlnent Overlay (Genentech RAnd D Overlay Distract) Zone
Dishict
RECOMMENDATION:
Adoption of an Ordinance mnending the City of South San Francisco zoning map to change the land use
designation of 501-1313 Grandview Drive from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech Research and
Development Overlay (Genentech RAnd D Overlay Distract) Zone District
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is now ready
for adoption.
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ZONING
MAP TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF 501-1313
GRANDVIEW DRIVE FROM PLANNED INDUSTRIAL (P-I) TO GENETECH
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (GENENTECH RAND D
OVERLAY DISTRACT) ZONE DISTRICT
(Introduced on 8/1 0/05 Vote 5-0)
776372-1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 'rI-IE CI1Y OF SOU'rI-I SAN
FRANCISCO ZONING MAP 1'0 CI-IANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION OF 501-1313 GRANDVIEW DRIVE FROM PLANNED
INDUSTRIAL (P-I) T'O GENE'TECH RES EAR CI-I AND
DEVELOPMENT' OVERLAY (GENENT'ECI-I R AND D OVERLAY
DISTRAC'r) ZONE DIS1'RICT'
and
WHEREAS, the property is designated "Planned Industrial" in the 1999 General Plan;
WHEREAS, the reclassification will not change the land use classification, approved uses or
increase the approved density in the East of 1 01 Area over that analyzed in the South San Francisco
General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning COlnmission held a duly noticed
public hearing July 21, 2005; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2005, the Planning Commission found that the above described
reclassification will ensure internal consistency in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the above described rezoning will ensure internal consistency in the General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, as required by the "Adlninistrative Procedure" (SSFMC Section 20.87) and the
"Research & Developlnent Overlay District Regulations" (SSFMC Section 20.39.040 (B) (iii), the
following findings are made in support of the rezoning, based on public testimony and materials
sublnitted to the City of South San Francisco Planning Division:
a) The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan, which designates
this site for Business and Technology Park use;
b) The proposed project is cOlnpatible with the intent and purpose of the "Research
and Development Overlay District" (SSFMC Chapter 20.39.050 (a), (b) and (c)) in
the City's Zoning Ordinance which provides that "Development standards are
requirements of the underlying zoning district including, but not limited to,
building setbacks, lot coverage and floor area ratio may be amended for the
properties to be reclassified;"
c) rhe proposed proj ect meets all standards of the "Genentech Research and
Developlnent Overlay District" (SSFMC Chapter 20.40). The project cOlnplies
with the Purpose, Definitions, Design review, and Development standards and
774244 1
requirements of the Genentech Research and Development Overlay DistIict; and
WHEREAS, the above described rezoning wiII not change the land use classification, change
the approved uses, or increase the approved density in the East of 101 Area over that which was
analyzed in the South San Francisco General Plan Envirollil1ental l111pact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Negative Declaration in accordance with the provision
of CEQA, as ml1ended; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 2005, the Planning Comll1ission took public testimony and
considered the infoTIl1ation contained in the staff report, oraIIy presented by City staff and
recommended approval of the Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco Planning COl111nission held a duly noticed
public hearing July 21, 2005 on the adequacy of the proposed amendlnent to the Zoning Map and
recommended approval of same.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
ORDAIN as foIIows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby mnends the City of South San Francisco Zoning Map for 501-1313
Grandview Drive by changing the zoning designation from Planned Industrial (P-I) to Genentech
Research and Developll1ent Overlay District (Genentech Rand D Overlay District).
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circulnstance is held
invalid, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shaII not be affected thereby and shaII continue in fuII 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 anyone or Inore sections, subsections,
subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or
unenforceable.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the na111eS of those City Councihnelnbers voting
for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South
San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days frOln and after its
adoption.
774244-1
*
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the day of August, 2005.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the day of, August, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this _ day of , 2005.
774244-1
Mayor
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
taff
AGENDA ITEM #5
August 24, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Susan Kennedy, Assistant to the City Manager
DESIGNATION OF AUTHORIZED AGENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF
OBTAINING CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA DISASTER ASSISTANCE ACT
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution designating the City Manager,
Director of Finance and Director of Public Works as Authorized Agents for the purpose of
obtaining certain federal financial assistance under P.L. 93-288 as amended by the RobertT.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 and/or the California Disaster
Assistance Act.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 1998, the City experienced significant damage to the area off of Junipero Serra between Arroyo
Drive and Hickey Blvd. As a part of the process of filing the necessary claims for the work
performed on the hillside, the City designated Mike Wilson, Russ Moss and Mike Brooks as
Authorized Agents. The State Office of Emergency Services recently requested we authorize new
agents to act on behalf of the City of South San Francisco for the purpose of obtaining certain federal
financial assistance from the State of California under the California Disaster Assistance Act as they
complete the [mal paperwork and funding for this project.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council designate the City Manager, Director of Finance and the Director
of Public Works as our new Authorized Agents.
By: sC:::~!~
Assistant to the City Manager
Approved:
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING CERTAIN FEDERAL
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE CALIFORNIA DISASTER ASSISTANCE
ACT
WHEREAS, in 1998, the City sustained significant damage to the area off of
Junipero Serra between Arroyo Drive and Hickey Boulevard~ and
WHEREAS, the City is entitled to recovery of certain costs for the repairs of this
damage from both Federal and State Emergency Services Agencies; and
WHEREAS, the State Office of Emergency Services requires that the City
designate agents to act on behalf of the City of South San Francisco for the purpose of
obtaining certain federal fmancial assistance from the State of California under the
California Disaster Assistance Act as that agency completes the final paperwork and
funding for the above-referenced project; and
WHEREAS, the formerly-designated officials, Mike Wilson, Russ Moss and
Mike Brooks are no longer employed with the City; and
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco City Council is hereby authorized to
execute for and in behalf of the City of South San Francisco, a public entity established
under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it in the Office of
Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance
under P .L. 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster
Assistance Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
South San Francisco that the City Council hereby designates
City Manager, Barry Nagel, OR
Director of Finance, Jim Steele, OR
Director of Public Works, Terry White
as its agents for the State Office of Emergency Services authorized to act in all matters
pertaining to such state disaster assistance and provide any assurances and execute any
agreements required.
*
*
*
*
*
*
776330-1
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and
adopted bl the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held
on the 24 day of August, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
776330-1
taff
art
AGENDA ITEM
#6
DATE:
August 24, 2005
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Valerie SOllllller, Library Director
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $70,000 IN
GRANT FUNDING FROM THE PENINSULA COMMUNITY
EOUNDATION AND THE WOODLAWN FOUNDATION TO SUPPORT
LEARNING WHEELS PROGRAMMING
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recomlnended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting funding in the amount of
$70,000 from the Peninsula COlllmunity Foundation and the Woodlawn Foundation to support
Learning Wheels programming and alllending the Library Department's operating budget for
fiscal year 2005/2006.
BACKGROUND:
Project Read has received a grant of $50,000 froIn the Peninsula C01ll1llunity Foundation and $20,000
froIn the Woodlawn Foundation to support the Learning Wheels literacy van, a program that provides
early literacy development to low-incollle/low-literacy fmnilies in South San Francisco, San Bruno, Daly
City and ColIna. Leanling Wheels visits schools, daycare centers, health care centers, homeless shelters
and other cOlnInunity sites to provide story tiIlles, free books, access to interactive educational toys,
refelTals to library and literacy services, and parenting advice froIn a credentialed teacher.
FUNDING:
The funds will be used to anlend this year's operating budget of the Library Departlllent. Funds not
expended at the end of fiscal year 2005/2006 will be calTied over into fiscal year 2006/2007. Receipt of
these funds does not conlInit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles.
\ I l) ',: ('
By: Vo~lvt-~ 'anrv~
Valene Sommer .
Library Director
.Approved .
)
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $70,000
IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT LEARNING vVHEELS
SERVICES AND TO ANIEND THE LIBRARY DEPA.RTMENT'S
2005/2006 OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, staff recolnmends the acceptance of $50,000 from the Peninsula COlnmunity
Foundation and $20,000 from the Woodlawn Foundation to support Learning Wheels services; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $50,000 from the Peninsula Comlnunity Foundation
and $20,000 froln the Woodlawn Foundation to support Leall1ing Wheels services and mnends the
2005- 2006 Operating Budget, to reflect an increase of $70,000 to the Library Department's budget.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular llleeting held on the 24th day of August,
2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
taff
AGENDA ITEM #7
ort
DATE:
August 24, 2005
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Valerie SOInIner, Library Director
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $58,300 IN
GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO
SUPPORT PROJECT READ PROGRAMMING
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting funding in the amount of
$58,300 from the California State Library to support Project Read progralnming and alnending
the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2005/2006.
BACKGROUND:
Project Read has received a Library Services and Technology Act grant of $58,300 from the California
State Library to create a series of workshops that will prepare new learners to be successful in their
tutoring sessions. Workshops will be planned and led by veteran leanlers on the following topics: time
management skills, communication skills, identifying leanling Inodes, and developing study skills.
Veteran learners will be assigned to mentor new leanlers to help ensure a successfulleanling experience.
Lemner/tutor teams willlnake presentations about Project Read services, post recruitment flyers, and
host information tables at various comInunity locations.
FUNDING:
The funds will be used to mnend this year's operating budget of the Library DepartInent. Funds not
expended at the end of fiscal year 2005/2006 will be carried over into fiscal year 2006/2007. Receipt of
these funds does not comInit the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycles.
By: V~ hv.~
Valerie Sommer
Library Director
APProvea~ '- C f/
.Ha I M. Nagel "---
City Manager
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $58,300
IN GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT PROJECT READ SERVICES
AND TO AMEND THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2005/2006
OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, staff recOlnn1ends the acceptance of $58,300 frOln the Califo111ia State Library
to support Project Read services; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be used to mnend this year's operating budget of the Library
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $58,300 in Library Services and Technology Act
grant funding frOln the Califo111ia State Library to support Project Read services and amends the
2005- 2006 Operating Budget, to reflect an increase of $58,300 to the Library Department's budget.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of August,
2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
taff
AGENDA ITEM #8
ort
DATE: August 24, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Sharon Ranals, Director of Recreation and Community Services
SUBJECT: Transfer of Funds from a Developer Contribution for Public Art
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, authorize the transfer of $40,000 from a
voluntary contribution of $50,000 for public art that was received from the developer of the
Fairfield residential project to a trust account used by the Cultural Arts Commission for
acquisition of public art.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
During the negotiation for approval of the Fairfield Housing project, the developer offered to Inake a
contribution of$50,000 for public art toward mitigation of the visual density ilnpact of the project on
the cormnunity at large. If approved, this transfer will provide the Cultural Arts Cormnission with
oversight of 80% of this fund to recommend one or more appropriate sites for public art; select
appropriate art work; and direct staff to coordinate purchase and installation.
As the City Council is aware, budget reductions in recent years have resulted in the elimination of what
at one tiIne was an alTIlual allocation in the operating budget of $20,000 for the acquisition of art. These
funds would restore the Commission's ability to purchase art in the conling year. It should be noted
that unless directed otherwise by City Council, the Cultural Arts COInmission may select any location,
not necessarily in or near the Fairfield development. City Council has final approval over
recormnendations made by the Cultural AIis COlnmission on the selection of sites and mi work.
FUNDING:
If approved, this motion would result in a transfer of $40,000 from account 81-2935, "Designated for
Public Art" to account 81-2897, "Cultural Arts." The COInmission currently has a balance of
approximately $15,000 in their art account. Some of these funds were generated through Commission
fundraising for youth art scholarships ($3,500), and a portion of the balance is earmarked for the
current "Loan Art" competition, which is in progress. The total cost of this program will depend on the
Staff Report
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: August 24, 2005
Subject: Transfer Funds from a Developer Contribution for Public Art
Page 2
number of entries received, and then how many pieces are selected for exhibit. A balance of $10,000
would reluain in account 81-2935 for future art acquisition at City Council discretion.
By:
1MtP7~
Approve
Sharon Ranals, Director of
Recreation and COllliUunity Services
taff
ort
AGENDA ITEM #9
DATE: August 24, 2005
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: MISSION ROAD RESURFACING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0501,
PROJECT NO. ST-05-2 & BID NO. 2387
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to award the construction contract of the
Mission Road Resurfacing Project, Engineering File No. 51-13231-0501; Project No. ST-05-2; Bid No.
2387, to Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. in the amount of $376,943.50.
BACKGROUND/DIS CDS SION :
This proj ect is located on Mission Road (from Sequoia Avenue to Chestnut Avenue). The construction proj ect
involves milling the existing pavement and installation of the pavement reinforcing fabric, asphalt concrete
surfacing, pavement striping, markings and markers, traffic loop detectors, ADA ramps at intersections to
conform to the current ADA code requirements, and raising of utility manholes and monument covers to
grade.
On July 21,2005, staff advertised the notice to invite bids for the above project. Staff opened bids on August
9,2005 and received two (2) bids. Below is the summary of the bids:
Bidder
Bid Amount
Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. of South San Francisco.
G. Bortolotto Co., Inc. of San Carlos.
$376,943.50
$409,063.90
Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. has previously worked with the City and their work has been satisfactory.
The time allotted for this construction project is thirty five (35) working days. Staff recommends that the
contract be awarded to Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. in the amount of $376,943.50. The Engineer's
estimate for the project is $374,000.00.
Staff Report
Subject: MISSION ROAD RESURFACING PROJECT: ENGINEERING FILENO. 51-13231-0501
PROJECT NO. ST-05-2 & BID NO. 2387
Page: 20f2
The following is a cost breakdown for the proj ect budget:
Construction
Construction Contingency (15%)
Administration/Inspection (5 %)
Total
$376,943.50
$ 56,540.00
$ 18,800.00
$452,283.50
FUNDING:
Sufficient gas tax and Measure A funds are available for this project and said funds are reflected in the 2005 -
2006 Capital Improvement Program.
B
Marty VanDuyn
Assistant City Man
~ ~.
Approved b . ... {1 \. Ct- ./
. Nag
City Manager ---
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
Bid Summary
Location Map
H:\StaffReports\05 0824\ 05 0824 Mission Road Award.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT OF
THE MISSION ROAD RESURFACING PROJECT, ENGINERING FILE
NO. 51-13231-0501, PROJECT NO. ST-05-2 7 BID NO. 2387 IN THE
AMOUNT OF
WHEREAS, staffrecollllnends awarding the contract be awarded to Interstate Grading &
Paving, Inc. in the amount of$376,943.50.
WHEREAS, funding for this proj ect will be from the gas tax and Measure A funds which are
reflected in the 2005-12006 Capital Improvement Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts the contract from Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. in
the amount of $376,943.50 for this project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco.
*
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of
August, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
776365-1
~::::;~~~~N~~COOO'-lQ)01~c.u
-i
o
-i
)>
r
~ l-j ~ ~ ~
O~ w~.."
O'1:l 0 t:r:l
'1:l (1) ~ tj
tj I-j 1=0 q ~
(1) <;::q u
<ti > ~
~ ::t
o 0
'""1 ~
tjtjtjdtj::q:;o:;o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8. 8.
8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 0.. ~ ~
~ ~ ;::; :: :; ~. ~ ~
ooowo '1:l 0 p)
(J /O?&
8 ~ ~
'1:l 0.. .-+
::r' 0
~Q
.-+ p)
o 0..
o CP
'""1
p)
0..
CP
.......cJl
~l-j
o
~1
~:
.-+
~
S.
CP
\OooO\O\O\t:.......idt;~t~\O.......w~
80ooogo \ONg
t:r:lt:r:lt:r:lt:r:lt:r:l~t:d~~~l'~t:dt:dt:d-l
>>>>>"'rj>"'rj"'rj"'rjfoJ:j"'rj>>>~
-fit
(..)
.....
~,f:;.
o
(..)
:-t
I\)
c.n
-f:fi
-f:fi N-ffi-ffi
W-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi -ffi ONW-f:fi
N......01O:>'-I-ffiO:>-f:fi-ffi-ffi-ffi-f:fiooOQ)
O1N0010N01NW~NN900~
000000100100000000
0000000000000000
-f:fi -ffi
N -f:fi -f:fi -ffi _w
(O-f:fiW01~N
NCOO......N01
0100000
000000
000000
-f:fi
-ffi -ffi -ffi -ffi ......
-ffi -ffi ...... _...... _00 _...... _0:>
OOO:>N~~COO
010WOONO
0000000
0000000
0000000
-fit
(..)
.....
en
CD
,f:;.
(..)
CJ1
o
-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi -ffi ~
01 ...... ...... ...... ...... -ffi N -ffi -ffi -ffi -ffi -ffi _ -ffi -f:fi -ffi
ggsggsgse~e~e~~ggg~
0000001001001000000
00000 0 0
-f:fi -f:fi
-~ ...... ~ ~
O1NWQ)
gg:OO
00008
o 0
-ffi-ffi-ffi-ffi-ffi-ffi-ffi-ffi~
co-~ N_.......rv...... N Q) 01 ~
gs~~~~~~fjc;~
0~09~'-I~090
ogggg~gogo
-fit
.J;:l.
o
~CD
o
en
(..)
CD
o
i~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
oocooON!"NtnN. . ON010
i:.n i:.n 0 i:.n i:.n co 0 co '-I co (j :j 9 0 0 0
ocoococo 0 goo'-l
-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi-f:fi
~"""Q)co
'".!:>.N01Q)
...... 0:> ~ c.u
~~oi:.n
~ ~ 0 ~
-f:fi-ffi-ffif(5
-ffi~~~f(5~~-ffi~~"""01
~'N ......om...... 0 &50,0-...... co
c.u'-lN01COO1ill......ONQ)'N
i:.n ~ 0 !" ~ ...... ill en 0 ~ g: ~
~oogg:c5~gooooo.
oog
-ffi
N
-ffi -ffi ~
W co 0
Como,
000
000
000
000
-ffi
-ffi~
co N
o -
o ~
. 0
o 0
0"
o
o
~~g;'S:
0.. ~ 5.-.
~>(j1~
'1:l (J) '""1 G)
::r' '1:l 8 . ...,
p) ::r' :::s -. ......
;:;:-e.(JQ~;
~ .-+ "'rj -. :3
cp (J p) eEl 0
<ocr' CD
~ ~ ~. -g en
..., Q
Jga IJ-S:
(J CP ro 0"
o 0 :J:J
~ ~
~ ::L
~
-f:fi~
......0
5D 01
0:> ......
......co
~ 0
01 .
001
o
-f:fi -ffi
...... ~
~ ~
-f:fi -f:fi
...... ill
_0:> ......
...... ......
~ W
...... N
i:.n ~
01 01
OJ
0.:
N......2f
:3
..........m
UlUl~
1010 3"
+:>-+:>-o.>
UlUl(j)
Cl..
o
c
l-j 0.>
OCZl:J
z~~
-f:fi -f:fi
N01
N _'-I
0:> ......
Q) Q)
'-I 0:>
i:.n'-l
o 01
3=m
;::;:Z
~
z
m
m
;::0
cii
m
-len
o :::!
g~
)>
-f
m
~~~
i:.n ~ o.
o 01 CD
Z
-f
m
;::0
en
-f
)>
-l
m
G)
~
Q
z
G)
l?O
-l'"tJ
o )>
g ~
G)
Z
$I
C
-f:fi-f:fi:J
...... ill ;::;:
tv Co ~
000.
CD
CG)
~ (D
IJ 0
g" ;::0
CD -f
o
r
o
-f
-f
-l0
o
g l?O
()
9
OJ
o
(J)
c
~
~
)>
;::0
-<
~o
'"tJ ~-I
~ 0-<
c... ZO
~I1;O"
-ir-o(/)
zm)>O
OzoC
. 0;0
(J) -I
-ic.nm:c
I~(J)
Ole(/)
91~;o)>
I\)l\)l1z
~ (..))>
OJ7'-0"
oOz:::O
z~G'))>
O~'1JzË;00
o(/)
~O
00
-i
I\)
(..)
co
.......
!'-l
>~("') ~
~oo ~ ~ >
>rJ~~ F~~
~~~ t"<~("')
O~("') txlOO ~
s::\2!""i ['1:j~OO
~~~ ~,,~
2~~ ~ ~ Q
o~F <~o
ooot"< ~::O2
("')~< txl"'OO
~. ~ ><~~
S~~ ~~t"<
OS~ ("') ~ 8
.~t=lt"< ::joo~
@""i~ ><oo~
~~~ .,,~~
."oo::j 5;1~
::0 ~ t;1 ::0 0 ~
O~oo ...,~ ~
~~2 ~::o~
l:l:l ..., ['1:j tx1 ['1:j
~t%:f~ 02'"
~~~ h j
("')~t:1 O~oo
~~t:1 ;g ~ n ~
. ~.~ ~ 89
02("')
~~Ej
t"<~
JIl
.a:..
. c...>
I:l:l >~ .
></:"'1 ("') "'eI("')
~t"<~~ ~~~
("')~~~ ['1:j2::o
....~o("') ~o>
~ 00""''''' >< ("') ("')
. ........,0 ~ 0...,
...,>::0 ;::;.~o
>800 ...,...,::0
~2~ ~~~
t:I~t"< ...,Q~
9>rJg; ~~I:l:l
w['1:j t"<~ ['1:j
~~~ ~~~
...,...,." ...,l?ioo
0020 oo.,,'"I:i
to~ ~~~
M~63 ~;1~
~~~ d("')~
I:l:l ." >rJ ::o:j ['1:j
.....t:lO ~0>rJ
ooC5::O . 20
~r"" 0::0
~I~ ~~
..., 0 53C-(
..., ~ t"<0
~~~ n~
~>['1:j ~::j
t:1S("') t:lt%:f
:> 0 .,,("')
~i2 0
." 00 Cl2
::o;d <t:I
o c:: >::j
("') ...,-
~ ....., ['1:j 0
t:10- 2
VlO 00
Z
~
o
(j
>
~
~
o
~
~
~~:.:r-- .
'1-- ~__! .r-'-"--
~~<:i-i / ~
1 ,__I ~ -l
,-:-Sl\ I k-~ . /L~T t \ I
I, ..r-I ,.A' ~
rFfrr~_lllli~ ,t::;;-'\ \;(SiP~-"\r--:: I
'I / ,-/ ______tr _,,/::f I'
"'" ~#" ~;c; I I \ ("-. I
,---.... ,/ /- '\ ~ '
// Y" ~/~'<1-<"" -\j.\. \~\ I
// ~-:' ~ ' --:!:,-Y 'I_I y \ I
/,f\;~"'~~~ ~(1 \07-~
,\ '0 \ / W' 7) ;,~.._---~/ I
~ ,\V<x/-"!-- '\ "-. Y , -j)( !
'-< -" J _, Y , ,-CJ 1
~ ~ (rh~~x~~~--j I
" 1 '" ~/ \- ".J;: / / "~I
~ ',"lti II ~/<1!> I
>--7 "4~ '" j'l t /- ' 1
~ '-.. y/ \ ~'..d' y.., I
\ v/:;t\ /' , ,#' /
~ \ \~JSt", 0t ," I
~ \~ "J/, " ~"",,- '\ I
~_ _' ,," '- 'X"' "';11
~ ~y,~ \t"0<~~<}.'" ,"~',~
\ f f ,,/"; '-/ ,X' /' ,'''' y",,- 'V--- "" 1
S=' \L4W)/>~~' ~~f:(~ ~~'j, ~~;'j~ I
~ V~, ,__\.//' K/" ~/~ fg -"-. ","' / vY :
...-- < /\ x~' ' ~ --:l;; ~ ~ '> ----- --i~ ' '
P-d ~ _",/ /,,/ /'< ,) .- ~ · /J~rA<>,-::,,1"~-7' i
,cu" ,.,}{/' /~.I ! IT~.)) ~~ r~J l f//' I
-,,' / / '1111!>f'1iJ.,'~" V"-. 'v ' '
1\ (j \( ri/-J/lti!l/c-Siil0,,^ '::",'1 i
k"" //'-\, ~ "I '~/ 'o/<f. f 1/ I' ---.,' f ;
,,~ ...r ,,_ /';;., if/-' 1""", ,,7"'<0';--' I
I)' /, ''--.1 /},"'-- "~/ ; !-I-1!{Jr-'", - r 1/ ,t f 1
.'--.", "'---1 Ei{:""~ 'INJ! ,Jifl I I/- 'I, i, 1
~~ ~'.",.:r,.......'l!!-':"'./)! IJf Jj-f. If f! I I ( /' ~ )'" I
" '\ f'--.....~ r. . f!"-'; /...J' . " Iii J-<j, 1 I t ,,/ ' " '
v <---I f ~ I ' ! - I "'1../ fJ 1 i 7- ' y-) yY" ' '
r... J;- .--kfJ '! ! '--i 1:---1.: '; ( ~ \ \ --_! / !
,/",,1 ,.,.",./1 pl,~"lh -! j ,\ ,.j ,
I f L ..'",,, .! f f ! / ITt-!,i::--r--f m \ \ \ I
I'" / ",,/!,-JjIf 1;1 f ! L C::-J ' \ \ \ y' 1
L1"'", II I! /iN.) II j'''''-).~ ! / iI J 1
__ 11:. /1 ' ' ' I ' ' ,....,. , ;' '/' ' !~'" l, '
___~:.:-.__I' f I : I J' ,71-- / fI /"1" '
._<Jo..!.J.L. 1/'1 _,\) /. ,: , : ,1 I ' .
~~,rv. / ("..;,!"",
~_~L_____LLL}~:J~r_J
~ s=
~ ~
~ 00
t%J 00
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
~ ~
~ 0
~ ~
t..J
N
t..J
~
I
<:>
Ul
~ 00
>0 ~
~ ~
~ >
~ (j
p ~
~ ~
~ c;J
I
S P-d
Cd ~
8 0
~ t;j
~ (j
-.1 ~
taff
ort
AGENDA ITEM
#10
DA TE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 19, 2005
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Philip D. White, Fire Chief
RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,826.00
FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO
PURCHASE WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDA TION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a resolution accepting a grant in the amount
of $70,826.00 from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to purchase wildland
firefighting equipment and supplies and amending the 2005-06 Operating Budget.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
The Fire Department applied for a grant under the "Fiscal Year '05 Assistance to Firefighter's
Grant Program". This is an annual opportunity for Fire Departments to apply for needed funding.
South San Francisco's application was successful and FEMA has awarded a $70,826.00 grant to
our Department. This money will be used to purchase wildland frrefighting equipment and
supplies which will significantly improve the safety and personal protective equipment for our
frrefighters on a wildland incident.
FUNDING
The grant represents 80% of the total funding for the wildland equipment. Per FEMA regulations,
the City is required to pay the remaining 20% cost of $17,706.00. This amount is included in the Fire
Department's 2005-06 budget (10-11710-4740). The funds will be used to amend this year's
operating budget of the Fire Department. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to
ongoing support after the close of the funding cycle.
By:!1JJ9J-tdn F()i<
ph(lip D. White
Fire Chief
APProve~ '- (~
IT M. Nage
City Manager
Attachment: Resolution
JAB-08/19/05
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLlJTION ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AlVIOUNT OF
$70,826.00 FRONI rrHE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MAi\JAGEMENT
AGENCYT'O PURCI-IASE WILDLAND FIREFIGHTING EQlTIPNIENT
i\ND AMENDING THE 2005-06 OPERATING BUDGErr
WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance ofa grant in the amount of$70,826.00 froIn
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to purchase wildland firefighting equipment;
and
WHEREAS, the grant represents 80% of the total funding for the wildland equipment. Per
FEMA regulations, the City is required to pay the remaining 20% cost of$17,706.00. This amount
is included in the Fire Departments 2005-06 budget (10-11710-4740). The funds will be used to
amend this year's operating budget of the Fire Department. Receipt of these funds does not commit
the City to ongoing support after the close of the funding cycle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts a grant from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency in the amount of $70,826.00 to purchase wildland firefighting equipment and atnends the
2005-06 operating budget to reflect the budgeting allocations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the
_ day of , 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
S :\Cun.ent Reso's\9-1 Ocommunity.partnership.res.doc
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM #11
11. Motion to cancel regular meeting of Septelnber 14, 2005
taff Report
AGENDA ITEM #12
DATE:
August 24, 2005
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:
PUBLIC HEARING: EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Update.
BACKGROUND
The East of 101 Area is the employment center of the City and has experienced significant new
development over the past ten years, due largely to the conversion of industrial sites to office and Research
and Development (R&D) space and new hotel development. Since the adoption of the South San Francisco
General Plan in 1999, the City has approved over 4.5 million square feet of new Office/R&D development
space and 2,000 new hotel rooms in the East of 101 Area. Even with the recent decline in "dot-com"
businesses, the General Plan recognized that total build-out in the East of 101 Area will nearly double
from 12.82 million square feet in 2000 to 23.32 million square feet in 2020, due mainly to the increase in
Office and R&D development.
On September 26, 2001, the City Council adopted the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program.
The Program includes these specific objectives: 1) identifYing new streets and physical improvements, 2)
establishing an effective TDM program for employers, 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay
for future physical improvements, and 4) complying with State and San Mateo County congestion
management requirements. The Progrmn's street improvements and traffic fees were designed to help the
City reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours and manage anticipated growth in the East of 101
Area.
Approved Street Improvements (2001)
The Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101 Area (September 6, 2001) provided the justification for the
adopted Traffic Fee Ordinance. The Following table lists the cost estimates for the approved traffic
improvements to accommodate new development.
Staff Report
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Page 2 of 5
Project Total Construction Cost
(2001 Dollars)
1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $ 323,000
2. Dubuque Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. 896,000
3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. 408,000
4. Gull Drive & Oyster Point Blvd. 590,000
5. Airport Blvd. & Miller Avenue/US 101 SB off-ramp 338,000
6. Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. 918,000
7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. 1,226,000
8. Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. 210,000
9. Forbes Blvd.lEast Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. 1,559,000
10. Grandview Dr. & Grand Ave. 576,000
11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. 761,000
12. South Airport Blvd.lMitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 1,789,000
13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. 293,000
14. Harbor Way 2,637,000
15. Mitchell Ave. 1,882,000
Total $ 14,406,000
Adopted Traffic Impact Fee (2001)
The following table shows the previously adopted traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip
calculated in the Traffic Fee Study and the trip rates used to model development impacts.
Land Use PM Trip Rate1 Cost Per Trip Fee2
Commercial 3.74 $1,671 $6.25
Office/R&D3 0.90 $1,671 $1.51
Hotel 0.21 $1,671 $350.82
t Trips per 1,000 square feet of building area or per rOOlTI (for hotels).
2
Fee per square foot, or per hotel room.
3 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60,
respectively.
Staff Report
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Page 3 of5
DISCUSSION
Traffic Impact Fee Update Project
In 2005, the City commissioned a traffic study to determine the need for additional street improvements in
the East of 101 Area and update the cost to implement the adopted and new improvements. The Traffic
Impact Fee Study. East of 101 Area (May 6, 2005) provides the justification for the proposed Traffic Fee
Ordinance.
The Traffic Impact Fee Study. East of 101 Area (May 6, 2005) presents an analysis of the need for
roadway and intersection improvements in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco to
accommodate new development. The report documents a reasonable relationship between new
development and an impact fee for funding of these facilities.
Additional Intersections and Street Improvements (2005)
Project Description
16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/So Widen EB approach to provide additional right-turn lane,
Airport Boulevard extend EB left-turn lane to 310 feet.
17. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp/East Widen EB approach to provide an additional right-turn
Grand Avenue lane.
18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles Avenue Signalize, widen SB approach to provide free right-turn
lane, widen WB approach to provide an exclusive left-turn
lane, extend EB left-turn lane to 310 feet.
19. Forbes Avenue & Gull Road Extend SB left-turn pocket length to 240 feet.
20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue Widen NB approach to provide an exclusive right-turn
lane, widen EB approach to provide additional through
lane.
21. East Grand Avenue & Allerton A venue Signalize, widen EB approach to provide additional
through lane.
22. Utah A venue and Harbor Way Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an exclusive 1eft-
turn lane, widen WB approach to separate shared through-
left lane into exclusive through and left-turn lanes.
Revised Traffic Impact Fee (2005)
The Following table lists the cost estimates for the previously approved and new traffic improvements to
accommodate new development.
Staff Report
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Page4of5
Total Construction Cost
Project (2004 Dollars)
1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $341,000
2. Dubuque Ave.& Oyster Point Blvd. 946,000
3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. 431,000
4. Gull Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. 623,000
5. Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave.IUS 101 SB off-ramp 357,000
6. Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. 969,000
7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. 1,294,000
8. Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. 222,000
9. Forbes Blvd.lEast Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. 1,646,000
10. Grandview Dr. & East Grand Ave. 608,000
11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. 803,000
12. South Airport Blvd.lMitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. 1,888,000
13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. 309,000
14. Harbor Way 2,783,000
15. Mitchell Ave 1,986,000
16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/So Airport Boulevard 1,386,000
17. Highway 1 01 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Avenue 565,000
18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles Avenue 1,985,000
19. Forbes Avenue & Gull Road 117,000
20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue 810,000
21. East Grand Avenue & Allerton 521,000
Staff Report
Subject: PUBLIC HEARING: EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
Page 5 of 5
Project Total Construction Cost
(2004 Dollars)
22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way 978,000
Subtotal (Road Improvements) $21,568,000
Other Capital Facilities (Traffic software upgrade) 350,000
Less: Existing Fund Balance (1,967,319)
Total $19,950,681
Note: hnprovements that are highlighted In bold and italics are the new street and
intersection improvements.
The following table shows the traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in the
Traffic Fee Study and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per trip is converted to a
fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms.
Land Use . 1 Cost Per Trip Traffic Admin Total
PM Trip Rate
Fee2 Fee3 Fee
Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 0.21 $8.77
Office/R&D3 0.90 $2,288 2.06 0.05 $2.11
Hotel 0.21 $2,288 480.52 12.01 $492.54
I Trips per 1,000 square feet of building area or per room (for hotels).
2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room.
3 Based on an estimate of2.5 percent of traffic fee
4 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively.
Environmental Review
In 2001, the City Council certified the draft Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report (DSEIR). The
SEIR concludes that the project will have a significant beneficial impact on air quality and transportation.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the East of 101 Traffic IInpact Fee Update.
By:
By:
~(~(~
y M. Nagel'
City Manager
Attachment: Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 2005 EAST OF
101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE AND REVISING THE CITY'S
TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
THE EAST OF 101 AREA
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1999, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
adopted the South San Francisco General Plan ("General Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, as adopted, applies to the East of 101 Area, which is a
Planning Area that includes the land within the jurisdictional limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan area is included on the Land Use Map contained in the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted General Plan includes policies requiring that new
development should be required to pay its fair share toward upgrades to existing transportation
facilities or construction of new transportation facilities as those upgrades and facilities are
necessitated by new development in the East of 101 Area (see Policies 4.2-G-7, 4.2-1-7 and 4.2-
1-6); that the potential impacts of new growth will be mitigated through development fees and
other exactions (see Policies 4.2-G-1 and 4.2-1-8); that development of all urban uses shall be
coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities, including but not
limited to law enforcement (see Policies 4.2-G-6 and 4.2-1-4); and that the location, timing and
extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing,
including through use of impact fees and developer contributions, to prevent increased
congestion and level of service deficiencies (see Policy 4.2-1-1) ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on October
13, 1999, the City Council of the South San Francisco approved and certified compliance with
CEQA requirements by the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Environmental Impact Report identified certain significant and
potentially significant environmental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of less than
significance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA S 15091 upon a
proj ect approval; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a specific program to track compliance with the mitigation
measures. One approach is to use the yearly "state of the plan" report prepared for the city
council pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 (b) as the reporting program for a new
general plan; and
776584-1
WHEREAS, CEQA section 21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program shall be prepared to ensure compliance with the mitigation during the project
implementation; and
WHEREAS, the traffic improvements identified in the General Plan and the Muni
Financial Fee Study Update will undergo separate enviromnental review once the improvements
have been sufficiently engineered to identify their scope and potential impacts;
WHEREAS, in 2001, the City of South San retained Muni Financial to assist the City in
reviewing the needs of residents, businesses and employees through build-out under the adopted
General Plan and adopting a traffic impact fee to determine the level of fees necessary to
generate funds to pay for the transportation facilities necessitated through build-out under the
adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Muni Financial prepared and presented to the City Council a Traffic Impact
Fee Study, East of 101 Area For the City of South San Francisco ("Traffic Fee Study") which the
Council adopted at its September 26, 2001 meeting is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 Traffic Fee Study estimated the cost of transportation
improvements that would be necessary to accommodate future development within the East of
101 Area; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained the services of Muni Financial to update the 2001
report and identify the City's need for additional street improvements .in the East of 101 area and
to update the costs to undertake the adopted and updated list of recommended improvements,
and this Traffic Fee Study Update is attached as "Exhibit A"; and
WHEREAS, the attached Traffic Fee Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of
revising the traffic impact fee amounts included in the original 2001 study based on current
estimates of the need for and cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new
development, including (1) an estimate of traffic demand from new development; (2) an estimate
of the increase in the East of 101 Area's employment population between the year 2005 and the
year 2020, the planning horizon anticipated to be used in future preparation of a General Plan for
the City; and (3) the cost of constructing the necessary transportation improvements to offset the
impacts of the estimated increase in the East of I 01 Area's employment population by 2020; and
WHEREAS, in accordance the Government Code, at least 14 days prior to the public
hearing at which this Resolution was adopted, notice of the time and place of the hearing was
mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests with the City for mailed notice of
meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code, Exhibit A was available for
public review and comment for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this resolution was
adopted; and
776584-1
WHEREAS, 10 days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Resolution was
adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062(a) of the Govenunent Code.
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update
complies with California Govenunent Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for
imposition of the revised fees on new development in the East of 101 area. The purpose of the
traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is to finance transportation improvements to reduce
the impacts caused by future development in the East of 101 Area, as further explained in
Exhibit A. Such facilities are described in Exhibit A. The East of 101 Fee Study Update further
describes the following:
1. identifies the purpose of the fee;
2. identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
3. shows a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development proj ect on which the fee is imposed;
4. show a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the
type of development proj ect on which the fee is imposed;
5. show a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the
public facilities or.portions of facilities attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed.
B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to
finance the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A.
C. After c9nsidering Exhibit A, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing,
the agenda statements, the General Plan, and all correspondence received (together, "Record"),
the City Council approves and adopts Exhibit A and incorporates such report herein; it further
finds that future development in the City will generate the need for the transportation
improvements described in Exhibit A, and that such improvements are consistent with the
General Plan.
D. Adoption of the revised and adjusted traffic impact fees set forth in this
Resolution, as they relate to development within the East of 101 area, is intended to obtain funds
for transportation facility improvements necessary to reduce congestion and improve levels of
service within the East of 101 Area. While the fee may contribute sufficient funds for the
improvements, it will not, by and of itself, ensure the improvements are constructed. Moreover,
any improvements intended to be funded by the fee will be fully analyzed under CEQA when the
improvements are sufficiently engineered and the precise location and scope of the
improvements identified. As such, the fee, as it relates to development within the City, is not a
"project" within the meaning of CEQA because it is not a necessary causal link in the provision
of the improvements identified in the Mum Financial Fee Study. (Pub. Res. Code
776584-1
~21 080(b )(8)(D)).
E. In adopting the revised and adjusted traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution,
the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California
Consti tution.
F. The Record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the traffic
impact fee set forth in this Resolution (payment for certain listed transportation improvements)
and the type of development proj ects on which such fee is imposed in that all development in the
East of 101 Area-office/research and development, commercial and hotel-generates or
contributes to the need for the transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A and the type of development projects on which
the transportation improvement impact fee set forth in this Resolution is imposed in that new
development in the East of 101 Area-office/research and development, commercial and hotel
-will generate persons who live, work, and/or shop in the City of South San Francisco and who
generate or contribute to the need for the improvements listed in Exhibit A; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the traffic
impact fee set forth in this Resolution and the cost of the transportation improvements listed in
Exhibit A or that portion of such improvements attributable to the development on which such
fee is imposed in that such fee is calculated based on the number of residents or employees
generated by specific types of land uses, the total cost of construction of such facilities, and the
percentage by which development within the City contributes to the need for such facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit A are reasonable estimates for
the cost of the transportation improvements listed therein, and the fees expected to be generated
by future development will not exceed the projected cost of such improvements; and
5. That the method of allocating of the fee set forth in this Resolution to a
particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each
development's burden on and benefits from the improvements to be funded by such fee, in that
such fee is calculated based on the number of trips each particular development will generate.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does resolve
as follows:
1. The 2005 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update is hereby adopted.
2. Definitions.
776584-1
(a) "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a permit or other
entitlement for a new development project.
(b) "Child Care Facility" shall mean any child care facility as that term is defined by section
1596.750 of the California Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to facilities
providing non-medical care to children under eighteen years of age in need of personal
services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for
the protection and supervision of an individual on less than a 24-hours basis. Such facilities
shall include day care centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care
homes.
(c) "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco.
(d) "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having
a General Plan land use designation or zoning designation for facilities for the purchase or
sale of commodities or services and/or the sales, servicing, installation, or repair of such
commodities or services and other space uses incidental to these activities. COlnmercialland
uses include, but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls, auto
accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores, discount stores
and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and drinking establishn:1ents; furniture stores
and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and
improvement centers; hotels and motels; laundromats; liquor stores; restaurants; service
stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and theaters. "Commercial" includes the
Commercial land use designation in the General Plan.
(e) "Commercial, Office/Research & Development and Hotel Development Project'" shall mean
the construction of new Floor Area on a lot in the Community Commercial, Business
Commercial, Coastal Commercial, Mixed Industrial, and Business and Technology Park
land use classifications, identified in the East of 101 Area of the City by the South San
Francisco General Plan.
(f) "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration, or addition, other than by the City, of
any building or structure within the area within the City of South San Francisco.
(g) "Development Project" means any Commercial, Office/Research and Development and
Hotel Development Proj ect.
(h) "East of 101 Area Traffic hnpact Fee" or "Fee" shall mean the charge or charges imposed on
development to fund the transportation improvements to ensure that such development pays
its fair share of improvements generated by such development pursuant to this resolution
and applicable law.
(i) "East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan" shall mean the "South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April 2001.
776584-1
(j) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the City of South San
Francisco Building Code.
(k) "Hotel" shall mean a commercial facility containing guestrooms for the temporary use of
transients where access to individual units is predominantly by means of common interior or
exterior hallways.
(1) "Industrial" shalllnean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a
General Plan land use or zoning designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, or
processing of consumer goods and/or other space uses incidental to these activities.
Industrial land uses include but are not limited to: assembly; concrete and asphalt batching
plants; contractors' storage yards; fabrication; lumber yards; manufacturing; outdoor
stockyards and service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution; and
wholesale and heavy commercial uses. "Industrial" includes the following General Plan
land use designations: light industry and heavy industry.
(m) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that have been listed in this
Resolution and are used to provide the basis for future traffic proj ections.
(n) "New Development Project" shall mean any construction, addition, alteration or other
change of use of a building or land that requires the City to issue a grading, building,
plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permit, or any other form of entitlement.
( 0) Office/Research and Development" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning designation for general
business offices, medical or professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices,
offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, research and/or development,
research and development campus development with ancilliary retail and services, and other
space uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include, but are not limited to:
administrative headquarters; business parks; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices;
medical and health services offices and office buildings; professional and administrative
offices; professional associations; real estate offices; research and/or development offices
and travel agencies.
(P) "Public Works Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or the Director's designee.
(q) "Site-Related Right-of-Way or Improvement Construction" shall mean right-of-way or
traffic improvements that must be constructed on the site of a new development project in
order to comply with applicable City development regulations and standards.
(r) "Surface Transportation System" shall mean the City's system of streets, roads and
intersections traversed by automobiles and other vehicles.
(s) "Traffic Fee Study" shall mean the report entitled "Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101
Area For the City of South San Francisco," September 6, 2001 draft, prepared by Muni
Financial.
776584-1
(t) "Traffic Fee Study Update" shall mean the report entitled "Traffic Impact Fee Study Update,
East of 101 Area, City of South San Francisco," May 6, 2005 draft, prepared by Muni
Financial.
(u) "Transportation Improvements" shall include those improvements that are described in
Exhibit A; provided that the City Council later determines in accordance with applicable law
(1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within the City and the need
for alternative transportation improvements, (2) that the alternative transportation
improvements are comparable to the facilities listed in Exhibit A, and (3) that revenue from
fees charged pursuant to this resolution will be used only to pay new development's fair and
proportionate share of the alternative transportation improvements.
(v) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses of land, as
specified in the "South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand
Management Ordinance, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April 2001.
3. Revised and Adjusted Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq, ("Mitigation Fee Act") a Fee
shall be imposed and paid at the times and in the amounts and otherwise apply and be
administered as prescribed in this Resolution for each non-residential development (including
commercial, hotel, and office/research and development(R&D)t).
4. Time for Fee Payment.
A Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential development, including
commercial, hotel, and office/research and development developments, upon issuance of the
building permit, or if no building permit required, upon approval of a use permit for the
development project or, ifno use permit or amendment thereto required, at the earliest of any
other permit required for the project, for such non-residential development.
5. Amount of Fee.
Land Use PM Trip Rate Cost per Trip. Traffic Fee 1. Admin Fee j Total Fee
1
Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 $0.21 $8.77
Office/R&D4 0.90 $2,288 $2.06 $0.05 $2.11
Hotel 0.21 $2,288 $480.52 $12.01 $492.54
ITrips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels).
2Fee per square foot, or hotel room.
3Based on an estimate of2.5 percent of traffic fee.
4Based on a weighted average of PM trip rate and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively.
6. Exemptions From Fee. The Fee shall not be imposed on:
776584-1
a. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure
that has been destroyed or demolished; provided that, the building permit for reconstruction is
obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement
or reconstruction increase the square footage of the structure by 50 percent or more.
b. Any "Child day care facility" as that term is defined by section 1596.750 of the
California Health and Safety Code, including but not limited to facilities providing non-medical
care to children under eighteen years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or
assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection and
supervision of an individual on less than a 24-hours basis. Such facilities include day care
centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care homes.
7. Credit for Existing Uses
Applicants whose projects involve the rehabilitation, remodeling or replacement of
existing buildings with warehouse, industrial or light industrial uses shall be entitled to fee
credits that discount the overall Traffic Facilities Impact Fee by the number of trips already
generated by existing uses. Thus, credit shall be awarded to existing uses based on a net increase
in trip generation. Such discount shall be determined by and fall within the sole discretion of the
City Engineer.
8. Use of Fee Revenue.
The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest bearing
account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate. Such
revenues and interest shall be used only for the facilities and the purposes for which the Fee was
collected, which are the following:
a. To pay for acquisition of the right-of-way;
b. To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property acquisition
for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related to, the Transportation
Improvements;
c. To reimburse the City for the Transportation Improvements constructed by
the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless such
funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the
Improvements.
d. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed any of the
Improvements with prior City approval and have entered into an agreement, as provided in
Section 12, below; and
e. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing
administration of the Fee program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs,
and other costs of updating the Fee.
776584-1
9. Standards.
The Standards upon which the need for the Facilities are based are the standards of the
City, including the standards contained in the General Plan and those City standards reflected in
the Report Update.
10. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the Public Works Director shall prepare a report
for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of
Fee revenues in the Fee account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also
review, as part of any adopted City Capital Improvement Plan each year, the approximate
location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the
Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation.
The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee revenue
balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the
purpose for which it is charged.
11. Subsequent Analvsis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on
the Record identified above. The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to
determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City
Council may review the Fee to determine that the Fee amounts are reasonably related to the
impact of Development within the City. In addition to the inflation adjustments pursuant to
Section 12, below, the City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and
conclusions of further studies and any standards in the General Plan, as from time to time
amended by the City.
12. Fee Adiustments.
The purpose of this section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee for inflation,
beginning July 1, 2006 and each July thereafter, as follows:
a. Construction Cost. Annually each July, the City Manager shall adjust the
cost of construction of the Facilities, as shown in the Report, increasing/decreasing such
construction cost by the annual percentage increase/decrease reached by comparing the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the prior March or
April over the same Construction Cost Index for the same month for the prior year. The City
Manager may round the adjusted Facilities construction cost to whole dollars.
b. Land Acquisition Cost. Annually each July, the City Manager shall adjust
the cost of acquiring real property interests for the Facilities as shown in the Report by
776584-1
calculating the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of
the most recent appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the
immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and
using the same methodology) (the "Land Index"). The City Manager may round the adjusted
Facilities land acquisition cost to whole dollars.
c. Total Atmual Fee Adiustment. Annually each July, the City Manager
shall adjust the Fee by applying the total annual Fee adjustlnent for that year to the prior year's
Fee. The total annual Fee adjustlnent shall be reached by apportioning the adjustment in
construction cost and land acquisition cost calculated according to this section according to the
percentage each cost comprises of the whole Fee pursuant to the Report.
13. Credits and Reimbursement for Developer Constructed Facilities.
The City and a developer may enter into an improvement agreement to allow the
developer to construct certain of the Facilities. Such an agreement is totally discretionary on the
part of the City. Such agreement shall provide for security for the developer's commitment to
construct the Facilities and shall refer to this Resolution for credit and reimbursement. If the
City enters into such an agreement with a developer prior to construction of one or more of the
Facilities, the City shall provide the developer a credit in accordance with the following:
a. Credit Amount. The credit shall be in the amount of the lowest bid
received for construction of the facility, as approved by the Director of Public Works. However,
in no event shall a credit pursuant to this provision exceed the current facility cost. For the
purposes of this section, such current facility cost shall be the amount listed in the Report for that
particular facility, as subsequently adjusted pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of this Resolution
prior to issuance of the building permit for that facility. Once issued, credit pursuant to this
section shall not be adjusted for inflation or any other factor. Credit provided pursuant to this
section is not transferable.
b. Application of Credit. Developers may apply credit given pursuant to this
section against the Fee applicable to a particular project, until the credit is exhausted or an excess
credit results. The total credit shall be divided by the number of units to determine the amount of
credit that can be applied against the Fee for each unit, and if the credit per unit is less than the
Fee per unit, the developer shall pay the difference for each unit.
c. Reimbursement for Excess Credit. Reimbursement for excess credit shall
only be from remaining unspent Fee revenues. Once all the Facilities have been constructed or
acquired, and to the extent Fee revenues are sufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of
Fee revenues, including reimbursement for excess credit, developers with excess credit shall be
entitled to reimbursement, subject to such developers certifying in writing to the City that the
cost of constructing the facility that resulted in an excess credit was not passed on to tenants of
the development, and indemnifying the City from land-owner claims for reimbursement under
Government Code Section 66000 et seq., and Section 66001 in particular. If remaining Fee
revenues after all of the Facilities have been constructed or acquired are insufficient to cover all
claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims for reimbursement of
776584-1
excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis in accordance with applicable law.
14. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with Government
Code Section 66017, the Fee shall be effective 60 days from the effective date of this Resolution.
15. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any
individual component of the Fee or any portion of this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and
unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining Fee components and/or
Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those Fee
components and/or resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the
City of South San Francisco 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.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of August, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Ray Green, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sylvia PaYne, City Clerk
776584-1
E HIBIT
TRAFFIC IMPACT FE
EAST OF 101 REA
TUDY PDATE
ITY OF OUTH SAN RANCISCO
MAY 6, 2005
Oakland Office
1700 Broadway
6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: (510) 832-0899
Fax: (510) 832-0898
uiinanciall
AWIL LDANCOMPANY
Anaheim, CA
Industry, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Lancaster, CA
Oakland, CA
www.munLcom
Phoenix, AZ
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
Temecula, CA
Washington, DC
Table of Contents
East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee Update............................... 1
P u rp 0 s e of S t u d Y .... . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . .. .2
M itigati on Fee Act Fi ndi ngs......................................................... 4
Purpose of Fee........................................ ............................................... ..'..4
Use of Fee Revenues.................................................................................4
Benefit Relationship................................... .................................................5
Burden Relationship................................ ...................................................5
Proportionality....................................... ..... .................................................6
Traffic Demand from New Development .................................... 7
Facilities Standards. ........... ....................................... ..... ............ ..............10
Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth................................................... .12
Fee Schedule .... ...... ... ........... ................................ .... ....... ................... .....14
Implementation. ...... . ... ........... ............. .............. .............. ............ ............. .14
MumFinancia!
OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
This report is an update to the Traffic Impact Fee report dated September 13, 2002. The
purpose of this update is to adjust the fee to incorporate seven additional capital projects to be
funded by the fee.
The City Council adopted East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), which evaluated
potential improvement needs at 20 intersections to accommodate the building of the area east of
US 101 (East of 101 Area) in South San Francisco. CCS Engineering prepared the "Addendum
to Traffic Impact Fee Study East of 101 Area" on July 2,2003. The addendum presents the
existing traffic volumes, project conditions traffic volumes, necessary roadway improvements,
and cost estimates at 10 additional study intersections in the East of 101 area, identified on page
A-I in the Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee Study. The improvements required to mitigate the
impacted intersections under the moderate TDM conditions are listed below.
No. Location Improvement Items
21 Forbes Avenue & Eccles Signalize, widen SB approach to provide a free right-turn
Avenue lane, widen WE approach to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane, extend EB left-turn lane to 310 feet.
23 Forbes Avenue & Gull Road Extend SB left-turn pocket length to 240 feet.
24 South Airport Boulevard & Widen EB approach to provide an additional right-turn
US-101 NB Ramps land, and remove one NB through lane.
26 East Grand Avenue & East Widen NB approach to provide additional right-turn
Grand Avenue Overcrossing lane.
27 East Grand Avenue & Widen NB approach to provide an exclusive right-turn
Littlefield Avenue lane, widen EB approach to provide an additional
through lane.
28 East Grand Avenue & Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an additional
Allerton Avenue through lane.
29 Utah Avenue & Harbor Way Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an exclusive
left-turn lane, widen WE approach to separate shared
through-left lane into exclusive through and left-turn
lanes.
MuniFinancial
Elml1lllmse ml Slmitl H ~ R ~ ,~" ~ S, - ~ ,,~ ~-~',' ~ : -
This report updates the Traffic Impact Fee report dated Septelnber 6, 2001 and incorporated
into a Resolution adopting the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee
Study and establishing a Traffic Development Impact Fee for future development within the
East of 101. area, dated September 26, 2001, by the City Council.
The Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and Transportation Demand Management (fDM)
program is designed to reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours in the East of 101
Area, establish a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements, and comply
with State and San Mateo County requirements. The original project consists of the adopted
General Plan Amendment, which analyzes the impacts of growth, and the TDM Ordinance. To
study the East of 101 area thoroughly, a traffic study was completed in April 2001. The results
conclude that both physical improvements and a TDM program will need to be implemented to
reduce congestion during peak periods and improve mobility in the East of 101 Area. The
results are consolidated in a General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance. The General Plan
Amendment contains policies that implement the East of 101 Area traffic study and TDM
Ordinance. The TDM Ordinance will be incorporated into the City's Municipal Code.
The purpose of this update is to adjust the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, adopted by the City
Council on September 26, 2001, and incorporate the additional capital projects to be funded by
the fee. This report presents an updated analysis of the need for roadway and intersection
improvements in the East of 101 Area. The report documents a reasonable relationship
between approved General Plan 2020 development build out and an impact fee for funding of
these facilities.
Traffic Fee Planning Area
The planning area includes all land located east of US 101, south of San Bruno Mountain and
the City of Brisbane, west of the San Francisco Bay, and north of the San Francisco
International Airport.
The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area was originally
developed with meatpacking and heavy manufacturing activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and
the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the City's major establishments whose products
helped build California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the
1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct
facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more
attractive as a shipping terminal, and the City became the central distribution point for the entire
peninsula.
In the post-war years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for
industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the
City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to
the newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first
industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and
performance provisions, and featured a O.S FAR, ample parking and consistent landscaping and
building design. The park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making a slow
industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Warehousing, research and development and
MuniPinancial
biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the -114-acre Genentech campus, employing
over 4,500 people, have largely replaced steel production and other heavy industries. While the
East of 101 Area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active. The
City's industrial base has continued to evolve in response to market trends and conditions and
will continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future.
South San Francisco General Plan
In October 1999, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco
General Plan, which contains a Transportation Element with specific policies that provide for
improving circulation in the East of 101 Area. A traffic impact fee for the planning area is called
for in South San Francisco General Plan Amendment policy 4.2-1-7:
Continue to require that new development pay a fair share of the cost of street and other
traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on
service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for
improvements required east of 101.
Therefore, the objective of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment is to implement
the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: 1) updating traffic projections for the East
of 101 Area, identifying specific street improvements; 2) identifying transportation and
circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated
growth in the East of 101 Area; 3) enhancing street capacity; and 4) providing new linkages to
integrate a multi-modal transportation system.
General Plan Land Use and Development Assumptions
The 1999 General Plan and General Plan EIR established a 20-year projection for future
development in the East of 101 area, based on new floor area ratios (FAR) of up to 1.0 and an
estimate of how much land would convert from older industrial uses to higher-density research
and development facilities. In 2001, the City Council amended the estimated General Plan
buildout by adopting the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance Supplemental ErR. The Supplemental EIR incorporated the
following assumptions into the TIP analysis:
.. Total build out will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million square feet
to 23.3 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D development.
.. Approximately 6 million square feet more of development will be constructed than was
projected in the General Plan.
.. Employment will increase by a factor of 2.4 from 21,654 to 52,880. This increase is due
to both increases in floor space in the East of 101 Area and due to office and R&D uses
having much higher employment intensity than industrial development.
MuniFinancia/
MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS
Traffic facilities fees, also referred to as public facility fees, are one-time fees typically paid when
a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible
for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public
facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill
1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The AC0 contained in California Government Code
Sections 66000 through 66025) establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and
administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when
adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
E!l.IlSlIose 01 Eee
For the first finding the City must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. (~66001(a)(1))
The policy of the City of South San Francisco is that new development will not burden existing
development with the cost of public facilities, including traffic facilities, required to
accommodate growth. The purpose of the public facilities fee is to implement this policy by
providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that
development. The fee advances a"legitimate interest of the City by enabling the City to provide
municipal services to new development.
mse 01 Eee lie~eml.les ~, '
For the second finding the City must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference
to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in
applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public
documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (~66001 (a) (2))
The traffic facilities fee will fund expanded facilities to serve new development. All planned
facilities will be located within the City of South San Francisco. These facilities included in the
fmdings presented here include:
· Roadway widening;
MuniFinancial
.. Intersection signalization, and;
.. Other roadway improvements in the City of South San Francisco
Planned traffic facilities are identified in this report. This report provides the size and cost
estimate for each planned facility. More detailed descriptions of certain planned facilities,
including their specific location if known at this time, are included in various facility master plans
and other City planning documents. The City may change the list of planned traffic facilities to
meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deelTIS necessary. The fee program should be
updated if these changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new
development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the Facilities) Inventories) Plans and
Standards section within each facility chapter.
Bemelil Relaliemsiim ; . 4 . .~~. u: .-.,... .: . ~ 'x",' ...... "J . .
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (~66001(a)(3))
Need to revise to traffic fees
The City will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land, construction of public buildings,
and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services that serve new
development. Public facilities funded by the fee will provide a citywide network of services
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Thus, there
is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and
nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee.
The planned facilities that will be funded by the fee are described in the following chapter.
m ~ ~ I~.~. ., . . ,', . '.' ." . . ..4 ,'. IS' ..... '" . ..
IiJI.Il'iuem n.e aLlemSlfllm ..' " . . c .: '::' ',' " '.' . .... "\ ," .
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (~66001(a)(4))
Building square footage is an indicator of the demand for traffic facilities needed to
accommodate growth. As additional building square footage is created, the occupants of these
structures will place additional burdens on the traffic facilities. The need for the fee is based on
traffic engineering reports prepared by the City that quantify the expected traffic impacts of new
development.
MuniPinancial
IInsf)silisoalill ~ x~ ~~ S _ ~ " , ' ~, ,- - -' ~,,"
For the fifth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed. (~66001(b))
This reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specific development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the
project will add to public roadways. The total fee for a specific project is based on building
square feet. The fee schedule converts the estimated square footage of a development project
into a fee based on the size of the project. Larger projects of a certain land use type will have a
higher trip generation and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type.
Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a
specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
MuniPinancia!
TRAFFIC DEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
The adopted East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) evaluated potential
improvement needs at 20 study intersections to accommodate the build out of the area east of
US 101. The approved Traffic Impact Fee (2001) is based on the square feet of development or
rooms for hotels anticipated in the South San Francisco General Plan.
The update to the Traffic Impact Fee reflects additional development approvals and
construction since 2001, including: 1) projects that have been approved prior to the adoption of
the Fee and not subject to the fee; 2) projects approved since 1999 and have not obtained a
building permit; 3) approved projects subject to a development agreement; and 4) approved
project that have obtained a building permit and paid the fee. The existing and planned
development was based on information on existing office buildings, the South San Francisco
General Plan, the South San Francisco General Plan and Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance SEIR, the Major Projects Lists from 2001 to 2005, the Genentech Master Plan,
Britannia East Grand Business Park, Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and the Gateway Specific
Plan. The updated square feet of approved development (2001-2005) was based on the Major
Projects Lists and also by working with the City to determine which properties are likely to
change from industrial or vacant to office or office/R&D.
The traffic study projected the commercial and hotel development by assuming that 80 percent
of the land- area of a site that is projected to change from vacant or industrial to office or
office/R&D will become office space, ten percent of that site will be hotel development at a 1.0
FAR and another ten percent will be commercial development at a 0.3 FAR.
Table 1 presents existing and planned development within the East of 101 Area.
MumFinancia!
Table 1: Existing and Planned Development
2001 Square footage
Existing & 2001-2005 Approved subject to Traffic
Approved Building Permits Impact Fee Total General Plan
(sJ.)1 (sJ.)2 (sJ.) Buildout (sJ.) 3
Commercial 690,204 14,490 231,929 936,623
Office/R&D 5,177,428 1,376,513 9,527,956 16,081,897
Hotel4 654,204 1,423,590 2,077,794
Industrial 6,525,053 (479,905) (1,823,234) 4.221 .914
Total 13,046,889 911,098 9,360,241 23,318,228
1 Existing and Approved projects, Table 1, East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, September 6,2001.
Approved projects not included in the fee. These projects have paid the traffic impact fee or otherwise
. mitigated impacts through developer agreements.
2 Projects that have obtained a building permit and paid the existing fee. (September 2001 to March
2005).
3 Total potential buildout under the South San Francisco General Plan, using land use classifications and
floor area ratios.
4 Represents 1,170 rooms provided by CCS Planning and Engineering.
Source: City of South San Francisico.
Table 1A shows the detail of Office and Research and Development projects for which building
permits have been approved and the fees have been paid.
MumFinancial
Table 1A: 2001 - 2005 Office/R&D Projects Approved and Fees Paid
Project Name Address Square Feet Fee Paid
Britannia East Grand 471 E. Grand Avenue 149,187 $ 284,949
Britannia East Grand 451 E. Grand Avenue 106,207 202,855
Britannia Point Grand 210 E. Grand Avenue 67,674 102,188
333 - 351 Allerton 333 Allerton 64,103 11 ,992
Cell Genesys 500 Forbes 153,949 232,463
Genentech B33 1633 Grandview 130,115 196,474
Genentech B32 1541 Grandview 125,000 91,685
Britannia East Grand 465 E. Grand Avenue 98,460 117,167
Commercial 160 Beacon Street 14,490 21,880
Bay West Cove (Slough) Building A 98,184 148,258
Bay West Cove (Slough) Building B 79,994 120,791
Bay West Cove (Slough) Building C 67,015 101,193
Bay West Cove (Slough) Building 0 80,171 121,058
Bay West Cove (Slough) Building FIG 141 .964 214,366
Total 1,376,513 $ 1,967,319
Source: City of South San Francisico.
CCS Planning & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area.
Intersection operations were evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 32 study
intersections. Based on development data provided by the City of South San Francisco Planning
staff, CCS Planning & Engineering was able to calculate actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates in the
East of 101 Area. Traffic demand from new development and the impact fee are based on
evening peak hour trip generation rates because this period is more congested than the morning
and therefore has a greater impact on the need for traffic improvements.
Table 2 shows traffic demand that would be generated by new development.
MuniPinancial
Table 2: Trip Generation Rate by New Development
Additional
(1,000 sJ. or Peak Hour
rooms)1 Trips (PM)
Land Use
PM
Trip Rate 1
Commercial 3.74 232 867
Office/R&02 0.90 9,528 8,590
Hotel 0.21 1,170 246
Industrial 0.54 (1,823) (985)
Total 8,719
1 Evening peak hour trips measured in 1,000 building square feet for commercial and
office/R&D uses and rooms for hotel uses.
2 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and
0.60, respectively.
Sources: Table 1; CCS Planning and Engineering; City of South San Francisco
Planning; MuniFinancial.
liaeilities Stal'lilal'1i1s ~ ~
The City's traffic facility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used in
traffic planning and known as "level of service" (LOS). LOS is calculated based on the volume
of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roadway or
intersection. LOS "A," "B," and "C" suggest that delays are insignificant to acceptable. LOS
"D" suggests tolerable delays though traffic is high and some short-term back-ups occur. LOS
"E" and "F" suggest significant to excessive delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the
capacity of the facility.
The following policies present the performance standards acceptable to the City of South San
Francisco:
. Strive to maintain level of service (LOS) "D" or better on arterial and collector
streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMF during peak hours.
. Accept LOS "E" or "F" after finding that there is no practical and feasible way to
mitigate the lower level of service; and the uses resulting in the lower level of service
are of clear, overall public benefit.
Traffic impacts from growth were measured using a traffic model.' The model was calibrated to
existing conditions using traffic counts and the land use data discussed above. Table 3 presents
the LOS in the studied intersections based on existing conditions with no traffic improvements,
and future conditions with planned improvements that minimize the decline in LOS caused by
growth. The impact of intensive transportation demand management measures were included in
the model to minimize the need for improvements.
MumPinancial
Table 3: Intersection
Intensive TDM
with Additional
Existinq Improvements
Intersection Control LOS1 Delal LOS1 Delal
PM Peak Hour
Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)3,5 Stop (Signal) C 11 F 82
Airport Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal 0 27 0 31
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal 0 25 F 85
Dubuque Ave & US-101 Ramps Signal B 12 C 22
Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 24 F 63
Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal A 3 B 13
Bay West Cove Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd3 Stop A (A) 0 A (C) 1
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 13 B 13
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 13 C 17
Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7 B 13
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US-101 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 15 B 15
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 20 0 26
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Signal A 3 A 4
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal C 18 C 22
Forbes Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal C 18 D 26
Grandview Ave & East Grand Ave3.4 Stop (Signal) A (B) 3 C 19
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal C 21 C 22
South Airport Blvd & Gateway Blvd Signal 0 26 0 25
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Signal C 16 C 17
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Stop B 11 F 831
Forbes Ave & Allerton Ave Stop A (B) 2 A (C) 2
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Signal B 9 0 29
South Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramps Signal C 21 C 19
E. Grand Ave & US 101 NB Off-Ramp Yield A (A) 0 A (A) 0
E. Grand Ave/US 101 NB Off-Ramp & E Grand Signal B 10 B 9
Ave Overcrossing
E. Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave Signal B 10 C 15
E. Grand Ave & Allerton Ave Stop A (B) 1 F (F) OVR
Utah Ave & Harbor Way Stop 0 29 F OVR
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 EB Ramp Signal A 5 B 6
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 WB Ramp/North Signal B 14 B 14
Access Rd
South Airport Blvd & North Access Rd Stop A (A) A (A)
1 LOS = Level of service
2 Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds. OVR = Overflow Conditions
3 A (D) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most
difficult movement)
4 Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps
and signalized intersection for future scenarios.
5 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional
Improvements" scenarios only.
Source: CCS Planning & Engineering, Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee, July 2, 2003; MuniFinancial
MumFinancial
The results of the traffic model shown in the table indicate that new development is responsible
for one hundred percent of planned improvements because the improvements either maintain
existing LOS or minimize the decline in LOS caused by increased traffic generation frOlTI new
development.
This update includes seven projects to accommodate development through build out of the area.
No. Location Improvement Items
21 Forbes Avenue & Eccles Signalize, widen SB approach to provide a free right-turn
Avenue lane, widen WE approach to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane, extend EB left-turn lane to 310 feet.
23 Forbes Avenue & Gull Road Extend SB left-turn pocket length to 240 feet.
24 South Airport Boulevard & Widen EB approach to provide an additional right-turn
US-101 NB Ramps land, and remove one NB through lane.
26 East Grand Avenue & East Widen NB approach to provide additional right-turn
Grand Avenue Overcrossing lane.
27 East Grand Avenue & Widen NB approach to provide an exclusive right-turn
Littlefield Avenue lane, widen EB approach to provide an additional _
through lane.
28 East Grand Avenue & Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an additional
Allerton Avenue through lane.
29 Utah Avenue & Harbor Way Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an exclusive
left-turn lane, widen WE approach to separate shared
through-left lane into exclusive through and left-turn
lanes.
All cost estimates for the planned traffic improvements to accommodate new development and
included in the traffic model analysis are shown in Table 4.
MuniFinancial
12
Table 4: Net Cost of Planned Traffic Projects
lotal
Construction
Cost
Project (2004 Dollars) 1
Road Imorovements
Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd $ 341,000
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 946,000
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd 431,000
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd 623,000
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp 357,000
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave 969,000
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave 1,294,000
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave 222,000
Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd 1,646,000
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave 608,000
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave 803,000
South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd 1,888,000
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave 309,000
Harbor Wy 2,783,000
Mitchell Ave 1,986,000
Hwy 101 northbound off-ramp/So Airport Blvd 1,386,000
Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/Grand/E. Grand Ave 565,000
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave 1,985,000
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd 117,000
East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave 810,000
East Grand View Ave & Allenton Ave 521,000
Utah Ave & Harbor Way 978.000
Subtotal $ 21,568,000
Other Caoital Facilities
Traffic software upgrade $ 350.000
Less: Existing Fund Balance $ (1.967.319)
Subtotal 2 $ (1,967,319)
Total $ 19,950,681
1 Project cost increased to 2004 dollars using a rate of 5.5 percent based on Engineering News
Record, Construction Cost Index.
2 Fund balance and credits to the fee program for traffic mitigation for the E. of 101 area. See Table
1A.
Sources: CCS Planning and Engineering; City of South San Francisco; MuniFinancial.
Different development projects impact the transportation network at different rates depending
on the number of trips generated. A cost per trip factor is used to calculate each project's fair
share of planned improvement costs. The cost per trip is calculated by dividing the total
planned facility costs by the total trip generated by new development and is shown in Table 5.
MumFinancia! .
The City does not anticipate any non-fee funding sources for these projects so the total cost is
allocated to the fee program.
Table 5: Cost
to Accommodate Growth
Fee Share of Planned Facilities Costs
Peak Hour Trips (PM)
$ 19,950,681
8,719
Cost per Trip
$
2,288
Sources: Tables 2 and MuniFinancial.
Ree SetiieClule
Table 6 shows the traffic facilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in Table 5
and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per trip is converted to a fee
per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms. The administration fee is
based on an estimated cost of 2.5 percent of the traffic fee. The amount of the administration
fee is an estimate. It should be adjusted when sufficient data is available to determine the actual
cost.
Table 6: Traffic Facilities Impact Fee
PM Cost per Traffic Admin Total
Land Use Trip Rate 1 Trip Fee2 Fee3 Fee
Commercial 3.74 $ 2,288 $ 8.56 $ 0.21 $ 8.77
Office/R&04 0.90 2,288 2.06 0.05 2.11
Hotel 0.21 2,288 480.52 12.01 492.54
I Trips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels).
2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room.
;j Based on an estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee.
4 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively.
Sources: Tables 2 and 5; CCS Planning and Engineering; MuniFinancial.
Il'l'Illlel'l'lel'llaliml'l ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ : ~
This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee programs.
MuniFinancial
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on an annual basis to show the
programming of fee revenues to the traffic facilities. Use of the CIP in this manner provides
ongoing and up to date documentation of a reasonable relationship between new development
and the use of fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned projects listed in Table 4, or substitute new projects,
as long as the project list continues to represent improvements needed to accommodate new
development in the East of 101 Area. If the total cost of all planned projects net of non-fee
funding sources, if any, varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the City should
revise the fee accordingly.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances
and projected fee revenue to traffic projects. The City can hold funds in a project account for
planned improvements longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete
the project.
Inflation Adjustment
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and adopt an
automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually. If right-of-way acquisition is planned the City
should use separate indexes for land and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may
require use of a property appraiser every several years. The construction cost index can be based
on the City's recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the
Engineering News Record. To calculate the fee increases, each index should be weighted by the
share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code
66000 et seq. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues,
the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify
when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project.
MuniPinancial