HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-07-25 e-packet
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING
COMMUNITY ROOM
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2007
7:30 P.M.
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting
Council business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at
7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San
Francisco, California.
Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item,
please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the
City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public
comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda
(except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for
investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more
comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your
name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES
PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation.
The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes
reading an item, it will be ready for Council action.
PEDRO GONZALEZ
Vice Mayor
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR
Mayor
MARK N. ADDIEGO
Councilman
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES
Councilman
KAR YL MATSUMOTO
Councilwoman
RICHARD BATT AGUA
City Treasurer
FLO DERBY
Interim City Clerk
BARRY M. NAGEL
City Manager
STEVEN T. MATT AS
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
INVOCA nON
PRESENT A nONS
. Certificate of Recognition to SamTrans "Art Takes a Bus Ride" Winner Marlo Ghilardi-
Lopez, Martin Elementary School 1 st grade student
. Wet Weather Phase II Presentation - Director of Public Works Terry White
AGENDA REVIEW
PUBLIC COMMENTS
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL
. Announcements
. Committee Reports
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Motion to approve the Minutes ofthe City Council meeting of July 11, 2007
2. Motion to confirm expense claims of July 25, 2007
3. Adoption of resolution approving Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services
Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver
and Wilson.
4. Adoption of a resolution to award the emergency construction contract for the repair of
sewer trench at 130-148 Beacon to JMB Construction, in the amount of$415,000
5. Adoption of a resolution authorizing installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at
Maple Avenue
6. Adoption of an ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 4,
Chapter 4.20, Section 4.2.130 to grant authority to impose liens for delinquent payment
of the Transient Occupancy Tax ("TOT") (second reading)
7. Adoption of a resolution awarding a contract to Affordable Painting Service, Inc., of
Sacramento, California in amount of$37,580 for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting
Proj ect
PUBLIC HEARING
8. Public hearing regarding proposed amendment to East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee;
adoption of resolution adopting the City of South San Francisco 2007 East of 101
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
July 25, 2007
PAGE 2
Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and revising the City's Traffic Development Impact
Fee for future development within the East of 101 Study Area
9. Public Hearing regarding proposed amendment to East of 101 Sanitary Sewer Impact
Fee; motion to continue indefinitely, staff will re-notice
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
10. Adoption of a resolution establishing policy goals and a voluntary program promoting
the elimination of polystyrene food service ware
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
11. Introduction of an ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 3,
Chapter 8.54, Section 8.54.205 related to cost recovery of public nuisance abatement
12. Introduction of an ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter
4.22 to add administrative provisions for the collection of the commercial parking tax
13. Introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 11.68.020 and 11.68.025 of the South
San Francisco Municipal Code to update the streets subject to radar enforcement of
speeding violations and adopting updates to the Radar Survey Report of May 2005
COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM
CLOSED SESSION
14. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a))
Zimmerman et al. v. City of South San Francisco et al
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
July 25, 2007
PAGE 3
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 3
DATE:
July 25, 2007
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Barry M. Nagel, City Manager
SUBJECT: Contract Amendment for Professional Services Agreement between South San
Francisco and Meyers Nave for Legal Services
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution authorizing Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services
Agreement between South San Francisco and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver and Wilson.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City Council is hereby requested to consider and approve Amendment No. 12 to the Professional
Services Agreement between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver
and Wilson ("Meyers Nave"). If approved by the City Council, the new contract terms would be effective
August 1, 2007.
The proposed amendment modifies the compensation terms of the agreement between the City and
Meyers Nave. Specifically, the retainer amount has been increased to $33,080 per month for up to 250
hours of basic services. The hourly rate for basic service hours in excess has also been increased to $187
per hour. Additionally, the redevelopment legal services rate has been increased to $191 per hour for
associates and $245 per hour for principals and "of counsel" attorneys; the rate for land use cost recovery
matters has been increased to $216 per hour for junior associates, $243 per hour for "of counsel" and
senior associates, and $270 for principals; the flat fee for photocopy/faxlU.S. mail costs has been
increased to $560 per month; and litigation rates have been increased to $103 per hour for paralegals,
$185 per hour for junior associates, $201 per hour for senior associates, and $230 per hour for principals
and "of counsel" attorneys. The contract also specifies that specified personnel arbitrations, grievance and
administrative and hearing processes are included as special service items and subject to the litigation
:;S'01~. u_.~ l
. Barry M. Nagel - '-"--<1 -
City Manager
1987323
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
MEYERS NAVE
WHEREAS, the City and Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson entered into a
professional services agreement in March 1994; and,
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend said agreement to modify the compensation
provided to Meyers-Nave.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco does hereby:
1. Approve Amendment No. 12 to the Professional Services Agreement as
set forth in Exhibit A hereto;
2. Authorizes the City Manager to sign, on behalf of the City Amendment
No. 12.
*
*
*
*
*
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 25th day of
July, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
987331
City Clerk
AMENDMENT NO. 12 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MEYERS,
NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER AND WILSON
The City of South San Francisco and Meyers-Nave do hereby agree as follows:
1. Section 4 "Compensation - Basic Services" is hereby amended to read as follows:
"City shall pay the amount of Thirty Three Thousand Eighty Dollars ($33,080) per
month effective August 1, 2007 for up to 250 hours per month of Basic Services as
described in Section 1, excluding redevelopment legal services which shall be billed
separately. City shall pay Law Firm $187 per hour for any Basic Services provided to
City in excess of250 hours per month. The Law Firm shall notify the City Manager
in writing of the anticipated need for excess services prior to performing Basic
Services in excess of 250 hours in anyone month.
In addition to Basic Services compensation, Law Firm shall also be paid for (1)
redevelopment legal services at the rate of $245 per hour for Principals and Of
Counsel attorneys and $191 per hour for associate attorneys and (2) cost recovery
matters involving land use entitlements at the rate of $270 per hour for Principals,
$243 per hour for Senior Associates and "Of Counsel" attorneys, and $216 per hour
for Junior Associates with the City's costs reimbursed by the development applicant.
For purposes of this section, cost recovery matters shall include the following: 1) all
non-residential projects requiring approval of a conditional use permit, planned unit
development, development agreement, zoning amendment, general plan amendment,
specific plan or amendment thereto or other discretionary approval; 2) all residential
or mixed use projects containing four (4) or more residential units and/or those
residential projects requesting an owner participation agreement, disposition and
development agreement, affordable housing agreement or development agreement;
and 3) any project requiring a mitigated negative declaration, environmental impact
report, or an addendum to an environmental impact report.
In addition to the Basic Services compensation, Law Finn shall also be reimbursed
$560 per month for photocopy/fax/U.S. mail costs incurred at the Law Finn's
Oakland office. City shall also reimburse Law Firm for the actual costs paid by Law
Finn for Westlaw and Lexus computer research services, messenger services and
document requests.
2. The first sentence of Section 5 "Compensation - Special Services" is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"City shall compensate Law Firm for special services described in Section 2 hereof
and which are authorized by action of the City Council on an hourly basis at the rate
of$230 per hour for shareholders and "Of Counsel" attorneys, $185 per house for
987266-l
junior associates, $201 per hour for senior associates and $103 per hour for
paralegals. "
3. Section 2 is hereby amended to add Subsection (f) to read as follows:
"(f) Providing legal services for personnel related arbitrations, grievance hearings,
hearings and administrative processes before the California Fair Employment and
Housing Agency, the California Personnel Employee Relations Board and the City's
Personnel Board."
4. Except as expressly provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the
Professional Services Agreement between the City and Meyers-Nave shall remain in
full force and effect for the term of this Agreement. This amendment shall be
effective as of August 1,2007.
Date: City of South San Francisco, a Municipal
Corporation of the State of California
By:
Barry M. Nagel, City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson
Special Counsel
By:
Steven T. Matias, Principal
987266-l
-
:\)'t\\ 84#
~ca.C_'~~.\ '.". -'_' .. ".~.
1(0. 0
l>< ....
.~ ~
v 0
C'4l1FOP.~\.~
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 4
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 25, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
A CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY TRENCH WORK TO REPAIR A
POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON
STREET
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the emergency construction
contract for the repair of the sanitary sewer trench located at 130/148 Beacon Street to JMB
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $415,000.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Wet Weather Program was initiated to remediate a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) on July 16, 1997. In response to this order, the City
completed capacity improvements at the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP), an infiltration and
inflow (1&1) study and master plan of recommended infrastructure improvements, subsequently referred
to as the Wet Weather Program. The CDO required the infrastructure sewer improvements to be
constructed by November 1,2007.
The Wet Weather Program consists of four phases. Phase I consisted ofthe replacement of two pump
stations (San Mateo and Shaw Road) and several miles of new gravity/force main sewer lines,
connecting the pump stations to the WQCP. This project was designed by Carrollo Engineers and
constructed by Mitchell EngineeringlObayahsi, A Joint Venture (Mitchell). These pump stations and
gravity/force sewer lines have been completed and are currently in operation.
As part of the construction of the sewer main from the Shaw Road pump station to WQCP, the design
called for tunneling a sewer line under US Route 101, and continuing in a 16- foot deep trench within a
City sewer easement between 130/148 Beacon Street. The contractor initiated this portion ofthe work
in the summer of2004. On February 14, 2005, a portion ofthe open trench adjacent to 130/148 Beacon
Street failed due to inadequate shoring. Following restoration ofthe trench, it was later discovered that
Mitchell EngineeringlObayashi had used sand as trench backfill instead of lightweight aggregate, as
specified by the geotechnical and design engineers.
Staff Report
Subject:
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT FOR EMERGENCY TRENCH WORK TO REPAIR A
POTENTIALLY UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON
STREET
Page 2 of2
The geotechnical engineer retained by the City evaluated the trench. He determined that due to the
underlying soil which consists of bay mud and high ground water, the sand backfill used by Mitchell
may "liquefy" during a significant earthquake and pose a threat to the stability ofthe building structures
at 130/148 Beacon Street. Due to outstanding claims this project has yet to be accepted by staff or by the
City Council. The proposed emergency repair by 1MB Construction, Inc. will correct the existing
problem by excavating the trench to the top ofthe pipe and replacing the sand backfill with lightweight
aggregate.
FUNDING
This project is included in the FY 07-08 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with funding provided by
the sewer fund.
CONCLUSION
Council authorization to proceed with the emergency construction project to restore and repair the
sanitary sewer trench at 130/148 Beacon Street would provide for the completion of this project. The
completion of this project will also allow the property owners to complete the follow-up work of the
restoration of the parking lot drainage and surface repair in a timely manner.
BY:~U
Marty VanDuyn
Assistant City Manager
--
-+
Approved:
Attachments: Resolution
DC/SBIDC
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR
EMERGENCY WORK TO REPAIR A POTENTIALLY
UNSTABLE SANITARY SEWER AT 130/148 BEACON
STREET
WHEREAS, in September 2003, the City of South San Francisco ("City") proceeded to
undertake a public works project titled Wet Weather Program Phase I Project, Project No. 71-13235-
0351 ("Wet Weather Project") to improve the City's sanitary sewer system; and
WHEREAS, as part ofthe Wet Weather Project Phase I, the City contracted with Carollo
Engineering, Inc. ("Carollo") as the design professional, and Mitchell Obayashi Corporation, Joint
Venture ("Mitchell") as the contractor; and
WHEREAS, as part of the work for the Wet Weather Project Phase I, Mitchell had to
excavate a trench approximately 6 feet wide and 16 feet deep through a parking lot between two
different structures located at 130/148 Beacon Street; and
WHEREAS, on or about on February 14, 2005 the trench excavated at the parking lot
between 130/148 Beacon Street failed; and
WHEREAS, Mitchell filled the trench with sand and light aggregate material; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of geotechnical engineers retained by the City, the current trench
conditions pose a risk to life, health and property since the sand placed in the trench could liquefy in
the event of an earthquake and could cause damage to the structures at 130/148 Beacon Street; and
WHEREAS, geotechnical engineers retained by the City and the owners' experts at 130/148
Beacon Street have concluded that a repair method of excavating the trench and replacing the sand
backfill with light aggregate would resolve the liquefaction issue, thereby removing the risk to life,
health and property posed by the current condition; and
WHEREAS, staff contacted three contractors to submit proposals for the subject repair; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the above described emergency work in an
amount not to exceed $ 415,000; and
WHEREAS, in addition, a well recognized exception in Common Law to the competitive
bidding requirement for public entities exists where the nature of a contract or project is such that
competitive proposals would be unavailing or would not produce an advantage, thereby rendering
848911 v1
any advertisement for competitive bidding undesirable, impractical or impossible (see Graydon v.
Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980) 104 Cal. App. 3d 631,635; 164 Cal. Rptr. 56, 58); and
WHEREAS, the rationale for the adoption of the above exception is found in the purposes of
the provisions requiring competitive bidding in letting public contracts. Those purposes are to guard
against favoritism, improvidence, extravagance, fraud and corruption; to prevent waste of public
funds; and to obtain the best economic result for the public (see Graydon, 104 Cal.App.3d. at 636);
and
WHEREAS, it has also been recognized by Common Law that where competitive proposals
work in incongruity and are unavailing as affecting the [mal result ofthe public works project, or
where competitive proposals do not produce any advantage, or where it is practically impossible to
obtain what is required and to observe such form, competitive bidding is not applicable (see
Graydon, 104 Cal.App.3d. at 636); and
WHEREAS, in addition to the Common Law exception listed above, Public Contract Code
Section 22050 permits a city to forego formal competitive bidding requirements if its city council
passes a resolution by a four-fifths vote declaring that the public interest and necessity demand
immediate expenditures of city funds to safeguard life, health or property, without giving notice for
bids to let contracts; and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A. Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050, substantial evidence set forth in
this resolution and recorded in the meeting minutes establishes that the emergency conditions
relating to the trench do not permit the delay that would result from the competitive solicitation of
bids for the work described above, and that such work is necessary to respond to the emergency
conditions relating to the trench; and
B. In the instant case, entering into a negotiated contract with a qualified contractor, rather than
soliciting competitive proposals, would allow the City to immediately address the serious risk of
harm to life, health and property posed by the trench's current condition; and
C. That such a proposed negotiation of a contract would not constitute any sign of favoritism,
improvidence, extravagance, fraud or corruption; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco.
848911 v1
2
2. Award of a contract for the emergency work to repair the trench between 130/148
Beacon Street described above is exempt from California Public Contract Code competitive bidding
requirements pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and the established
common-law doctrine articulated in the case of Graydon v. Pasadena Redevelopment Agency (1980)
104 Cal.App.3d 631.
3. City staff are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf ofthe City a
contract for the performance of the emergency work described above to JMB Construction, Inc. in
an amount not to exceed $ 415,000 and at contract prices substantially in accordance with the terms
and conditions that are appropriate for such projects of city public works departments, as approved
by the City Attorney.
4. City staff is directed, in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section
22050( c)(1), to place on future regular agendas of the Council an item concerning the contract
authorized pursuant to this resolution so that the Council may determine whether there is a need to
continue the emergency work described above or whether such work may be terminated.
5. This resolution shall become effective immediately.
6. Each portion ofthis resolution is severable. Should any portion of this resolution be
adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining
resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution
portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council 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.
*
*
*
*
*
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
,2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
848911v1
3
-
~~\\ s4,N
~~~~
~ - r.t.~
(O~ r r.\c'-iiyn
:><1,1 J ..:;;
~~g Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 5
DATE: July 25,2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INST ALLA TION OF STOP SIGNS ON
RAILROAD AVE AT MAPLE AVE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the installation of stop
signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
In March ofthis year, staff received a request for installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple
Avenue due to sight distance limitations and speeding vehicles on Railroad. This intersection is a "T"
configuration with Maple Avenue running in the north direction and Railroad Avenue in the east/west
direction. Currently, there is a stop sign on Maple Avenue and no stop signs on Railroad Avenue.
The Traffic Advisory Committee (T AC) reviewed this request at its March meeting and determined that
this intersection does not meet the City's guidelines for stop sign installation based on CaItran's warrant
analysis.
A field study of the intersection concluded that the sight distance for Maple Avenue is less than
recommended minimum values. The limited sight distance is due to a vertical curve just east of the
intersection on Railroad A venue and dense on-street parking at the corners. T AC recommended that the
Engineering Division review this issue and make the final recommendations.
Based on engineering judgment and in order to increase public safety at this intersection, it is
recommended that the City Council approve the installation of stop signs on Railroad A venue at Maple
Avenue. Exhibit 1 displays the existing condition and the proposed recommendation for the installation
of the stop signs.
Staff Report
Subject:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS ON
RAILROAD AVE AT MAPLE AVE
Page 2 of2
FUNDING:
No additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this location. The stop sign and
pole are in stock with the Street Maintenance Division and the time used to install the sign and
pavement markings would be charged to general street maintenance.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the installation of stop sign on Railroad Avenue at
Maple Avenue.
By:
~
Assistant City Manager
~ Approved:
Bb::!~
City Manager
~
Attachments: Resolution
Location Map - Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION
OF STOP SIGNS ON RAILROAD A VENUE AT MAPLE
AVENUE
WHEREAS, in March of 2007, staff received a request for the installation of stop
signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed this request at its
March of 2007 meeting and determined that this intersection does not meet the City's
guidelines for stop sign installation based on CaItran's warrant analysis; and
WHEREAS, the TAC recommended that the Engineering Division review this issue
and make the final recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer Division has reviewed the issue and recommends approval
of the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple Avenue in order to increase
public safety at this intersection; and
WHEREAS, no additional funding would be necessary to install the stop signs at this
location because the Street Maintenance Division has stop signs and poles in stock and the
time used for installation will be charged to general street maintenance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South
San Francisco hereby authorizes the installation of stop signs on Railroad Avenue at Maple
Avenue.
*
*
*
*
*
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 25th
day of July 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT 1
..-z
--ll
~ \
~ 1
I
I
APPROX.
I
I
,,1111 NEW
"KNST ALLA TION
i
i
i
I
I
I
!
,,/"
W
:J
Z
W
~
.. ~J
L"'\
r \.
~
APPROX.
150'
1
EXISTING
PROPOSED
~J1APLE AVENUE AT RAILROAD AVENUE
--- R1= STANDARD 36" STOP SIGN MOUNTED ON A 2" DIA. POLE
...L. W17= STANDARD 36" STOP AHEAD SYMBOL SIGN MOUNTED ON A 2" DIA, POLE
C:\Documents and Settings\kmunar\Desktop\mapJe@railroadStopSignln5tal.dw9, Layout!, 7{11/2007 2:43:22 PM
ort
AGENDA ITEM # 6
DATE: July 25,2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Steele, Finance Director
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4.20, SECTION 4.20.130
OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO GRANT
AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE LIENS FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENT OF
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt an Ordinance Amending Section 4.20.130 of Chapter 4.20 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Council has previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance. The Ordinance is
now ready for adoption.
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3.12 OF THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO GRANT AUTHORITY TO
IMPOSE LIENS FOR DELINQUENT PAYMENT OF TRANSIENT
OCCUP ANCY TAX.
(Introduced on 7/11/07
~~er
-,
By:
987359_1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4, CHAPTER 4 OF THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE
AUDIT AND LIEN AUTHORITY FOR TRANSIENT
OCCUP ANCY TAX REPORTING AND COLLECTION
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1966, pursuant to its authority under California Revenue and
Taxation Code sections 7280 et seq., the City Council of South San Francisco adopted Ordinance No.
554 (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 4.20)("TOT Ordinance"), which provided for the
imposition and collection of a general excise tax on the privilege of using hotel accommodations in
the city (a "transient occupancy tax" or "TOT") to be paid by hotel users and collected by hotel
operators; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted several amendments to the TOT Ordinance, the last
of which was Ordinance No. 1365 in 2005 (a one percent rate increase approved by voters), and it
has found that certain changes are necessary in order to improve and enhance the administrative and
enforcement components of TOT collection; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby finds that this ordinance adds new methods of enforcing
South San Francisco's existing TOT and will not impose a new tax, extend or increase the existing
tax rate, or revise the methodology by which the tax is calculated in a manner that increases the
existing tax rate.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby amends section 130 of Chapter 4.20 of Title 4 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows as follows:
"4.20.130 Actions to collect.
(a) Any tax required to be paid by any transient under the provisions of this chapter shall be
deemed a debt owed by the transient to the city. Any such tax collected by an operator
which has not been paid to the city shall be deemed a debt owed by the operator to the
city. Any person owing money to the city under the provisions of this chapter shall be
liable to an action brought in the name of the city for the recovery of such amount.
(b) Attorney's Fees and other costs. In an action authorized by this section, the prevailing
party shall recover court costs, attorney's fees, personnel costs, and auditor's fees to be
added to the judgment and set by the court. These fees are recoverable at all levels of trial
and appeal.
(c) Recording Certificate - Lien. If any amount required to be paid to the city under this
chapter is not paid when due, the tax administrator may, within three years after the
amount is due, file for record in the office of the San Mateo County recorder a certificate
of delinquency of transient occupancy tax lien specifying the amount of tax, penalties,
interest, and attorney's fees and personnel costs due, the name and address of the operator
liable for the same as it appears on the records of the tax administrator, and the fact that
the tax administrator has complied with all provisions of this chapter in the determination
of the amount required to be paid. From the time of the recording of the Certificate of
Delinquency of Transient Occupancy Tax Lien, the amount required to be paid, together
with interest, penalties and attorney's fees, constitutes a lien upon all real property in the
county owned by operator or thereafter acquired before the lien expires. The lien has the
force, effect, and priority of a judgment lien and shall continue for thirty years unless
sooner released or otherwise discharged.
(d) Priority and Lien of Tax. The amounts required to be remitted and/or paid by any operator
under this chapter with penalties and interest shall be satisfied first in any of the following
cases:
(1) Whenever the person is insolvent;
(2) Whenever the person makes a voluntary assignment of his assets;
(3) Whenever the estate of the person in the hands of executors, administrators, or heirs is
insufficient to pay all the debts due from the deceased;
(4) Whenever the estate and effects of an absconding, concealed or absent person required
to pay any amount under this chapter are levied upon by process of law. This chapter
does not give the city a preference over any recorded lien which attached prior to the
date when the amounts required to be paid became a lien.
The preference given to the city by this section shall subordinate to the preference given to
claims for personal service by Sections 1204 and 1206 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(e) Seizure and Sale. At any time within three (3) years after any operator is delinquent in the
payment of any amount, the tax administrator may forthwith collect the amount in the
following manner: the tax administrator shall seize the property, real or personal, of the
operator and sell the property, or a sufficient part of it, at public auction to pay the
amount due together with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinquency and any
costs incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Any seizure made to collect transient
occupancy taxes due shall be only property of the operator not exempt from execution
under provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f) Successor's Liability. If any operator liable for any amount under this chapter sells out his
business or quits the business, his successor or assignee shall withhold sufficient of the
purchase price to cover such amount until the former owner produces a receipt from the
tax administrator showing that it has been paid or a certificate stating that no amount is
due.
(g) Liability of Purchaser - Release. If the purchaser of a hotel fails to withhold from the
purchase price as required, he shall become personally liable for the payment of the
amount required to be withheld by him to the extent of the purchase price, valued in
money. Within 30 days after receiving a written request from the purchaser for a
certificate, or within 30 days from the date the former owner's records are made available
for audit, whichever period expires the later, but in any event not later than 60 days after
receiving the request, the tax administrator shall either issue the certificate or mail notice
to the purchaser at his address as it appears on the records of the tax administrator of the
amount that must be paid as a condition of issuing the certificate. Failure of the tax
administrator to mail the notice will release the purchaser from any further obligation to
withhold from the purchase price as above provided. The time within which the obligation
of the successor may be enforced shall start to run at the time the operator sells his
business or at the time that the determination against the operator becomes final,
whichever event occurs later.
(h) If the taxes are not paid when due, such tax, penalty and interest shall constitute a special
assessment against such business property and shall be a lien on the property for the
amount thereof, which lien shall continue until the amount thereof including all penalties,
interest and costs of collection are paid, or until it is discharged of record.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is
held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of
such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and
shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable.
The City Council of 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 Councilmembers
voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in
South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from
and after its adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the 11 th day of July, 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the 25th day of July, 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABST AIN:
ABSENT:
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing
Ordinance this 25th day of July, 2007.
Rich A. Garbarino, Mayor
m
"" . ~~\
(~ ~
~ ~
v 0
C4l~~'~ Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 7
DATE: July 25, 2007
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Terry White, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution, awarding a contract to Affordable
Painting Service Inc., of Sacramento, California, as the most responsive proposal in the
amount of $37,580.00, for the Grand Avenue Pole Painting Project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Grand A venue Pole Painting Project will paint the City's various 374 poles and metal
infrastructure on Grand A venue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard including: street
light poles, traffic signal poles and traffic heads, parking meter poles, controller cabinets, bike
boIlards and tree well grates. The painting ofthese items is needed in order to maintain and upgrade
the appearance of the infrastructure. The last time the metal infrastructure on Grand Avenue was
painted by a contractor was in 1991. A Request for Proposal (RFP) was prepared for this project and
was advertised. The City received nine (9) responses to the RFP. The following proposals were
received:
CONTRACTORS
PROPOSAL AMOUNT
Affordable Painting Services Inc.
Clean Innovation Corp.
Metro Structural Painting
Armstrong Painting Inc.
Z.K. Painting Co.
Yarsity Painting
Diaz Corporation
Yan-Go Painting Inc.
Fix Painting Co.
$37,580.00
$42,529.65
$49,420.00
$52,546.00
$66,185.00
$76,605.00
$78,955.00
$91,080.00
$136,990.00
Pole Painting Estimate
$ 50,000.00
Staff Report
Subject: Grand A venue Pole Painting Project
Page 2
Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Affordable Painting Services and found them
to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to Affordable Painting Services Inc.,
of Sacramento, California, in the amount of $37,580.00.
FUNDING:
In Fiscal Year 2006/2007, a $50,000 budget transfer was made from Park Salaries to the Street
Lighting Account 10-14570-4210. Salary savings occurred due to staff vacancies.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends approval ofthis contract. Completion of this project will keep the public areas of
Grand Avenue looking fresh and clean. The process of painting the City's exposed metal
infrastructure on Grand Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard will begin
approximately August 20,2007, and be completed on or around October 20, 2007. Park Department
personnel will regularly monitor the painting process of the contractor.
\ ()-JL .
By~ ~
Terry Whit
Director of. lic Works
APPro~d~
arry M. Nagel
City Manager
Attachment: Resolution
TW /vamh
S:\ Staff Reports - White\ Grand Ave Pole Painting Project
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT TO
AFFORDABLE PAINTING SERVICE INC., OF SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, FOR THE GRAND AVENUE POLE PAINTING
PROJECT
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a
contract to Affordable Painting Service Inc., of Sacramento, California ("Affordable Painting"),
in the amount of$37,580.00, for the Orand Avenue Pole Painting Project ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Project will paint the City's 374 various poles and metal infrastructure
on Orand Avenue between Spruce A venue and Airport Boulevard as part of an effort to maintain
and upgrade the appearance of the infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the metal infrastructure has not been painted by a contractor since] 991; and
WHEREAS, as of July 10, 2007, the Public Works Department received nine (9)
proposals in response to a Request for Proposals; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Affordable Painting
and found it to be satisfactory; and
WHEREAS, the process of painting the City's exposed metal infrastructure on Orand
Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Airport Boulevard will begin approximately August 20,
2007, and be completed on or around October 20, 2007, with Park Department personnel
regularly monitoring the painting process of the contractor.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a contract to Affordable Painting Service Inc., of
Sacramento, California, for the Grand A venue Pole Painting Project in the amount of $37,580.00
*
*
*
*
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 25th day of
July 2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
ATTEST: Isl
City Clerk
~
1\
I
I
I
I
AGENDA ITEM # 8
Staff Report
DATE:
July 25, 2007
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:
AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution amending the East of 101
Traffic Impact Fee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The East of 101 Area is the employment center for the City of South San Francisco and has experienced
significant new development over the past ten years. Since the adoption of the South San Francisco
General Plan in 1999, the City has approved over 4.5 million sq. ft. of new office/R&D space and 2,000
new hotel rooms in the East of 101 Area. With the surge of the biotech industry, the General Plan
recognized that the total build-out in the East of 101 Area will double from 12.82 million sq. ft. in 2000
to approximately 26.79 million sq. ft. in 2020.
On September 26,2001, the City Council adopted the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). This program includes certain specific objectives: 1) identifying new streets and physical
improvements; 2) establishing an effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program for
employers; 3) establishing a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements; and 4)
complying with State and County congestion management requirements. The program'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.
I
I
II
I
\
I
I
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 costs to implement the adopted and new improvements. The
Traffic Impact Fee Study, East of 101 iuea dated May 6, 2005, provided the justification for the
proposed Traffic Fee Ordinance. This study presented an analysis of the need for a total of 22 roadway
and intersection improvements to accommodate new development at an estimated cost of $21.6 million.
As required by law, the repOli documented a reasonable relationship between new development and the
proposed impact fee for funding these facilities.
II
II
II
I
I
I
II
II
II
I
II
,i
ii
II
I
I
I
II
I
-.J
Staff Report
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 2 of6
Adopted Traffic Impact Fee (2005)
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 hip is convelied
to a fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms.
Land Use PM Trip Cost Per Trip Traffic I Admin Total
Rate] Fee2 Fee3 Fee
Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 0.21 $8.77
Office/R&DJ 0.90 $2,288 $2.06 0.05 $2.11
Hotel 0.21 $2,288 $480.52 12.01 $492.54
1 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 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.
Traffic Impact Fee Update Project (2007)
The need for additional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) completed for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research & Development Overlap
District Expansion in 2006. This resulted in four additional traffic mitigation projects. In addition, two
studies were included.
Additional Intersections/Street Improvements and Studies (2007)
Project
Description
Add a lane on NB Dubuque Ave, between the Route 101
off ramp intersection and Oyster Point Blvd.
Reconfigure the NB approach to Oyster Point Blvd to
provide two exclusive left turn lanes, an exclusive
through lane and two exclusive right turn lanes.
As part of this widening, eliminate the left turn lane on
the SB Dubuque approach to the Route 101 intersection
I (which serves the mini warehouse facilities) and allow
, SB left turns from the SB through lane. This will allow
for provision of five full ~"'B travel lanes on Dubuque
Ave between the NB off ramp intersection and Oyster
Point Blvd.
Adjust signal timing.
Create an additional through lane on WB Oyster Point
Blvd approach from Veterans Blvd to NB Route 101 on
ramp.
Widen EB approach to this intersecbon to allmv the
existing shared through/right turn lane to be reconfigured
into separate thTough and right turn lanes and SB right
turn overlap.
23. Oyster Point Blvd & US 101
Northbound On-Ramp
24. East Grand Ave/Harbonnaster
Rd/F orbes Blvd
Staff RepOli
Subject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 3 of6
25. Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave Restripe the Route 101 off ramp approach to Dubuque
Ave from an existing exclusive left, share tl'Lrough/left
I turn and exclusive right tum lane to provide exclusive
left tum lanes and a shared through/left tum lane.
26. US 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Widen off ramp to provide an additional lane.
A ve/Executive Drive Restripe Route 10 1 through lane to allow optional exit to
E. Grand Ave/Executive Drive
I Replace overhead sign on 101 to provide for two lane
exit from freeway.
27. Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Prepare a study to detem1ine feasibility of an over
Report ' crossing of Utah Avenue over Highway 101.
[- Prepare a comprehensive update of the traffic
128. Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic
Study engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP and I
I TDM, which has not been revised since 2001.
Revised Traffic Impact Fee (2007)
The following table lists the 2007 cost estimates for the previously approved and new traffic
improvements to accommodate new development.
Total Construction Cost
Project (2006 Dollars)
1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $591,000
2. Dubuque A ve.& Oyster Point Blvd. $1,461,240
3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. $435,920 I
4. Gull Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. I $685,400 I
i
5. Airport Blvd. & Miller A ve.fUS 101 SB off-ramp $2,048,100 I
I
6. AirpOli Blvd. & Grand Ave. $154,000
7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. I $3,719,400 i
~ , I - A I
T
I 8. Gate\'. ay Blvd. & East Grana Ave.
19. Forbes BJvd./East Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd.
110. Grandvi ew Dr. & East Grand Ave.
i 11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave.
L_
[12. South Airport BJvd./Mitchell Ave. & Gatev/ay Blvd.
$1 b2,OuO I
I
$2,490.600 i
. I
$704,800 I
$1,066,800i
I
$4,04Loon I
Staff RepOli
Subject: AMEl\iTIED EAST OF 101 TRP-..FFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 4 of6
I TIC
" t I
ala ons rucnon ~os
Project (2006 Dollars)
!
13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. $440,800
14. Harbor Way ; $5,281,787 j
Mitchell Ave I $2,362,600 I
15. I
16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/So Airport Boulevard I $2,841,000
17. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Avenue $305,000
18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles }''.Venue I $2,491,980
i
19. Forbes Avenue & Gull Road $210,400 I
I
I 20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue $1,183,200
21. East Grand A venue & Allerton $643,000
22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way $1,162,000 I
. . I
23. New- Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 northbound On-Ramp $2,520,840
24. New- East Grand Ave/Harbormaster RdlForbes Blvd $188,000
25. New- Oyster Point BIvd/Dubuque Ave $39,500
26. New- US 101 northbound off-ramp/E.Grand Ave/Executive $1,292,000
Dr.
27. New- Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study RepOli $250,000
28. New- Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study $500,000
I
I
Subtotal (Road Improvements and Studies) $39,272,367 I
Less: Existing Fund Balance I l
I ($6,908,987) j
Total I
$32,363,380 I
Staff Rep0l1
Subject: A1vlEh'DED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Page 501'6
The following table shows the traffic facilities impact fees 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.
I Land Use PM Tlip Rate 1 I Cost Per Trip Traffic I Admin I Total I
Fee2 Fee3 ! Fee
Commercial 3.74 $18,513.00 $18.51 I $0.46 $18.97
Office/R&DJ 0.90 $4,455.00 $4.46 $0.11 $4.57
Hotel 0.21 $1,039.50 $1,039.50 $5.99 $1,065.49
Trips per l,OOO square feet of building area or per room (for hotels).
12 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room.
: Based on all estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee , , '. . .
i Based on weIghted average of PM tnp rate for office and R&D JanG uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectlVciy.
Environmental Review
Transportation improvements included in the updated traffic fee study consist of those improvements
identified in the two earlier studies (2001 and 2005), as well as new improvements identified in the 2006
Genentech Master Plan EIR. The transportation improvements identified in the 2007 study (including
previously identified improvements and the new improvements) will undergo a separate environmental
review pursuant to CEQA once the individual improvements have been sufficiently designed and
engineered such that their potential environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated. As the
adoption of this traffic fee update is not a causal link in the provision of the identified improvements,
adoption of the fee update is not a "project" for the purposes of CEQA. As such, no further
environmental review is required at this time. See Pub. Resources Code, 9 21 080(b )(8)(D).
Exempted and Reduced-Fee Land Uses
Pursuant to General Plan policies, the City will encourage the development of child care facilities and
employee-serving ancillary commercial establishments, such as small restaurants and dry cleaners. All
of these land uses are intended to support the increased number of employees working in the East of 101
Area. As such, these land uses will not generate new vehicle trips-or ",rill only generate very few new
vehicle trips-and therefore, will have no impact, or very little impact, on the need for the transp0l1ation
improvements identified in the 2007 study. Thus, the resolution allows the Chief Plam1er in consultation
with the City Engineer to exempt these land uses fi'om paying the traffic impact fee, if the Chief Planner
determines that a particular qualifying development will not generate any new vehicle trips.
Alternatively, if the Chief Planner determines that such a development will generate minimal new
vehicle trips, the Chief Planner may reduce the fee as applied to the pal1icu1ar development, proportional
to the new vehicle trips that the development will produce.
Inflation Adjustment
The traffic impact fee shall be adjusted annually to prevent the revenue from falling behind the costs of
constructing new facilities. Staff recommends the City Manager adjust the impact fee am1Ually to
account for rising costs in both construction and land acquisition. Construction costs should be adjusted
in accordance with the Engineering j<ews Record's Construction Cost Index (20-city average). This is
an appropriate index because il directly re1lects the City's costs of providing roadway capacity for future
Staff R cport
Sui)ject: AMENDED EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC j~/;F ACT FEE
Page 6 G r 6
customers Land acquisition costs shoulJ be adjusted in accordance with the percemage chJnge in land
cost pei- acre WIthin the C:lty, based on a comparison of the most recent Jppraisals. The fee adJustment
"vi]] occur beginning on July 1,2008, and again each ,fu]y thereafter.
CONCLUSION
BY~AA
Marty Van Duyn \
Assistant City Manager U
1t is recommended that the City Council adopt the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Update.
f .{Jfr, f r.
---, Approved: b4~ ,j<7Y
Barry M. Nagel 0
City Manager
Attach...'11ent: Resolution with Attachments
RRJts/dc
988765.1
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO 2007 EAST OF 101 TRI\FFIC IMPACT FEE
STUDY UPDATE AND REVISING THE CITY'S TRAFFIC
DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE FOR FUTURF,
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA
RECIT ALS
'vVHEREAS, 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 requmng that new
development within the East of 101 Area should be required to pay its fair share toward upgrades
to existing transportation facilities and 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-land 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 transportation improvements (see Policies 4.2-G-6 and 4.2-1-4); that
the location, timing and extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements
programming and financing, including through the 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 (Pub. Resources
Code, SS 21000, et seq. ["CEQA"J), on October 13, 1999, the City Council of the South San
Francisco approved and certified an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") analyzing the
enviromnental impacts of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the EIR identified certain significant and potentially significant
enviromnental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of less than significance; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA requirements, the City adopted mitigation findings and a
specific mitigation monitoring and reporting program to track compliance with the mitigation
measures; and
WHEREAS, the transportation improvements identified in the General Plan and the
tratnc impact fee study update, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, will undergo separate
environmental review once the improvements have been sufficiently engineered to identify their
scope and potential impacts;
WHEREAS, in 2001, 2005, and 2007, the City of South San Francisco retained
MuniFinancial to assist the City in reviewing the needs of residents, businesses, and employees
through build-out under the adopted General Plan, and in preparing a traffic impact fee study to
determine the a.lllount of fees necessary to generate funds to pay for the transportation
improvements necessitated through build-out under the adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001, the City Council adopted the Traffic Impact Fee
Study for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005 the City Council adopted the 2005 Traffic Impact Fee
Study Update for the East of 101 Area, prepared by MuniFinancial; and
VlHEREAS, MuniFinancial has now prepared and presented to the City Council a second
Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area ("2007 Traffic Fee Study Update"),
which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update identifies additional transportation
improvements that are necessary to accommodate future development within the East of 101
Area, and estimates the cost of all improvements, including previously identified improvements;
and
WHEREAS, cost estimates for each transportation improvement are based on
calculations performed by TY Lin, as described in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference;
and
WHEREAS, TY Lin estimates that $6,708,780 of the total cost of the transportation
improvements is attributable to land acquisition expenses; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update calculates the fee necessary to fully fund
all identified traffic improvements, per square foot of each specific type of land use; and
WHEREAS, the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of the
amount of the traffic impact fee proposed for adoption, based on current estimates of the cost of
transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development; and
WHEREAS, the specific transportation improvements needed have been identified based
on several factors, including (1) anticipated future development in the East of 101 i\rea; (2) the
number of new vehicle trips generated by anticipated future development in the East of 101
iuea; and (3) means of minimizing traffic congestion and maintaining acceptable levels of
service tlu'oughout the East of 101 Area; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code S 66016(a), 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 Government Code 9 66016(a), the 2007 Traffic Fee
Study Update, containing the data upon which the traffic impact fee is based (attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A), was available for public review and comment for ten days prior to the
public hearing at which this Resolution was adopted; and
WHEREAS, ten days advance notice or the public hearing at which this Resolution was
adopted was given by publication in accordance with Government Code 9 6062(a).
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update complies with California Government Code
99 66000, et seq., by establishing the basis for imposition of the fee on new development in the
East or 101 Area. The purpose of the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is to finance
transportation improvements necessary to reduce the impacts caused by future development in
the East of 101 Area, as further identified and explained in Exhibit A. Additionally, the 2007
Traffic Fee Study Update:
1. identifies the purpose of the fee;
2. identifies the use to which the ree will be put;
3. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project upon which the fee will be imposed;
4. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities
and the type of development project upon which the fee will be imposed;
5. demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost
of the public facilities or portions of facilities attributable to the development
upon which the fee will be imposed.
B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance
the transportation improvements described in Exhibit A, subject to the City's authority to make
reasonable modifications or replacements to the improvements, as further described in Section
13 of this Resolution.
C. Based on the entirety of the Record, which includes without limitation, the 2007
Traffic Fee Study Update (contained in Exhibit A), cost estimates and breakdowns from TY Lin
(as described in Exhibit B), all reports, including staffreports received for the public hearing on
this matter, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing, the agenda statements, the
General Plan, and all cOlTespondence received (collectively, "Record"), the City Council
approves and adopts Exhibit A and incorporates such report herein. The City Council 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 traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, as it relates 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
2007 Traffic Fee Study Update. (Pub. Resources Code S21080(b)(8)(D)).
E. In adopting the traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution, the City Council is
exercising its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution.
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 projects on which such fee will be imposed, specifically,
commercial, office/research and development, and hotel, because such new development in the
East of 101 Area generates new vehicle trips, increasing congestion and decreasing levels of
service, thereby contributing 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 traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is imposed because new development in the East
of 101 Area-office/research and development, commercial and hotel-will increase the number
of people who work in the East of 101 Area, generate more vehicle trips in the Area, and
contribute to the need for the transportation 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 because 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 o~ 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, because
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 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, is
hereby adopted.
2. Definitions.
(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 Califomia 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-hour 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.
Commercial land 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
establishments; 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 luea on a lot in the Community Commercial,
Business Commercial, Coastal Commercial, Mixed Industrial, and Business and
Technology Park land use classifications, identified in the General Plan, and located in
the East of 101 .Axea.
(f) "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" shall mean ancillary commercial
establishments and services, and other uses incidental to business park or campus
activities, as identified in the South San Francisco General Plan Policy 3.5-1-8. Uses may
include small restaurants and cafes, and services such as dry cleaners that are intended to
support and to meet tbe needs of employees from a larger office or research and
development park or technology campus in the East of 101 ;'\rea.
(g) "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.
(h) "Development Project" means any Commercial, Office/Research and Development and
Hotel Development Project.
(i) "East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee" "Traffic Impact Fee" and "Fee" shall all 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.
(j) "Floor i\rea" 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" shall mean 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 projections.
(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" and "Office/R&D" shall both 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 headqumiers offices, offices for large wholesaling or manufacturing
operations, research and/or development, research and development campus development
with ancillary 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 Warks Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or the Director's
designee.
(q) "Transportation Improvements" shall include those improvements that are described in
the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Updated, attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
(r) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses ofland,
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 the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code SS 66000, et seq.) the updated
Traffic Impact Fee identified in this Resolution, and in the documentation provided in Exhibit A,
shall be imposed, paid, and othenvise apply as prescribed in this Resolution for each non-
residential development (including commercial, hotel, and office/research and development).
4. Time for Fee Payment.
The Traffic Impact Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential development,
including commercial, hotel, and office/research an~ development, upon issuance of the building
permit, or if no building permit is required, upon approval of a use permit for the development
project, or, ifno use permit or amendment thereto is required, at the earliest of any other permit
required for the proj ect.
5. Amount of Fee.
As calculated in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update, attached hereto as Exhibit A, the
Traffic Impact Fee to be imposed and paid pursuant to this Resolution shall be in the amount
identified in the following table, based on the land use classification for the particular project for
which the Traffic Impact Fee is being imposed:
Land Use Cost per PM Trip Cost per Traffic I Admin Total Fee
Trip Rate] 1000 SF or Fee per SF I Fee 2 per SF or I
hotel room I . hotel room I
or botel I
room I I I
I '
Commercial I $4,950 I 3.74 ' $18,513.00 1$18.51 ! $0.46 1$18.97 I
Office/R&D $4,950 ,0.90 $4,455.00 $4.46 I $0.11 ' $4.57
I Hotel lJ4,950 ! 0.21 I $1,039.50 I $1,039.50 ! $25.99 I $1,065.49
I 1 Trips per 1,000 building square feet (for commercial and office/R&D) or per room (for hotels).
2Based on an estimate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee.
3Based on a weighted average of PM trip rate and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively
6. Exemptions and Reductions of Fee.
Certain development in the East of 101 Area may be constructed to serve the existing and
new commercial and office/R&D uses in the Area. Such development, including small
restaurants, dry cleaners, and Child Care Facilities, will not generate new vehicle trips, or will
only generate very few new vehicle trips, because these development will be used exclusively, or
nearly exclusively, by employees working in the East of 101 Area. Therefore, if in the judgment
of the City's ChiefPlmmer, in consultation with the City Engineer, the development of any of the
land uses identified in this section of the Resolution will not generate any new vehicle trips, but
rather only contribute to "linked-in" trips, the Chief Planner may exempt the particular
development from paying the Fee. Alternatively, if in the judgment of the City's Chief Planner,
in consultation with the City Engineer, the development of any of the land uses identified in this
section of the Resolution will only generate minimal new vehicle trips, the Chief Planner may
reduce the Fee to be paid by the particular development, proportional to the new vehicle trips
generated by the development. The types of developments to which such an exemption or
reduction may be applied are limited to the following:
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 Care Facility" as that term is defined in this Resolution.
c. Any "Commercial, Employee-Serving Amenities" as that term is defined in
this Resolution.
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 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. The
amount of any such discount shall be determined by the City Engineer in his or her sole
discretion.
8. Use of Fee Revenue.
The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest bearing
account to pem1it accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate. Such revenues
and interest shaU be used only for the facilities and the purposes for which the Fee was collected,
which are the following:
a. To pay for acquisition ofihe right-of-way:
b. To pay for design, engineering, construction, maintenance of and propeliy
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 fUl1ds from other sources including funds fl-om other public entities, unless such funds
were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the TranSpOliation
Improvements.
d. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed any of the
Transportation Improvements with prior City approval and have entered into an agreement, as
provided in Section 14, below; and
e. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of progTam 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.
9. Standards.
The standards upon which the need for the Transportation Improvements are based are
the standards of the City, including the standards contained in the General Plan and those City
standards reflected in this Resolution, including the 2007 Traffic Fee Study 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 9 66006, identifying the balance of Fee revenues in
the Fee account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code 9 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 Transportation Improvements 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 Analysis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee set fOlih 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
detel111ine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional infoTI11ation 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 fUliher studies and any standards in the General Plan, as from time to time
amended by the City.
12. Fee Adjustments.
Beginning July 1, 2008 and each July thereafter, the Fee shall be automatically adjusted
to account for inflation. The City Manager or his designee shall be responsible for performing
the calculations described in this Section. The adjustments described in this Section shall be
applied administratively. The Fee shall be adjusted as follows:
a. Land Adjustment. The adjustment for the land acquisition costs shall be equal to
the percentage change in land cost per acre within the City, based on a comparison of a current
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). This calculation shall be known as the "Land Adjustment."
(1) For the purposes of calculating' the Land Adjustment, the City should
conduct annual appraisals; however, in the event that the City has not conducted appraisals on an
arumal basis, in any year in which the Land Adjustment is applied to the Fee, the Land
Adjustment shall be based on the percentage change between a current appraisal (prepared for
the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the last available appraisal (prepared for the
City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology).
(~) If in any year, for any reason, the City Manager or his designee does not
calculate the Land Adjustment, the Fee shall still be automatically adjusted using only the
Construction Adjustment.
b. Construction Adjustment. The adjustment for construction costs shall be equal to
the percentage change in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (20-city
average) between the prior April, and the April of the preceding year. This calculation shall be
known as the "Construction Adjustment."
c. Fee Adjustment. Once calculated, the Construction Adjustment and the Land
Adjustment shall be applied to the respective portions of the total cost of the Transportation
In1provements, to determine a new, adjusted total cost. (The portions of the 2007 total cost
attributable to each factor are described in Exhibit B: $6,708,780 of the total fee is attributable to
land acquisition costs; the remainder of the total fee is attributable to construction costs). This
adjusted total cost shall be used to calculate the Cost Per Trip (Table 7 of the 2007 Traffic Fee
Study Update) and the Total Fee (Table 9 of the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update) in the same
maru1er as in the 2007 Traffic Fee Smdy Update.
13. Replacement or Modification of Transportation Improvements.
At the discretion of the City Engineer, specific TranspOliation Improvements may be
reasonably modified or replaced with comparable improvements, provided that the modifications
or replacements achieve the same or greater mitigation of traffic impacts, and maintain the
reasonable relationship requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, as identified in Govemment
Code S 66001.
14. Credits and Reimbursement for Develooer Constructed Facilities.
The City and a developer may enter into an improvement agreement to allow the
developer to construct certain of the Transportation Improvements. The City shall retain total
discretion as to whether to execute such an agreement. Such agreement shall provide for security
for the developer's commitment to construct the Transportation Improvements 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 Transportation Improvements, 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 \V orks. However, in no event
shall a credit pursuant to this provision exceed the current cost of the Transportation
Improvement. For the purposes of this section, such current Transportation In1provement cost
shall be the amount listed in the 2007 Traffic Fee Study Update for that particular Transportation
Improvement, as subsequently adjusted pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of this resolution prior to
issuance of the building permit for that Transportation Improvement. 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 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 S 66000 et seq., and S 66001 in particular. Ifremaining Fee revenues after all
of the Transportation Improvements have been constructed or acquired are insufficient to cover
all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims for reimbursement
of excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis in accordance with applicable law.
15. Effective Date.
This resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with Govemment
Code ~ 66017, the Fee shall be effective 60 days from the effective date ofthis Resolution.
16. Severabilitv.
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 fu'1d 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, ilTespective of the fact
that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid
or lU1constitutionaI.
PASSED, APPROVED Al\TJ) ADOPTED this _ day of
the following vote:
_, 2007, by
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
987805.3
EXHIBIT A
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
EAST OF 101 AREA
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
FINAL REPORT
JULY 19, 2007
MuniFinancial
A WILLDAN COMPANY
Oakiand Office
1700 Broadway
6th Floor
Oakland, California
Tel: (510) 832-0899
Fax: (510) 832-0898
Anaheim, CA
Industry, CA
Lancaster, CA
Memphis, TN
Oakland, CA
Orlando, FL
Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA
Seattle, WA
Temecula, CA
www.muni.com
This page intentionally left blank.
TABLE OF CONTEi'-.!TS
Purpose of Study
Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Traffic Demand from New Development
Implementation
Appendix A.: Transportation Improvement Plan Items
':l
'-'
6
15
16
This page intentionally left blank.
TRAFFIC iMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
PURPOSE OF STUDY
This report updates the Traffic Impart Fee Stur/} ~+;date dated May 6, 200S (2005 Update Study).
The 2005 Update Study was incorporated into a Resolution by the City Council, dated August
24, 2005 revising the Traffic Development Impact Fee for future development \v1thin the East
of 101 area. The original City 0] South San Francisco East 0]101 Trciflic Impc7d Fee StudY'.vas prepared
in 2001. The first update study was completed in 2003.'
The City of South San Francisco's (City's) Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program are designed to reduce future traffic
congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 Area, establish a fee structure that viOuld help
pay for fuLure physical improvements, and comply with State of California and San Mateo
County reqUlrements. The initial Traffic Impact Fee Study was conducted 111 2001 Lo implement
the TIP and TDM program.
A comprehensive update of the traffic engineering analysis originally prepared for the TIP aml
TD:t'vI programs was not dcemed necessary at this time. However, since the most recent update
study, a need for adelitional projects to be added to the TIP was identified in an envuonmental
impact report (ElR) completed In 2006 for the Genentech Corporate Facilities Research &
Development Overlay Dlstrict Expansion. The new Genentech facilities will be developed in
the East of 101 Area. The Genentech ElR incorporates new traffic modeling and identifies
adelitional traffic mitigation measures that will be necessary. Consequently, some adelitional
traffic analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR is incorporated into this study and four
adelitional traffic mitigation projects identified in the Genentech EIR have been added to the
East of 101 Area TIP.
Analysis conducted for the Genentech EIR of intersection Level of Service (LOS), combined
with a separate assessment by the City of South San Francisco City Engineering staff of those
intersections not included in the Genentech EIR analysis, is also used to update the current LOS
data. Based on these assessments current intersection LOS conelitions remain at or above the
acceptable level based on adopted City of San Francisco standards. The purpose of continued
impact fee collection lS to fund traffic improvement projects to maintain intersection LOS
within the accepted standards.
This report presents an updated analysls of the need for roadway and intersection unprovements
in the East of 101 Area. It l11corporates the additional capital projects to be funded by the fee
and uses new cost estimates for all projects in the fee program. The new cost estimates reflect
the significant ll1creases 111 road construction costs that have occurred over the last several years.
The report documents a reasonable relationship between new development in the East of 101
Area and an lmpact fee for funeling traffic facilities to serve that new development Estimates of
new development that will occur 111 the East of 101 Area are based on the amount of new
development remainll1g to reach buildout of the East of 101 Area, as specified 111 the City or
South San FranClSCO General Plan. It is assumed that General Plan buildout \Arill occur by 2020.
MuniFinancial
1
S out/! J{iJi .Pram1-:-!'!,'
Filla/ Report - East uf 101 "'J rea Trc!ffic Impart Fee Update
TRAFFIC FEE PLANNING AREA
The planmng area includes all land located east of US 101, south of San Bruno Mountain and
the Cny of Brlsbane, west of i:he San FranClscc> Bay, and north of the San Francisco
International Airport.
The tr3ditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 Area was originally
developed with meatpacking and heavy manufactunng activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and
the Edwards \'Vire 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 mdustry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct
facility to the Port of San francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more
attractive asa 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 resh3ping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the
City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a GOO-acre industrial park adpcent to
the newly developed Oyster Pomt Marina. 1'hlO ind\lstnal park was South San Francisco's first
industrial development to 111 C orp orate comprehensive pbnning, llltegrated design, and
performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 floor area ratio (L;'R), ample parking and consistent
landscaping and building design. The industrial park heralded South San Francisco's industrial
future.
In some ways a microcosm of American mdustry, South San rrancisco has been making a slow
industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Warehousing, research and development and
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 and intensification of land uses
and employment density 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 the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment. Policy 4.2-1-7 of the Amendment
directs the City to:
Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and
other traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts
on service levels. ... Establish a traffic Improvement fee to fund transportation
improvements in the East of 101 area.
Therefore, the objective of the South San FranClsco General Plan Amendment is to implement
the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: 1) updatmg traffic projections for the East
of 101 Are;:! and identifymg specific street improvements; 2) identifying transportation and
circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that \\ciJ.J help the City manage anticip:1.ted
A1uniFina71cial
2
South 5011 Frall:'!.rm
Filio! Report - EaJ! ~! 101 Area T4fir 11l7pad Fee Update
growth lJ1 the Eas~ of 101 Area; 3) enhancing street capac][y; and 4) provH.:ling new linkages to
integrate a fTmlti-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 F ARs of up to I.U and an estimate of how
much land would convc:rt from older industrial uses to hIgher-density research and development
facilities. b 2001, the Cny Council amended the estimated General Plan buildout by adopting
the South San FranClsco General Plan j\mendment and Transportation Demand Management
Orchnance Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental ErR incorporated the follO\ving assumptions
into the TIP analysis:
.
Total buildour will more than double from existing development: 12.82 million
square feet to 26.79 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D
development.
ApproXllTIately six million square feet more of development \\Jill be constructed than
\vas projected in the General Plan.
.
Employment 'Nill increase by a factor of 2.4 from 21,654 to 52,880. 1'1115 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.
Total build out will increase to 23.3 rrdlion square feet with a 0.9 fl\R, compared
21.7 million square feet \\rith a 0.5 FAR.
These assumptions remain unchanged and are used in this impact fee update study.
.
.
MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS
Traffic facilities fees are a subset of public facility fees, which are fees to be used to construct
facilities or infrastructure improvements required to accommodate new development. They 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 Ac~ with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in
California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local
agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act reqmres local agencies
to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that follows. ..1'\.1l statutory
references are to the /1c1.
PURPOSE: OF FEE
For the first finding the City must:
Identify tne purpose of the fee. (566001(a)(1))
MuniFi77C!ncial
3
Soutb Jail FrailriJro
Filla! Report - East oj 101 Area Traffic ImpadFee Updale
The policy of the C:lty of South San FranClsco (City) IS iblt new developmem will not burden
existing development with the cost of public facilities, inclucling traffic facilities, required 10
acconuTIodate growth. The purpose of the public facilities fee is to implement this policy bv
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.
USE DF FEE REVENUES
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 deveiopment. All planned
facilities \ovill be located within the City of South San Francisco. These faciliTIes included in the
findings presented here include:
.. Roadway widening;
.. Intersection signalization;
.. Other roadway improvements in the City of South San Francisco East of 101 Area,
and;
.. Public transportation and related facilities.
Planned traffic facilities are identified in this report. The City may change the list of planned
traffic facilities to meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deems 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 "Facility Costs to Accommodate
Growth" section of this report.
BENEFIT RELA TIDNSHIP
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 lmposed. (566001 (a) (3))
New commercial, R&D, and hotel development 111 the East of 101 Area will generate increased
amounts of vehicle traffic. More individuals 'Will be employed in the area, and many of these new
employees 'Will drive to work. In adclition, customers and hotel guests will be drawn to the area
by the new development, creating additional vehicle trips. \'</ithout improvements in the traffic
facilities in the East of 101 Area, the new vehlcle trips will cause more congestion and will
decrease intersection levels of servlce.
MuniFi na ucial
4
J onti! Sel/,' Frailc/'[()
.hnol Report - 0o.[t ~f 101 ""1rea Trqffic ImpoctFee [~/)date
The en)' will use fee revenues [or the acquisition of nght of ways; constructJon ot traU]c
improvements ]ncluding ruadway widening, signal l11stallation and retiming, and intersection
restJ"iping; and completion of traffic studies to serve new development. Transportation facilities
funderi by the fee \vill allow vehicles to move more efficiently, mall1taining an acceptable level of
service or preventing further deterioration in the level of serVlCe at intersections irnpacted by
development ];] the East of 101 Area. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship bct'ween the use of
fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that \:vill pay the
fee.
The planned facilities that wlll be funded by the fee arc described in the following chapter.
BURDEN RELA TIONSHIP
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public faciliry
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (~,66001(a)(4))
The need for the fee is based on b:affic engmeering reports prepared by the City that quantify
G'lc expected traffic impacts of new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel developmem in the East
of 101 Area based on analyses of existing and future roadway and intersection Level of Service
(LOS). i\ccording to the engineering reports, ",~thout improvements in the traffic facilities 111 the
East of 101 Area, the ne\-v vehicle trips would cause more congestion and would decrease
current intersection levels of service. Based on the City of South San Francisco General Plan,
commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development are the only types of development anticipated
In the East of 101 Area. These types of development will generate additional employment, which
will cause an increase in vehicle trips as new employees drive to work. In addition, customers,
guests, and visitors to the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel facilities will generate new
vehicle trips. Therefore, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new traffic
facilities and the new commercial, office, R&D, and hotel development on which the impact fee
will be imposed. Building square footage by land use category is an indicator of the demand for
traffic facilities needed to accommodate growth.
LOS measurements were based on projected "PM trip rates" (those trips associated with new
development anticipated during the evening commute hours). Different land uses were assigned
different amounts of projected PM trips based on data collected 111 the East of 101 Area for the
traffic engineering study prepared for the City by CCS Planning & Engineering in 2001. (See
page 13 for more information.) LOS standards are based on City of South San FranClsco policy
to mainta111 a LOS of "D" or to accept a LOS "E" or "F" if there is no feasible way to achieve a
better LOS and the land uses creating the impact are deemed to be of significant public benefn.
(please also see Facility Standards discussion on page 7.)
PROPORTIONALITY
For the fifth finding the City must:
Deterrmne how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or p~rtion of the public facility attributable to the development
on which the fee ]s unposed. (~66001 (b))
A111niFinancial
5
S oull' S 01! FranciJw
Fz;;a/ Refill!"! - EaJI 0) 101 Area Traffic impact .Fee UPd:J!(~
This re?sonable relationshIp between the traffic lnlFilct fee for a specific development proJcct
and thE cost of the facilities attributable to tbt project IS based on the estimated vehicle tnps the
project will add to public roadways. The total fee for a specific project is based on building
sguare feet for commerc1al, office, and R&D development, and hotel rooms for hotel
development. The fee schedule converts the estlmated sguare footage of a development project
Dr the number of hotel rooms to be built into a fee based on the size of the project and the
estimated number of trips associated with the proJect's land use category. On average, larger
projects of a certain land use type '.Vill generate more trips because they employ more workers
who drive to their jobs and generate more trips from visitors; therefore, larger projects pay a
higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use type. Thus, the fee schedule ensures :~
reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specitlc development project and the
cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
CCS Planpjng & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area
for the original East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Based on development data
provided by the City of South San FranClSco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering
calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trIp rates associateJ \\71th different land uses in the East of 101
Area. Traftlc demand from new deveJupment and llTIpacr fees are based on the rates calculated
by CCS Plannmg and Engineering Evcmng peak hour trip generation rates are used because this
period is more congested than the morning and therefore has a greater irnpact on the need for
traffic improvements.
TRAF'FICDEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
The 2005 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update estimated the number of trips that '.Vill be generated
by new development in the East of 101 Area from that date forward. This estimate was based on
average trip rates in the area and the amount of development identified in the General Plan
Amendment.1 Using the number of anticipated trips and cost estimates for projects in the TIP,
the 2005 study calculated a traffic impact fee based on a cost per trip of $2,288 plus a 2.5 percent
administrative fee.
The total number of trips estimated to be generated by new development upon completion of
the General Plan .Amendment is unchanged frorn the 2005 study. The number of trips that '.Vill
be generated from the date of this study to completion of General Plan Amendment build out is
estimated by subtracting trips generated between the 2005 study and the time of this report from
the total number of trips estimated in the 2005 report. The number of trips generated between
the 2005 study and this report is based on impact fee revenue collected between the 2005 report
and the present time.
Table 1 shows building permits approved and fees paid from March 2005, when remaining trips
were estimated in the 2005 srudy, until the time of this report.
1 In the 2005 study, the total sguare footage of commercial, office/R&D, hotel, and industrial development
antlclpated upon General Plan buildout was estimated The sguare footage of development which was already
existing or approved at the time of the 2005 study wa" subtracted from the antJcipated buildout development, to
estimate the sguare footage of remaining future development in each land use category. Finally, the amount of
remalf'.mgdeveiopment was muluplied by the P.M pe?k he'-1: tnp generation rates observed in the East of 101 .-\re3
to estimate the number of ne\'.' P.Tvl. peak hour wps that would be generated by furore development (see page 13
for more 111formation on tnp generatIOn rates).
lvl uniPinallcial
6
jOlllh SOil Framirro
Fi;'I'!LReport - Ea.rl ~/1 0 1 .4rea Tralfir 11J~t){Jd Fee Upda~e
Table 1: Office/R&D Projects Approved and
Fees Paid 2005-2007
Project Name Fee Paid
Gateway $ 191,726
Slough 737,810
Bayside 54,234
Unknown 17 U 56
Unknown 606,731
Genentech 74,346
Slough 219.848
Unknown 49,365
Genentech 51,828
Slough 243,179
Slough 169.076
Slough 189.827
Haskins 152,749
Slough 495,727
Slough 110,714
Lowes Home Improvement 1,307,774
Haskins 179,956
Wells 112,775
Total $ 5,118,822
Source: City of South San Francisco.
Table 2 calculates the trips generated from March 2005 to May 2007, based on the fee collection
data shown in Table 1.
Table 2: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips 2005-2007
Fees Collected 2005-2007
Less 2.5% Admin. Fee
Net Fees Collected 2005-2007
Cost per Trip
Trips Generated 2005-2007
A
B
C=A-B
o
E=C/D
$ 5,118,822
(127,971 )
$ 4,990,851
2,288
2,181
Sources: Table 1, City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee StUdy Update East of
101 Area, May 6,2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial.
MuniPinancial
7
S Ollt/! Sail Fromiseo
Filla/ Report - East oj 101 Area Traffic lJitpad Fee Update
Based on the estirnatd tnps genera Leo from 2005 uuw build out of the General Plan
Amendment and fee revenue colleued since the :1dopLion of the 2005 fee update, tnps
remaining from May 2007 to General Plan Amendment build out are calculated in Table 3.
Table 3: East of 101 PM Peak Hour Trips Generated by Growth
Trips Remaining to General Plan Buildout, 2005
Trips Generated 2005-2007
Trips Remaining to General Pian Buildout, 2007
8,719
2,181
6,538
Sources: Table 2; City of South San Francisco; Traffic Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area,
May 6, 2005, Table 5; MuniFinancial.
FACILITY STANDARDS
The City's traffic LKility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used in
traffic planmng 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 CMP 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 computer traffic modeling. The models were
calibrated to existing conditions usmg traffic counts and land use data. Based on planned
improvements and anticipated future development, the models produce estimates of future LOS
at intersections in the East of 101 l\.rea. The East of 101 Area model was last run prior to the
2003 Trciflic Impact Fee Stucry Update. AdditlOnal traffic modeling was conducted in 2006 for the
Genentech COtporate Facziities Research & Development Overiq)i District Expansion EIR. This modeling
includes the impacts of the four projects newly added to the TIP.
Table 4 presents the LOS in the studied intersections based on existing conditions with no
traffic improvements, and future conditlOns ,mth planned improvements that minimize the
decline in LOS caused by growth. Existing LOS data shown in Table 4 is from the Genentech
Expansion EIR modeling for intersections where data from thIS study were available. The
Genentech EIR did not provide LOS data for five of the intersections with planned
improvements in the TIP, and LOS data from thc East of 101 Area model run 111 2003 are
MuniFinancial
s
filla/ Report - Eart of 101 /1reo Trod!1 lmpaii Fe~ Update
S oiltli SOil FramisL'O
shown, The City of South San Francisco Llty Engineer has examined these five ll1krscctions and
determined th~lt they currently prmTJde 8n acceptable level of serVIce,
T,lblc 4 shows future LOS estimates [com both models, The results shO\,,.'J1 fr0m the 2003 run of
the East of 101 Area are for LOS in 2020, The model incorporates the improvement projects in
the TIP at the time the model was run and assumes that intensive traffic demand management
measures will be Implemented, \'X/here available, 2015 LOS estimates from the Genentech EIR
modeling are also shown in Table 4, The results shown are for 2015 development l11cluding the
Genentech project and assuming implementation ofche traffic improvemems in the East of 101
Area TIP,
The results of the traffic modeling shown in Table 4 mdicate that new development is
responsible for t..~e total cost of planned improvements, Per the City of South San Francisco, all
intersections currently operate at an LOS deemed acceptable by the city, Thus there are no
existing deficiencies attributable to current development. \V'ithout improvements in traffic
facilities, new development would cause the LOS to deteriorate to unacceptable levels, Although
the LOS in some intersections is still expected to decline, the planned improvements are
necessary to minimize the amount of congestion caused by new development. For all
inter~ections except one, the planned improvements either maintain existing LOS or mirumize
the decline in LOS caused by the increased traffic generated by new development2 Because new
development generates the traffic which creates the need for the planned improvements, it is has
been allocated the responsibility for the funding of these improvements,
2 )\ccordmg to the traffic modeling, the planned improvements are expected to raise the level of sen'lCe at the
interseccion of East Grand j\ venue and Allerton i\ venue from the current LOS C to LOS B Tl,e Cit'.' of South San
Franc1sco City Engll1eer has determined that there 1S no less expenSIve way to rrucigate the Increased lraifIC from
future development than the planned slgnalizauon, sIgna] interconnecuon, and lane re-srripmg,
MuniFinanclal
9
S out/; Sail Frallaj(O Fillal Report - EC:J0!! 101 /lrea Tnlfi!.Impact Fee Update
Table 4: PM Peak Heur Intersection Operations
East of 101 Area Genentech
Study (2003) EIR (2006)
Existinq ~ 1 Future'
Intersection Control LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay' LOS' Delay'
Intersections with TIP Improvements
Airport Blvd/Bayshore Blvd & Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point
Blvd Signal C 31 0 31 N/A f\J!A
Dubuque Ave/US 101 ramps & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 17 F 85 F >80
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B' 13 B 13 N1A N/P,
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 30 C 17 C 34
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp Signal C 25 B 15 N/A N/A
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 35 0 26 NIl\ N/A
Oubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Signal 1', 7 A 4 NIA N/A
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal B 19 C 22 NIA N/A
Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Wy Signal C 30 0 26 E 58
Harbor wl
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave" Stop (Signal) C 18 C 19 F >80
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal C 30 C 22 0 38
South Airport Blvd/Mitche!! Ave & Gateway Blvd Signal C 33 D 25 0 35
Mitchell Ave'
South Airport Blvd & Utar, Ave Signal C' 16 C 17 NiA NIA
Hwy 101 northbound hook. ramps/So Airport Blvd Signal C 31 C 19 1''Ij/.::', N!.A,
Hwy 101 northboud off-rampIGrand/E. Grand Ave overcrossing Signal B 16 8 9 N/A N/A
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Stop B' 11 F 831 N/A N/A
Forbes ,b,ve & Gull Rd Signal B 14 0 29 N/A NiA
East Grand .A.ve & Littlefield Ave Signal B' 10 C 15 N/A N/A
East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave' Stop C 15 F (F) OVR B 17
Utah Ave & Harbor Way Stop O' 29 F OVR N/A N/A
US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr' Stop A 0 A (.A.) 0 N/A N!.A
Other East of 101 Area Intersections
Oubuque Ave & US 101 Ramps Signal C 28 C 22 N/A N/A
Oyster Point Blvd & Gateway Blvd Signal C 28 F 63 N/A N/A
Forbes Blvd/Allerton Ave' Stop B 10 A(C) 2 N/A N/A
Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)' Stop (Signal) C 11' F 82 N/A N/A
Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 24' F 63 N/A N/A
Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal A 3' B 13 N/A N/A
Bay West Cove Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd' Stop A (A) 0' A (C) 1 N/A N/A
Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7' B 13 N/A N/A
Forbes Ave & Allerton Ave' Stop A(B) 2' A(C) 2 N/A N/A
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 EB Ramp Signal A 5' B 6 N/A N/A
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 WB Ramp/North Access Rd Signal B 14' B 14 N/A N/A
South Airport Blvd & North Access Rd' Stop A (A) l' A (A) 1 N/A N/A
. LOS data from 2003 East of 101 Area Model run (eeS Planning & Engineering) used INhere Genentech EJR data were unavailable. All other eXIsting LOS data are
from Genentech Corporate Facilities Master EJR Parlia/ Revision.
, 2020 LOS assuming Intensive TOM with Additional Improvements
. LOS for 2015 Future Baseline Plus Genentech Project, with East of 101 Mitigations.
3 LOS:; Level of service
~ Delay=' Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds. OVR = Overflow Conditions
5 Improvements on Harbor Way support capadty at Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd intersection.
Ii Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only
7 Improvements on MItchell Avenue support capacity at South Airport Bivd/Mitche!1 Ave & Gateway intersection
5 A (0) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for aU vehIcles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement)
S Bayshore Blvd. and US.101 S8 Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. Itis evaluated with Hook Ramps and signaiized Intersection for future scenanos
Sources: CCS Planning 8. Engineenng, Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee. July 2, 2003; Tables 4.7-2 and 4.7-15. Genentech Corporafe Facilities
Master EIR Par/ial Revision, MuniFinancial.
lvfuniFinancial
10
J outli Jail FhiiuiJW
t<ZJJa! Report - Em! 0/101 A rea Tn?lfi( Impart Fee Updaie
FACILITY COSTS TO ACCDMMODATE GROVVTH
As a result of the traffic engmeering study conducted for the Genentech Corporate Facilities
Research & Development Overlay District ExpnslOn EIR, the need for additional traffic
improvements to accommodate new development \vas identified. Four road L'11provement
projects and one project study were added to the East of 101 Area TIP. These improvements :ue
deemed necessary to either maintain existing LOS or minimize the decline in LOS. These
projects are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Items Added to TIP 2007
"Location
Improvement Items
Cost
Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 N 8
on-ramp
East Grand Ave/Harbormaster
Rd/Forbes Blvd
Widen and reconfigure Dubuque Ave approach, create an additional $
through lane on WB Oyster Point, adjust signal timing.
2,520.840
$
188,000
Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave
Widen and reconfigure EB approach
Re-stnpe US-101 off-ramp approach to Dut;uque Ave from an $
existing exclusive left, shared through/left turn and exciusive right
turn lane to provide exclusive left turn lanes and a sl"iared
through/right turn lane
Widen off-ramp to prOVide additional lane. re-stnpe US-101 to allow $
optional exit to East Grand Ave/Execuiive Dr, Replace overhead
sign on US-1 01 to provide for two-lane exit from freeway
Utah Ave overcrossing project study report $
39,500
1,292,000
US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand
Ave/Executive Dr
250,000
Source: City of South San Francisco.
Cost estimates for all of the traffic improvements to accommodate new development included in
the fee program, including the new improvements listed in Table 5 above, are shown in Table 6.
All cost estimates were newly computed in 2007. Estimated costs include the cost of
construction materials and labor, construction contingency, mobilization costs, design costs,
environmental review and clearance, and construction engineering and management. The costs
shown here do not include the costs to administer the fee program, which are accounted for
separately (see page 14). A detailed list of improvement items is shown in Appendix A. East of
101 Area ilnpact fees collected to date will be used to fund a portion of the cost of the traffic
improvements needed to accommodate new development. The current impact fee fund balance
is shown in Table 6. The fund balance is reduced by 2.5 percent, which was collected with
current fees to cover administrative costs.
]~1uJliFinancial
11
S ONtlJ Sail .fram:ij(U
Filial Report - "0aJt ~f 101 /'lmi T~'Clffi( Impact Fee l~bd'7tf
Table 6: Net Cost of Planned Tiaftlc Projects
Project
Road Improvements
Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 S8 off-ramp
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave
Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave
South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave
Harbor \IVy
Mitchell Ave
Hwy 101 nOiihbound hook ramps/So Airport Blvd
Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/Grand/E. Grand Ave overcrossing
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd
East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave
East Grand Ave & Allerton Ave
Utah Ave & Harbor Way
Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 NB on-ramp
East Grand Ave/Harbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd
Oyster Point Blvd/Dubuque Ave
US 101 NB off-ramp/E Grand Ave/Executive Dr
Subtotal
Other Proiects
Utah Ave overcrossing project study report
Prepare new East of 101 Area traffic study
Subtotal
Less.' Existinq Fund Balance
Fees Collected 2001-2004
Fees Collected 2005-2007
Subtotal - Fees Collected
Administrative Cost (2.5%)
Existing Fund Balance Available for Projects
Net Cost - Project Cost Less Existing Fund Balance
Cost
$ 591,000
1.461,240
435,920
685,400
2,048,100
154,000
3,719,400
162,000
2,490,600
704,800
1,066,800
4,041,000
440,800
5,281,787
2,362,600
2,841,000
305,000
2,491,980
210,400
i ,183,200
643,000
1,162,000
2,520,840
188,000
39,500
1,292,000
$ 38,522,367
$ 250,000
500,000
$ 750,000
$ 1,967,319
5,118,822
$ 7,086,141
(177,154)
$ 6,908,987
$ 32,363,380
Sources: TY Un International: City of South San Francisco; MuniFlnancial.
Ai uniFinancial
12
.sOIlI/; S aJi .r:(l.N/(/J(()
______.I/II{t/ P'POrl - EC!Jt~l1 O! _ "i rea Traffir Impart Fee Updai(
Development pWJcct:' lmpact the tran:;ponauol1 ncrwol-).: :It different r~lLes depending on the
number of tnp:; gUJCL1Lcd. A cost per tnI' [;1ctor i" ,lscd to calcuhre each project's fair sh:lrc cf
planned improvement C:0:;1$. The cost per trip lS c:lkuhted by dividing the planned L1Cibty costs
(net of :llready-coUectcd lmpact fees) by the rotal tnps generated by new development from 2007
to Gener:ll Plan build out. The re:;ulting cost per tnI' lS shO\vn ln Table 7.
Table 7: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth
Fee Program Share of Planned Facilities Costs
Peak Hour Trips (PM)
$ 32,363,380
6,538
Cost per Trip
$
4,950
Sources: Tabies 3 and 6; !v1uniFinancial.
TRIP GENERATION RATES
CCS Planmng & Engineenng conducted tnp counts at selected points in the East of 101 i\.rea
for the ongmal East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study in 2001. Intersection operations were
evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 32 study mtersections. Based on development data
provided by the City of South San FranClsco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering
calculated actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates associated with different land uses in the East of 101
Area. Traffic demand from new development and impact fees 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 8 shows the trips generated by new development (per 1,000 square feet for commercial
office/R&D, and industrial uses, and per room for hotels). These trip generation rates are
unchan2:ed from the previous two impact fee studies.
~ . .
Table 8: Trip Generation Rate by New Development
PM
Land Use Trip Rate
Commercial 3.74 per 1,000 sf
Office/R&D 1 0.90 per 1,000 sf
Hotel 0.21 per room
Industrial 0.54 per 1,000 sf
, Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and
0.60. respectively.
Sources ees Planning and Engineering. Mun!Financial
---------.----..-------.-~.--- ~.~ . --- -.~.----- ----______ _...____._ __on
MuniFinanciaI .13
SOli!!; .\ (iJ/ /:hlli' tJIO
- l~_'~J! 0/ ~!!J =-J!I'[l TrafJir ],:'JJtld F<'I' {primt
FEE: SCHEDULE:
Table 9 shows the traffic facilities llnpact fee based on the cost per tnp calculated 111 Table 7
~l11d rhc trip rnco assocIated Yv1th the land useo jJj the East (If jUi "'\rca. The CU~l p:.:r mp l:i
converted to a fee per unit of developnlent based on building square feet or hotel rooms. The
admlI1lstraIlon fee IS based on an estimated cost of 2.5 percent of the traffic fee.
Table 9: Traffic Facilities Impact Fee
Cost per 1000 Traffic
Cost per PM SF or hotel Fee per SF or Admin Total
Land Use Trip Trip Rate; room hotel room Feel Fee
Commercial $ 4,950 3.74 $ 18,513.00 $ 18.51 $ 046 $ 1897
Office/R&D3 4,950 0.90 4,45500 446 0.11 457
Hotel 4,950 0.21 1,03950 1,03950 25.99 1,06549
I Trips per 1 ,DOlj ~;:Jddirlg square feet or per ioom (for hotels)
2 Based on an eS~.;(nate of 2.5 percent of traffic fee.
-~ Based on v/el9hted aveiage of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 060, respectively
Sources Tab!e~ 7 and 8: CCS Planning and Engineering: MuniFlnancial
For compjJ[]son, Table 10 shows a comparison of the newly GiJculated fee nece:isary to funJ
projects in the TIP with the fee calculated in the 2005 Traffic Impact Fcc Stud" lipdate As
Table 10 iUustrates, the fee necessary to fund construction of projects 111 the TIP ha, Increased
considerably. TI115 is primarily a result of an increase 111 the cost of projects in the TIP, as road
construction costs have risen considerably. In addition, five new projects have been added to the
TIP since the 2005 fee was calculated.
Table 10: 2005/2007 Fee Comparison
2005 2007
Net Cost of TIP Projects 1 $ 19,950,681 $ 32,363,380
Remaining Trip Generation 8,719 6,538
Cost per Trip $ 2,288 $ 4,950
Traffic Facilities Impact Fees 2
Commercial $ 877 $ 18.98
Office/R&D 2.11 4.57
Hotel 492.54 1,06549
1 Total project costs less fee revenue already collected
2 Fee per square foot for Commercial and Office/R&D and pel room for Hotel.
Sources Table 3 and 6. TraffiC Impact Fee Study Update East of 101 Area. May 6,
2005.
l\.1 uniFi 1117 lIei,d
!4
JOIlI/l .Liii r'r.-llhlJi(J
FIIIII/ Rq>OF/ -Em'! o! ! (}? "<'1 rea Tri!lfic iJJ~tJac!F,'( (_,;,,;,;/1'
-._---_.._---_.._._-"~-_._...- ---- --.---.-.------
IMP LEM ENT fj.,TI 0 N
This sc--:tion Idcnrific~' tc\sks th<lt the City of SOlilh S:u, Fr<l!1cisco should complete \\,hell
lmplementing the fee programs.
PRD15RAMMING REVENUE:S AND PROJECTS WITH THE CIP
The City should update lls Transportation Improvement Pbn (TIP) on an annual b;1sis to show
the programm1l1g of fee revenues to the trafhc faClhues [iSf of theTIP 111 this manner provides
ongOlng and up to date doculT1t>ntation of a reasoll<lbie relationship Det\veen new development
and the use C'f fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned projects listed in Table 6, 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 phnned projects net of non-fee
funding sources, if any, vanes from the tolal cost used as ;1 basis for the fee, the City should
revise the fee acccrdmgly.
:For the rIve-year plan111ng period of the: TIP, the: em' "hould <lllocate all existing fund balances
and projected fee revenue to traffic proJects. The Cll\' can hold funds in a project account for
planned nnprovement.s longer than five years lf necessary (0 collect suffiClent funds to complete
the project.
/NFLATIClN ADJUSTMENT
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordmance and adopt an
automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually If nght-of-way acquisition is planned the Cn)'
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. However, care should be taken to assure that the index chosen
appropriately captures fluctuations in key road construction materials (e.g. steel). 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.
RE:PCJRTING REQUIRE:ME:NTS
The City should comply ,.vith the annual and tlve-year reporting requirements of Government Code
66000 et seg. For facilities to be funded with a comb111ation of impact fees and other revenues,
the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify
'-'.Then the other revenues ;J,re antiCIpated to be available to fund the project.
A1uniFl7Ia71cial
75
rn
2:
w
}-
1...__ r-
I '" ~
1.2 E :
1'=6 ~
I~ ~u
I ....
I
I
I~
I:.g
:.a 2
i~ ~
<I.J E
..t: <I.J
+- >
E 8
o p..
10.;; E
I~ ....
I~
I":
!
f--.
z
<(
I
..J
M
LJ...
f-
"7
k,
w
L
w
>
o
~
c..
I
i
I
I
I~
E
<I.J
...
......
...
C
<I.J
S
<I.J
>
o
...
p..
S
......
z
o
f-
<f
~
~
o
0-
m
z
~
~
l-
. .
<(
><
o
z
W
0..
[l
<!
I
I~
I'.g
'"
I'"
.0
i"":
i
!
, ~
ii
L-.
;;;;.
..D
~
+-
~:. Qj 3:
r .L.-' ~:
~ 0 u
.b ....... .:J
r> .S '8 ~
..., "0 p.. 0
v B "U U
~fS~~
e, ~ -
OJ 8-' S 0
6 8 8 ~
Z :: 8' ~
5
.
V:: ;J
o.J C
~
'"
t,
~ ~ '"
~ ~=
~ ~ c
bJ.)~
'""d ;:i Vl
co....
~~~
b:o "D v,
.~ ~ c
....- c::i ..!S
aJ ~ ~
11-2
o]tZ
..., co <I.J
Bli H~
~ ~::: M
I <1J..>:: ;:i
IUI;~~~
,....., ,..... t::: --0
E E 0 ~
~ 0 ...,
"B ..D ,.3 ~
:t:: ""0 Vj Z '""':i
'~I ~ ~ 2 ~,
c .- i-'-'
Oi
U .
~
,""
V',J _
'"Pc:::.
~~
sc
("' 0
'"'
~
~
r:::::
,',1
'..r.' ....
~
'-'
,..r r/
'"
G:;
~
C;;
c:
.g
c.
o
c
co
'"
..D
.8
<1J
C
~
8
B
+-
..c
.~
l-<
I
[
Ie>
1'0'
o~
.-
10
j~
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I~
i
I
I
I
I
.9
"'0
~
to
+-
5
P
>-'-<
...,
Q)
+-
r
6
c
<1J 0
> <1J
o C
u~
.8
<1J
C
~
..c
.~
...,
........
..c
blJ
;:i
o
bJ).~
C Q) _
~ ~ E9
5..c~
<1J 1if ~
~ 2 +-
].-s ~
U '" r:::::
t:; C
<1J ...,
~ B
~ tZ
co ~
-0
"
N
~I s
~ ~ f:1 ~
51 tS I, ~
S 0 vi 0
...... Q) C I ~
oL ~ ..;31 ~
81 '" C:\H
=1.9-< ;:: 1"0
~ .... ~ IJ.)
5 'tf:c .~
'.::! v.~ C
~ ~ ~ 81
31 01
11. U.
'I 0 ~
Jl-<~
I' ~ t:;
~ ~~.
12 ~ ~
'I~~ ~:::
. ~ :7 I~ ~.
I~ ~ '- -....:......
I
! t'.l
i
Ie,
17
i "~
I~
1-'"
i-
I
E
c
<.t
"'0
OJ
g
7
>:;
~
-........
r:::::
CJ
~
co
~ aj
c: "'0
.2 '~
,~ ~
i"'O C
i~ r-;;
I
I
I ·
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
c
:Q v..
~ r<
ciS
E
~
? 9
~ ~
c:~
'0 l-<
C.
v
c:
~
"
;:;
2
..c
.~
l-<
<.1:
~
c:
9
.
~U=;
,8\D
'" 0
at
~~
....... ...
"'Oc 0.8 c:
~~I ~ : ~I i.~ f:'
_tJ 0)4->"'::':::...."",
5 ~ ~151~ ~~ EI
5 V1 ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ 81
l-< (7, ~~ ~~z ~I
-;;: ~ c: 1:::::1 g. +- C . ~I
'" .... .- (':j....... -1--.,.
~ :-Q .~ c ~ ~ u ~ I
9 ~- x! S Q) "& '" '
~I ~ LD I ~'I r::::: ~ r- ~ i ~
-:-:1. .1-:-:. .12
:.:a
"'0
'"
"'0
"'0
co
o
......
c: p)
~ W
"'0
00 ~.
IU ~
~ c
~ ~o
;::. ...-
U'
.D tF,
~
,,-..., 0
1-
I~
1
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
i
i
I~
I
!
i
I
I
I
I
!
!r".
Iv
i "7
i /.......
Iv
10
iZ
:
,
i
I s
I
I
I :
lqv
]~ ~
10 "'-"
l-< 0
o
+-
l-<
'"
0....;0.....
'" u
co <1J
c '0'
o l-<
'r:: 0..,
u ""
<1J <1J
'" >
~ ~
.5 c;::
..,... ..,..,
(j :-'
~P5
~ -
~ ~ C
'-'ll:Q..,
] ~ ~
;-.,
,....
'-'
;::;1 ~
:31 .
I I
i V) I ',-"
100 S1~. ;>.
12 21~P:S
I, ;;.... c2 11 ~
~I(:C .~
: ~ ::::'1 >-. ~
1::;- <- j :.::
: ~ ;1 G ~
i~ ~;";: :I.
i""""': se1 r...: '-'
,
ILl.
,
cl
~I
;;.
j
;:;.~.I c
:1 z
~I .
~
'-
-
~
'C
~
'-
~
-
0,,-
~
Cl.;;' I
'" i ~
~ 1 C I
&11 ~ ~ ~
~ I :E :: 'ilil
k; "0 8 01'
"t: '"C 0..
~ I -< a
~il ~ I-
":: I -
~-
~ a
<::\ ,S
~ ....
'J" :.a "'
" '"C E
1< c.J
'2 I c.J S
~ .s ~
1:; S 8
<::\ 0 0..
~ ..t:: S
It).....
~
0-
I~
I
I
I
1
1
I
"'
S
III
....
......
....
t:
III
S
III
:>
o
..
0..
S
......
Ig
~ I'~
'!:l 1 u
"" '0
;;:l 1....1
ri:
l::: I
~i
>---
~ ! ci
~ 'z
'-ll
I~
16
12
I
I
<fl
e
e cO
v t
S v
~l :>
i~
.51 1j
"0 ~
2:l iU
II ~
,u . .
"0
:>
0025
"0 C
P:::o
~:
i ~ ~
i~ ~
I:> 6
I'
,
I~
i
Lt:;
~
>
GJ bD
e ::l
.$ c ,~;
s -B e
E ~
~~~
...c: 0 ~
,ep '+:1 '-....
l-< o.....c:
o b{J
"0 ::l
cO 0
o l-<
p:::.-B
<fl_
~A
l-< b{J
2:l 'l:i
vc;;
>- c
~ ,g
~o 0..
~o
'.3 ~
R B
03 ,5
iU iU
9<~
.tJ-
~ c
V l-<
P::: E
iU
~ "0
ull
....
~ E
~1I
o
cO P:::
@I
c
1:'
....
o
l-<
8
>-<
c;; iU
C e
S 0
~ 21 ~
~ . 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
1-
o
"'1
~
en
('<",
7
-
iU
Ie
,0
2
[3 "'
_____ co
P::: ~
-:S v
S ::l
o e
~ ~
"O-t::
iU "'
,~ iU
5-]
..,
... >-'-<
c;;
c
o
'.0
::a
"0
cO
l-<
o
I~
1..2.
I
I ·
~I
5 c
:> cO
o ::a
l-< iU
8 8
>-< iU
C;; ~
g a
'.0 iU
--a P:::
"0
'<I .
~ "'0 I
~~
~ ~ '""0_:>
iU ~
Eg100 ;:Q
Q p-. iUS
-l-' l-; :> 0
~ ~I< c:
I~ ~] 1::
1>-.010 ~
Ic8 001~ 0
I
,
Ie--
i
I
Iv.:
I
4-<
o
iU
:-g
"'
c ~
~ '0 ~
;:: ~;.o-
c c co
co........ :.n U
S "'OiU ~ Uu
~ ;>
iU 1J '3 E W
8 cO cr' C 4-<
bbIJ~O~
.5 0'~ If)
~ 0......0 en C'l:I
~ G "08 ~
r/).--< If) r-'
5]g~w
~ ~ ~ ~ ....,
.
"'0
11 c
'-<
E E
s~
e~
OJ 0
~ Z
"'4-<
-D"::
u co
W '0
'-'-< '-'
o cO
<U .~
:Q b{J
~~
cO cO
iU S
e iU
~ e
'~ ~
"0 S
~ B
..d 5
~ '.0
o G
~s
p-."O
cO 0
Lt:; p:) S
iU 2 c;;
~ .~
"'
0;
g
'.0 l-<
~~
"0 "'
'" iU
C
~~
b{J
E
"'
';:1
W
.
I
I
10
Ie
~
co
, ':J
""
r'
C
~ ~
c
'-'
:>
.--
c;;
c
,0
I~ .
...
~
v.
6
<01
r..Cf:
'-' '-'
~
::l
U~
C'
"Q ~
Cli 'C
g Q
~;:::::::
t; ::J
~0
_______4-<
P::: ~
O;:Q
c "'
.g ~
:..;:; ~
.-a iU
~-f
4-<
blJO
C iU
.,.,"'0
~ . U3
bb~
11 ~
co bI)
e 5
.g ~
"'...c:
:> b[J
G jJ ~
,.., 't:i
v fr"J Q
;::1
-I
(5 ~
C>
Z
iU '-'
o..::l
o C
-.D
rJj '"
.
.
(l)
~
o
"
'"
"'
'-'
.E
...
...
;::
I
Lt:;
~
o
Z
'-'
"0
">
o
...
0..
o
....
iU
~I'6
~I ~
'-< 0
r' ;:Q
~ Z
c;;
,~
cU '"
e blJ
5 ~ .2
'-' "'
~ M'~
l3 'I:< W
e
o
'.0
cO
u
,..q
::a
o
6
.
I
i
I",
1'2
,
,
I 18
i 1-.
I~I~
Ie -
A L.o.-.
~ .~ 0 '"U .~ ~
11 ~ ~ t"'3 b[J -------
co "C,oS~
C bI) 0.. "'3 ~ '5 .~
s 'g ~ "S ..2 ~ :Q _
~.~ ~ ~ V) -..... :3 C/)
~~4-<0C;;~P:::'" W
u - ~ t c;; {ip
~ -B ~ go'E "r1_S ~.~
iU 4-< ,_ '" _ "0 v
,~ 0 B ,S .D "0 OJ iU
~1 @ ~ ~ ~ l ~
fcO~c,-"'".p
~ ~ ~ 8 0 ] '~
~
',:il
l,L.;i.
iU
g
Z
~
'-' 0 'U
: ~ ,::;~
u C ,OJ)
~ .2 ~ .S
Vl 0.. ... p-.
C c c..E
c 0.. en
u 0., ~ I
_______ f ~~
M ~ .~ ~
,.3 nJ t;j oj 6 >
",000...-
-;;< ~ ~ 0...P:)
OJS~p.,o~
iU::l t:l '-' 0
:>....00::00..
,..., 0 Lt:; '-...c: c.J ,!:l
H S~ b{Jb{Jt-c:
W~"C C::l....'1:l
en "0 ~ '.0 0 S 0 ci
;; ~ cO 'R -5 ';;; g 0
0.. OJ iU cO iU.D '~
,,""0 IlJ o~.-B u
.. 'S: .-B .... o..::l ,..q
C ~ 0 '-' ,::1 "' Sl b::a
~ ~ ~ b.O III b.O ~ 0
Il~l~f~~~ ~ ~~
'-< ,- cO 0 v 0...E ~
p ~ S$ .j...l......... If) 'Vj
..:::1 en b[J iU ------- '-' 8 ~
_ r' ',::1 9< ib :> Cl b{J C
'" v ::1 tJ ::l 0 ~ S 'p
51 :Q ~ ~ 9 SA' 5'0 ,~
-< :> iU ~ ~ ~ ,~~. ,:-1
I ~ :::; ~ l-l ~ - ~ .... '" j..J...l
1----::'1 ::gi
IZi~!. .. .
c(j
"0
:>
05
I~
la
I~
I~
10-
i"""'"
I
I
I
"pI ~
...., I ;:l 0...
05 1<0r:2 ~
g I] 'oJ-S
P-.. :: ~ 0
iJll"''::f5j
Ii" I ~ ~ -
01* 1-< ~ 0
1~I(,i
1-1-
t'-..
-.
-..
~
.~
;:::
~
....
-
'-
k.
'....
....
~,
...::.
~ II
~I'I~
A, .:
-;: I..g
r.L,ii~
'<:; 'II '"d
~ ,I~
~il
;II'~
h I I':
~. 11.2
~ I ~ Zl
-il~ 5
211 c.J E
I ... c.J
~I-= >
1:: S 8
~IIP
f 1.5
i I
,0
.~ I'!
~ II~
B
[-:'
':S
'"
'"
'-)
I .
Iz
I
,..
~
~
i:: *
c.J ...
S ~ ~
p.. U o^
E ~
H ,-<
""
<lJ c:
:D ~ 0
~ ~ bD
...0 '"' S
n v;
:Q '::x
.., bfJ OJ
OS bfJ
{; 'inS
1E '8 ~ M
~ ~g~
~ .~ ~ ~
" ... ~
&LE ] Q)
~ .:::.b
~ '-' ~ V)
e
rfJ
E
Cl)
....
H
....
:::
Cl)
E
Cl)
>
o
....
0.
E
>-<
Cl
OJ ~
4-<
~. ~
'"'
'"' .8
.2 tJ
iiJ C
~ ..!S
-:5~
C OJ
5'::::::'
.......c
.... bfJ
...c ::l
bfJO
IQ ii
if] .... 11
>1J~
-<'"d
.... ~ q
5 C/l c<1
,... ..... Q)
5 q @
:> ';J ---.
o .:3 ~
~ ~]o
S QJ 'i'
J----j c..,.....!:'
~ '5 ~
~ "( 0
.~ CJ ..,
~ p::; ~
"'0
-r::: .
06
~ Q)
ro~
--c
~ r-
1&-
I;: c;
I r<.
i-
I
,
I
I
I
10
I::)
i~^
1-
r",
""
I ~ ;:;J 0
eOJ:5OJ)
-r::: ~D1 ~
uS ~ CL
'-< 5 ~ q
C) '""0 ~.;
b .~ ~ ~ .0
bfJE! Vl U 8
.S U' bfJJj H
C Q) c:: ....... rn
~ ~ 't; c ~
I c:':;! & ~
1t:58: OJ Vl'"
i .
i
I
<U
~,~
~. .8
.::1 <lJ
~.~ ~
~;:;J
r! U ~
.~ ~ ~
.t: H 0
[/) ~ ";j
~.s n
~_Q,) r.n
~ cS .~
OJ 8 !j
q 0 0;
-r:::oljU
.
...:<
H
o
a...
Vl
::l
"'0
~ 0
bD~
.~ ~
c 5
::l ~
:;-r:::
~ Q)
Q) ~
~::l Vl
o ...0 Vl
H::l 0
2Q tJ
.~ ~ t::
.8 Z Cl)
.g ~ ~ ~
~ U::l &
~@I~j~~
S"'~"'O"~o
tJ--<c::..-U
8S"'O~~-""'"
.., ;0.g u.o
U)s....o:lO~q
~ .......0i>,8-..!S
'" .Ej 0; C v S ~.~
Vlq~SOOa...
'x 0 _ 0 U ~ 0
~ w ;.@I t3 <b ~ p,; -5
. ~l .
<U
:>
o
S
<U
....
'"d
q
'"
<U
a...
...9
Vl
.
06 ~
I ~ <
I -r "'0
1'-; ~
l::l ..,
S"G
1..0 ....
i :;. ~
!O I.ii
i
I::::
I
C
<U
..;:::
:;; ~ OJ
,~c E
'2..~ ~
~ (; ~
.., 0... '-'
~ ;;4S
8 ~ ~
.0 i3 ,,1 "'0
QJ ~V) ~
.::1 'C ~ 15
g,~vE
-~c:n~~
.
05"
bJj~
~ 2)
'" ~
P...t:
OJ ~
...0 <lJ
.......0
.8 0
~:;
c ~
<U...o
.
~,
'-<
U
E
U)
c:
o
U
bD
o
.>:<
::l
-0
Cl
<U
....
c<1
U
o
QJ
.
--
\::
.~
~
~
.....
r..:...
....
~
;s
~
~ Ii
~il~
'i:~-_; -i C
-: 11.8
G:; II ~
.,...11 '"C
~ <
~II
~-.
~II
~II-
~i 8
;':;.j:l.g,
~ I~
, '''0
-il<
<:),
_ <l.l
't;--, -5
"'"
~
Q1
I
Ig
~ I"=:
'8 I ~
- I c
.; I'~
1-0-. I
~ I
c.--
I
-:...::. I
~ i c
~ iZ
,
s
o
..:::
.....
u
~
0...
8
.....
tIJ
S
v
.....
.....
.....
c:
<I.J
S
<I.J
:>
o
...
0...
S
.....
~ I
,.
5 :, I
:> (I).!o
2 Uf,g
g- ,('.1
,. \0
~ ........
"""
tIJ
c:
<l.l
S
<I.J
:>
o
...
0...
S
.....
I
Iv
I~
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
'"0
V
\-<
V '"
g; '"5i
u.:c
~ .~
lIJ \-<
<1J-.......
~~
'" g
.s
tIJ
5~
~; .9
o .....
~ .~
>=1 ..,
H v
c..
'E
Vl v
Q; c
O:::~
'"0
.~
c
o
u .
I
I
I~ ~
Ic3 ~
If0
~ v;
I'" '"
:":w
len
1-
r<
~
.c
.....
..c:
.2P
'-<
'"
.9
..,
c
~
.....
..c
bJJ
'C
~
~
;;;
c..
v
Vl
cO
..,
'"0
'J>
o
...
c..
o
.....
..c
u
'"
o
...
c..
c..
'"
i=O
r.r:I
bJJ
.S
.....
Vl
X
..,
.., v
c..c:
'5..!S
L( C
~ E
.
<:t::
~
"@
r'
.g
~ Vl
'"0 ..,
'" c:
c ~
'" C
'"0 \-<
'"g ~
o<:t::
.....~
v
:> 0
~ e
] '0 c
~ "il
C) '0 G
~I ~ ~ ~
t:: bJJ bJJ c:
v .Sc:: -
:> ~ ~ ~
8 'r< '" c:
~ e .~
~ Cl) ~ M
.9-' ....
""@ = ~ .5
c tr.l ,.... V)
.g v ~ 'x
_0:::2L1J
~
'"0
-r.:
.
Vl
.., .....
.~ ~
;:l v
r~
i 0::: +::
i
I ·
I
I
~
i3
\-<
o
..Q
...
'"
-
...c.
o
.....
v
~I ~
8 ]
v cO
8 l3
8 ~
-:;>
e:
v
o 1l
U)I~I ~
. . --< .
.....
tIJ
'"
L1J
~cC"D
..?; ~ l:
co.....CO
I ...,
,~ 1.s
I~ l3 ~
I
i
!::::
.5 ri
~ ~
-.......-:::
bJJ ~o
E ~ e:
'n ~
';;; M 0]
.., r< ';::1 co
Q) .;:1 ...... ....
~ ~:g ~
U Cl::! <l)
t;~ ~-B
~C~h~
'""" ~ '3 g ~
5 u ~ OJ ~
~ cc ~...c 8
.
'"0
c:
'"
V
C
'"
-5
bJJ
;:J
o
...
-B
'"
c:
.g
;.Q
'"0
co
,.....
'"0
'"0
cO
o
.....
~ '"0
~..?;
co
.
.
E
bJJ.....
.f q ~
~ l..... .~ ~ ,.
o 0 0 +::
;::I \-<,.p
~8~2~
~ .~ g ] ~
.5 t; .5
v e:
-5 8
""' v
o \-<
V
\-<
.-<
;:J
cr
v
~
.
,.
-so
;:J
o
\-<
-B
OJ
.~
Vl
i3
v
Z
. .
'"0 .....
cO Vl
o aJ
~-5
cO \-<
\-< 0
bJJe:
,.
,~ Q.)
~.-E
'x
v ,_
g ~
;:::l..Q
cO 0
~ ~
bJJ<...
e: 0
';::1 ..,
iU .@ '"0
--E V '(jj
<... \-< .....
o v:. ~
E .~ ~
8 cr ~
8 ~ g
(;i
Eo
Vi
.
I
I
18
DOn
I~
I
~g
.~ ~
~I~ ~
,...., S-r.:
o <...
.gl~ .~
cO ;> '"0
u 0 c
..9 E ~
IlJ V ,.
r~
1
I
i
\-<
Q
i3 v
V ?
.:; .-:::
iu ~
I C c:
I r: ~
10 u
I
le-
i-
I
-------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
I
~
~
OJ e
~ 2
CO v <:t::
ZB~
V
'"0 e:
'"0 0
cO .9
0.;"
e:
~
V
'D
'J>
o
..!>:: \-<
U c..
'" .9
c..Q
... bJJ V
: .~~ g
~ tJ '"0 V .~
'p g @ @ ~
;....; - .;...J
l1.i <u (j....!:: V"J
C ~ @ 1;; gp.S
fJl.8 ~ -; oj 0 @
C ..... ~ ~ L1J J:j ';::1
Q) ~ ....-4 "zj Ni _~ u
8 :::< ~ ;;] ,::? ~
Q"l~~.u~-,,""
?'" :>v~e:
8 .S ~ ~ 0...'"0 01
8 "8 CO .~ '~ ~ ~
~ .9P C/) > ~ ~ .5
'" '"0
::: '"0 ~
z~0
OJ
"
2
~
'"0
~ .
0~ ~
0""0
,-< @ U)
.
.
0(:)
c>,
-.
-..
~
.~
:::::
~
.-
~
'g
""
~
<:l,;. Ii
~I;i-
~,I~
~II~
~I~
~I
':1
~'I
211~
~ 1.1:!2 .:':
'\ ,:; c
;::;11< Q,)
-, Q,) E
~I ,.Q Q,)
~'I ~ i
lI..111..;: E
I u....
IlK
!
i
I
:
i
i
I
<>
'-' ~
.~ u
~ c
Ll.., 1.....:1
'" I
~I
~ I~
<IJ
S
~
....
....
c
Q,)
S
QJ
>
o
...
Q..
S
....
II
I
I
'"
o
....
~ I
Q,) I
5 ':10
5 0 ~
iiulg
E o.
.... I;;;
[
I~
1"-.
I po; ...;
I~ o.J
! C 8
I~ ~
I ~ ..s
.::1 b
::l C
C;<Q,)
I ~Oj ...c
i"-- ......
I
I .
I
I
18
.C.
-
"<t-
o
-<f.
-
5
9P
~
.5.,
'"
u ...;
..0 0.)
'" C
is ~
c... U
o ~
c ~
.g ""0
C'C 1-<
.@ Z
.::< 0.)
G3~
5 ~
~li
"- ....
p:; g
_ '"
'"
c~
.g ~
~ ~
'"d 0.)
'" ~
<n..c
~ t
.- 0
g.,c
0.) 0.)
p:;..c
I ·
.
c bl] 0.)",
QJ:2 t. 'f.o a ~ ]
~~ ~v ~~clj
c ~ .~ 8 c g? ~
~ ~ ~ ~ a 0 C
..=.. -c ~ ':: ~
~.8 ~ ~~.,.q
'-4-1 Qj 'T.8 ~ C"i bJJ
~ ~ B .s .~ B 5
~'"O<lJob '"O.).A
o 0.) ~ c C _
':0 ~ ~ rr. o.J rod .2 ~ ~
~...r::-~ o~ ~"1j c
~~~~g~ ~~~
~ ~ ~ .;...l 'zj 0 ~ ~ '""0
~ ~~ .$ ~ J 0 ~ ~
'"d ::l Q) ... ..., '"d ~ k
"'0Q).a~(:CI ~2.J:,
B 1:..E B.5 ~ B gp:g
'"d ":'^ 4-< ~ ~ Co",
:>"'"0";:;-'::0 '"0
~I. ~ .~ Cd ~ ~ € .~ ~, ~ ! ~
Q) ....>1 B ~ 3" ~ ~ 81 ~ E ~
OJ''"' &~ '" 0 '" 0"30.) 0.."'-
S ~ -5 .~ ct B ~ s 8 ~ .5 ]
~Hl~H~~I~H
0.....-] c: 0 p.~ QJ 0.:....; Vi..::"
~.I~ "'~;?:23 8Z~e5 ~e:>
~. . .I~J..
'"
'"
V)
0<::
'"0
> Q)
P3 >
-r:
o ,8
o..,~
.;:: r-;
........;?
00
;<
i3
~
o ~ c3
0..'U
~;;$c(j
'-.., ~ QJ
.....C'..............::I
t:''1J Qj'"'O
o ~ ~
I (/) c:c ~ ;:0
10
I-
I
r l.......,
~ ~
- </)
V) GO
'"djSw..i
g -I-J r-o
bl]C>
C 023 v
.2 ~ t; 2
Q),,-ou
~ ~ .S" E
~ ...r: r.r.,
Q) C '
.tj 0 4-i ~
::l.p 0 S
~~ v v
~~]A
c
o
~a:;
~~.5
~~E
.B b c
~ v t:
'"'0] .~
'" v, '"0
C/) ...c: ctl
~ t OJ
.::1 0 ;::l
g.,C5
Q) (j) po
~...o..-r'
.
.
OJ
.:e ~
<lJ '"
bl]-
~ c
~ ~
u !
'"0
C~
cO .!::
(1)
....
.E
~
C '0
... C
B '"
...c .8
.~ ~
~::
~~
'"0 ';'
"'..c
Obl]C
.... ;j 0
>-. 0 .Jj
~ ;j ~
~ ~ "2
oj2d'U~
C r~ ~ .::l
~ '-' '"
c~~
... V) bl]
B C c::
~ ~.~ :3
~ 23 .B z
'"
.~
'"
.
.
i
I
i_,
!6
'00
I~.
,-
I g
~
"-
p:;
o
00
0.
~
~
N
Vl
'"
0.)
1~]""8
1"- ... ~
~J:b
]~~
~ ~ "'-'
~ r.n en
~ ~ ~
~o"O
.::l C ~
;:j b[)......-!
C;<C>V
~-2-~
C'i (:CI ,
. -
~I g "0
o .Jj :>
~I;g ~
.9 ~ t.
i2 d3 0.-
.8 .t:1 . '"
<IJ g., ~
~I ~ 0
tJ I po; V)
,
I .
.
~
(3
~1l
.~ @
...... ....c
ll) if:;
0)
'"' '"
co
~
"0
"0
'"
'"0
C
C'i
~
1
~~ E
...5S Q3
~ c
2 ~ to:
~ E
<t::
~ g ~
.... ~
~.-E ~
QJ'"O ~
C >
op:i --g
'"0.... 13 0.)
'"0'" .Jj x
l1H ~~I~
~ 25 Z ~ 81! ~ ~
>t;b.O+--r2>VJ ~
~!H:!~HH~
E~b~r.rJEI~ <lJ233
'"d '"0
'"0 '"0
'"<. ..~..
1'"0
I~
I 0 Q)
~~
""'i -c
I~ ~
,c5; ~
"0
N
I~ <
I.~ >
>-<-(
l~ ~
i 0 -q
il:... u:
1-
i0:
....
c
"
,.,
r-=:
CD
V)
Q)
C
o
"0
'"0
'"
B
0.)
~
Vl
Q)
'U
u
~
'"0
C
'"
'"0
to>
c:Q
-r--,
I I
I
I
d
o
.Jj
'"
~'I
""
:;;1
Cil
....;
-,
.~
Z,...,-
I""::
. Z
i
I
I
I
c<5 I
"I
i ~I
(:CI ....1
~ 01
-D tl
" ~ i
i..I.. --::1
-i
I
I
I
I
('1
~.l
/..:,
CJ
(""1
-
~
....
u
I:::
~
k:
....
I:::
::s
""
~
r--~---,--
~
...';ii
.2) : '" '-'
1,-...,"":1,.... .~
>-.! II (3 "'...1
~ I''::: :> (to. 1-
~ii~ &.0:1~'
1::; )i<"U,.. _
\:3:: C i--
-Q..'i i~ !t',1
~ !L____i~'
~!! -i
~il-o
~i! ~
~I !.~
~ il.,...
~,!!~ ~
'\ ii'"O
'-: ! < ~CJ
2,11 OJ ~
;I~ 2
~ 12 E
..- .....
u
Ol
',"",
12
I
~
I
]
i
!
en
S
~
....
....
Q
v
E
v
:>
o
...
c.
S
....
!
"1;..< -'
1<, l_
i r:::: '-~
, r: _
I ,..
I
1.5 v.
1._ if.
I~ ~
Ii .~ ..s
.-<
;0
i~
I~
i
I .
"0
C
Q)
....
><:
~I ~
~~~I ~
~ '"
~ ~
~I :
j ~i ~
r--~ ~i ·
I I~
c I~
~ ,.S: I '-'
! ~ I~
.~ I ~ I:f:
J: i-' .~
I
~:
~ 1"--------
~ I cO
<:: :7
~C
::
,-
I r]
"'T
OC'
('I
"'"
'-' c:::
:::::
~ 0
IX r
,. ""1""'
s>p-g
'0 c,
- -./
C':. .~
:5 ~
"0 Co..
"0 0
: ~
~ :-Q
3 ,~
ir~
~15
.
Q)
,..
,..
;:;
.8
et;
~
Q)
....c:
....
;--~
,..
(t
...:= if'.'
c..
,..
c
_ ro
~
~
r.: ~
~ 8
c
u
..-
'"
..,
,..
..25
u
o ('"',
"U C P
"0 0 c;;
~'n 7
o u c
.... Q) 0
c.~.;.::
8 ~ g
~ .S :::c
~.5CO
~I ~ ~ Z
~1 - .c: -0
~I ~ ~ ; ,; ]
~S uv,~
jj]!~:~
~I 0/ ::::---
v
--:. ..
:ccG~'
~~ ~ r
"
;z::--
u
..)
,""'" ,..,- ,I:
r~ 1
''"'
:;.
.c:
c
Q)
Q)
e
V
.J:J
"0 a.i
:> c
05~
.... c
... ...
8...8
.~ t.t
~3d
cr.
0..,
8
cO
~ ~
~ c::
g~
>-r< C
.... ...
c .8
V
vet;
e~
Q) V
.J:J C
o
~"O
P5 ;
t; ~
o c
g.. cO C
~] .~
;:l Q) lfl
o c ;..a
(/) 0 0
c:::_ p'
Z .8
Q) 0;
Q) :>
~ --c; ._
M ~ Vi
~] c::
o ~ 'p
~] .~
~ cO W
.
--c;
. Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
k
Iz~
V
i ,0.
j,..~
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
!
"0
C
cO
"0
C ~
~ c
.~ ....<.s
~I.s ~
~ .~ .Ci
I C -,
I~ ~
2 ~
.c 0
8 U e
_"0
'3 .8
.J:J Q)
V :>
~--r::
~ li,...c
...... ......
~ cr. I~
ZJj Z
~ -
o"Q .-c'jO
~ ~I:
~ ~I ~
~ r~IS
....' ....... 1'---'.
I
I
1\0
1('.)
,
OJ
I~
12
I'"
('.1
I
i
I
19
lo^
Lf1
C
I:
1-
c;;
c::
.g
~
"0
-<:: .
"'C OJ
,.. :>
~~
l5u
C Of)
W ~ .;.
"'Q l5 u.
, 0
~ W tl
0... ---- +-;
OJ OJ
c :> :>
~ --r:: 0
u
c::
'"
o
~
~ ~
--c; .Q
"0 U
c:: ~
cO '-i
H (jJ
o -'
.S
W ""
Of) OJ
S ;
Cl..~
~8
ti .8
"0
o~
~ OJ::
Oc:::
::W
g 0
o .E
u
c::: oj
Z.E
OJ
H C
::; ...
~E
olt:
o OJ
u~
~ ~
o
"0
C
cO
~i3--d
~~~
~--EJjCO
'0 ::i c:: ...-...
o .... cO
<n.8~
OJ .... ..-
o..,.c cO
'r:; .'2fJe..?
..- '-i
~CQ-S
~ Z'~
.
o
o
"!-
r<J
00
......
,:
2
I ~ nj
I ~ :>
--......--c;
~J:l
o;Jj
C v
.g 'E
I~ ~
"0......
cO 0
~ v
tI:'S
;:l VJ
0"'....
OJ VJ
~ ~
I ·
I
I
I
I
"0
~r.r.i
~~
:>
~ 0)
.9-
'\:I .b
; ~
... Q)
o '-i
.-
VJ 8
-
So;
~ C
R .g
W -
~
"0
. < .
c:::
5[.1.;
~ ~
::> 0
I~
I~ ~
~'U
....CJ
10 L::
l~ .~
1[.1.; ....,
I~I
e
!-,
1"';
c
~
b
.
.
a.i
C
~
l:<
C
-so
'\:1
r:Q
Z
0;
.~
VJ
Of)
C
';1
VJ
'x
w
c;;
~
V3
.
.
.
,
,
I
-.-J
......
1::::
"1:l
l::::
~
;:::
~
'N
E
~
~!I-
&III'~
J:I~
~ <
~
~
'"
%
!:: ";
h ;::
<::I .~
~ .....
~ ~
<
"-
c:;::,
"-
~
~
Q1
t:;
'~
l:::
!::
~
~
'-l
':B
;" ,0
c; IIZ
'"
8
v
.....
,..,
.....
;::
v
E
v
;..
o
...
0..
8
,..,
;::
.~
.....
~
u
o
....:l
....
;::
v
S *
v .....
;.. ~ 8
8 U 0.
0.. '"
8 '<::j-
,.., 'D
....
'"
.....
;::
<lJ
V E
..::: v
..... ;..
o
...
0..
8
,..,
E
o
~
.....
u
~
0..
E
,..,
v
o
o
"'0
"'0
<<l
o
.....
<U
;..
~ 0
roo ~ B
II :; 0
o t::: 'P Lt::
<U 0 <<l ~
S ~ "'0
~ ~ 'in .1:l
8 i:O .S 5
EWo:l;.:cJ
S <U q <U
- 0.. 0/) "'0
Cd '5 .~ ;:::=
o '? ::s .s
o <U <U '"
'P ~ Z J:i
;.:cJ
"'0
~ . . .
~
<U
;..
......
" <U
]~
e q
\..') 0
..... t::
~~
w-<
I~
<U
"
o
z
<U
q
~
~
o
o
o
('oJ.
'D
......
......
-
~
o
z
q
o
....
.....
<U
::::l
~
o
....
<U
~
"'0
o
<<l
.....
()
i:O
W
S
o
..tj
<U
o
~
<<l
:g :ge
.~ ~ {j
;:., ~"2
<<l ;.......
~ -<11
+-ol ,..q en
.2 <<l ~
..... ::; <U <U
<<l 0 0
::r:: g ~ ~
g .ff P. S
O/)g;J;j-S.8
o ~~ ~~Lt::
o ~;:: 0..."" <U
~ o..-S ~ .S ~
<<l ~ i:O ';;j i:O ~
...... ."" z 11 W <U
d ~~o<uo
.; <<l"..... 0/) 0
o '" 0 "'0 .~ 0 "'0 00
o ...... ..... 0 ..0 <<l "'0 ,""
'p 5 .~ <<l :.E -8 <<l ~
i:j S ..0 <U 0 ."'O:=!
a<u:.E~ilS~.s
058""""'O.8<u'~
u ;:< 0.. R ,;:,
..... '- ~ 0 Lt:: 0 ......
.1:ls].8~~~8
.S - <<l.l5 0.. i:O R ,~
.......""" q O/)'~ ~ '"
:~<<l 8 ~.~ 'in W .8
<U 0.:;:: '<U ....
~Cn~~Bl~g~
"'0
. ~ .
.
.....
o
..0
.....
<<l
J::
~
<U
;;-
--<
[3 ~
;:J~
0-
N
-<
.........
z
::s
<U
z...,.,
---::.
. z
"'0
~~
i:O......
t:O
8.i:O
:.::JW
''1 ~
-;:2 g
c55~B
o
I'"
r--
00
r--.
.....
00
N.
Lt")
-
I
i
I~
z
'MblJ~ "'0 '0 ~
.13 .13 :Q <U 0/) q::l g
~ u VJ . '3 c ~ 5
~ 8.. -:s "2 0'"'- S ..o<U II
'-';:::oo<U~. ..9
.... ;:j..o <U ..... 0 "'0 blJ "'0 ~.
c' "'O:::,......<U,,<U"""
<U "'0 VJ.t::> U.tl.;:; uS .
d'- <U ............. ~ ::I 0.. <<l:.Q '"
.. ~ S <U ~ ~ ar 5 0... ~ .13
~<<l::l..o...... ....."'<Uo..tJ
~O~O<<lch"''''O''''' r,
<<l .... ...... .... q <U 0 0 <U 0 0
<U >-,......, >-,0"'0 0 <<l"O.........
~ co:j . ~ '.0 "Vj ',0: ..--I tr.l 0-
'" ::s '" ::S;.:CJ <<l "'0 B u ....
~ "'0 ~ "'0 "'0 -:s ,g .1:l ~ <<l C
'::I <<l.;:' <<l <<l o."::l ~..o o..s <U
0"'0"'00..0..0"'0 . u
<U ..... 11 ..... -.:J 0 0.. <<l ,"" ~
~ t) -0 b'~ 8 8 ~ ] ~ ~
......
."
.........
Z
.
~
.........
Z
blJ
~ v
..... ;;-
8..-<
,,:=!
~ <U
.~ ~
~~
::S"'O
"'0 0
~ <<l
..... <U
<U.;<
~ '
~]
'<t <<l
"'I ~ 0 0
............ 0
5 ~ 5 .~
5 es ~ ~
;.. ..... <U '"
o 0..0 .S
;:<-BC":l
S <<l ,g "
_ J::._.~
E:E 00
"'0 0 ::s
~ il Z
o:l
o
o
'p
.""
"'0
"'0
-< .
-<
.........
z
.
"'0 "'0
~ ~
i:O" i:O "'0
t:: 0 t: 8
o~ o~ ~
,~~ ,g- ~ ~
-c;o -<<U....
..<:1~o...<:1~O
....... ,. I 4--' ~ ..D
::I...c. S ::I ", I ....
o O' '"
V)~ ~iV)ZJ::
.....
'"
N
'"
'"
'"
<"I
<"I
-
~
.~
l:::
~
it;
.....
l:::
~
.,
.s
" ~
::3' t:
.9
.-:;
"'0
"'0
<
~
~
-c,
~'
'-<
~
1:::
h
l::l
~
~
"-
c:::,
"-
~
~
Il.1
~
.~
~
~
~
~
l::l
'-l
-:s II 0
~llz
~
t:
o
.....
....
......
"'0
"'0
<
cu
..s
E
o
~
....
u
~
Q..
E
.....
'"
E
cu
....
.....
....
d
Il)
E
Il)
:>
o
....
Q..
E
.....
t:
.9
....
~
u
o
.....:l
</J
cu cu "'0
::::>~r:S ""d~
:;></J ~p
...........ou ';:l~
P:; 0<2"0 crr::
OJ..o~ ~ ~"O
is ~c;:l ~ b @
.~ 0 ~ '" :;>
;.cIOJ......~ :::,~
"0 "'cu,.:,....'"
~ r--~ ro ~ ~ ~
Vj co ~ 'tn..:::l c:= ~
.~ ~ ~ OJ)'~ .g u
::;j .... ~'E ~ ..... 8
2"' Q.."'O </J"'O :g
,oJ ft ~.~ ~ < 13
I-L-l "--' ~ It)_
....
c
(])
E *
(]) ....
~ ~
i5.u
E
.....
o
o
\0
C'J"
\0
r<")
"I
-
'"'"'
o
'"
....
d
Il)
E
Il)
:>
o
....
Q..
E
.....
.
OJ)
j
....
&~
-B~
.~ b
:>-'..0
'" ....
~ '"
"O:I:
"'"0
8 q
cu '"
~~
iiii
""'" :>-.
'" '"
o ~
...... 1:1
cu '"
::l0
5 q
:> cu
-< cu
- Z
"0 cu
..0..0
u 0
~ 0
,2, .~
0:.0
cu ';:1
"0"0
t3 ~
11
cu
:>
o
9
8
.......
OJ
q
o
.~
~
"'0
< .
cu
::l
o
cu
;>
.......
"
~
cu
..0
u
~
..;-
'"
o
..;-
00
o'
C'J
VI
C'J^
-
6
OJ)
,@
::l
"0
"'0
.~
cu
V
"0
cu
..0
c
OJ)
'en
cu
"0
S'
.S
j
cu
....
0..
.
~ 0
"0.9
.~ "0 8 ;>
V H C ~ ~ u
.tJ 0.. '" M U '.~ ~ .tJ cu
ocu '" C/]~t
5 "Ci .... o.@ 8 ..,..,~ z ....
cu ;> "0 ~ cu 0.. cu _ _ .S
Z iii 1: ..0 "0 o.....c 0..
(]) ...... ~ ~.~ ~ :; g c2 8
~ .S S 8;:1 </J g. ~ ~,~ 0
:> O'o...c:'- ::J (]) </J - ::S
-<:p... .......:;..0 </J 8'"'"' 0
cu 1:1 tJ.~ 0 ~ -5 B 0 ~
::l</J......Vlt:;HjJ Oz
g' a~..El '" ~ ~ 't.~ cu
..0 0 u 0..C/] "--'- '> ..0
::l"O ~</Jcuo~o"""
Q ~B 0<..0 oC/].... 0
P=l ..c:: '" . -;;.~ ~ o..::l
z .5 ~ </J" ~ 0 ~ Jl g z
o~o~",cu....",~cu
o a:l i5. ~ -;:; ~ ......scu"'O "'..0
",</Jo.. ...- o~cu,..,..;
",~"""'O""o' "'.:>u
.... .E 1:1 ~ .... B .... 0.---- -< 1:
5 _ .~ Z B .l5 B 8.~'~ ~ ~
E ~ Ci. ct:: M...... ce ............... ...- '"-'
cu 0 0.. Jj ~ .t:i ";) ....;:;l f--< cr.S
> .g 8 ...... cu -,..... u ::l 0
g ..... 0 cu ;>.~ cu 0.2 as.g p...
8 ~ 8 ~] :g ~ H ~.E Q ~
~ o~t.;.lUU~::3g..cc:~
"'cuO~XcO..oMOO
.... 0 cu CU.;:< P:; cu ::l </J
"'O::J u 0 0] cu.... 0 CU"O
~ ~ ~ t z 'cu.tJ ~ -B.E ~
OJ
o
o
.~
;.cI
"0
-< .
cu
"5 0..
o 8
P:; ::1
~
o
>:0
Z
.S ------
0"0
0.. ~
.... >
cu cu
~"'3~
~oo
O~_
I~
"0
;>
iii
c::
o P-
o.. 8
~ ~
'" c::
0'0
,.....
~:
c:: ....
o 5
(])~
~~
:;z
~8
o '"
.] c::
--l-l ~ U)
. (])....
.Wl ~ ~
'B .~ 8 ~
,..... ~ 0 0
8--g~f
.~ C::..o 8
U'l C\1 U 1-1
~ ~ 8 ~
.2- ~ ~.... 00
"0.... .
-< U ",.E
"0
"0
-< .
.
.
I
o
o
o
00'
00
,.....
-
as
I~
M
c::
'.0
</J
.....
~ 0 0
cu ...... ....
J:j .S B
...... "0 ....
~ ~ io
o ::l.....
~ M....
"'L;:1~
o c:: C/]
...... 0"'0
t: U q
o cu '"
.~ .... '"
a:l ~ ~
E.8~
.s g ~
:.E~.l5
l:I .$2P
~ .:: ....
~t"g ~I
",.t:i '" 8
0...........0
......oM cu
o..M::l :>
0..::l0 0
'" 0.... ;;
~.].tJ 8
Ul ...... 1:1 e......
c::"O O~OJ
~~~~o
::;:"'o..~o
:;>...c cu .... .~
'" </J 0 ~
"0
-< .
"0
'"
......... 0
cuP:;
> ....
<1:!]
"O~~
~ ~ </J
o () ~
t;.-e b
'" '" ~
r.Lix.........
\0
r<")
o
o
VI
C\.
r<")
-
as
c::
o
Z
cu
:>"0
~ ~ ~
c::
~ 8 ~
g' B 8
...oct::B
::l cu
Q,ct::
o..c:: ~
.... OJ) cu
"B 5'~
"'.] :g
8 4-" u
&'"2 ~ as
'" i;j cu ~
o....c:: :-Q -
8 '" > q
'" 0'"
';< 'to i5. B
~-t ~
ocu8~
~.e a) ~t:l
o :g q.........
~u~~
1:!xc::]c
::l cu .... 0
~ .W ~ -B
cu ",...c:"O
..c:: '>1 .2fJ cu
~ Q) ~ ~
0..0 >...c:
'c ~.~ en
t";SEcq
, 0 u"O
~~;j~
------
"0
1:
(:Q <J)
.5 ~
o OJ
0.. ;:l
.... cr
<J) ::J
t;..o
>-. ::l
00
r--
("<"')
i
""
N
-..
~
I'~
~
~
...
~
I~
~ ,I I
~I~ 5 [
::J" ,-< E *
.S! ill ... 0
'" ...:> 0'" 0
~ ~ 8 u ~"
j~t 2
~ II:E
'\ :g 2:
'"- -( ~
;::: ill E
~ .s ~
"" d 0
<3 .....
~ ..g E
... ......
U
I~
,...
c;
.....
UJ
E
ill
...
.....
...
c;
ill
E
ill
:>
o
...
Q..,
E
......
<::>
"
'8
~
~
Q;
~
c.-,
""
.....
;,:
<::>
c.-,
c;
.9
...
0:1
U
o
~
o
Z
";j-
~
r--
\0
00"1
o 0 N~
o 0 r--
O"O"N
If")OO\
N Lf) "1
_ _ Y7
.9
11,~
~ B
OJ </)
.. ..
E ~
8 ,S
...... ..
~ ~
~ t:1
';:1 ~
2"'g
.. ..
~ 5
.........~
~ ,~
I ~
I
~
~
o
~
~ ~
......... .........
Z Z
.
.
...,
</)
OJ
w
.9
...
'~
Il)
'~
Il)
ill
q
~
N
~ ~
t:1 c8
o Il)
';j ~
0... 'S;
o 0
~~ P.. .s
~.g 0 B
~ OJ::: (/)
q 0 0 u
.is:;"" lE
~ t:1 ~ 0:1
~ ~::l ~
OJ...t:1 . 0 0:1
o a.o.. ~ 0
:Qgc::lq t;":J
1>.,00 o~
o ,..q :> q 0...,...
~I p..::: '<a ,2P 0 8
~oou</) ~"--
8+-'~Q.)"U ~o
o 0... Il) X 0:1 v
:> d ... W:':i B </)
~~g""""'13~~~
~...:..~~I>~u t>
.. ...... <u 0 <u ,~ ~
I-< 0 0..."< <u ~ 0 q
'Cd c "t:: ""0 u ~ l-;
q<u"'q~f:1o... 0:1
o ""'0 '? Cl::! C; ~.(1) IV
';j S Il) ... 0 0 ... ..
....1:;:> ~0 ~J::i 8.. 8..
~ .. . ~ ~
,~
tt ~ l-;
orlc::l
CQ0~
Z ~ 'g
o W ~
:E~
..., 0............
,::l 6 <u
I~ ~ ~
I
100
10')
u
o
0:1
<u
...
<u -t::
::l ,...
q 0
~ ,...
-< '0
...t:1 ...
0:1 </)
2) W
-..
~
.....
\..l
\::
~
;:;:
u::
.;::;
~
0-, 0
0') "'"
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT
PROJECT COST
RIGHT-OF-WAY
COSTS
1. Bayshore/ Airport Blvd. & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd. $ 591,000.00 $ -
2. Dubuque A ve.& Oyster Point Blvd. $ 1,461,240.00 $ 135,240.00
3. Eccles Ave. & Oyster Point Blvd. $ 435,920.00 $ 73,920.00
4. Gull Dr. & Oyster Point Blvd. $ 685,400.00 $ 176,400.00
5. Airport Blvd. & Miller Ave.IUS 101 SB off-ramp $ 2,048,1 00.00 $ -
6. Airport Blvd. & Grand Ave. $ 154,000.00 $ -
7. Dubuque Ave. & East Grand Ave. $ 3,719,400.00 $ I
134,400.00 I
8. Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. $ 162,000.00 $ -
9. Forbes Blvd.lEast Grand Ave. & Harbor Blvd. $ 2,490,600.00 $ 621,600.00
10. Grandview Dr. & East Grand Ave. $ 704,800.00 $ 100,800.00
11. Airport Blvd. & San Mateo Ave. $ 1,066,800.00 $ 100,800.00
12. South Airport Blvd.IMitchell Ave. & Gateway Blvd. $ 4,041,000.00 $ 636,000.00
13. South Airport Blvd. & Utah Ave. $ 440,800.00 $ 100,800.00
14. Harbor Way $ 5,281,787.00 $ 1,276,800.00
15. Mitchell Ave $ 2,362,600.00, $ 621,600.00
16. Highway 101 northbound off-ramps/S. Airport Boulevard $ 2,841,000.00 $ 756,000.00
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT
PROJECT COST
RIGHT-OF-WAY
COSTS
17. Highway 101 northbound off-ramp/East Grand Avenue $ 305,000.00 $ -
18. Forbes Avenue & Eccles Avenue $ 2,491,980.00 $ 973,980.00
19. Forbes A venue & Gull Road I $ 210,400.00 $ 50,400.00
20. East Grand Avenue & Littlefield Avenue $ 1,183,200.00 $ 151,200.00
21. East Grand Avenue & Allerton $ 643,000.00 $ -
22. Utah Avenue and Harbor Way I $ 1,162,000.00 $ 315,000.00
23. New- Oyster Point Blvd & US 101 northbound On-Ramp I 231,840.00
$ 2,520,840.00 $
24. New- East Grand A veIHarbormaster Rd/Forbes Blvd $ 188,000.00 $ 84,000.00
25. New- Oyster Point BlvdlDubuque Ave $ 39,500.00 $ -
26. New- US 101 northbound off-ramplE.Grand AvelExecutive $ 1,292,000.00 $ 168,000.00
27. New- Utah Ave Over Crossing Project Study Report $ 250,000.00 $ -
28. New- Prepare new East of 101 Area Traffic Study $ 500,000.00 $ -
Subtotal (Road Improvements and Studies) $ 39,272,367.00 $ 6,708,780.00
? nf?
-
~'t\\ s~
It_Cl.- _m ~ _'" _ m/-_P~\
~ . ~~\
(0 n
>< ....
~ . ~
v 0
C4.l1FO-p..~\.~
-
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 9
DATE:
July 25,2007
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT:
EAST OF 101 SANITARY SEWER IMPACT FEE UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for the update of the East of
101 Sanitary Sewer Impact Fee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Staff requires further analysis of the sewer fee update in order to make a fmal recommendation for any
fee increase. This matter will be brought back to Council at a future hearing.
FUNDING
The East of 101 sanitary sewer projects and studies are funded through Sanitary Sewer Impact Fees.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council continue the public hearing for the East of 101 Sanitary Sewer
Impact Fee Update.
BY~
Marty Van Duyn (
Assistant City Manag
-".
Approved ~~~
garry M. Nagel
City Manager
RR/sb/dc/rc
~'t\\ S:4N
G
10 n:)
>< c;;
~ ~
v 0
~llFor$'~ Staff Report
A GENDA ITEM # 10
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 25,2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY GOALS AND A VOLUNTARY
PROGRAM PROMOTING BIODEGRADABLE AND RECYCLABLE FOOD
PACKAGING AND THE ELIMINATION OF POLYSTYRENE FOOD
SERVICE WARE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution encouraging voluntary use of
recyclable and/or biodegradable food containers instead of polystyrene containers and directing
staff to work with local business groups, including the local Chamber of Commerce and
interested residents, to discuss and prepare a Green Food Packaging Ordinance for future
consideration by the City Council.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
At a meeting held on April 25, 2007, the City Council discussed the growing amount of polystyrene
non-recyclable disposable food containers littering the City and directed staff to develop an ordinance
banning such containers.
In the course of developing a green food packaging policy, staff has researched newspaper articles,
interest group literature, ordinances and has interviewed representatives from municipalities that have
already enacted polystyrene food container bans. More than 100 communities nationwide have adopted
such ordinances, and the number is increasing with growing concern over global warming, dependency
on oil and oil-based products, and increasing public demand for green or environmentally-sustainable
community policies.
Generally, ordinances around the State that prohibit the use of polystyrene food containers target
businesses that offer take-out food and are not aimed at food manufacturers or retail stores selling food
products in polystyrene containers displayed on store shelves. Where such ordinances generally differ is
on the methodes) to achieve compliance. These methods vary from voluntary compliance combined
with a citizen complaint process to periodic inspections by City staff with the owners responsible for
providing supporting documentation of compliance. All of the methods vary in the degree of success.
Regardless of the methods, the support of local residents and businesses has remained one of the keys to
effective implementation.
In other cities that have enacted polystyrene bans there has been concern expressed by the business
community. It has been widely reported that recent efforts by local communities, including San
Staff Report
Subject: Polystyrene Disposal Food Containers
Date: July 25, 2007
Page 2
Francisco, Oakland and Millbrae, have garnered a fair amount of interest by the affected business
community. Four of the primary concerns of the business community appear to be: (1) the increased
costs of using recyclable products; (2) convenience of compliance; (3) opportunity to utilize existing
stocks of polystyrene containers, and (4) the possibility for exemption. With this in mind, staff
recommends that the City Council adopt an interim resolution promoting voluntary use of
biodegradable and/or recyclable food service ware while staff coordinates with the local business
community to develop an enforceable ordinance that is tailored to the needs of South San Francisco.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution expressing the community and
environmental benefits of using recyclable food containers, encouraging the voluntary use of recyclable
disposable food containers, and the intent of working with the local business community in developing
an ordinance banning polystyrene disposable food containers
By:
ved:
~i:g~
City Manager
arty Van Duyn
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Sample Polystyrene Ordinances
. San Francisco
. Oakland
RESOLUTION NO.
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY GOALS AND
A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM PROMOTING THE
ELIMINATION OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM FOOD
SERVICE WARE
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ("City") has a duty to protect public health
and the natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that all
California jurisdictions achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50%, beginning in 2000;
and
WHEREAS, solid waste that is nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable poses an acute
problem for any environmentally and financially responsible program of solid waste
management; and
WHEREAS, discarded food service ware represents a growing and substantial portion of
waste in the City's waste stream, and regulation of said packaging is a necessary part of any
effort to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the environmental costs of waste management;
and
WHEREAS, there is currently no meaningful recycling of post-consumer polystyrene
foam food service ware due to contamination from food residue and the economic unfeasibility
of such a service; and
WHEREAS, biodegradable food service ware can be included in commercial and
residential food scraps collection programs and processed at compo sting facilities rather than
landfilled; and
WHEREAS, the process of manufacturing polystyrene contributes to large amounts of air
pollution and liquid and solid waste; and
WHEREAS, plastic litter, including polystyrene foam, poses a threat not only to the
marine life and other wildlife, but also to the natural environment at large; and
WHEREAS, plastic food packaging is a petroleum processing by-product and oil is a
nonrenewable resource; and
WHEREAS, biodegradable or recyclable products are available and environmentally
sound alternatives to nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable products; and
Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC
WHEREAS, it is increasingly costly to site and develop landfills and such costs represent
an economic burden on the residents ofthe City; and
WHEREAS, it would be both environmentally and financially beneficial to the City to
decrease the nonbiodegradable and nonrecyclable waste stream and maximize the operating life
oflandfills; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this resolution is to set forth guidelines for developing a long-
term policy that will eventually eliminate the use of nonbiodegradable, non-returnable, and non-
recyclable packaging originating at retail food establishments ("Green Food Packaging Policy");
and
WHEREAS, a Green Food Packaging Policy and the use of biodegradable food service
ware made from renewable resources is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, the ability of a substance to biodegrade and the impact of a substance on our
natural environment are meaningful criteria to use when developing public policy to reduce litter
and blight and improve the management and disposal of solid waste; and
WHEREAS, as a result of these concerns, municipalities and counties across the State of
California have banned or are in the process of banning polystyrene food service ware, including
neighboring cities such as Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Oakland, San Francisco, and MiIlbrae; and
WHEREAS, any successful program requires the establishment of clear policies and laws
conducive to responsible waste management; and
WHEREAS, responsible waste management cannot occur without cooperation with City
residents and the local business community; and
WHEREAS, the Green Food Packaging Policy is consistent with and helps to implement
the City's Waste Management Plan (South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.16) and the
California State legislature's intent in enacting the California Solid Waste Management and
Resource Recovery Act of 1972 (Gov. Code Section 667700 et seq.).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco that:
1. It shall be a policy goal of the City that food packaging provided by retail food
establishments shall be biodegradable, recyclable, or returnable.
2. The City shall promote, on a voluntary basis, the reduction of non-biodegradable,
non-recyclable, and non-returnable food and beverage packaging used by retail
food establishments within the City of South San Francisco to the maximum
extent possible.
3. Staff shall consult with the Chamber of Commerce and representatives from
affected businesses over the next twelve months to discuss and prepare a Green
Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC
Food Packaging Ordinance for future consideration by the City Council.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 25th day of July,
2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reso - Voluntary Polystyrene Elimination.DOC
~lt::alU1Ut::.Ul. Vl. ""11'= YH.l.U.l..'C
NO. 060944
ORDINANCE NO.
<-7 Q ~- {)h
/-.. I
November 14. 2006.
I
1 [Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance.]
2
3 Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code by adding Chapter 16,
4 Sections 1601 through 1611, to: (1) prohibit the use of polystyrene foam disposable
5 ,food service ware and require the use of biodegradabfeJcompostable or recyclable
6 disposable food service ware by restaurants, retail food vendors, City departments and
7 the City's contractors and lessees unless there is no affordable alternative; and, (2)
8 provide for penalties for violation; and amending the San Francisco Health Code by
9 repealing Sections 469 through 469.10, which ban the use of food packaging and
10 plastic food service ware made with chlorofluorocarbons.
11
12
13
Note:
Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman;
deletions are strikcthr{3/;{gh italics Times ,""10",' ROln$l.l'l.
Board amendment additions are double underlined.
Board amendment deletions are stfikethrough normal.
14 Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
15 Section 1. Findings.
16 (a) The City and County of San Francisco has a duty to protect the natural
17 environment, the economy, and the health of its citizens.
18 (b) Reusing food service ware and using compostable and biodegradable take-out
19 'materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch and sugarcane are
20 among the effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of disposable food
21 service ware.
22 (c) Polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non-
23 biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware in the City and County
24 of San Francisco.
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma} ftJ{ofv - R~,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 1
11/14/06
I
II
!
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(d) There continues to be no meaningful means to recycle polystyrene foam food
service ware and biodegradable/ compostable or recyclable disposable food service ware is
an affordable, safe, more ecologically sound alternative.
(e) Affordable biodegradable/compostable or recyclable food service ware products
are increasingly available for various food service applications such as cold cups, plates and
hinge containers and these products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam
materials and can be recycled or turned into a compost product.
(f) The natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable materials is
used as fertilizer for farms and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero waste
system.
(g) Disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in San
Francisco's streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high and
rising.
(h) Polystyrene foam is a notorious pollutant that breaks down into smaller, oon-
biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus harming or killing
them.
(i) Due to the physical properties of polystyrene foam, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) states "that such materials can also have serious impacts on
human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy."
U) In the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of the
products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect,
polystyrene foam's environmental impacts were second highest, according to the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Duffy, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 2
11/14/06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(k) Styrene, a component of polystyrene foam, is a known hazardous substance that
medical evidence and the United States Food and Drug Administration suggest leaches from
polystyrene foam containers into food and drink.
(1) Styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin that potentially threatens human
health.
(m) The general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard from styrene
! particularly in the immigrant and non-English-speaking community.
(n) Due to these concerns, nearly 100 cities have banned polystyrene foam food
service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several
national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non-
biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products.
(0) The City of Berkeley banned polystyrene foam in 1990 and has reported that
Berkeley restaurants have had no problem switching to paper and other alternatives.
(p) The City of Berkeley also reports positive environmental impacts from the ban,
citing there is almost no styrofoam litter in Berkeley since the ban and further that their food
waste stream is cleaner and more compostable.
(q) Restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and requiring
them to be replaced with biodegradable or recyclable food service ware products in San
Francisco will further protect the public health and safety of its residents, the City and County
I of San Francisco's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance the City's goal
I of Zero Waste by 2020 and fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby San
Francisco partnered with other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or
restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year.
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 3
11/14/06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(r) In 1988, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 542-88 (Health Code
use of food packaging and plastic food service ware
he Ordinance provides that it shall be void upon the
erallawor regulation imposing limits on the use of
. Effective 1994, the federal government banned the
products. 40 CFR Part 82 (58 Federal Register 4678
Section 469 - 469.10) which banned the
made with chlorofluorocarbons (CFC). T
enactment or adoption of any state or fed
CFCs in the manufacture of plastic foams
l use of CFCs in the manufacture of foam
January 15,1993). Accordingly, the 1988
Section 2. The San Francisco Env
Chapter 16, Sections 1601 through 1611 ,
SEe. 1601. TITLE.
, This Ordinance shall be known as the
!
SEe. 1602. DEFINITIONS.
(a) "Affordable" means purchasable
o(the non-Biodef!radable non-Compostable 0
(b) "ASTM Standard" means l'neetinfl
Materials (ASTM) International standards D
vias lies. as those standards mal! be amended.
(c') /1Compostable" means all the mat
other"vt!lse become vart or usable compost (e.
manner in San Francisco's comoostino or
or in :J homo compost pilo or dovico. Con
'No.y of oX:Jmplo, must meet ASTlvJ-Standa
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi,Ammiano. MeGa I
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ordinance is void by its terms.
ironmental Code is hereby amended by adding
to read as follows:
Food Service PVaste Reduction Ordinance.
(or not more than 15 vercent more than the vurchase cost
r non-recvclable alternative(s).
the standards o(tlle American Societv (or Testing and
6400 or D6868 (or biodegradable and compostable
erials in the product or package will break down into, or
g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and time/v
ooram ::m 3ppropri3to composting progr3m or facility,
mostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes, by
rds for comDostabilitv Bio Plastics (pJ3ctic like
driek, Sandoval, Maxwell. Dufty, Ma
Page 4
11/14/06
\
I
11
I
1 I
I
i
2 I
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
products) th::lt Dro and anv biD-plastic or olastic like product must be clear!v labeled. pre(erablv
with a color svmbol, to allow Proper identification such that aAY San Francisco's corn post collector
and orocessor can easi/v distinr!uish the ASTMStandard Compostable plastic from non-ASTM
Standard Compostable plastic. For the purposes ofrhis ordinance the term biodegradable shall have
the same meaninf! as compostable. This ordinance uses the terms hiodef!radable and conmostable
interchanr!eabll' and in all cases 'rl,'hether the terms are used selJaratelv. in the dis;unctive or in the
cOllhmctive thev shall alwavs be interpreted and avvlied consistent with this definition of the term
"composta bl e It.
(d) "Otv Administrator" means the CitY' Administrator appointed under Section 3.104 o(tlle
Charter or his or her desif!11.ee.
(e) "Citv contractors and lessees" means alll' person or entitv that has a contract with the Citl'
. for public works or improvements to be ver(ormed. for a franchise. concession or lease of propertv. for
grant monies or r!oods and services or suvplies to be purchased at the expense of the Ot)? and Countv.
or to be paid out of monies deposited in the Treasurv or out of tm..')t monies under the control or
col/ected bv the Of\' and COlmtv.
(j) "Otv Faciliiv!! means anv building, structure or vehicle owned or operated bv the Otv of
San Francisco.
(f!) liCit\! Faeilit"\! Food Provider" means an entitv that provides, but does not sell. Prepared
Food in Otv Facilities. includinr! lv/thou/limitation. San Francisco General Hospital. Laguna Honda
Hospital. San Francisco Countv Jail and the San Bruno Jail Complex.
(h) "Disposable Food Sen>ice Ware!1 means all containers. bmvls. plates. travs, carton. cups.
lids, straws. (orks. spoons. knives, napkins and other items that are desir!ned for one-time use (or
Prepared Foods. including without limitation, service ware for takeout foods and/or leftovers from
partiallv consumed meals prepared bv Food Vendors. The term IIDisposable Food Service Ware" does
Supervisors Peskin. Daly, Mirl<arimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell. Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 5
11/14/06
,
I I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
;
I
I
!
I
!
1 lOt include iterns composed entirelv of aluminum or po/vstvrene foam coolers and ice chests that are
2 'mended (or reuse. nor docs this term include recycbble food cervico W8re.
3 (0 "Food Vendor" means anl! Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating l>t'ithin
4 the Citv and Countv o( San Francisco.
5 m "Person" means all individual. tnisl. firm, foint stock companv, corporation includin'l a
6 government corporation. pal1nership, or association.
7 (k) "Polvstvrene Foam" means blown polvstvrene and expanded and extruded (oams
8 (sometimes called S'tvrofoam™; which are thermopla.stic petrochemical materials utilizinf! a stvrene
9 monomer and r;rocessed bv anv number of techniques includinf!, but not limited to, fusion of po Iv mer
10 mheres (expandable bead polvstvrene), infection moldillf!, foam molding, and extrusion-blown molding
11 (e.:r.tru.ded foam polvst1/rene). Polvstvrene (oam is f!enerallv used to make cups. bowls, plates, trav'S,
1 :2 clamshell containers. meat travs and e!!f! cartons.
13 (I) "Prepared Food" means food or beveraf!es, which are serviced. packaged. cooked. chopped.
14 sliced. mb:ed. brewed. frozen. squeezed or otherwise prepared (collective/v "prepared") within the City
15 and Countv o(San Francisco (or individual customers or consumers. For the purpose of this Chapter,
16 Prepared Food includes take-out food. but does not include raw, butchered meats, fish and/or poultrv
17 sold from a butcher case or similar retail appliance.
18 (In) "Recl/dable" means material that can be sorted, cleansed. and reconstituted using San
19 Francisco's available recvclin'l collection programs (or the purpose of using the altered (orm in-the
20 manufacture o( a new product. Recvclinf! does not include burning. incinerating, converting. or
21 otherwise thermallv destrovinf!. solid waste.
22 (11) "Restau.rant" means an)! establishment located within the Otv and Countv of San Francisco
23 that sells Prepared Food (or consllmotion on. near. or oifilS premises. For purposes o(ihis Chapter.
24 the term includes a Restaurant operating (rom a temlJorarv ({lei/ill', carl. vehicle or mobile unit.
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Duffy, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 6
11/14/06
1 (0) "Retail Food Vendor" means anI' store. shop, sales outlet. or other establishment. includinr]
2 ,a frocerv store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located ~vithfl1 the eft\' and Countv o(San
3 II
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Francisco that sells Prenared Food.
I
I
SEe. 1603. PROHIBITED DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE.
(a) Food Vendors mav not sell Prcnared Food in Disposable Food Service Ware that contains
Polvstvrene Foam.
I (b) Otv Facilitv Food Providers mav not provide Prepared Food in Disposable Food Service
Ware thar contains Polvstvrene Foam.
(C) Citv Deoartments mav not purchase, acquire or use Disposable Food Service Ware that
contains Polvstvrene Foam.
! (d) Citv contractors and lessees mav not use Disposable Food Sen1ice Ware that contains
I
I Polvstvrene Foam in Citv Facilities and while per(ormin? under a Otv contract or lease.
SEe. 1604. REOU/RED BIODEGRADABLE/ COMPOST ABLE OR RECYCLABLE
DISPOSABLE FOOD SER VICE WARE.
(a) All Food Vendors usinf! anv Disposable Food Service Ware shall use a suitable Affordable
alternative Biodegradable/Comnostable or Recvclable product, unless there is no suitable Affordable
Bioderzradable/Compostable or Recvc/able product available as determined bv the Citv Administrator
in accordance with this subsection. Not later than 30 davs before the overative date ofthis Chapter,
and after a public hearin~, the eitv Administrator shall adovt a list o( available suitable Affordable
Bioder!:radable/ Compostable or Recvclable alternatives for each product tvne. The eitv Administrator
. shall reJ!Ularlv update the list.
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 7
11/14/06
1
2
i
I
i
(bJ All Citv Facilitl' Food Providers and ('itv departments llsinf? anv Disposable Food Sen'ice
Ware shall use Biodegradahle/Compostable or ReC1lclable Disposable Food Service Ware unless ther
is no Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product available as determined bv the Citl/
Administrator in accordance with subsection 1603(.1)1604(a).
(c) eitv contractors and lessees usinf? anv Disposable Food Service Ware shall use suitable
Biodegradable/Compostable or Recvclable Disposable Food Service Ware in Otv Facilities and \.vhile
performing under a Citv contract or lease unless there is no suitable Affordable
Biodegradable/Compostable or reeve/able product available as determined bv the Otv Administrator
in accordance with subsection 1603(8) 1604(a)c
SEe. 1605. IMPLEMENT AT/ON: CITY CONTRA CTS AND LEASES.
(a) The Citv Administrator is authorized to promulfJate ref!ulations. guidelines and forms and
to take anv and all other actions reasonable and necessary to implement and enforce this Chapter.
(b) Anv person mav seek a .vaiva from the re(/uirements of Section 1604 of this CJumter bv
filing a request on a form specified bv the Citv Administrator. The Oiv Administrator, consistent tvith
this Chapter. may waive anv specific requirement of this Chapter for a period of up to one vear iftke
person seeking the waiver has demonstrated that strict application oOlle specific requirement would
create an undue harcL'ihip or oraclical ditficultv not flenerallv applicable to other persons in similar
circumstances. The Citv Administrator's decision to .f!rant or denv a waiver shall be ill vvritillg and
shall be final.
(C) All Citl' contracts and leases. includinf! without limitation, contracts with Citv Facihtv Fo
pr(yviders. shall contain the followinf! minimum lanf!1wfJe: "Contractor ar;:rees to complv fullv with
and be hound bv all of the provisions of the Food Service fVaste Reduction Ordinance. as set forth in
San Francisco Environment Code Chamer 16, including the remedies provided, and implementing
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick. Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page
11/14/0
e
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ad
8
6
1 gilldelines and rules. The provisions of Chamer 16 are incorporated herein bv reference and made a
2 part of this agreement as though full1.' set forth. This provision is a material term of this arzreement. Bv
3 enterinf! into this agreement. contractor agrees that if it breaches this provision, Cirv ~,,'ill suffer actual
4 damages that will be impractical 01' extreme/v di(ficult 10 determine: further, Contractor af!rees that the
5 sum of one hundred dollars ($100.00) liquidated damages for the first breach, t1t'0 hundred dollars
6 ($200.00) liquidated damarzes for the second breach in the same veal'. and five hundred dollars
7 ($500.00) liQuidated damages for-subseQuent breaches in the same vear is a reasonable estirnate of the
8 damaf!e that Citv ~'I/ill incur based on the violation, established in light oflhe circumstances existinfj! at
9 the time this agreement was made. Such amounts shall not be considered a penaltv, but rather af!reed
10 monetarv damaf!es sustained by Citv because o(contractor '.'I (ailure to complv ).vith this provision. /I
11
12 SEe. 1606. ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES.
13 (a) The CitY' Administrator shall issue a written warni1zfj! to anv person he or she determines is
14 violating Sections 1603(a) or 1604(a) of this Chapter. If after issuing a ).vritten 'warning of violation
15 from the Citv Administrator. the Citv Administrator finds that person continues to violate the vrovisions
16 o( Sections 1603(a) or 1604fa), the Citv Administrator mav apply (or or imoose the various sanctions
17 provided in this Section.
18 (b) An}' oerson ~.vho violates the provisions ofSectiol1S 1603(a) or 1604(a) oftlus ClzaTJfer shall
19 be guiltv of an infraction. If chanted as an infraction, upon conviction thereof: said oerson shall be
20 punished (or the first offense bv a fine of not more than $100.00 for a first violation: not more than
21 $200.00 (or a second violation in the same vear and not more than $250.00 (or each subsequent
22 violation in the same vear.
23 fc) The CitY' Administrator mav issue an administrative civilliabilitv citation to such oerson In
24 an amount not exceedinf! $100.00 for the first violation, an amount not exceeding $200.00 for the
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dutty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 9
11/14/06
1
2 I
3 I
i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
second violation in the same vear, and an amount not exceedinf! $500.00 for each subsequent violation
in the same vear.
In determininf! administrative civil penalties. the Citv Administrator shall consider the extent of
hann caused bv the violation. the nature and oersistence of tile violation, the length of time over which
the violation occu.rs. the (reQuenc),' or past violations, anv action taken to mitigate the violation, and the
financial burden to the violator.
An\! person to whom the CUt., Administrator issues a }.vritten warnhu! of violation or an
administrative civilliabilitv citation mal' request an administrative hearin'j! to !lTJpeal su.ch warning or
determination ofliabilitv. Not later than 30 dal's before the operative date of this Chapter. and after a
public hearing. the Citv Administrator shall promulgate mles and procedures for rel1Uesting and
conducting an administrative heari,,';! under this Chavter. In an)! administrative hearin';! under this
Article, all oarties involved shall have the ri~ht to offer testimonial. documentarv. and tal1f!ible
evidence bearin';! on the issues, to see and copv all documents and other information the eitr relies on
in the proceedinf!. and to confront and cross-examine anv witnesses af!ainst them. A decision bv the
heaTin$! officer shall be final. Anv person assessed a vena/tv under this subsection mar contest such
decision to the Superior Court within 20 davs after service of the Otv's decision.
(dl TIle ON A.ttomev mal! seek ler:al, injunctive. or other celuilable relief to enforce this
Chapter. includinf! \1'ithout limitation. civil penalties in an amount not exceedinf! $100.00 for the first
violation, $200.00 for the second violation. and $250.00 for each subscelUent violation in an1/ $!iven
vear.
te) The Ot)! mav not recover both administrative and civil penalties pursuant to subsections (c)
and (dJ of this Section for the same violation. Penalties collected under subsections (el and (d) of this
Section. lvhich mar include recoverv or enforcement costs. shall be used to fund implementation and
enforcement of this Chavter.
Supervisors Peskin. Daly. Mirkarimi, Ammiano. McGoldrick. Sandoval. Maxwell, Duffy, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 10
11/14/06
1
2 SEe. ]607. REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
3 No later than June 1 February 1. 2008. the Director ofllle Deoartmem of the Environment. in
4 consultation with the Cifv Administrator and "with inout from members of the oublic. shall submit to the
5 Board of Supervisors a renort recommendinJ! chan~es. if anv. to this ChaJJter. hlcludinf! "vllefher the
6 ban imposed bv this Chapter should be extended to other products. as supoorted bv the reoort. If the
7 Director recommends banninf! additional products. fhe reoort must include an estimate of the costs and
8 benefits of compliance with a ban on additionaloroducts. including the increased costs to the Citv as
9 well as to the Orv's food service industrv.
10
11 SEe. ]608. OPERATTVE DATE.
12 This ordinance shall become operative on lime 1. 2007.
13
14 SEe. 1609. SEVERABILITY
15 If an1/ section. subsection, sentence. clause. or phrase of this Chapter is for allV reason held to
16 be invalid or unconstitutional bv a decision of an)! court of competent ;urisdiction. such decision shall
17 not affect the validit)! of the remaininf! portions of the Chapter. The Board of Supervisors herebv
18 declares that it would have oassed this Chapter and each and everv section.. subsection. sentence.
1 9 clause. or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutionallvithout regard to whether anv !Jortion of this
20 Chaoter V\lould be subsequentlv declared invalid or unconstitutional.
21
22 SEe. 1610. NO CONFLICT WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.
23 Nothinf! in this Ordinance shall be interpreted or arm/ied so as to create an}! reQuirement.
24 power or dutv in conflict with anv federal or state law.
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly. Mirkarimi. Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 11
11/14/0q
1
2
3
4
1
I
I SEe. 1611. UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE.
i
I
! In undertaking the irnolementation of this Chaoter, the Citv is assuming an undertakim; onlv t
promote the fleneral welfare. It is not assuminf!. nor is it imoosinf! on its officer and emvlovees, an
obligation for breach o{which it is liable in monev damag:es to anv oerson who claims that such breac
i proximate/v caused iniurv,
Section 3. The San Francisco Health Code is hereby amended by repealing Sections
469 through 469.10 in their entirety.
SEe. 469. CHLOROPLUOROC4RBOIV PROCESSED FOOD PACKAGL"h/G FINDL'VGS.
The B()a.,~-{l ef Supor~'isors fi:lds thet the r<:loase of chlerofiuo:-ocarb(HlS (CFC) inte the
environment RIa)' olUiango:- public health ems v,'C!fs.rc hy causing o,~ c{)J'1t:-ibutil'lg t{) significant
I depletion of the stJ'tItosphcrfc 8::0110 kzycr.
CFCs arc manufactured chcmie~l!s that remain in the EJt:1'1osphcre for de::ades slol':~): mfg:-atin
1:lpwards ~I/ithout reacting with {l.'lY other chemictlls.
StrstDsphorie e::onc shields the ca.rth's surfa.ce from d8.l'lgoro~s ultravielct (crv B) Mdi::ztiol'l.
Whc,'z CFC molecules react '.t'ith UV lig/it in t he s:r..'l:osphc-,~c the:,>, brea.k down, Fecing chlorine s.iams
~','hieh [:attl(r:;e the destruction of o:::one. One chlo,~i:lC aJorn can scstro,:" as :ucw)' as ,1 00. 000 O:011C
molecules bC'forc it is :'Cl1dcrcd inactive or rCJ1w::cd from the [~tf12osphc:'e.
,1 national a.nd intcrnatio:zal COllS0:1SW;j has dc'.'C!opcd rhtIt u:u.lbatcd use 0.;' CPCs is rcswlthlg i
dcplctiol'l of strElto5phe:-ie o::;onc. The E:l~ 'iro:zme:2fal Protection .1gcn(~' has dcterrn;.;/cd thaI as
stratospheric ozone le~'cls drop, pc:/cr:'atio:l of UV B ;-adiatiell wi!! increase resulting ;,'1 potentia!
health and environmental htlrm. Direct cjJects arc !ikc~).' to include incres.sLYi incidence ef skin cSlIcer
;
Supervisors Peskin. Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1
11/14/0
o
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
h
g
,'2
2
6
20
21
22
23
1
and c[:tara.Cls, sUf3fJrcssian olthe immunc resJ9Ol;SC systnn and damage to c;'o]3s and r:u/ua:fc
2
organisms. (Federa.l Register, .1ugus: 12. 1988. p. 30566.)
3
In the tropesphe;'c, :he lcn..cr atm(]sphc.~e, CPCs a!'cmg wi!:h other du:mic:ils (lBSOrb i:-frB.7'cd
4
'"a.:d;at1'e'l 'l'[l"'r>h" t'IC 0.;,,":11 SciC"ihs"s p"cPe' t~at p-1eea' T:lr'n;'w /7'u:}' 'ncl' 887&" fee 1"':1'::;," Sc&
' ~ I ~, I I #.0 I ,.. -/ ,." '" ,. &. I b" "'" I 1..1 0 ' . I ... j 40 I ", "
5
levels and flood !GH' lying coasts. }: may also dis."ltpt agriculture due :e sh.:fts ill glebal tCJnpc."ature
6
lmd rai;ifa!! patterns.
CFCs a.~e widely used as Mer,ring agents in tile ma.:71{factMrc e/ pf.sstic food j''Jacbging.
7
8
Uo:"cover. while other-foam products Sk:Jrc o.~ bank much of the CFCs ~I'i:hin t,11CFJI, f(;J()d sc......iec
9
prOdl/CiS cmit ;'iU}st ()f the CFC used in theil" manufacture during t,k nU31:1ufa.cture. use a:ul disposal of
10
the products.
11
The Board of Supcr.'isers finds, :hcrcforc, :he.t the ',i'idesprcad use of CFC processed food
12
packagi,"lg poses a threat b,",: thc intredNctian a/toxic byprsducts "nEe the atl'nssphcr:J and general
13
c,'n'iromnozt afthe City and Cmmty sf San F;w-;wisca.
14
The BatJ:"d of SUPL7"'.'isors further finds that rest-riding the sale of crc pJ"seesss& food
packaging flnd the use of CFC processed food pac!caging in retail foed cstahlishments in San P;Bl1eisco
15
16
woukl be a step lO',','srd slowing o;onc loss and grcenh(J1;lsc gas b1:lild:blP, th0"cbYP.~(Jf:ccting the public
17
health
18
In addition to c;nitling CFCs, ph<zstic foed scr:icc items take hundreds efycars to dc..'C3mposc
19
ami ea,'met bc rec.;.dcd. HOli'ews", these load p&ckfigfng ftenIs eEm .k made frem ether ms.teriC1!s, such
a.s rcc"..cled or virgin paper, and other biodegradable products which fJ.re not ma.:k .....ith CPCs, Bv this
~ ,
legislatio,'l, the Board of Sbl]3c.~..is3rs imends te encel/rage ,"cstaurant and foed ,"ctailcrs and
whoksa!crs i1) San Fmndsce to use biodegradable psckagi;zg in ]3faCC of those l'l'l6ldc with CFCs.
25
24 SEe. 469.1. DEFINITIOIVS"
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 13
11/14/06
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'I
As !.sed ia Sections 169 through 169.9 in cll:lsi'"c, thcfol!o~\'il1g '.t'ord:; s:u! terms shan hEl:'c the
follov,'ing meanings:
(a) "Ch!orofll:leroctJrbens," ("CFCs") ,'9!cans thc.f{;zmi!y of subsume as contaf,'zil'lg carbo,'!,
fluon'nc and chlorine and having no h)'drogc:l atoms 3m! no daNble bonds.
I
!I (6) "CI::C proccssc:.(f()"od packaging" Fl1cans j.(oolf pack:lging lv#~ich uses chlorofluorocarbons
as blowing agents in its manufacture.
(e) "Dircctor" mexl.llS the Directo:' of Health of San Francis.:;)'s DCfJc::;-tmcnt 0/ Public H-calth.
();> designee.
(d) "Food" means any article intended/or usc/orfood. dri:zk, confection. or condiment, or 6lll)'
article ,....hie;, is used or illtegrated for use as s component of the fOGS or otherwise 4Jcc:'1ing the
component of the food.
(e) "P eed packaging" means ag food related wrsppings, boxes, containers. bov.'ls, plates,
trays, ctl:'t01'lS. cups, tids Dr drinking utensils, an which e,- in which food is plr!lcc:1 or padagcd on the
rctai.'foed cs.-a.blishmcnt's premises, and which arc not intended for reuse. Feod packaging docs Not
include forks. k7'll1'CS, str-aws or siNgle scr~'iec cO;ldim.c:2t packages.
(j) "Retail food establishment" me(:lnB anyfcod product s:nd marketing establishmont as dcfi;wd
in Sec.-foil 110 of this COck m'ld ai'l)IoOd pr-cparatfo}1, s:l'ld se;",'iec eSMbh'shment as defined in Scetie:!
(g) "Supplic;-" meaJiS a.'1)'OT'lC selling. 0... otherwise supplying ]3lwkagi:zg to 6l rctElil food
establishment.
(11) "W11OIcsa!cr" means Sl'I)'Gl"lC ~p'ho acts as a 'r',4wksalc merchant. broker, jebbc;' or e:gc1'lt,
who sclls for resa.le.
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 14
11/14/06
1 SEe. 469.2. PROHIBITIO}V 0:"/ USE OF CHLOROFLUOROCARBO/V PROCESSED FOOD
2 PACK1GING.
3 (a) ,~lo retail food estahlishment located and doing fJ1:isiness a'itl:i;'l the City a:ld CoU,'l~'" of S&n
5 busi:~c.ss, ~mJ' erc processed food paek.'igi;lg, except as [Jf'()\'idcd in 5'celio:13 469.4 and 169,5.
I
i
i
I
,
i
,
!
I
4 Francisco shall pu:-c!w.sc, obtain, keep, sell, dist;-ihute, provide to customers Gr other....isc use in its
6 (b) N.o wholesaler !vcated and doi:lg busi:wss within the City and COUllty of San Francisco
7 s!u;-!! sell, distrf}3utC or j3],,{:}l'idc te cz;stonwrs, Gr keep within the Of).' ::.lad CO!m(): of San Francisce, an)'
8 erc proccssodfood packaging, except as pra~'idcd in Sections 169.1 a:zd 169.5.
9
10 SEe. 469.3. FOODI.D.tCK1GING PROOPOFCOAfPLL41,TCE.
11 (3.) E-,'cry :-ctail food esta.hlislmwnt sh.1!.f sho,',' proof of compliance with Section 169.:: ef this
12 C:Jdc b.:.. (1) either entc:ri;lg into a contract 'with its sUj9p!icrs, or ebw.ining a ~l'ri:tcJl ste.temc:ltfrom its
13 S/;lpp!ic,~s, ~~'hieh. pn:nidcs t,lUlt the sl.pp!icr will SUfJP~"" DI'I!yfsodpackaging not l'1U:lltufactu;'CCl ll'ith
14 epcs and r;;) obtaining a H'ri:len sul.tcmentfrom the sU:J7J3li~r em each :,J:",,'oiec.forfoedpackaging thot
15 tJu:food padagi:xg inmicct! ',',','is ,'lOt CFC processed.
16 (b) Eilery ~~'holcs(J.k..,. shall shOll' proof of compliance ',~'ith Section 169.:: of this Code by
17 obtaining a ",'rit/on statement !rem :,~L~ supplier em each invoice for food packaging that is S3l:d,
18 distributed or provided to eustOlnas in the Cizr and CGb:nt.". (}fSe.n Pra:zcf.sco tha.t thefood pad caging
19 i:zl'oiccd ~('as 11.et crc processed. am:! Elckno~'..!cdgillg [hEll the sblfJplioT' is Elwarc of the pro~'isiol1s of this
20 ordinance l1u.lking illegal the previding a/false inf{Jrmalh:m on the iw,'oicc.
21 (c) It shall be un!a~vf'Ulfor an)' supplier:-o make anyfelse sts.tcmcnt rega.rding the 'Use or ]'l.01I
22 use ofCFCs in tho manufa.cture offood pac/caging supplied ts any ~~'halcsalcr 31' retailfood
23 est/;:blishmcnt.
24
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 15
11/14/06
1
(d) Retai! food est..,r:,!is!l;nents shall rct~Jin cepics of esch cont;'czc: 0;' '.r;'ittcn state;nc,'lt rcqui:"od
2
by this 8cc:io:;, and w!16lcsalcrs shalf retain copies ofi:r;oices required .9.,' this Sectif:Jl1, s.l'I.d :h[,:y shall
3
mak.e them t'l....e.i!.;ibh:.for inspection UPS]; ;"c{j1;lcst. !1'l'."eiccs em:! contrscts T06Jbdrori b.y t!Jis Section shall
I
:)
4
be ;"ctained for a pc:-ied. of aile year.
5
6
SEe. 469.4. EXCEPTIONS.
7
8
The DircetG:- maJ exempt ..11'l item 81' type offooc! packaging/rem t,k ;"cquir:.~mcnts of Scctiens
169.2 E:fld 169.3 upon e.pplica:io;l by thc rCh'J.il foed cst~lblfshmcnt (kn;o!l:;t.~:.lti;zg t3 the sa.:i::,factio:l of
9
Ii the Director that the item Qr (;:130 of p(ldcsging has 1:;0 ;1.cccpte.ble ,"io.': CFC pr3ccsscd cqui....e!cnt.
I SEe. 469.5. FOOD PACKAGING EXlSTlNG CONTRACTS.
Feed pe.ekag.;l'I.g required to ho purchased untie a contract cnt.cnJ-d hto prior :9 or ',vithin six
10
11
12
13
f'lwnths a/the cffccti...'C date a/this o,....:liaancc is oxcmptfrem the pre','isiens a/this or-di1'la.ncc.
14
15 SEe. 469.6. PENAL TIES. 41'fD EZVFORCE.1fE;'VT.
16 (8) ne Director may enforce the pro'.:isions of Scct;r:JnS 169.2 and {69. 3 a.ge.inst ....iol&tions by
17 either ()fthc./011o~ring actions:
18 (1) Ser:ing notice rcq;;i;-lng the correction of a:lY violation:
19 (':) Calling U]90T'l the City Atte:"l'lcy to nUlinttlin an 3.cti::mfor i:&junction to enforce the
20 pro)'isiOl:S of Seeions -169.:} ami 469.3, tG cause the correctien of :1:1Y such ",'i3lation, a.nd for the
21 assessment tmd reCOl'c;:r of a ei",'il ]Jcnsky/or' suck '.'iol..<Jtic)1'!.
22 (8) An)' i:'l{ll'l'idual. firm, ps.,..tnersh~'3, carpo,~a:iol'l, csmpa;"l.Y, assecfation, society, gN)blj9, or
23 other person or legal entity thst '.'ioletos snypro....'ision ofScctio;1S 169.2 and 169.3 shall8e liaMc.fer (1
24 ci".'i! pons!:)', ,'10: to exceed $500 fo;- each da.v such '.'io.'-sti(m is commit/cd or pcrmiitcd to c3ntinuc. Any
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly. Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick. Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 16
11/14/06
1 pcncd~y' shall be assessed tuul :-ecoy'cn>d in f1 civil action brought in the Ilc:mc of the pCBp!C :>f the Cit).
2 and Cou:zZ"y' of San F:"a:1ciseo b.y' the Cty Attorney in c:m)' COlt:'! of CO:llpctent jhTisdictiC:Jl1. . 'In.}' penalty
3 assessed (Hul ....ceo...y:red in en selion brought pursuant to this Sce:io1'l sherll be ptr.iit to the r....Cf1:Su;.cr of
4 the Ctyand CBUl'lt)' of Seal Fr::mcisco.
5 (c) Failure to comply with the proy'isioilS of Sections 469.2 and 169.3 shall be grounds for
6 .' suspension or reWJCaaO:l of a permit issued pursllant to Sections 110 and 152, after Cl hearing D."";' the
7 Department of Public Helllth.
8
9 SEe. 469.7. CITY AND COU,IVTY PURCHASES PROHIB!TED.
10 The Ci~...' and Caunzv shal! purchase no eFC p:-occsscd f-ood padcagil'lg, except pa.e.'U:lgi:'lg
11 :""'fiuirod to be purchased u:uier {;l eel'ltr&et cnte:,{)d into prior tt3 or within six lWJ1Uhs 3/ the cffcetbc
12 date of t-his ortii:umce unless the depa.rtment pllrclulsillg the item or typc of psckaging makes a slwl'p'ing
13 to the Director tha.t the it-cm or tJpe ofpack.agfl1g has 11.3 aceeptdble ;lOn CPC precessed equivalent.
14
15 SEe. 469.8. CONFLICT W!TH OTHER LA WS.
16 (fl) Eo",: Elsa-pring this ordinance. tho City {lnd County of&m Francisc$ dacs l'wt intend to
17 tm:hori::,e any activity t!tat federal 8r- state la~\' or r:.:g1lte.tion prohibits, to pro.{libit any activity that
18 federal 6]' 8t~zte !t.;~W ar regulation author-ices, or to dupliwtc Sl1)Icdcral 3:" state la',v o.~ :*cgulstioll
19 except to the cxte:1t allewed by unr.
20 (8) This ordi:1f1lZCC shall be ',l(Jid z:pon :.~c onClctmcnt or- adoptio:l of ;,my st3.te o,v.fccL"'r&! kI.1\' or
21 rcguls.usl'l imposing limits e:l the blse efCFCs in the manuftwturc afplastic/oams.
22
23 SEe. 469.9. PROAfOTING P[}RPOSES OF LEGl8LA TIO}',':.
24
25
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval, Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 17
11/14f06
1
I
I
2 J
)
I
3 Ii
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II
I
The Beard of' Supervisors lril! pra:notc the lobbying a/the Steic Legislature ."lnd U:1ffca States
Co:xgrcss to s:o-p the 1;lSC e/ chlo;'OjlZlO;-()Ce.:'ho:zs in thc U...i:cd Sl:acs. The Bocrd ~l'il! premolo
C0.'1.ntlta1tans with Stll! Francisco siste.'" ::itf:.:s pursuing cUi end to ch!e:'ofluoroca:'bon use
il1:crnstiona{.~).'.
SEe. 169.10. SEVERA.B!LITY.
If SllY Section, Subsection, Subdivision, ParBgr","ph, SOFltc:1CC, clause 0:' phrase of this A;'tfcfc er
em): part thereof, is for any :'cason hdd .~o bc !:>t1'lccmstitutiona! 0," iW,'8lid or i,'wffceti','e b:r tiny em:r! of
eompctc:~t jurisdictie1'l, such decision shall ,'w: (~ffcct the vandi:....: or cffrcti\'c:icss of the rCJ11.'lini:1g
portions of this Art;'c/c or 101:1)' part the:'cof The Board 0/ Supcn'isors hercb.~,' rlcdt1,"'-cS that it would
hCl'.'e pClssed c61ch Section, Subsection, Subdi'.:ision, Parag;':IP!'i, sentelIce, clause er ph,"ssc thereof
irrcspecti'.:c o/the fs.et that all).' one or marc Sections. Subsections, S~~bdi'.'isions, Pa1"agraphs,
scntcnces, cl611:isCS ar ]Jh,'"tlses be dcc!arcd unc[),'lstitutional or invs!fd :Jr hlCjJ~C.~i'.'c.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
DENNIS J. HERRERA, City Attorney
t;~t:%
'BURK E. DELVENTHAL
Deputy City Attorney
By:
Supervisors Peskin, Daly, Mirkarimi, Ammiano, McGoldrick, Sandoval. Maxwell, Dufty, Ma
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Page 18
11/14/06
City and County of San Francisco
T a Us
Ordinance
City Hall
I Dr. Carlton B Goodlett Plnce
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
File Number:
060944
Date Passed:
Ordinance amending the San Francisco Environment Code by adding Chapter 16, Sections 1601
through 1611, to: (1) prohibit the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware and require
the use of biodegradable/compostable or recyclable disposable food service ware by restaurants,
retail food vendors, City departments and the City's contractors and lessees unless there is no
affordable alternatjve; and, (2) provide for penalties for violation; and amending the San Francisco
Health Code by repealing Sections 469 through 469.10, which ban the use of food packaging and
plastic food service ware made with chlorofluorocarbons.
October 31,2006 Board of Supervisors - SUBSTITUTED
November 14, 2006 Board of Supervisors - AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE
BEARING SAME TITLE
Ayes; 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, EIsbernd, Ma, Maxwell,
McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval
November l4, 2006 Board of Supervisors - PASSED ON FIRST READING AS AMENDED
Ayes; 11 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Daly, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Max,velL
McGoldrick, Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval
November 21, 2006 Board of Supervisors - FINALL Y PASSED
Ayes: 10 - Alioto-Pier, Ammiano, Dufty, Elsbernd, Ma, Maxwell, McGoldrick,
Mirkarimi, Peskin, Sandoval
Excused: 1 - Daly
City a1ll1 County of San Frat/cisco
1
Printed at 11:01 AM on 11/22/06
O~ f'"
ib "",L';, - !
hi 3: 13
AJ2~~nd Legall~
~~4~
akland City Attorney's Office
. 1 , . ~
.'':' :.; . .'.' I . '., .~
Introduced by Councilmember _QUAN
(USE IF APPLICABLE)
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Ordinance No.
C.M.S.
DRAFT - JUNE 13, 2006
AN ORDINANCE TO PROIDBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM
DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF
BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOST ABLE DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE
WARE BY FOOD VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES
This ordinance will institute two distinct practices by all food vendors and City Facilities in
Oakland. The first is that the use of polystyrene foam disposable food service ware will be
prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware will be required to be
biodegradable or compostable, as long as it is affordable.
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment, the
economy, and the health of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, effective ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of throw-
away food service ware include reusing food service ware and using compostable and
biodegradable take-out materials made from renewable resources such as paper, corn starch
and sugarcane; and
WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is a common environmental pollutant as well as a non-
biodegradable substance that is commonly used as food service ware by food vendors
operating in the City of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, there continues to be no meaningful recycling of polystyrene foam food
service ware and biodegradable or compostable food service ware is an affordable, safe, more
ecologically sound alternative; and
WHEREAS, affordable biodegradable or compostable food service ware products are
increasingly available for several food service applications such as cold cups, plates and hinge
containers and these products are more ecologically sound than polystyrene foam materials
and can be turned into a compost product; and
WHEREAS, the Oakland Coliseum has successfully replaced its cups with
biodegradable corn starch cups and has shown an overall cost savings due to organics
recycling; and
WHEREAS, over 155 businesses in Oakland engage in organics recycling and it has
been demonstrated that the use of biodegradable or compostable food service ware can reduce
waste disposal costs when the products are taken to composting facilities as part of an
organics recycling program rather than disposed in a landfill; and
WHEREAS, the natural compost product from these biodegradable or compostable
materials is used as fertilizer fOT fanns and gardens, thereby moving towards a healthier zero
waste system; and
WHEREAS, disposable food service ware constitutes a large portion of the litter in
Oakland's estuary, streets, parks and public places and the cost of managing this litter is high
and rising; and
WHEREAS, polystyrene foam is notorious as a pollutant that breaks down into
smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that are ingested by marine life and other wildlife thus
hanning or killing them; and
WHEREAS, due to the physical properties of polystyrene, the EPA states "that such
materials can also have serious impacts on human health., wildlife, the aquatic environment
and the economy." and
WHEREAS, a 1986 EP A report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing
process as the fifth largest creator of hazardous waste in the United States; and
WHEREAS, in the product manufacturing process as well as the use and disposal of
the products, the energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect, and total environmental effect,
polystyrene's environmental impacts were second highest, behind aluminum, according to the
California Integrated Waste Management Board; and
WHEREAS, styrene, a component ofpolystyrene, is a mown hazardous substance
that medical evidence and the Food and Drug Administration suggests leaches from
polystyrene containers into food and drink; and
"WHEREAS, styrene is a suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin which potentially
threatens human health; and
WHEREAS, styrene has been detected in the fat tissue of every man, woman and
child tested by the EP A in a 1986 study; and
WHEREAS, the general public is not typically warned of any potential hazard,
particularly in the immigrant and non- English-speaking community; and
WHEREAS, due to these concerns nearly 100 cities have baIUled polystyrene foam
food service ware including several California cities, and many local businesses and several
national corporations have successfully replaced polystyrene foam and other non-
biodegradable food service ware with affordable, safe, biodegradable products; and
WHEREAS, restricting the use of polystyrene foam food service ware products and
replacing non-biodegradable food service ware with biodegradable food service ware
products in Oakland wiTI further protect the public health and safety of the residents of
Oakland, the City of Oakland's natural environment, waterways and wildlife, would advance
the City's goal of Developing a Sustainable City, advance the City's goal of Zero Waste by
2020 and fulfill Micle 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby Oakland partnered with
other cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or restrict the use of one
chemical or environmental hazard every year;
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND DOES ORDAIN CHAPTER
8.07 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE SHALL BE:
Section 8.07.010 Definitions
"Affordable" means purchasable by the Food Vendor for same or less purchase cost than the
non-Biodegradable, non-Polystyrene Foam alternative.
"ASTM Standard" means meeting the standards of the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) International standards D6400 or D6868 for biodegradable and
compostable plastics.
''Biodegradable'' means the entire product or package will completely break down and return
to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short period of
time after customary disposal.
"Compostable" means all materials in the product or package will break down into, or
otherwise become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe
and timely manner in an appropriate composting program or facility, or in a home compost
pile or device. Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware includes ASTM-Standard Bio-
Plastics (plastic-like products) that are clearly labeled, preferably with a color symbol, such
that any compost collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM Standard
Compostable plastic from non-ASTM Standard Compostable plastic.
"City Facilities" means any building, structure or vehicles owned or operated by the City of
Oakland, its agent~ agencies, departments and franchisees.
"Customer" means any person obtaining Prepared Food from a Restaurant or Retail Food
Vendor.
''Disposable Food Service Ware" means all containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups,
lids, straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items that are designed for one-time use and on,
or in, which any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor directly places or packages Prepared
Foods or which are used to consume foods. This includes, but is not limited to, service ware
for Takeout Foods and/or leftovers from partially consumed meals prepared at Restaurants or
Retail Food Venders.
"Food Vendor" means any Restaurant or Retail Food Vendor located or operating within the
City of Oakland.
"Polystyrene Foam" means and includes blown polystyrene and expanded and extruded foams
(sometimes called Styrofoam, aDow Chemical Co. trademarked form of polystyrene foam
insulation) which are thermoplastic petrochemical materials utilizing a styrene monomer and
processed by any number of techniques including, but not limited to, fusion of polymer
spheres (expandable bead polystyrene), injection molding, foam molding, and extrusion-blow
molding (extruded foam polystyrene). Polystyrene' Foam is generally used to make cups,
bowls, plates, trays, clamshell containers, meat trays and egg cartons.
"Prepared Food" means Food or Beverages, which are served, packaged, cooked, chopped,
sliced, mixed, brewed, frozen, squeezed or otherwise prepared on the Food Vendor's premises
or within the City of Oakland. For the purposes of this ordinance, Prepared Food does not
include raw, butchered meats, fish andlor poultry sold from a butcher case or similar retail
appliance. Prepared Food may be eaten either on or off the premises, also mown as "takeout
food".
''Restaurant'' means any establishment located within the City of Oakland that sells Prepared
Food for consumption on, near, or off its premises by Customers. Restaurant for purposes of
this Chapter includes Itinerant Restaurants, Pushcarts and VeIDcular Food Vendors as those
terms are defmed in sections 5.49, 8.08, 8.09 of the City of Oakland Municipal Code.
"Retail Food Vendor" means any store, shop, sales outlet, or other establishment, including a
grocery store or a delicatessen, other than a Restaurant, located within the City of Oakland
that sells Prepared Food.
Section 8.07.040 Prohibited Food Service Ware
A. Except as provided in Section 8.07.042, Food Vendors are prolnbited from providing
Prepared Food to Customers in Disposable Food Service Ware that uses Polystyrene Foam.
B. All City Facilities are prohibited from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service
Ware and all City Departments and Agencies will not purchase or acquire Polystyrene Foam
DisJ)osable FDod. Service Ware for 'USe at City Facilities.
C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City shall be prohibited
from using Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware in City facilities or on city
projects within the City of Oakland.
Section 8.07.041 Required Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service
Ware
A. All Food Vendors using any Disposable Food Service Ware will use Biodegradable or
Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an Affordable
Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available fOT a specific application. Food
Vendors are strongly encouraged to reuse Food Service Ware in place of using Disposable
Food Service Ware. In instances that Food Vendors wish to use a Biodegradable or
Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware Product that is not Affordable, a Food Vendor
may charge a "take out fee" to customers to cover the cost difference.
B. All City Facilities will use Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware
unless they can show an Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available
for a specific application.
C. City franchises, contractors and vendors doing business with the City will use
Biodegradable or Compostable Disposable Food Service Ware unless they can show an
Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable product is not available for a specific application.
Section. 8.07.042 Exemptions
A. Prepared Foods prepared or packaged outside the City of Oalc1and are exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter. Purveyors of food prepared or packaged outside the City of
Oakland are encouraged to follow the provisions of this Chapter.
B. Food Vendors will be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter for specific items or
types of Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or hisfher designee finds
that a suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that
imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food Service
Ware would cause undue hardship.
C. Polystyrene Foam coolers and ice chests that are intended for reuse are exempt from the
provisions ofthis Chapter.
D. Disposable Food Service Ware composed entirely of aluminum is exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter.
E. Emergency Supply and Services Procurement: In a situation deemed by the City
Administrator to be an emergency for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health
or safety, City Facilities, Food Vendors, City franchises, contractors and vendors doing
business with the City shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter.
Section 8.07.043 Liability and Enforcement
A. The City Administrator or mslher designee will have primary responsibility for
enforcement of this Chapter. The City Administrator or msfher designee is authorized to
promulgate regulations and to take any and all other actions reasonable and necessary to
enforce this Chapter, including, but not limited to, entering the premises of any Food Vendor
to verify compliance.
B. Anyone violating or failing to comply with any of the requirements of this Chapter wiD be
guilty of an infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.28 O.M.C.
C. The City Attorney may seek legal, injunctive, or other equitable relief to enforce this
Chapter.
Section 8.07.044 Violations - Penalties
1. If the City Administrator or his/her designee determines that a violation of this Chapter
occurred, he/she will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has
occurred.
2. lfthe Food Vendor has subsequent violations of this Chapter, the following penalties will
apply:
a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the
warning notice is given.
b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after
the warning notice is given.
c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future
violations after the warning notice is given.
3. Food Vendors may request an administrative hearing to adjudicate any penalties issued
under this Chapter by:filing a 'Written request with the City Administrator, or his or her
designee. The City Administrator, or his or her designee, will promulgate standards and
procedures for requesting and conducting an administrative hearing under this Chapter. Any
determination from the administrative hearing on penalties issued under this Chapter will be
final and conclusive.
Section 8.07.045 Effective Date
This Chapter will become effective January 1, 2007.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA,
PASSED BY THE FOllOWING VOTE:
AYES _ BRUNNER, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, BROOKS, REID, CHANG,
AND
PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE
,2006
NOES -
ABSENT -
ABSTENTION -
ATTEST:
LATONDA SIMMONS
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council of
the City of Oakland. California
l-. ., I
...,: .. -"
~ r1. \ 'i
i i \,:;. ,I
CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA. 2ND FLOOR. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Jean Quan
City Council Member, District 4
jq uan@oaklandnet.com
www.jeanquan.org
(510) 238-7004
FAX:(510) 238-6129
TTYITDD:(51 0) 839-6451
June 13,2006
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
Oakland, California
Re: AN ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT THE USE OF POLYSTYRENE FOAM
DISPOSABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE AND REQUIRE THE USE OF
BIODEGRADABLE OR COMPOSTABLE FOOD SERVICE WARE BY FOOD
VENDORS AND CITY FACILITIES
Members of the Public Works Committee:
I am proposing an ordinance that will institute two distinct practices by all Oakland food
vendors and City facilities. The first is that the use of all polystyrene foam disposable
food service ware will be prohibited. The second is that all disposable food service ware
will be required to be biodegradable or compostable when it is cost-neutral to the Food
Vendor to use these products (meaning the cost is the same or less than the non-
polystyrene foam, non-biodegradable/compostable alternative).
This ordinance will further the goal of the Mayor and City Council to develop a
sustainable city and create a zero waste community and further efforts to align the
disposable products used in our community with the waste systems in place. This
or<i;inance will address solid waste, environmental and toxicity impacts of disposable food
service ware in Oakland. This ordinance was developed in collaboration with many
experts in the field of solid waste and greening of business. Legislation banning
polystyrene foam food packaging has been adopted in nearly 100 American cities
including Berkeley and Portland. Furthermore, other Bay Area communities including
San Francisco, Palo Alto, Berkeley and Marin County are now considering legislation
similar to this proposed ordinance.
Polystyrene foam, a plastics product, is designed for a useful life of minutes or hours but
continues to exist in our environment for hundreds Of thousands of years. There continues
to be no meaningful fecycling of polystyrene foam in California.
Biodegradable food service ware can be an affordable, safe, ecologically sound
alternative to polystyrene foam and other disposable food service ware. Some Oakland
businesses have voluntarily stopped using polystyrene foam products and some utilize
biodegradable food service ware as their way of contributing to community health and
the environment. Many of these businesses are also realizing waste disposal cost savings
because food scrap (biodegradable) waste collection can cost less than garbage collection.
Over 155 businesses in Oakland are now recycling organics and this number is growing
every year due to overall cost savings.
Non-biodegradable food service ware, especially polystyrene foam, constitutes a large
portion of the litter in Oakland and the cost of managing this litter is high and rising.
While there are no conclusive medical opinions, there is evidence suggesting that the
component styrene, suspected carcinogen and neurotoxin and known hazardous
substance, may leach from polystyrene containers into fatty food or drink, posing a
potential health risk to people. The EP A National Human Adipose Tissue Survey for
1986 identified styrene residues in 100% of all samples of human fat tissue taken in 1982
in the U.S. Recently, a number of studies and news articles have detailed increased
concerns about the cumulative effects of trace chemicals and suspected carcinogens on
the human body, especially among children.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City will absorb any increased costs associated with purchasing non-polystyrene
foam products for use in City Facilities. There will also be some cost associated with the
complaint-based enforcement of the ordinance by the City Administrator.
BACKGROUND
Polystyrene foam, also known by the name "Styrofoam", is formed by adding a blowing
agent to polystyrene, a petroleum-based plastic material. Polystyrene foam is light-weight
(about 95% air), with good insulation properties and is used in all types of products from
cups that keep beverages hot or cold to materials that keeps items safe during shipping.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) estimates that
Californians use 165,000 tons of polystyrene each year for packaging and food service
1
purposes alone.
In the past, polystyrene foam was banned by cities due in part to the ozone-depleting
gases used as blowing agents; most polystyrene foam is now made with less damaging
gases. Mare recent bans have been enacted because of the litter and marine debris
impacts of polystyrene foam food packaging as well as overall environmental health.
Nearly 100 cities nationwide including other California coastal cities such as Malibu,
Aliso Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, Huntington Beach and San Clemente have banned
1 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board,
December 2004.
polystyrene foam food service ware. Polystyrene foam food service ware is also banned
across China, Taiwan and India and other types of plastics are being banned all over the
world.
This proposed ordinance is consistent with several bills at the state level that seek to
move towards zero waste and managing plastics: AB1866 (Karnette) would prohibit any
state facility from selling, possessing or distributing polystyrene foam food containers;
AB 1940 (Koretz) would convene a multi-agency task force to make progress in reducing
marine debris statewide; AB 2147 (Hannan) would clarify the defInition of
"compostable", "biodegradable" and "degradable" compostable plastic food and
beverage containers in order to promote compatibility with waste management systems;
AB 319 (Chan) bans some plastic products containing Phthalates and Bisphenol-A; SB
1379 (perata) establishes a biomonitoring program to detennine, assess and monitor the
presence and concentration of chemicals in the tissue and blood of Californians.
On May lOth, 2006, a public meeting was convened at City Hall to inform food vendors
and the community about this proposed ordinance and get feedback on how to make the
ordinance more effective. The meeting was attended by community members, several
members of the waste disposal community, and at least two Chambers of Commerce. In
addition, all major Chambers of Commerce and several franchise owners and food
service ware vendors have been consulted about the proposed ordinance.
While using biodegradable disposable food ware is preferable, the use of disposable food
service ware in general will continue to have significant impacts on solid waste disposal
and consumption of natural resources, local waterways, and litter. All food vendors
should evaluate how they can reduce the use of all disposable food service ware and
maximize the portion of their food service ware that is reused.
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Solid Waste and Recycling
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires that all California
jurisdictions achieve and maintain a landfill diversion rate of 50%, beginning in 2000. In
2002, the City adopted a goal of75% reduction of waste going to landfills by 2010 in
alliance with a countywide 75% waste reduction goal. In March 2006, Oakland City
Council joined cities, counties and states worldwide in adopting a goal of zero waste by
the year 2020. Zero waste principals, as applied to municipal solid waste, include
improving "downstream" reuse/recycling of end-of-life-products, pursuing "upstream"
re-design strategies to reduce the volume and toxicity of discarded products and
materials, and promoting low-impact or reduced consumption lifestyles.
Oakland achieved a landfill diversion rate of55% in 20042. The greatest oPPortunity for
additional solid waste diversion is related to targeting waste reduction and recycling in
the commercial sector.3 Collection of commercial organics, primarily food scraps, is a
2 Result not yet certified by California Integrated Waste Management Board.
3 City of Oakland Public Works Agency/Environmental Services Division Strategic Plan for 75%
Reduction and Recycling of Solid Waste, February 28,2006.
key program targeted in the Strategic Plan for 75% Solid Waste Diversion, adopted by
Council in March 2006.
There is currently no meaningful recycling of post-consumer polystyrene foam food
service ware, due in part to contamination from food residue and in part to the economic
unfeasibility of such a service. Polystyrene foam is also non-biodegradable, and a
common contaminant in food scraps collection programs. Unlike polystyrene foam food
service ware, biodegradable food service ware can be included in commercial and
residential food scraps collection programs, and processed at compo sting facilities rather
than landfilled. The natural compost products made from these biodegradable materials
are used as soil amendments on farms, commercial nurseries and gardens.
Oakland is already a leader in residential organics recycling. Since the February 2005
rollout of weekly residential recycling services that accepted food scraps along with yard
trimmings, yard trimmings tonnage in 2005 increased over 46% compared to 2004, to
33,500 tons. A.n estimated 15% of households participated in the food scraps collection
service in 2005. It is expected that participation will grow as food scraps recycling
becomes a mainstream behavior, just as can, bottle and paper recycling did during the
19908.
This ordinance will support and complement the Public Works Agency's Business
Recycling Teclmical Assistance Project, a targeted program described in the Strategic
Plan for 75% Solid Waste Diversion, which commences in July 2006. This project will
enroll businesses in organics recycling programs, as well as the new Small Business
Recycling Service that is part of the Franchise Agreement with Waste Management of
Alameda County, and the Agreement For Residential Recycling with California Waste
Solutions. Businesses can realize cost savings by shifting their discards from the garbage
service to lower-cost food scrap recycling services. Commercial food scraps collection
services are currently provided in Oakland's competitive, open market for source-
separated, commercial recyclable materials, by two service providers, Waste
Management of Alameda County and Norcal Waste Systems of Alameda County. AB
noted, over 150 Oakland businesses already are recycling their food scraps and organic
discards with these providers.
Litter and Marine Pollution
Polystyrene foam, though inexpensive and effective as a food service ware product, has
many drawbacks and hidden costs which are later passed on to the public. Polystyrene
foam presents unique management issues because of its lightweight nature, floatability,
and prevalence to be blown from disposal sites even when disposed of properly. It is
estimated polystyrene foam comprises 15% of the litter colJected in stonn drains.4
Pollution of our watenvays and waterfront negatively affects tourism and quality of life
in Oakland.
4 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board.
December 2004.
Polystyrene foam breaks down into smaller, non-biodegradable pieces that are ingested
by marine life and other wildlife. At least 162 marine species including most seabirds
have been reported to have eaten plastics and other litter. Studies measuring plastics
found up to five kilometers off the California Coast have found high levels of small
plastic pieces from land-based sources, especially after storm events.5 The small pieces
. are similar in size and sometimes more abundant than plankton, and represent a large risk
to filter feeders (marine animals that eat suspended in water).
Toxicity and Health
There are potential health impacts from polystyrene foam disposable food service ware
associated with the production of polystyrene and with the leaching of some of its
chemical components into food and drink. The general public is not typically warned of
these public hazards, particularly in the immigrant and non-English-speaking community.
The process of manufacturing polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of
liquid and solid waste. In the categories of energy consumption, greenhouse gas effect,
and total environmental effect, pollstyrene's environmental impacts were found to be
second highest, behind aluminum. Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards
Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical byproducts released during the
combustion of polystyrene foam.7 Benzene, a chemical component of polystyrene foam,
is a known carcinogen and enters the human body either though the skin or respiratory
system.8 Styrene, another component of polystyrene, is a suspected carcinogen and
neurotoxin and known hazardous substance. The EP A and FDA state that chemical
components of polystyrene may leach from food containers into food and drink; the FDA
recommends that plastic takeout containers never be microwaved for this reason. 9
There have been increasing calls for legislators to protect the public from the cumulative
effects chemicals we are exposed to every day in our environment. 10 The cumulative
effects of chemicals on the human body, also known as "body burden", are mostly
unknown. Body burden studies show that we are exposed to complex mixtures of
chemicals that are linked to health hanus.11 It is our responsibility as elected officials to
take precautionary steps to protect our citizens from these risks.
5 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board,
December 2004.
6 Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California, California Integrated Waste Management Board,
December 2004.
7 Earth Resource Foundation http://W.NW.earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp_styrofoam.htmI
Accessed April 25, 2006.
8 US Occupational and Health Administration http://www.osha,gov/SLTC/benzene/index.htmJ
Accessed May 23, 2006.
9 Environmental Protection Agency
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/dw_contamfs/styrene.htmIAccessed May 23, 2006,
Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/fdaclfeatures/2002/S02_plastic.hlml Accessed
May 23, 2006.
10 "Getling Serious About Chemicals", Oakland Tribune, January 31,2006.
11 Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/bodYburden/results.php Accessed May 23.
2006
Environmental Obligation
The City of Oakland has a duty to protect the natural environment and natural resources
for future generations. The City may exercise environmental stewardship by reducing the
amount of polystyrene foam and non-biodegradable food service ware that enters out
waste stream, our storm drain, watershed and waterfront.
A common argument against polystyrene foam food service ware bans is that food
service litter is not caused by a particular product or material but is instead caused by
human behavior and further suggest that the use of biodegradable food service ware may
actually increase litter because of the perception that it does not need to be disposed of in
a trash receptacles. Some food service litter is unintended and actually a result of drifts
from waste receptacles, waste haulers or events. Public education and existing litter laws
have not to date eliminated food service litter from our community. Whatever the cause,
the high costs oflitter cleanup and collection are borne by the City and its residents and
several different strategies must be utilized to address the problem. The intent of this
ordinance is to deal with one specific and significant issue in Oakland (polystyrene foam)
and simultaneously propose an evolution in disposable food service ware in Oakland.
Oakland has steadily moved forward with environmental initiatives and has become the
6th greenest city in the V.S.12 and is currently positioning itself to become a leader in the
emergmg green economy.
POLICY DESCRIPTION
This ordinance applies to all food vendors in the City of Oakland, including restaurants,
itinerant restaurants or retail food vendors and applies to all disposable food service ware
products used by them, including: containers, bowls, plates, trays, cartons, cups, lids,
straws, forks, spoons, knives and other items designed for one-time use both on and off
the food vendors' premises. The ordinance also applies to the City of Oakland and its
facilities, departments and franchisees. There are two parts to this ordinance:
A. Polystyrene Foam Ban
This ordinance prohibits the use of all polystyrene foam disposable food service ware.
Alternatives to PolyStyrene Foam and Their Costs
Alternative products to polystyrene foam are widely available and used widely in other
cities with polystyrene foam bans. These alternative materials include
. Uncoated Paper
. Coated paper
. Cardboard
· Aluminum
. Other plastics
. Bio-products (discussed below).
12 Green Guide Institute, 2006.
In general, alternatives to polystyrene foam cost a few cents more peT item and vary in
price with the product type, weight and durability. The actual cost to a food vendor to
switch to an alternative product will be largely dependant on the amount and types of
disposable food service ware that it currently uses. Overlooking unquantified costs passed
on the public such as litter, blight, environmental and possible health costs, polystyrene
foam is currently the least expensive food service ware material, although prices continue
to rise due to increasing crude oil prices 13.
B. Required Transition to Biodegradable and Compostable Disposable Food Service
Ware
This ordinance would require the use ofbiodegradabJe and compostable disposable food
service ware by all food vendors (not only those transitioning from polystyTene foam), as
long as it is cost-neutral.
For the purposes of this ordinance, biodegradable means the entire product or package
will completely break down and return to nature, i.e., decompose into elements found in
nature within a reasonably short period of time after customary disposal and compostable
means all the materials in the product or package will break down into, or otherwise
become part of, usable compost (e.g., soil-conditioning material, mulch) in a safe and
timely manner in an appropriate compo sting program or facility, or in a home compost
pile or device.
Biodegradable and Compostable Products and Their Costs
Biodegradable and compostable food service ware includes the following:
· Uncoated paper products
· Coated paper products
· Some bio-products (discussed below).
Because of the affordability provision, compliance with this part of the ordinance will be
cost-neutral to food vendors. Depending on the product, biodegradable or compostable
alternatives often cost the same as their plastic counterparts. Other specific compostable
products which are new to the market can cost up to twice as much before prices come
down. Some biodegradable or compostable food products already cost the same or less
as their counterparts, and therefore food vendors should start to use these products now.
For example, compostable plastic cups (for cold drinks) and clamshells (for salads) are
generally the same price as plastic cups and plastic clam shells, depending on the
distributor. Many restaurants and cafes already use paper cups and plates because they
are affordable and effective.
For some products such as hot food containers, biodegradable or compostable options are
not always as inexpensive as coated paper or plastic containers, so while their use is
encouraged, it will only be required when it becomes affordable. As the demand for
biodegradable and compostable products increases, we expect to see a larger variety of
13 KPMG http://www.kpmginsiders.com/display-analysis.asP?CS_id=140493 Accessed May 23,
2006
biodegradable and compostable products at lower prices become available to Food
Vendors.
We are working with the Public Works Department, CEDA, the Chambers of Commerce
and others to understand and meet the education needs of Oakland food vendors and food
packaging vendors so that Food Vendors will know which products are appropriate for
use in Oakland and packaging vendors will understand which products to supply. It is my
intent that Oakland Food vendors will be able to buy all the biodegradable and
compostable products that they need from their existing vendors. Weare also working
with vendors ofbio-products to make those products more widely available and
affordable in Oakland.
The Oakland Alameda County Coliseum and Arena are transitioning to using
compostable food service ware products for their food sales and Oakland restaurants such
as the Nomad Cafe are successfully using compostable products as well.
Bio-products
Bio-products are manufactured from renewable resources such as corn starch, sugar cane,
or a combination of bamboo, tapioca and water. "Bio-plastics", a subset ofbio-products,
are relatively new products with performance and physical characteristics of plastics but
made from plant products and byproducts instead of petroleum. Like plastic and paper
products, many bio-plastics can be customized with business logos.
Bio-plastic products used to meet the requirements of this ordinance must:
1. meet ASTM Standards. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
International has established standards for the compostability ofbio-products
(standards D6400 and D6868). BiD-plastics that meet the ASTM compostability
standard demonstrate and ability to break down in a municipal compost system
within a certain amount of time.
2. be clearly labeled: preferably with a color symbol, such that any compost
collector and processor can easily distinguish the ASTM-standard compostable
plastic from non-ASTM-standard compostable plastic.
It is important to note that all types of disposable food packaging products cause
environmental impacts. Most paper products, especially those for hot foods and
beverages, are lined with a petroleum-based polyethylene coating. These products are not
designed for composting programs but are currently generally accepted in Oakland. The
majority of non-polystyrene foam disposable food service ware, with the exception of
beverage containers, are made of clear polystyrene rigid plastic containers. Rigid plastic
containers are made of petroleum-base polymers and many ofthese products have poor
insulating value and are some are not intended for hot foods or drinks.
Exemptions and Enforcement
Enforcement of the ordinance will be on a complaint basis only. The City Administrator
will be authorized to enforce the ordinance and issue fines for violations if a citizen
complaint is not remedied. Food Vendors wiII be exempted for specific items or types of
Disposable Food Service Ware if the City Administrator or hislher designee finds that a
suitable Affordable Biodegradable or Compostable alternative does not exist and/or that
imposing the requirements of this Chapter on that item or type of Disposable Food
Service Ware would cause undue hardship.
The City Administrator or hislher designee will determine if a violation of this chapter
occurred and will issue a written warning notice to the Food Vendor that a violation has
occurred.
If a Food Vendor has subsequent violations, the following penalties will apply:
a. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the first violation after the
warning notice is given.
b. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second violation after the
warning notice is given.
c. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars ($500.00) for the third and any future
violations after the warning notice is given.
Effective Date
This ordinance would become effective January 1, 2007.
Fellow Councilmembers, I urge you to support this proposed ordinance. Restricting the
use of polystyrene foam food service ware in Oakland will conserve natural resources,
reduce the use of non-renewable resources, protect the City of Oakland's natural
environment, waterways and wildlife, and protect the public health of the residents of
Oakland. This action would fulfill Article 10 of the Environmental Accords, whereby
Oakland partnered with cities across the globe in signing a commitment to eliminate or
restrict the use of one chemical or environmental hazard every year.
Sincerely,
00-
JEAN QUAN
Vice-Mayor and
Councilmember, District 4
Staff Re
ort
AGENDA ITEM # 11
DATE: July 25,2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Title 3, Chapter 8.54 ofthe South San Francisco Municipal Code
Related to Community Preservation and Cost Recovery of Public Nuisance Abatement
RECOMMENDATION:
Waive first reading and introduce an ordinance amending Section 8.54.205 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code related to cost recovery for abatement of public nuisances.
BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION:
California Government Code Section 38773.1 provides that a city may record a lien or make a special
assessment for the cost of public nuisance abatement. The City adopted the Community Preservation
Ordinance in 1999 (Title 3, Chapter 8.54 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code), providing forrecovery
of abatement and related costs of certain public nuisances identified in that chapter.
California Government Code Section 38773.5 further provides that a city may recover attorney's fees in any
action, administrative proceeding or special proceeding to abate a public nuisance. The City's current
mechanism to recover the cost of attorney's fees if the City pursues abatement of a nuisance allows unilateral
recovery of fees by the city. In a recent case, City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett (2007) ----C.A.4th----, the Sixth
Appellate District concluded that an ordinance allowing for the recovery of attorney's fees must allow for such
recovery by the prevailing party. In other words for the ordinance to be valid the ordinance must allow either
the City or the property owner to recover attorneys fee if that party is the prevailing party. The proposed
ordinance includes language that that complies with this requirement.
-2-~~ t;;;i:L
,'-.L\..u....-: J1'{ ~'; ...
Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
---
Attachments: Ordinance
986593-1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 8.54, SECTION
8.54.205 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATED TO COMMUNITY PRESERVATION AND COST
RECOVERY OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ABATEMENT
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 Section 8.54.2050fthe South San Francisco Municipal Code to
read as follows:
8.54.205 Definition of costs. For the purposes ofthis chapter, "costs" shall mean
administrative costs, including staff time expended and reasonably related to nuisance abatement
cases, for items including, but not limited to, investigation, site inspection and monitoring,
reports, telephone contracts, correspondence and meetings with affected parties, as well as all
attorneys fees for the prevailing party incurred pursuant to abatement proceedings, including but
not limited to filing fees and fees for witnesses, and the actual costs of abating the violation. The
prevailing party shall be entitled to recovery of its attorneys' fees from the other party only if, at
the outset of the action, the City elects to recover its attorneys' fees. Any recovery of attorneys'
fees pursuant to this section shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in subdivision
(b) of Government Code section 38773.5 and any successor statutes thereto.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY
In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional,
such section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3. PUBLICATION A.ND EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilrnembers voting for or
against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San
Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
986588-1
Introduced at a regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco, held
the _ day of July, 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the _ day of , 2007 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance
this _ day of , 2007.
Mayor
986588-1
-
~
~ . ~v..\
(~ ~
I;:l ~
v 0
~l~~ Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM # 12
DATE: July 25, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jim Steele, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE
PROPOSED PARKING TAX
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached ordinance that adopts
various administrative procedures, exemptions, and guidelines, contingent on voter
approval of the Commercial Parking Tax on the ballot on November 6, 2007.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
On July 11, 2007, the City Council authorized a measure for the November ballot that, if
approved by the voters, would change the structure of the current parking tax from a Business
License Tax, in which the business's tax receipts are taxed at 8%, to a tax on the parking
customer of 8%. The City and County of San Francisco structure the parking tax on their
parking lots in this manner, so there is precedent for the methodology. The tax is on the
customer, similar to the City's Transient Occupancy, or TOT (hotel) tax. By implementing this
methodology, the City would see an estimated $1.0 million annually from customers at the
airport parking structure (SFO) within the City limits of the City of South San Francisco, instead
of the current $150,000.
The attached ordinance contains several administrative provisions that define the responsibilities
of the Finance Director in collecting the parking tax, and providing for an appeals process for
customers who believe they should receive an exemption.
These provisions are not subject to Proposition 218's vote requirements, as are the main tax
provisions of the parking tax. Therefore, by Council approving these provisions, these
provisions can be modified by ordinance at a later date if need be.
Exemptions
After consultations with the Budget Subcommittee (Councilmembers Femekes and Matsumoto),
staff recommends that the following exemptions be applied to the proposed parking tax:
. When the City is the owner or operator of the lot. The City is already collecting parking
fees from its current lots downtown, so the tax would be duplicative;
Staff Report
Subject: Parking Tax Administrative Ordinance
Page 2 of 2
. For a public transit agency (such as Caltrain, SamTrans, the Water Transit Ferry, or
BART) when the customer is parking for less than 24 hours, i.e., daily commuters would
be exempted. This provision is recommended so as not to have a disincentive for
commuters and other transit users from using mass transit. Staff is not aware of any other
city in the Bay Area that taxes daily commuters. Note that this provision would not
exempt long-term airport parking at the BART station.
. When the law otherwise requires an exemption.
FISCAL IMPACT
If the voters approve the parking tax measure, staff estimates that the General Fund may realize
approximately $800,000 - $1,000,000 in new revenue annually.
CONCLUSION
The proposed administrative provisions and exemptions will make the proposed parking tax
more expeditious to administer, and will result in no disincentives to mass transit users.
flg!:c~
Prepared by: "'-:-' .".
Jim! teele
Finance Director
Approved by:
arry M. Nagel
City Manager
Attachment: Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4.22 OF THE SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF
THE COMMERCIAL P ARKING TAX
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 76-2007, which
put a measure to create a Commercial Parking Tax on the ballot for the November 6,2007
general election. If passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial
Parking Tax will be codified in chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, if passed by the voters of the City of South San Francisco, the Commercial
Parking Tax will begin being imposed on January 1, 2008, unless the City Council passes a
resolution to have the business license tax on commercial parking facilities be imposed instead of
the Commercial Parking Tax; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the
voters of the City of South San Francisco and begins to be imposed on January 1, 2008, certain
administrative provisions would aid the Director of Finance in the administration of this tax; and
WHEREAS, if the Commercial Parking Tax is passed by the voters there will not be
sufficient time to enact these administrative provisions between the time that the results of the
election are confirmed and the implementation of the Commercial Parking Tax on January 1,
2008.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1. IMPLIMENTATION OF THE AMENDMENTS IN THIS ORDINANCE
Section 2 of this Ordinance contains amendments to Chapter 4.22 of the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, which shall go into effect only if the voters of the City of South San
Francisco approve the measure on the ballot of the November 6,2007 general election creating a
Commercial Parking Tax, in which case the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance shall
automatically go into effect once the City Council has declared the results of the election.
SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS
The City Council hereby amends Chapter 4.22 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code as
follows (deleted text in strikethrough, added text in double underline):
4.22.010
Short title.
This chapter shall be known as the Commercial Parking Tax of the City of South
San Francisco.
4.22.020
Definitions.
When used in this chapter the following terms shall mean or include:
(a) "Cancelled transaction" - A transaction that an ooerator cancels orior to
oavment because of an eauioment malfunction.
Willl "The City" - The City of South San Francisco.
(c) "Issued tickets" - The total number of oarkine: tickets issued to occuoants,
includine: voided tickets and oarkine: tickets otherwise used or consumed in the ooeration
of the oarkine: facility for a e:iven oeriod.
B3}@ "Lost ticket" - A parking ticket that has been issued to and misplaced by
an occupant and which has not been returned to the operator with payment of rent.
W~ "Motor vehicle" - Any self-propelled vehicle operated or suitable for
operation on the highway.
fdtill "Occupancy" - The use or possession or the right to the use or possession
of any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station.
Ww "Occupant" - A person who, for consideration, uses, possesses or has the
right to use or possess any space for the parking of a motor vehicle in a parking station
under any lease, concession, permit, right of access, license to use, or other agreement.
OOQU "Operator" - Any person operating a parking station in the City, including
but not limited to, the owner or proprietor of such premises, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee
in possession, licensee or any other person otherwise operating such parking station. A
person who otherwise qualifies as an operator as herein defined shall not, by reason of the
fact that he or she is exempt from the parking tax herein imposed, be exempted from the
obligations of an operator hereunder.
fgfill "Parking space" - A marked area or space designated for and only large
enough for the parking of a single motor vehicle.
Will "Parking Station" - The term "parking station" shall include, but is not
limited to:
(1) Any outdoor space or uncovered plot, place, lot, parcel, yard or
enclosure, or any portion thereof, where motor vehicles may be parked, stored,
housed or kept, for which any charge is made;
(2) Any building or structure, or any portion thereof in which motor
vehicles may be parked, stored, housed or kept, for which any charge is made.
@i!Q "Parking ticket" - The record provided by the operator to the occupant
setting forth the time and date that the occupant's vehicle entered the parking station that
is used by the operator to determine the rent charged to the occupant.
(1) "Public transit authoritv" - A oubEc entitv or agencv of a oublic entitv that
orovides oubEc transoortation bv using trains, ferries, or buses to transoort oassengers
between multiole stoos, terminals, or stations that are located in multiole communities or
cities.
(B(m) "Rent" - The consideration received for occupancy valued in money,
whether received in money or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits and property
or services of any kind or nature, and also the amount for which credit is allowed by the
operator to the occupant without any deduction therefrom whatsoever.
~ "Tax Collector" - The Director of Finance of the City of South San
Francisco or his or her designee.
B1!ill "Transaction" - The calculation and payment of rent for occupancy.
fmt!Rl "Unaccounted ticket" - A ticket that is issued to an occupant and is not
returned to the operator. A lost ticket is an unaccounted ticket.
( a) "Unaccounted ticket ratio" - The ratio of unaccounted tickets to issued tickets
for a given oeriod, exoressed as a oercentage of issued tickets.
(r) "Voided ticket" - A oarking ticket that is not issued to an occuoant. but which
is used in the course of the ooerator's testing, reoair, or maintenance of eauioment used
bv the ooerator for transactions.
4.22.030
Imposition and rate of parking tax.
Subject to the provisions of this chapter, there is hereby imposed a tax of eight
percent of the rent of every occupancy of a parking space in a parking station in the City.
4.22.040
Charges subject to parking tax.
The term "rent," as defined in section 4.22.020(m), shall be deemed to include the
total charges required to be paid by an occupant (including but not limited to any
separately stated valet or service labor charge for parking) in connection with the use or
occupancy of a parking space, provided that nothing herein shall require the payment of
parking tax on the sale of petroleum products, automobile parts, or the like, or the
rendering of services (including car-wash services) totally unconnected with the use or
occupancy of a parking space. The cost of services provided by an operator to an
occupant at no extra or separate charge shall not reduce the amount of rent subject to the
tax.
4.22.050
Occupant to pay parking tax to operator.
Unless prohibited by the laws of the United States, the State of California, or
exempted by the provisions of this code, every occupant occupying a parking space or
spaces in a parking station in the City shall be required to pay the parking tax to the
operator along with the rent for occupancy. This oblie:ation is not satisfied until the
oarkine: tax has been oaid to the City. exceot that a receiot indicatine: oavment of the rent
from an ooerator maintainine: a olace of business in the City or from an ooerator who is
authorized bv the Tax Collector to collect the oarkine: tax shall be sufficient to relieve the
occuoant from further liability for the oarkine: tax for the transaction to which the receiot
refers.
4.22.060
Exemptions.
No parking tax shall be imposed
(a) On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station of which
the City is the owner or operator, either directly or through contract.
(b) On the rent for the occuoancv of a oarkine: soace in a oarkine: station where
(1 ) the ooerator is a oublic transit authority.
(2) the oarkine: station serves users of a bus stooJerrv terminaL or train
station of that oublic transit authority. and
(3) the occuoant occuoies the oarkine: so ace for less than 24 consecutive
hours.
W~ On the rent for the occupancy of a parking space in a parking station where
the occupant is exempt from being subject to the parking tax under the laws of the United
States or the State of California.
4.22.070
Administration.
(a) The Tax Collector shall deposit all moneys collected pursuant to this chapter
into the general fund of the City. The collections may be expended for any City purpose.
(b) The Tax Collector shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and may
prescribe, adopt, and enforce rules and regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of
this chapter as may be necessary or desirable to aid in the administration and enforcement
of the provisions of this chapter. Such rules and regulations may include exemptions
from the parking tax and may otherwise create limitations to the application of the
parking tax. However, any rule or regulation promulgated by the Tax Collector that
creates an exemption or limitation to the parking tax shall be only temporary unless
explicitly approved by the City Council as a permanent exemption or limitation. The Tax
Collector may also prescribe the extent to which any rule or regulation shall be applied
without retroactive effects.
4.22.080
Collection of parking tax by operator; receipt to occupant.
(a) Every operator renting a parking space in a parking station in the City to an
occupant who is not exempted under this chapter or elsewhere in this code, shall at the
time of collecting the rent from the occupant collect the parking tax from the occupant
and on demand shall give to the occupant a receipt for the transaction. In all cases in
which the parking tax is not collected by the operator the operator shall be liable to the
City for the amount of parking tax due on the amount of taxable rent collected from the
occupant under the provisions of this chapter, the same as though the parking tax were
paid by the occupant.
(b) Unless the operator can provide an explanation or other sufficient proof that
the Tax Collector in his or her sole discretion deems to be credible to establish the
validity of a claim for a lost ticket or an otherwise unaccounted ticket, every lost ticket
and unaccounted ticket shall be considered as a full value parking ticket for which the
operator is liable for transmitting to the City the full value of the parking tax required
under this code applicable to a full day's rent for a single parking space occupancy
without discount, exceot that an ooerator shall be allowed an unaccounted ticket ratio of
1.5 oercent for each oarking station that it ooerates in a reoorting oeriod for which the
ooerator shall not be liable for failure to remit the oarking tax.
( c) The ooerator shall have the burden of exolaining and establishing the validitv
of lost tickets and cancelled transactions. The Tax Collector mav consider a verified
statement signed bv the occuoant claiming a lost ticket that includes the occuoant's name,
address, teleohone number. the occuoant's motor vehicle license olate number. the time
of entry and the time of exit as sufficient oroof of a valid lost ticket transaction. An
ooerator shall maintain a log of all lost tickets and cancelled transactions.
4.22.090
Reporting and remitting.
(a) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall file a return with
the Tax Collector on forms provided by the City reporting the total amount of rent
charged and received and the total amount of parking tax collected by the operator for the
occupancy of the operator's parking spaces in the previous month.
(b) On or before the last day of each month, each operator shall remit to the Tax
Collector the parking tax collected by the operator for the occupancy of the operator's
parking spaces in the previous month.
(c) Returns and remittances are due within ten days of the cessation of business
for any reason, or within ten days of a change in ownership of the business. All parking
taxes collected by operators pursuant to this chapter shall be held in trust for the account
of the City until payment thereof is made to the Tax Collector.
4.22.100
Penalties and interest.
(a) Any parking tax that is not remitted to the City within the time required is
delinquent and the operator shall pay a penalty of ten percent of the amount of delinquent
parking tax.
(b) An operator who fails to remit any delinquent parking tax on or before a
period of thirty days following the date on which the parking tax first became delinquent
shall pay an additional delinquency penalty of another ten percent of the amount of the
delinquent parking tax.
(c) If the Tax Collector determines that the nonpayment of any remittance due
under this chapter is due to fraud, a penalty of ten percent of the amount of the tax shall
be added thereto in addition to the penalties stated in subdivisions (a) and (b) of this
section.
(d) In addition to the penalties imposed by this section, any operator who fails to
remit any tax imposed by this chapter shall pay interest at the rate of one percent per
month, or fraction thereof, on the amount of the delinquent tax, exclusive of penalties,
from the date on which the remittance first became delinquent until paid.
(e) Every penalty imposed and such interest as accrues under the provisions of
this section shall become a part of the parking tax required to be remitted by the operator.
4.22.110
Failure to collect or to report parkin!! tax: determination bv tax collector of
amount due: ri!!ht to hearin!! on determination.
(a) If an operator fails or refuses to collect the parkin!! tax or to make within the
time provided in this chapter any report or remittance of the parkin!! tax or any portion
thereof reauired bv this chapter. the Tax Collector shall proceed in such manner as he or
she may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to make an estimate of the
parkin!! tax due. The Tax Collector shall then determine and assess a!!ainst the operator
the parkin!! tax. interest. and penalties. as provided for bv this chapter. The Tax Collector
shall !!ive notice to the operator of the amount determined and assessed as provided in
section 4.22.130.
(b) If an operator files a tax return and remits the amount of parkin!! tax stated on
the return. but it appears to the Tax Collector that the operator has not remitted the full
amount of parkin!! tax that has been or should have been collected. the Tax Collector
shall proceed in such manner as he or she may deem best to obtain facts and information
on which to make an estimate of the parkin!! tax that should have been collected and
remitted. The Tax Collector shall then determine the amount of parkin!! tax that should
have been collected and remitted. but which was not remitted. and assess a!!ainst the
ooerator this amount of oarking tax. interest. and oenalties. if any. as orovided for bv this
chaoter. The Tax Collector shall give notice to the ooerator of the amount determined
and assessed as Dfovided in section 4.22.130.
(c) Within ten days after the serving or mailing of notice of a determination and
assessment bv the Tax Collector made oursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above. the
ooerator may submit to the Tax Collector an aoolication in writing for a hearing on the
amount assessed in the determination. If no aoolication bv the ooerator for a hearing is
made within the time Drescribed. the oarking tax. interest and oenalties. if any.
determined and assessed bv the Tax Collector oursuant to subdivisions (a) or (b) above
shall become final and conclusive and immediately due and oavable. If such aoolication
is made. the Tax Collector shall give not less than five days' written notice in the manner
Drescribed in section 4.22.130 to the ooerator to show cause at a time and olace fixed in
the notice as to why the amount determined and assessed bv the Tax Collector should not
be fixed as the amount of oarking tax. oenalties. and interest owing. At such hearing. the
ooerator may aooear and offer evidence why such soecified oarking tax. interest. and
oenalties should not be so fixed. After such hearing the Tax Collector shall determine the
Drooer oarking tax to be assessed and shall thereafter give written notice to the ooerator in
the manner orescribed in section 4.22.130. The amount determined and assessed to be
due shall be oavable ten days from the service of the decision. unless an aooeal is taken as
Drovided in section 4.20.120(a).
4.22.120
Aooeal.
(a) Anv ooerator aggrieved bv any decision of the Tax Collector with resoect to
the amount of oarking tax. interest. or oenalties determined to be due and owing bv the
Tax Collector may aooeal the Tax Collector's decision to the City Manager bv filing a
notice of aooeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of the determination by
the Tax Collector that is being aooealed. The City Manager shall fix a time and olace for
hearing such aooeaL and the City Clerk shall give notice in writing to the ooerator as
orovided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the City Manager shall make
findings and issue a decision. which shall be served uoon the ooerator as Drovided is
section 4.22.130. The decision of the City Manager shall be final and conclusive and any
amount found to be due shall be due and oavable ten days from the service of the
decision. unless an aooeal is taken as orovided in section 4.20. 120(b).
(b) Anv ooerator aggrieved bv a decision of the City Manager on an aooeal taken
oursuant to section 4.22.120(a) may aooeal the City Manager's decision to the City
Council bv filing a notice of aooeal with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of
the decision of the City Manager that is being aooealed. The City Council shall fix a time
and olace for hearing such aooeaL and the City Clerk shall give notice in writing to the
ooerator as orovided in section 4.22.130. Following the hearing the City Council shall
make findings and issue a decision. which shall be final and conclusive and shall be
served uoon the ooerator as Drovided is section 4.22.130. Any amount found to be due
shall be immediately due and oayable uoon the service of notice.
4.22.130
Notice.
Whenever notice is reauired under this chaoter. it shall be delivered oersonallv or
bv deoositing: it in the United States mail. oostae:e oreoaid. Notice to an ooerator shall be
delivered to the ooerator's last known olace of business.
4.22.140
Maintenance and examination of books, records, and witnesses.
(a) It shall be the duty of every ooerator liable for the collection and remittance to
the City of the oarking: tax imoosed bv this chaoter to keeo and oreserve for a oeriod of
three years all records as may be necessary to determine the amount of oarking: tax as the
ooerator may have been liable for the collection and remittance to the City.
(b) The Tax Collector. or his or her desig:nee, is authorized to examine the books,
oaoers, and records of any ooerator. includine: any oerson subject to this chaoter. for the
ouroose of verifving: the accuracy of any return made, or if no return was made, to
ascertain the oarkine: tax due. Every ooerator or oerson subject to the orovisions of this
chaoter is reauired to furnish to the Tax Collector or his or her desig:nee the means,
facilities, and oooortunitv for makine: such examination and investig:ations. The Tax
Collector is authorized to examine any oerson under oath and to comoel the oroduction of
books, oaoers, and records for the ouroose of verifvine: the accuracy of anv return made,
or if no return was made to ascertain the oarkine: tax due.
4.22.150
Information confidential.
(a) The Tax Collector and any oerson having: an administrative duty under the
orovisions of this chaoter shall keeo confidential and not disclose the business affairs,
ooerations, or information obtained bv an investie:ation of records and eauioment of any
ooerator. including: the amount or source of income, orofits, losses, or exoenditures of the
ooerator.
(b) Nothing: in this section shall be construed to orevent:
(1) The disclosure to, or the examination of records and eauioment by, another
City official. emolovee, or ae:ent for collection of taxes for the sole ouroose of
administerine: or enforcine: any orovisions of this or any other City codes.
(2) The disclosure of information to or the examination of records bv federal or
state officials, or the tax officials of another city or county, or city and county, if a
reciorocal arrane:ement exists, or to a e:rand jurv or court of law uoon subooena:
(3) The disclosure of information and results of an examination of records of a
oarticular ooerator, or relating: to a oarticular ooerator. to a court of law in a oroceedine:
broue:ht to determine the existence or amount of any oarking: tax liability of the oarticular
ooerator to the city:
(4) The disclosure bv way of oubhc meeting or otherwise of such information as
may be necessary to the Citv Council in order to oermit it to be fully advised as to the
facts when an occuoant or ooerator files a claim for refund of oarking tax, or submits an
offer of comoromise with regard to a claim asserted against an occuoant or ooerator bv
the City for oarking tax.
(5) The disclosure of general statistics regarding taxes collected or business done
in the city.
4.22.160
Nonconclusiveness of statements.
No declarations or statements shall be conclusive as to the matters set forth
therein. Declarations and statements shall be subject to audit and verification bv the Tax
Collector or his or her designees who are authorized to examine, audit, and insoect such
books and records of any ooerator as may be necessary in their judgment to verify or
ascertain the amount of oarking tax due.
4.22.170
Refunds.
(a) Wherever the amount of any oarking tax, interest. or oenaltv has been
ovemaid or oaid more than once or has been erroneously or illegally collected or received
bv the citv under this chaoter it may be refunded as orovided in this section orovided a
claim in writing stating under oenaltv of oerjurv the soecific grounds uoon which the
claim is founded is filed with the Tax Collector within one year of the date of oavment.
The claim shall be on forms furnished bv the Tax Collector.
(b) An ooerator may claim a refund for the amount of oarking tax ovemaid or
erroneously or illegally collected or received when it is established in a manner orescribed
bv the Tax Collector that the occuoant from whom the oarking tax was collected was
exemot from the oarking tax: orovided, however. that a refund shall not be allowed unless
the amount of the oarking tax so collected has been refunded to the occuoant who oaid
the oarking tax.
(c) An ooerator mav claim a refund for the amount of oarking tax remitted to the
City in excess of the oarking tax that was due to be collected and which, in fact. was not
actually collected from occuoants when it is established in a manner orescribed bv the
Tax Collector that the ooerator remitted more oarking tax than was required and that this
excess oarking tax was not in fact collected from occuoants.
(d) An occuoant who has oaid the oarking tax may obtain a refund of oarking tax
ovemaid or illegally collected or received bv the City bv filing a claim in the manner
orovided in subdivision (at but only when the oarking tax was oaid bv the occuoant
directlv to the Tax Collector. or when the occuoant. having oaid the oarking tax to the
ooerator. establishes to the satisfaction of the Tax Collector that the occuoant has been
unable to obtain a refund from the ooerator who collected the oarking tax.
(e) No refund shall be paid under the provisions ofthis section unless the
claimant establishes his or her rie:ht thereto bv written records showinl! entitlement
thereto.
(D Anv decision bv the Tax Collector ree:ardine: a claim for refund under this
section mav be appealed by the claimant to the Citv Manae:er by fHine: a notice of appeal
with the City Clerk within ten days of the service of the decision by the Tax Collector that
is beine: appealed. The City Manae:er shall fix a time and place for hearine: such apoeaL
and the City Clerk shall e:ive notice in writine: to the claimant as provided in section
4.22.130. Followine: the hearine: the City Manae:er shall make findine:s and issue a
decision. which shall be final and conclusive and shall be served uoon the claimant as
orovided in section 4.22.130.
4.22.180
Actions to collect: lien orocedures.
!iLAny parking tax required to be paid by any occupant under the provisions of
this chapter shall be deemed a debt owed by the occupant to the City. Any such parking
tax collected by an operator, which has not been paid to the City, shall be deemed a debt
owed by the operator to the City. Any person owing money to the City under the
provisions of this chapter shall be liable in an action brought in the name of the City for
the recovery of such amount.
(b) In an action authorized by this section. the orevailine: party shall recover court
costs. attorney's fees. personnel costs. and auditor's fees to be added to the iude:ment and
set by the court. These fees are recoverable at all levels of trial and apoeal.
(c) If anv amount required to be oaid to the City by an operator under this chaoter
is not paid when due. the Tax Collector may. within three years after the amount is due.
file for recordine: in the office of the San Mateo County Recorder a Certificate of
Delinquency of Parkine: Tax Lien specifyine: the amount of tax. oenalties. interest. and
attorney's fees and personnel costs due. the name and address of the operator liable for
the same as it aooears on the records of the Tax Collector. and the fact that the Tax
Collector has como lied with all orovisions of this chapter in the determination of the
amount required to be oaid. From the time of the recordine: of the Certificate of
Delinquency of Parkine: Tax Lien. the amount required to be oaid toe:ether with interest.
oenalties. and attorney's fees shall constitute a lien upon all real orooerty in the county
owned by the ooerator or thereafter acquired by the ooerator before the lien exoires. The
lien has the force. effect. and oriority of a iude:ment lien and shall continue for thirty years
unless sooner released or otherwise dischare:ed.
(d) The amounts required to be remitted and/or oaid by any operator under this
chapter. includinl! penalties and interest. shall be satisfied first in any of the followine:
cases:
(1) Whenever the operator is insolvent:
(2) Whenever the operator makes a voluntary assie:nment of his or her
assets:
(3) Whenever the estate of an operator in the hands of executors. administrators.
or heirs is insufficient to pav all the debts due from the operator:
(4) Whenever the estate and effects of an abscondine:. concealed. or absent person
reQuired to pav any amount under this chapter are levied upon bv process of law.
(e) This section does not e:ive the city a preference over any recorded lien which
attached prior to the date when the amounts reQuired to be paid became a lien. The
preference e:iven to the City by this section shall subordinate to the preference e:iven to
claims for personal service by Sections 1204 and 1206 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(f) At any time within three (3) years after any operator is delinQuent in the
payment of any amount. the Tax Collector may forthwith collect the amount in the
followine: manner: the Tax Collector shall seize the property. real or personal. of the
operator and sell the property. or a sufficient part of it. at public auction to pay the
amount due toe:ether with any penalties and interest imposed for the delinQuency and any
costs incurred on account of the seizure and sale. Any seizure made to collect parkine: tax
due shall be onlv property of the operator not exempt from execution under provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure.
(e:) If any operator that is liable for any amount under this chapter sells out his or
her business or Quits the business. his or her successor or assie:nee shall withhold
sufficient of the purchase price to cover such amount for which the operator is liable until
the former owner produces a receipt from the Tax Collector showine: that it has been paid
or a certificate statine: that no amount is due.
(h) If the purchaser of a parkine: station fails to withhold from the purchase price
as reQuired in subdivision (e:) of this section. the purchaser shall become personally liable
for the payment of the amount reQuired to be withheld by the purchaser to the extent of
the purchase price. valued in money. Within 30 days after receivine: a written reQuest
from the purchaser for a certificate. or within 30 days from the date the former owner's
records are made available for audit. whichever period expires the later. but in any event
not later than 60 days after receivine: the reQuest. the Tax Collector shall either issue the
certificate or mail notice to the purchaser at the purchaser's address as it appears on the
records of the Tax Collector of the amount that must be paid as a condition of issuine: the
certificate. Failure of the Tax Collector to mail the notice will release the purchaser from
any further oblie:ation to withhold from the purchase price as above provided. The time
within which the oblie:ation of the successor may be enforced shall start to run at the time
the operator sells his or her business or at the time that the determination ae:ainst the
operator becomes final. whichever event occurs later.
en If the taxes are not paid when due. such tax. Denaltv and interest shall
constitute a soecial assessment ae:ainst such business orooertv and shall be a lien on the
orooertv for the amount thereof, which lien shall continue until the amount thereof
includine: all oenalties. interest and costs of collection are oaid. or until it is dischare:ed of
record
4.22.190
Violations: misdemeanor.
(a) Anv person violatine: any of the orovisions of this chapter shall be e:uiltv of a
misdemeanor and shall be ounishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five hundred
dollars or bv imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or bv both such fine
and imorisonment.
(b) Anv ooerator or other person who fails or refuses to furnish any return
reQuired to be made. or who fails or refuses to furnish a suoolemental return or other data
reQuired bv the Tax Collector. or who renders a false or fraudulent return or claim. is
e:uiltv of a misdemeanor. and is punishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five
hundred dollars or bv imprisonment for a period of not more than six months or bv both
such fine and imorisonment.
(c) Anv person reQuired to make. render. sie:n or verify any reoort or claim who
makes any false or fraudulent report or claim with intent to defeat or evade the
determination of any amount due reQuired bv this chaoter to be made. is e:uiltv of a
misdemeanor and is punishable therefore bv a fine of not more than five hundred dollars
or bv imorisonment for a oeriod of not more than six months or bv both such fine and
imorisonment.
4.22.200
Determination by City Council to impose either the commercial parking
tax or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities.
(a) For any calendar year the City may only impose throughout the City either the
commercial parking tax of this chapter or the business license tax on commercial parking
facilities in section 6.16.047 of this Code. The City may not impose both taxes anywhere
in the City at the same time. The decision whether to impose the commercial parking tax
or the business license tax on commercial parking facilities is within the discretion of the
City Council to decide. If the City Council wishes to change which tax is being collected,
it shall do so by resolution passed before the start of the calendar year to which it is to
apply.
(b) Whenever the commercial parking tax of this chapter is being imposed, and
the business license tax on commercial parking facilities in section 6.16.047 is not being
imposed, commercial parking facilities shall be subject to the business license tax
provided for in section 6.16.240.
SECTION 3. SEVERABll.JTY
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or
circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this Ordinance, including the
application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are
severable. The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would
have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs,
sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 4. PUBLICATION
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers
voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of
South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and
after its adoption, although the amendments in Section 2 of this Ordinance will not be
implemented until such time as provided in Section 1.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco, held the _ day of , 2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the
City Council held the day of, 2007 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 , 2007.
Richard A. Garbarino, Mayor
II
I
II
II
II
II
II
4~
/"oCl~ ,'\"'" P..p).
~ . ~'(t
~..".,',~"l"".~ e~.
~ ("')
U ~ S taf[ Report
AGENDA ITEM # 13
II
II
ii
II
\"
.1
I
I
I
I
I
i
Ii
'i
I
II
I
I.
II
I
DATE:
July 25, 2007
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
II
II
I
SUBJECT: ORDINAl\JCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11.68 OF THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
M~UNICIPAL CODE TO lJPDATE THE STREETS SUBJECT TO RADAR
ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING VIOLATIONS AND ADOPTING UPDATES TO
THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT OF MAY 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council waive reading and introduce an ordinance amending
Sections 11.68.020 and 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, which allows the
Police Department to utilize radar for enforcement of speeding violations, making the
following amendments:
1. Delete "Bayshore Boulevard - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard" from
Chapter 11.68.020, Prima facie speed limit declared'thirty-five miles per hour;
2. Add "Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) - from city limits to Sister
Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard" to Chapter 11.68.025, prima facie speed limit
declared forty miles per hour;
3. Adopt the attached updates to the radar survey report that supports the ordinance and
allows radar survey information to be transmitted into court records for traffic
hearings.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On July 12, 1995, the City Council introduced Ordinance 1170-95, adding Chapter 11.68 to the
South San Francisco Municipal Code. Chapter 11.68, "Prima Facie Speed Limit on City Streets",
allows the Police Department to utilize radar to enforce speeding violations that would not otherwise
be effectively addressed due to the configurations of the streets, and allows radar survey information
to be transmitted into court records for traffic hearings.
The California Vehicle Code indicates that the prima facie speed limit on local streets is 25 mph in
residential/ business districts and 65 mph on all other locations. The Vehicle Code also provides for
intermediate speed limits, if an engineering and traffic survey shows that such speeds would not only
Staff Report
Subject:
INTRODUCE ORDINA.l"\fCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTERS 11.68.020 AND 11.68.025 ~Nl) ADOPT
UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY REPORT OF MAY 2005
Page 2 of2
facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, but also would be reasonable and safe. The
Vehicle Code further provides that radar can be used to enforce these speed limits when radar is
justified by a survey conducted within the last five years and when the survey results have been
adopted by ordinance. The City's last survey was conducted in May of2005. To comply with the
guidelines ofthe Vehicle Code, it was necessary for staffto update and conduct radar speed surveys
and a traffic engineering study at the locations listed in the attached report so that radar enforcement
can be utilized. The next required update is scheduled for May of2010.
During preparation of the speed survey conducted in May 2005, Airport Boulevard (formerly
Bayshore Boulevard) from the city limits to Oyster Point Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard was
under heavy construction. Therefore, it was recommended that a speed survey of this area be
conducted after construction was completed in order to evaluate the traffic speeds accurately.
With the completion of the US-lO 1 Hook Ramps, staff conducted a new radar speed survey and
engineering study and completed it on June 27,2007. A copy of the radar report update prepared by
the Engineering Division and the Police Department to support the speed limit change mentioned in
the ordinance is attached as Exhibit A.
FUNDING:
Staff time used to evaluate the modifications was charged to the General Fund. The installation of
new speed limit signs will be charged to general street maintenance.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council waive reading arid introduce an ordinance amending Chapter
11.68 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and adopt the update to the radar survey report
attached as Exhibit A, which allows radar survey information to be transmitted into the court records
for traffic hearings.
By:
~
Assistant City Manager
-- Approved by:
.{;.,..
Barry Nagel
City Manager
Attachments: Ordinance
Update to the May 2005 Traffic Radar Survey Report
DC/ts/rc
ORDINANCE NO.
Al~ ORDiNANCE AMENDING THE SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11.68 TO
l.JPDA TE THE STREETS SlJBJECT TO RADfu~
ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING VIOLATIONS AND
ADOPTING UPDATES TO THE RADAR SURVEY
REPORT OF MAY 2005.
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: DELETE PHRASE FROM SECTION 11.68.020, "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LThlIT
DECLARED THIRTY-FIVE MILES PER HOUR."
The words "Bayshore Boulevard - from city limits to Sister Cities Boulevard" are hereby deleted
from Section 11.68.020 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
SECTION 2: ADD PHRASE TO SECTION 11.68.025. "PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT DECLARED
FORTY MILES PER HOUR."
The words "Airport Boulevard (formerly Bayshore Boulevard) - from city limits to Sister Cities
Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard" are hereby added to Section 11.68.025 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code.
SECTION 3: ADOPT UPDATE TO THE MAY 25, 2005 RADAR SURVEY REPORT IN SECTION
11.68.005, DETERMINATION AND DECLARATION OF PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
Section 11.68.005 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
11.68.005 Determination and declaration of prima facie speed limits.
The City Council approves and adopts the engineering and traffic survey dated May 25,2005, and
the June 27, 2007 update to said survey, prepared by the Police Department and City Engineer, for the
streets and portions thereof set forth therein, copies of which are on file and available for public
inspection in the offices of the City Clerk and City Engineer. The City Council finds and determines that
the survey was conducted in accordance with the Vehicle Code and methods of conducting engineering
and traffic surveys prescribed in the California Department of Transportation and that the survey justifies
the speed limits set forth in this chapter. The City Council further finds and determines upon the basis of
the survey that a speed greater than twenty-five miles per hour will facilitate the orderly movement of
vehicular traffic and will be reasonable and safe upon the streets or portions of streets designated in
Sections 11.68.015 through 11.68.035 and declares that the prima facie speed limit of each street or
portion thereof is the most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and
safe. The City Council declares these speed limits as prima facie speed limits for the streets or portions
thereof, which limits shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the
streets or portions thereof.
SECTION 3: SEVERABILITY
In the event any section or portion of this ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such
section or portion shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full
force and effect.
SECTION 4: PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those members of the City Council voting for
or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San
Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Introduced at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the
day of ,2007.
Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City
Council held the __ day of ,2007, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this
_dayof ,2007.
Mayor
2
UPDATE TO MAY 25.2005 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY REPORT FOR
SPEED L!MITS (JUNE 27. 2007)
This detailed discussion and attached radar/traffic survey is to replace section in May
25, 2005 Engineering and Traffic Survey Report for Speed Limits.
Airport Boulevard (Formerlv Bayshore Boulevard)
Boulevard/Sister Cities Boulevard to City Limits
Oyster Point
Posted Speed Limit: I -- MPH I
I
Recommended Speed: 40 MPH
85th Percentile Speed: 49.7 MPH
Conditions:
This segment of Airport Boulevard is striped for two lanes in each direction and is divided by a
raised median island. The northern most end is striped for two lanes in each direction and is
divided by two double yellow lines. There is a striped shoulder aiong the segment. There are
no sidewalks on either side for the length of the segment. The speed limit is posted 35 MPH
heading southbound just out of the Brisbane city limits, but this was not based on an
engineering study and cannot be enforced by the Police Department using radar. The speed
limit in the adjacent jurisdiction of Brisbane is 45 MPH. The speed limit on Airport Boulevard
south of the Sister Cities Blvd/Oyster Point Blvd intersection is 35 MPH. Surrounding land use
is commercial with Highway 101 running parallel. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic is low. This
segment has a high ratio of trucks. There are signalized intersections located at Sister Cities
Boulevard, the future Terrabay intersection, and the US-101 Hook Ramps. Parking is not
allowed on the entire segment. Airport Boulevard carries roughly 13,368 vehicles per day along
this segment.
Comments:
There were six (6) reported segment collisions on this roadway segment in the two-year period
beginning 2005 through 2007. This equated to an accident rate of 0.6 ACC/MVM as compared
to a statewide average of 2.10 ACC/MVM. The 85th Percentile Speed was 49.7 MPH in both
directions, yielding a 45 MPH speed limit.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the speed limit be lowered by 5 MPH to 40 MPH due to the following
conditions:
. Current construction traffic and future commercial use causes slow moving traffic
entering/exiting driveway at Terrabay.
. High truck ratio.
Therefore, the posted speed limit will be 40 MPH.
In addition, it is recommended that a speed limit sign be installed for northbound traffic just after
the Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard intersection. The existing 35 MPH sign
should be replaced with a 40 MPH sign located just south of the Brisbane city Hillit.
City of South San Francisco
i=nrtinc.prinrt ~nr! Tr~ffj,... ~;JnJo.\i
_.t~"'__ "':::J -..- . ,_"'''''' '-''-AI! '2f''''.;.'
Summary
Stre2t: AIR::'ORT (FORMERLY ~AYSHORE BLVD)
Limits: SISTER CITIES/OYSTER POiNT BLVDS
BRISBANE CITY liMITS
Field Obseiv8f SHAM/GONZA.l...EZ
Checked By: DC
Dtite: 4/4/2007
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
Factors
Direction:
tJorth/South
A. PrevailinQ Speed Data
Location of Survey
mid-pomt on segment
85th Percentile
49.7
10 mph Pace
36 - 45
Percent in Pace
54.6%
Posted Speed Limit
35
I
I
I
i
.
I
I
i
-!
,
I
i
I
B. Collision History
Date Range Covered
1/1/2005
To 6/6/2007
Total Collisions
6
Collision Rate (AcclMVM)
0.594
Expected Collision Rate
., ~
<..1
C. Traffic Factors
Average Daily Traffic
13368
4500
Length of Segment
Lane Configuration
StreetClassifaction
2 Lanes Each Direction With Raised Median Islands
Major Arterial
;....'..'.,.... '. ,.,-"',,,' :.,. ...':C':,', :,' '.","<" ".;. ,';" ."..'..:..... '-""."".
.... . .. - .. .' . . '.. .
D. Conditions Not Readilv Apparent
Conditions
Lightpedestrian use and bicycle use on roadway.
Roadway Geometries
No Sidewalk
2.5
Comments High truck ratio. Terrabay construction is still ongoing approximately midway on segment for the
next several years. Speed limit in Brisbane City Limits is 45 MPH. Additional signage is required.
E. Adiacent Land Use
Commercial, US-101
Posted Speed Limit
35
Speed Limit Ghange?
Yes
Revised Speed Limit
40
City of South San Francisco:
~
/1 'j V''') ~/J7
I" , ~
V r !~ i
/
Date
Loc. # 389
I
I
I
I
I
~I
1
I
I
I
I
,
I
!
I Street Name:
I
I Limits:
.
City of South San Francisco
Traffic Enginnering Department
AIRPORT (FORlm:RL Y BAYSHORE BLVD)
SISTER CITIES/OYSTER POINT BLVDS to BRISBANE CITY LIMITS
I
I
it
. R2dar Sur-ley Sheet
X=North/South
I 55
150
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 # %ea cum.%
-rr~: I ~fFR-H-i.' -+.-111 i i ! T! ;.IJ. f-H-++++ fTu: i I .f "'1 I
! ,.1 I !. I I r I I: J I I i Ttt-tT1 i I I t I i
'! ,Ii, ~1 I ! Ii IT i -ITI J I J ! : L.U J 1.1 J .,~ . J .. ,I
I" A:~<I):\rxlX: ; 1m' ' U I : Ii' I II.. rill . IT IT '111111l 2.8~~1 lOr..J%i'.I.
I Ii, !: J ' l : ! ,I I I I 'l.! ~'1.5%97.2%1
IXI I I 'i "';_ I I: i--+--~ 111 ,! I. ~ ; i II t lI1511,3%195.6.%1
IX I IV ,/v1X''Xix t rr-r I I U-.t' ; I:", 1,1 16 4.1%'94.4%1
[ I. I I 4 1.0% 90.3%
I I 12 3.1% 89.2%
[ ! I I '17 4.4% 86.2%
I I I i I Ii' 13 3.3% 81.8%
I , ! I Ii 18 4.6% 78.5%
, ! . 'I i><IXI ! I I . l-li-t ! . ~_ U ..~ LL 15 3.8% 73.8%1
:/. I," l' I ' /' i I I I , I w.+W-J--+.i-Lu. i, ,15 3.8% 70'0%11
45 'J" . ." /1 . ',.[ , w ."v,:,x.i/,"-"'lX, I I .' , I ,_ :! i , , i 22 I 5.6% 66.2%..1'
A><IX'X,i/ : . )<,1/.', . I 'i,xJ'.x}~M'~/i ' JJ ': L, L't.- ~i !' l '.' : 23 t--5.9%160.5%
~JXY'" I" 'IX::><T> pI. **'y1'Y'JXtXIXIXI'y, "~ i rr! ii n LH I UJJ 24162% 154.6%1
I I/!" I IXIX, 'T:~b'I><1\1>,',(i'XIXiXT I 'i . T i i I . ! ' ! 1 i I i 24 i 0.2% 48.5% I
/!V~fr.>. IXIX t ~'I--i I [ '11 2~ 16'% 423%1
! i. /\. ~~I,r I *_~~---+_ t :4+ i i i + ! j I ::>. .4-0 .', OJ
40 I .": I I i ,xlXiXTXTxrx II I i l ' : : 1 S I: I! 22 5.6% 35.9%1
./ ,: i'.' I !Xi/i IXiX' iXIXIX, l i , [.; I 14tJ I, i 25 I 6.4% 30..3%,
i I I I _ I I i I Iii' i I !-LL. 16 4.1% 23.8%
i I I I. _~ ; +ii ! 15 3.8% 19.7%
I ! I I ! . I I i 17 4.4% 15.9%
1 ~, r 16 4.1% 11.5%
15 3.8% .7.4%
51.3% 3.6%
3 0.8% 2.3%
1 0.3%1.5%;
2 O.sokC1.3%"(.; '.
11 It
60 rrr
J
ryl
I
AI
35
.
;.f.
...
1
30 x
xx
2 0.5%
0.8%
I><
25
~j-., -- -c-' - - j- .--1-
I
1 0.3% 0.3%
! : i ,
I i t-j I
I
I i
I .1!-I, 1 ,
I+. I! . U _Lul...-1- 1
lil...LLLLl : II !
,Wl 11 I I l'Ti.!t
I +TTTTTTI+IJ;,.}J._L~L .
ULIIIIIIIllIJ i I I I L I
Total fulmples
I I
I
I
13!-'lO
20
151
I
Date of Survey: 4/4/2007
Start Time:
10:40
.
,. 85th Percentile Speed:
. 50th Percentile Speed:
I _
II 15th Percentile Speed:
10 MPH Pace:
I
i Number in Pace:
Percent in Pace:
49.7
42.3
35..?
Weather:
C:ear
End Time:
14:30
36- 4.5
213
54.6%
I
I
I
I
Street Class.:
Malor Arterial
Observer:
SHAM/GONZ
Road Condition: Good
Posted Speed: 35
Conditions not Lightpedesirion use and bicycle use on roadway
Apparent: