Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-06-10 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, June 10, 2020 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING City Council Regular Meeting Agenda June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email or City Council hotline. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY: Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27 Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. 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. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Mayor MARK ADDIEGO, Vice Mayor MARK NAGALES, Councilmember BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember KARYL MATSUMOTO, Councilmember ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a Certificate of Appreciation to Ken Taylor of The Wine Vault for celebrating 20 years of business at 216 Linden Ave. in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) 1. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Helen Wilborn, student at South San Francisco High School, as the 2020 Jack Drago Cultural Arts Commission Youth Art Scholarship Award Recipient. (Rich Garbarino, Mayor) 2. Report regarding development of a shared streets pilot program in the City of South San Francisco to enhance physical distancing during COVID-19. (Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner and Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager) 3. REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS Remote Public Comments Received3a. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10th. Public comments must identify the Agenda Item Number in the SUBJECT Line of the email. The comments will be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor's discretion. All comments should be a maximum of 500 words, which corresponds to approximately 3 minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting and read into the record. Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record rather than read verbatim. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Email: all-cc@ssf.net Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 10th. Public comments must identify the Agenda Item Number in the SUBJECT Line of the email. The comments will be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of 3 minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor's discretion. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting and read into the record. City Council Hotline: (650) 829-4670 Voice Messages will be monitored during the meeting and read into the record. We ask that you limit your voicemail to comply with the 3 minute time limitation for public comment. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of April 22, 2020.4. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $41,895 in grant funding from the California Public Utilities Commission to support the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project at the Community Learning Center and approving Budget Amendment 20.047. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) 5. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $41,895 in grant funding from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to support the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project at the Community Learning Center and approving Budget Amendment 20.047. 5a. Report regarding a resolution calling for district-based elections to fill City Council District 2 and 4, setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to section 13307 of the California Elections Code, requesting: (1) that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate the district-based election with the regular election to be held on November 3, 2020; and (2) that the County Registrar perform certain election services in connection with such election including conducting the November 3, 2020 district election for the City of South San Francisco; and (3) authorizing the City Manager to reimburse the County for election service costs associated with the November 3, 2020 Election (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk). 6. Resolution calling a general election, setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307, and requesting that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate a district-based municipal election with the regular election to be held on November 3, 2020; requesting that the County Registrar perform certain election services in connection with such election, and authorizing the City Manager to reimburse the County for said election services. 6a. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute various Consulting Services Agreements for On-Call Architectural, Engineering and Other Professional Services for various approved City-funded projects in the amount not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal year per agreement with selected consultant. (Jeffrey Chou, Associate Civil Engineer) 7. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into various consulting services agreements for on-call architectural, engineering, and other professional services for various City-funded projects in an amount not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal year for a three year period per agreement with selected consultants. 7a. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding adoption of an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco to implement the ability for Classic Miscellaneous members in the Executive Management Unit to pay a portion of the employer share of their CalPERS pension costs. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) 8. An Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco 8a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding a resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges, approving the stormwater management service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21, and directing the county to collect stormwater management service charges on the official tax assessment roll. (Andrew Wemmer, Environmental Compliance Supervisor). 9. Resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges for fiscal year 2020-21, approving the stormwater management service charges for fiscal year 2020-21 and directing the stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll. 9a. Report regarding a resolution to update the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013) and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. (Chris Espiritu, Senior Planner and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 10. Resolution updating the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013) and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. 10a. Report regarding a resolution establishing sewer service rates for the fiscal year 2020-2021; amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the fiscal year 2020-2021 Sewer Service Rates; adopting the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals Charges for the fiscal year 2020-2021. (Mike Futrell, City Manager & Brian Schumacker, Plant Superintendent). 11. Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 10, 2020City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution establishing sewer service rates for fiscal year 2020-2021; amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the fiscal year 2020-2021 Sewer Service Rates; adopting the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals Charges for fiscal year 2020-2021. 11a. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Attorney 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 8 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-151 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a Certificate of Appreciation to Ken Taylor of The Wine Vault for celebrating 20 years of business at 216 Linden Ave. in South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Appreciation Ken Taylor The Wine Vault Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of South San Francisco do hereby recognize and thank Ken Taylor and The Wine Vault for celebrating 20 years of business in South San Francisco. Known for their excellent customer service, popular wine club, and diverse selection of unique wines, we appreciate their dedication and loyalty to the City of South San Francisco. Presented on this 10th day of June, 2020, by the City Council of South San Francisco. Richard Garbarino, Mayor Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Mark Nagales, Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-387 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation of a Certificate of Recognition to Helen Wilborn, student at South San Francisco High School, as the 2020 Jack Drago Cultural Arts Commission Youth Art Scholarship Award Recipient. (Rich Garbarino, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Certificate of Recognition Helen Wilborn Mayor Richard Garbarino and the City Council of South San Francisco do hereby recognize South San Francisco High School student Helen Wilborn, as the 2020 Jack Drago Cultural Arts Commission Youth Art Scholarship Award Recipient. The South San Francisco Cultural Arts Commission supports, promotes, and protects community interest and diversity in art, culture, and creative expression. Congratulations and good luck as you continue your studies in art! Presented on this 10th day of June, 2020, by the City Council of South San Francisco. Richard Garbarino, Mayor Mark Addiego, Vice Mayor Karyl Matsumoto, Councilmember Mark Nagales, Councilmember Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding development of a shared streets pilot program in the City of South San Francisco to enhance physical distancing during COVID-19.(Christopher Espiritu,Senior Planner and Sailesh Mehra,Planning Manager) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the information in this staff report and provide staff with direction regarding the proposed shared streets pilot program outlined below.There are no actions for consideration at this time. BACKGROUND Beginning June 1,2020,San Mateo County has a revised shelter in place order which aligned with the Governor’s Phase 2 modifications to the statewide stay-at-home order.As cities around the world begin recovering,one way to meet the challenges ahead is to explore shifting how public space is allocated or shared and which uses are prioritized,as a way to mitigate COVID-19’s mortality,health,economic,and social impacts. Exploration of a shared streets program (also known as slow streets or friendly streets)would support the gradual re-opening of a city’s economic activity centers by allowing defined spaces in the public right-of-way for businesses and restaurants to use sidewalks and/or adjacent parking spaces for outdoor dining areas,or allocating dedicated spaces to queue for take-out.Some shared streets efforts to support businesses also include diverting vehicles from specific streets to create a car-free plaza or market space and emphasize a safe and accessible area for the public. In addition,shared streets programs can also provide residential neighborhoods with extended open spaces by temporarily limiting through traffic from certain neighborhood streets.This would enhance residents’ capabilities for physically distant socialization that complies with social distancing protocols,and residents can more comfortably use these low-traffic streets for physically distant walking,wheelchair rolling,jogging,and biking in neighborhoods throughout the city. As shown in Attachment 1,cities around the world,the country,and in the Bay Area,have taken this approach to support the changing needs of businesses and residents for additional spaces for physical distancing.Shared streets programs are temporary in nature and can be implemented on the public right-of-way using various methods,depending on the needs of each city.This effort is not intended to result in negative effects to emergency vehicle access,transit service,the ability for residents on shared streets to receive deliveries,nor City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 1 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. prevent a resident or business owner from accessing their property. DISCUSSION Staff believes that a shared streets program,similar to the ones implemented in nearby cities in San Mateo County and the City of Oakland,can be implemented in South San Francisco as a limited pilot program, provided that there is support and participation by business owners,residents,and other members of the community. City staff used available information ranging from guidance on shared streets published by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO),SSF Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,SSF Chamber of Commerce outreach (See Attachment 2 for the full text),and internal consultation with other City Departments and Divisions.In selecting initial locations for the shared streets pilot program,Staff considered geographic constraints,preliminary community feedback (small businesses),proximity to existing facilities, and how inclusion into the pilot program would align with the City’s long-term sustainability and mobility goals. In order to aid the Council’s discussion of the appropriate program for the City,Staff has prepared the following information for consideration: Summary of Community Business Outreach by SSF Chamber of Commerce Since implementation of the shelter-in-place order in March,small businesses and restauranteurs have not been able to operate and have lost revenues.Adding to their problems,the employers in the East of 101 area,a traditional source of revenue,have sent their employees home and do not plan to have them return to office work anytime soon.According to the Chamber,there are 11 restaurants that are identified as preferred caterers for Genentech.Catering services amounts to 60 -70%of a restaurant’s revenues during normal times.Even when the SIP order is lifted, our downtown restaurants will not see an immediate return to normality. A number of localities are pondering outside dining as a solution to the requirement of social distancing in restaurants.San Francisco’s program called “Shared Spaces”will allow pick-up services in public spaces like sidewalks,streets,or parks and plazas now.As a first step to determine if a similar program is feasible,City staff and the SSF Chamber have surveyed downtown businesses. Twenty-three (23)businesses responded to the survey,with 100%in support of outdoor dining.The responses favored both parklets and temporary street closures.Staff and the Chamber were able to round off the percentage as follows: ·75% in favor of Parklets ·25% in favor of Temporary Street Closures ·Concerns fell under Temporary Street Closures:location,what streets,SSF wind impacts,and hours of City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 2 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. closure Downtown (Grand Avenue) Given that initial feedback from the SSF Chamber showed support for outdoor dining,Staff identified Grand Avenue (between Spruce and Cypress Avenues)for the shared streets pilot program in the downtown area. Grand Avenue’s existing configuration,with angled parking on both sides,and one travel lane in each direction of the street,can accommodate various shared streets designs,but will depend on further feedback and other considerations by the Council. While support for outdoor dining was unanimous,only a quarter of businesses supported closing streets to implement the shared streets concept.However,Council should consider all available options (and combinations of options) for Grand Avenue as illustrated in Attachment 3 and described below: Option 1: Full Closure of Grand Avenue -Full closure of Grand Avenue to vehicles and parking -Allows only people walking, or people bicycling, and transit routes as needed -Parking restricted on Grand Avenue Option 2: One-Way Traffic on Grand Avenue -Partial closure of Grand Avenue -One travel lane remaining in operation (one-way only for vehicles and buses) -Speed limit reduction for remaining lane -Allows people walking, or people bicycling on other side of the street -Parking restricted on one side of Grand Avenue Option 3: Grand Avenue Parking Repurposed for Outdoor Dining -No street closures (two-way travel remains) -Speed limit reduction on Grand Avenue -Grand Avenue-fronting,ground floor businesses can apply to City to use the directly adjacent parking areas for outdoor dining or pick up/take out use. Advantages -Grand Avenue has additional street space (sidewalks and diagonal parking spaces)available for dining area extensions o Dining areas can be developed on the parking spaces or on sidewalks -Additional space can be used to provide expanded take-out areas for restaurants with queuing spaces outside restaurants -Grand Avenue provides transit connections and is a main route for the internal City Shuttle which can facilitate travel to other areas of the City -Existing connections to existing bicycle lanes would effectively provide a continuous bike facility through Grand Avenue o Grand Avenue between Spruce and Eucalyptus can provide direct connections to the trail and City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 3 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. other bike facilities -Grand Avenue can function as a main connector to other potential shared streets in neighborhoods near downtown o Maple Avenue and Cypress Avenue (See map in Attachment 3) Disadvantages -Potential loss of parking meter revenue during meter operation hours -Other retail uses (community market/groceries)may not benefit from outdoor dining and may prefer designated pick-up/take out spaces -May require meters at side streets to be designated for restaurant pick-up only,leading to further loss of parking meter revenue Residential Areas (Various Neighborhoods in SSF) Shared streets as implemented in other municipalities and counties have utilized neighborhoods to create expanded outdoor space for residents to practice social distancing.City Staff also considered shared streets for other areas of the City using a few guiding principles,which are consistent with similar implementation of this concept (See Attachment 4): 1)The street will be closed to automobile through traffic (residents,emergency vehicles,essential visitors, and delivery vehicles will be allowed). 2)All non-automobile traffic would be welcome,which means cyclists,pedestrians,joggers,scooters, skateboards, wheeled vehicles, etc. 3)People from other neighborhoods would be allowed on the restricted streets. 4)The speed limit would be lowered to 15 MPH for local essential neighborhood traffic (although unenforceable). 5)Residents on selected streets should park off-street in driveways/garages as much as possible. 6)The street closure will be terminated if: a.The people using the street for recreation purposes do not comply with the County Health Order (social distancing and face coverings), and; b.If the City receives three or more shut-down requests from residents of the closed street. As illustrated in Attachment 4,Staff identified several potential streets for consideration,but these should be modified based on City Council feedback and outreach to residents. These streets were identified since these were typically streets that led to an existing park (such as Eucalyptus Drive)or open space (such as South Magnolia Drive)and would effectively function as an extension of that park or open space.Also,implementation of shared streets to specific neighborhoods were meant to avoid collector or arterial streets which would typically have high traffic volumes,or typically function as the main thoroughfare for neighborhoods, thus closure would not be ideal for those street types. Advantages -Using nearby parks as a destination,neighborhood streets can be transformed and function as an City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 4 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. -Using nearby parks as a destination,neighborhood streets can be transformed and function as an extension of the park and safely allow for a greater number of users -Neighborhood streets are not typically used for “cut-through”travel by vehicles and would not require severe changes to traffic flows, except for local-only traffic Disadvantages -Restricting vehicular access on certain streets may lead to temporary secondary effects such as parking loss during neighborhood restrictions -Temporary increase in vehicular travel on adjacent streets CONSIDERATIONS If the City Council determines that a shared streets pilot program would be appropriate for South San Francisco,an inter-departmental team with representatives from City Manager’s Office,Economic and Community Development,Department of Public Works,Fire Department,Police Department,and Parks and Recreation Department, would need to convene and proceed with the next steps in establishing the program. These next steps include: ·Developing a formal list of potential shared streets locations o Downtown Streets o Neighborhood Streets ·Outreach with City Boards and Commissions o Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC),Parking Place Commission (PPC),Traffic Safety Commission (TSC), and others ·Determine pilot program operations for street closures o Weeknights or weekends only for shared streets in Downtown o Weekends only for neighborhood streets ·Determine costs to the City ·Identify appropriate design standards o Outdoor dining equipment standards (as proposed by businesses) o Signs and barricades at selected streets and intersections ·Liability and Code issues (ADA, insurance, etc.) ·Community outreach ·Monitoring Process and ensuring public safety ·Process for continuation or deactivation of program elements once the shelter-in-place orders have been lifted (or sooner if directed by City Council) FISCAL IMPACT This is a study item only and there is no Fiscal Impact.Subsequent actions may result in reduced parking meter revenues,minor City expenditures (e.g.,barricades,signage,etc.)and/or increased maintenance,sidewalk City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 5 of 6 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-403 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. cleaning or street cleaning costs. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Council authorize staff to develop a shared streets program -on a limited pilot basis - in the Downtown with the following parameters: ·Option 3:Grand Ave.(Cypress to Spruce)parking areas made available to ground floor businesses for outdoor dining or pick up/take out use. ·Two-way vehicular traffic maintained, with reduced speed limit. ·Prior to implementation,staff would return to Council with proposed design and maintenance standards, along with an analysis of any outstanding logistical issues,including any upfront or ongoing City costs that would require funding to be identified. ·Due to the potential loss of parking meter revenue,the pilot program would need to be brought to the Downtown Parking Commission for approval. ·Initial pilot program would sunset after 90 days,and would be evaluated by staff and presented to Council for potential extension. Additionally,staff recommends further study,including public discussion at the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission,to identify one or more opportunities for a potential shared streets program in one or more neighborhoods. City staff requests feedback from the City Council and direction on the next steps in reviewing the proposed shared streets pilot program for South San Francisco. Attachments: 1.Shared Streets Programs in Other Cities 2.SSF Chamber of Commerce Outreach 3.Grand Avenue Shared Streets 4.SSF Neighborhood Shared Streets City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 6 of 6 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 1 Shared Streets Programs in Other Cities Redwood City – Slow Streets Pilot Program •Launched May 1, 2020 as a pilot program •Identified 10 street segments (a total of 5 miles of streets) •Phase 1 implementation includes program signage that will be in place at all times (24/7) during the pilot. •Signage reads "Road Closed to Thru Traffic," warning signs alerting drivers to pedestrians/bicyclists, and barriers that block one lane of traffic •Because the barriers do not go across the whole street, barriers need not be moved in order to get onto or off of the street. City of San Mateo – Safe Streets Initiative •Approved by San Mateo City Council on April 20, 2020 as a pilot program. •Establishes “no thru traffic” on five streets (starting in Bay Meadows): •East 39th, Derby, Hacienda, Fremont, and Monte Diablo •Messaging to slow down and be aware of surroundings •Pedestrian signal adjustments City of Palo Alto – Shared Streets Program •Launched on May 8, 2020 as a pilot program •Initially, the City will pilot the program on three street segments. •Bryant Street: From Embarcadero Rd to Forest Ave (North of Bryant at Embarcadero/Bryant will be restricted for vehicles. Bike and Pedestrian access will remain open.) •Park Blvd: From Birch Street to Cambridge Ave •Ross Road: From Colorado Ave to Louis Road Foster City – Friendly Streets •Launched on April 23, 2020, as a pilot program which dedicated a 1.75 mile stretch of road on northbound Beach Park Boulevard for people walking, biking, and running. •Street is designated for safe use by bicyclists and runners by barricading off the right lane from cars •Established detours for bicyclists and runners through Bridgeview •No turn movements will be affected City of Oakland – Slow Streets Program •Launched on April 11, 2020 with "soft closures" including signage, traffic cones and barricades. •As of 5/22/2020, the program will have installed 20 miles of slow streets along 18 corridors throughout the City of Oakland. •Does not affect existing bus services. Declares identified roads as “closed to through traffic,” but not to local traffic or emergency vehicles Other Shared Streets Elements Attachment 2 Community Business Outreach by SSF Chamber of Commerce Small business owners and restaurateurs in South San Francisco are finding themselves struggling to keep themselves and their workers afloat as the COVID -19 crisis roars through the local and regional economy. It's a sharp turn of events for what has been one of the most robust local economies in the United States. For the past decade, after rebounding from the Great Recession, the Bay Area led the nation in job creation, bringing one million more people into the workforce. South San Francisco has benefitted from this growth in new construction of R&D space, growth in employment, new residential development, and new cutting-edge restaurants in downtown. Since implementation of the shelter-in-place order in March, small businesses and restauranteurs have not been able to operate and have lost revenues. Adding to their problems, the employers in the East of 101 area, a traditional source of revenue, have sent their employees home and do not plan to have them return to office work anytime soon. For example, Genentech recently informed its “preferred caterers” that it will not use catering services anytime soon. Additionally, Genentech has not informed the Chamber of Commerce that it will sponsor the annual “Genentech Goes to Town” event in September. According to the Chamber, there are 11 restaurants that are identified as preferred caterers for Genentech. Catering services amounts to 60 -70% of a restaurant’s revenues during normal times. Even when the SIP order is lifted, our downtown restaurants will not see an immediate return to normality. The City of South San Francisco has been taking active measures to support City businesses that are experiencing financial impacts as a result of the current COVID-19 health crisis. As a way to help businesses attract clientele and promote downtown businesses, City staff is investigating implementing a program that would allow for anywhere between curbside pickup to outdoor seating on the street. A number of localities are pondering outside dining as a solution to the requirement of social distancing in restaurants. As SF Eater reports, San Francisco, Oakland, Redwood City, and San Mateo are the latest governments to jump into the fray. San Francisco’s program called “Shared Spaces” will allow pick-up services in public spaces like sidewalks, streets, or parks and plazas now As a first step to determine if a similar program is feasible, City staff and the SSF Chamber have surveyed downtown businesses. 23 businesses responded to the survey, with 100% in support of outdoor dining. While the responses favored both: parklets and temporary street closures. Staff and the Chamber were able to round off the percentage as follows: 75% in favor of Parklets 25% in favor of Temporary Street Closures Concerns fell under Temporary Street Closures: location, what streets, SSF wind, and hours Attachment 3 Grand Avenue Shared Streets Sign Hill Park Orange Memorial Park Alta Loma Park Sellick Park Westborough Park Buri Buri Park Avalon Park Brentwood Park Terrabay Rec Center Sister Cities Park Winston Manor #1 Clay Par k Zamora Park Paradise Valley Park Winston Manor #5 Winston Manor #3 Shared Streets SSF - Downtown Shared Streets Trails Parks Grand Avenue 4 C e nte n nial Wa yCentennial WayMaple AvenueCypress Avenue Attachment 4 SSF Neighborhood Shared Streets Shared Streets in Residential Areas Sign Hill Park Orange Memorial Park Alta Loma Park Sellick Park Westborough Park Buri Buri Park Avalon Park Brentwood Park Terrabay Rec Center Sister Cities Park Winston Manor #1 Clay Par k Zamora Park Paradise Valley Park Winston Manor #5 Winston Manor #3 Shared Streets SSF - Neighborhoods Shared Streets Trails Parks Appian Way Orchid D rive Miller Avenue Hemlock Avenue South Magnolia Avenue Park Way Hill Avenue Eucalyptus Drive Granada Drive 4 C e nte n nial Wa yCentennial Way City Council Meeting June 10, 2020 1 COVID-19 changed the way we interacted with others and our surroundings ◦Social distancing requirements in public places ◦Need for more safe spaces in the public realm ◦New reality for businesses and economic activity centers 6/5/2020 2 Planning Div. 6/5/2020 3 Planning Div. 6/5/2020 4 Planning Div. •Launched May 1, 2020 as a pilot program •Identified 10 street segments (a total of 5 miles of streets) •Signage in place 24/7 noting "Road Closed to Thru Traffic," warning signs alerting drivers to pedestrians/bicyclists, and barriers that block one lane of traffic •Because the barriers do not go across the whole street, barriers need not be moved in order to get onto or off of the street. 6/5/2020 5 Planning Div. •Approved by San Mateo City Council on April 20, 2020 as a pilot program. •Establishes “no thru traffic” on five streets (starting in Bay Meadows): •East 39th, Derby, Hacienda, Fremont, and Monte Diablo •Messaging to slow down and be aware of surroundings •Pedestrian signal adjustments 6/5/2020 9 Planning Div. •Can be used to support businesses and sustain economic activity centers •Designated parking for pick-up/take- out •Sidewalk Cafes (Parklets) •Dining on the Right-of-Way 6/5/2020 13 Planning Div. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment for tonight"s Council meeting about Shared streers Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:36:47 PM Re: Public Comment about shared streets for Council meeting dated June 10, 2020 Dear Council Members of the city of South San Francisco, My name is Sandhya Laddha, San Mateo County Advocate at Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC). Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. I am excited that South city is considering slow/shared streets and that the city staff has been working on this and also taking learnings and lessons from what other cities have been doing. It will be great to see a "streetery" in downtown South City - a street closed for vehicles and open for people walking and biking and also for businesses and restaurants along with a slow streets network which runs through the city and connects different parts of the city to the downtown. It would be great to overlap these efforts with the city's bike/ped plan. Learnings from current slow/shared streets efforts will help feed into our final designs and permanent build outs. Lastly, I would like to add that please consider SVBC as an ally in your efforts, and that we are open to working with you and supporting you in your efforts. Thank you once again! -- Cheers, Sandhya Laddha San Mateo County Advocate Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 6/10/2020 Item #3 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-411 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:3a. Remote Public Comments Received City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/10/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ From: To: Subject:South San Francisco Civic Ballet program Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:07:31 AM To whom it may concern: My name is Tina Lewis and I live in San Mateo. I am writing you today to urge you not to cut funds from the South San Francisco Civic Ballet program. The program as been very special to my family. My daughter who recently graduated from high school has been one of Maria Spremich’s pupils for three years. Ms. Maria’s teaching is topnotch and is highly regarded when it comes to ballet programs throughout the county. With Ms. Maria’s guidance my daughter will continue her dance education in college in New York this fall. Programs like SSF are so important to the community especially for youth looking to continue their dance education and for young women to gain confidence. Every year I have about 20 friends and family members that come to the nutcracker. I would be completely heartbroken not to watch my daughter dance in the SSF nutcracker again. I would feel even more sadness for this ballet program that has gone on for decades to end in South San Francisco. Sincerely, Tina Lewis Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 6/10/2020 Item # General Public Comment From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:49:21 AM I am writing this comment as a community member and teacher. I would like to urge the city council members to consider more city funds, especially from the police department be allocated for programs such as mental health services, wellness programs, affordable housing, schools, youth programs, early childhood programs, etc. that benefit our whole community. How can we as a community encourage our youth to be successful? How can we ensure our families are successful? If we can all work towards community improvement, our crime numbers will surely reflect that. Additionally, I would like to hear more from the police department about their involvement with our community and what they are doing with their resources and time. Transparency and a positive relationship with the community are also needed. Much like all of us are doing right now, this should be a continual conversation on being anti-racist and approaching all situations with empathy. The limited interactions I’ve had with the SSFHS police department has led me to believe that some do not trust our youth and feel insecure in knowing that they can “get away with crime” because of their age. Please help my community improve and to have the police department with their enormous power be held accountable for their actions and where they put their resources. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:[General Comment] Police Budget Reform Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:24:09 PM Dear Mayor, Vice-mayor and Councilmembers, I support reexamining the city's police budget and I hope you will consider doing so. My uncle was (now retired!) in law enforcement and I respect the difficult job that the police are called upon to do, but I think we call upon them far too often when they should be our last-line-of- defense. It only escalates the situation when an officer with a gun shows up when someone sees a suspicious person in the neighborhood, when someone is going 50 down ECR, or when someone homeless is stranded without support in our community. I applaud the reforms proposed by "8 Can't Wait" campaign and I hope you consider them also, but the current situation gives us an opportunity to move beyond reforms to fix structural issues in our community. Social workers, teachers, and librarians all deal with unstable individuals without needing the tools or funding we give to the police; I believe we need to a look at how we can provide more resources to them and share budget cuts equitably across departments. Thanks so much, Roderick From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:39:01 PM To whom this may concern, I am writing in for my public comment: It saddens me that we are still giving a large proportion of our taxes to a system that doesn’t benefit the majority of our community. We are a community of minorities, a group that has been criminalized for centuries. Stop funding a system built off of racism and white supremacy, a system meant to belittle us and justify the oppression we face. Start funding out schools, all of our schools in the district. How can we ensure that our kids get the proper education when “we don’t have the money”? They should not only to excel in literature classes or stem classes, but in classes that teach them to be a good person that some how “we can’t afford.” You CAN afford them, You DO have the money so long as you stop putting our money where it doesn’t need to be, in a system that does not care about us From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:53:12 PM Dear South San Francisco City Councilmembers, My name is Alondra Galindo, and I am a resident of South San Francisco. This past week, our nation has been gripped by protests calling for rapid and meaningful change with regard to police behavior, an end to racism and anti-Blackness, and immediate reform in how Black people are treated in America. Accordingly, it has come to my attention that the budget for 2021 is being decided as these protests continue. I call on you to slash the SSFPD budget and instead use those resources towards Parks and Recreation, the library and our public schools. The Parks and Recreation budget is proposed to be cut by 15%, this is unacceptable and is denying residents the opportunity to participate in events and activities that ensure their well being. Events organized by the Parks and Recreation department are an integral part of our city which are solely made to serve residents and especially the youth. The library budget is proposed to be cut by 11%, that is $716,977 taken away which could be used in supporting the learning and literacy of the community. Our city's library is dedicated to nourishing and growing young minds with developmental learning programs. Cutting funds to these essential departments would be doing a disservice to our city and the residents. In addition, here are a list of demands in order to defund the SSFPD and invest in our community: - Make it illegal for police departments to hire officers who were previously fired or who resigned while being investigated for serious misconduct and/or excessive force - Redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department - Ban use of tear gas and rubber bullets - California already requires every police department report every stop, search, arrest and use of force to a state database. Includes officer ID, location, perceived race, age, gender, gender identity, disability status. Raw data and analysis published yearly. We want an independent review board to have terminating power and be able to recommend disciplinary actions. - Establish a city-wide, participatory committee for all residents (regardless of citizenship status) that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non-police, community-based services for FY2021. - A concrete plan form city council members on how they will carry out these demands with reassessment of the budget and specific itemized changes Sincerely, Alondra Galindo From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:40:22 PM To whom it may concern, this is my public comment: My name is Fern Echevarria and I am a proud millennial resident of South San Francisco. I am writing today with a simple plea to the City Councilmembers present today: Listen to and act upon the clear and concise demands being shared from the young, elderly, disabled, Black, Latinx, and LGBTIQA+ members of this community. It is your civic and moral duty to ensure that you are listening to the most marginalized voices of this community who are systemically also the most vulnerable recipients of your powerful actions. My demand today is clear: Defund the South San Francisco Police Department and reallocate those funds directly back into the community by fully resourcing our K-12 Schools, Social & Community Services, Parks & Rec, and Library departments. If you do not, and instead choose to be complicit in upholding white supremacy through our police state, just remember that November is only 20 weeks away and two of you can and will be replaced accordingly. Gen-Z is coming for you, and they will have no mercy. Thank you. From: Subject:Public Comment: Not on Agenda - June 10, 2020 Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:30:06 PM South San Francisco City Council Members, As a SSF teacher, I have been awed recently by the way this community, especially young members of the community have been speaking out against the injustices they see happening. More than that, they are not simply condemning things like systemic racism, they are actively working towards solutions in order to make changes for the better. "Defunding the Police" may sound extreme, but I would argue that expecting the police to be the first line of defense against every single thing in a community is even more extreme. As an educator, I see students going to work instead of doing their homework or else moving away in the middle of the school year because there is not enough affordable housing in the area and their families struggle to make rent. I see students suffering from severe stress, depression, and other mental health issues with limited access to counseling. I see students who want to stay after school for academic help but can't because they need to get home to watch younger siblings while parents are at work. The police cannot help with these situations, but re-investing in schools and community services could. I understand there is a fear of what might happen if police funds are decreased, but crime doesn't happen in a vacuum. Crime happens when basic human needs are not being met. So let's work towards meeting those needs. Let's work together to address the causes of crime rather than simply reacting to crime. Those causes cannot be met with handcuffs, rubber bullets, tear gas, or any other show of force. They must be met with compassion, trust, and community support. This community has shown that it is ready and eager to support each other, and we are trusting in you to help. So I urge you to listen to the community’s calls for you to take immediate, active, and transparent steps to end police misconduct and re-invest in the community. Thank you for your time and consideration, Alex Johnson From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Cc:All Council Subject:Public Comments for 6/10 meeting Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:22:59 PM Hello Council members: My name is Dr. Monique Gonzalez. I am a licensed clinical psychologist, born / raised in SSF. I specialize in youth mental health, complex trauma, and cultural humility. I invite each person in the room to pause. Take a moment for a deep breath. One deep inhale, and one long exhale. Place your hand on your heart. The work starts here. The work must always start here. Council members -- I gently remind you that our community is watching and listening intently. A humble, heart centered, and open minded approach is critical right now. Let those be your guiding principles. I watched yesterday’s council meeting and was incredibly proud of the young people who shared their stories. I am asking the council to mindfully pause and deeply listen to their vision. I was highly disappointed with the adults in positions of power in the room who interrupted these voices, diminished their concerns, and engaged in gas-lighting. As a woman of color, resident, psychologist, and a human, I will not tolerate this. Do you know where this tendency to cling onto our agendas comes from? Fear. It grows out of White Supremacist, colonized mentality. That is what created the police force as we know it. Have you come to terms with this? Have you done your historical research? Please take time to unlearn and relearn. You are centuries late. Get to work. If the information makes you feel uncomfortable, know that is to be expected in this un-learning racism process. This is a deeply painful conditioned mentality. It is NOT one that nourishes, builds, transforms. It is one that divides, amplifies fear, prioritizes order, criminalizes Black and Brown humanity. It gets internalized and seeps into decisions that end up making lasting, destructive impact on our kids, families, communities. The psychological research is clear: Black and Brown communities do not feel safe, seen, or heard by police or governing bodies. They feel traumatized. Don't be a part of that statistic. Be the change. I stand with the youth who are demanding justice and accountability, who envision a South City that prioritizes healing and empowerment. This is about Transformative Justice. This is about using our communal imagination to co- create what is possible, in order to uplift those who are marginalized. South City has the opportunity right now to lead the way in innovation, developing a model that phases out the dependency on police force and redistributes at least 30% of SSFPD budget to community-based services outside of the PD. Mental health and substance use, affordable housing, jobs, affordable child care, safe spaces/activities for youth, immigration services, nutritional food, and sense of community. These are all needs specifically identified by SSF families, per the San Mateo County Community Collaboration for Children’s Success 2019 report. These are the roots we must finally tend to. Defend families. De-fund the police. That is what we are unapologetically asking for. In solidarity with my community, Monique -- Monique Gonzalez, Psy.D. Licensed Clinical Psychologist, PSY 28669 From: s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:25:38 PM Hello, My name is Xitlaly Santos. I am a fellow South City community member. I wanted to bring awareness about the push for defunding the SSFPD to invest in our community. I strongly believe to redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department. The redirecting funds can be used for health care facilities, affordable housing, parks and recs, and schools. As a community, I encourage we should establish a city-wide participatory committee for all residents (regardless of citizenship status) that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non-police, community-based services for FY2021. There are so many ways that these funds can be distributed. As a South San Francisco High School alumni, I encourage you to move the funds to SSFUSD. I also encourage to cut ties with the SSFPD and SSFUSD. I encourage the city council to encourage the SSFUSD to follow the lead of many other school districts. I encourage the council members to be in solidarity with us, as a community, to see the importance of cutting ties with the SSFPD and SSFUSD. I also wanted to address that it has come to my attention about the website "Everything South City" has recently posted an extremely divisive and hateful image of a "Blue Lives Matter" flag. I understand these are difficult times for everyone, but I encourage you to reconsider your engagement with their platform. She chose to silence so many of Black and Brown members in our community by blocking them from her page and deleting comments. I encourage the council members to work toward improving their own websites and making resources for city information more accessible to all residents. I hope you can stand with us to fight hate in our community. Best, Xitlaly Santos From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:20:15 PM Attention: Public Comment South San Francisco City Council. As a taxpaying resident of South San Francisco I would like to request that you reconsider eliminating the 6% increase in funding to the SSF Police Department. I would also request that the council look at reducing the percentage of the general fund allocated to the police department. Right now the police department is the largest chunk of the general fund. City funds should be reallocated in light of problems associated with having armed police response for issues that don’t require police response. For example I would like to see that a thorough review of what calls the police are responding to is made, then allocate funding or create city agencies more appropriate for the situation. Specifically mental health and homeless issues could be dealt with more directly by allocating city money to mental health support teams and systems to support unhoused individuals on a path to safe housing. Changing how we respond to “quality of life” issues would reduce the amount of calls that police would be asked to intervene in and respond to. The council should set the goal of reallocating 30% of the current police budget to non police community centered services outside of the police budget to address these issues outside of the criminal justice system. I would also request that it be made illegal for police departments to hire officers who were previously fired or resigned from other departments for using excessive force. Additionally make sure that SSF is not spending budget money on military style weaponry, tear gas, rubber bullets or combat vehicles that could be used to escalate or used in a way to apply excessive force. Finally, I would like the establishment of an independent review board that has terminating power and is able to recommend disciplinary actions for police misconduct. Also establish a citywide participatory committee that dictates how to reallocate budget resources to non- police community based services to assist in shifting the burden of non police work off of the police department and to more appropriate agencies to deal with those issues. Thank You, Wayne Brock South San Francisco Resident From: All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:23:48 PM Good Evening, My name is Oliver Elias Tinoco and as a member of the South San Francisco community since the age of 5, the issues brought to light by recent national news surrounding the demands of the American public in regards to the proud mobilization of the Black Lives Matter movement can no longer be ignored. It’s evidently clear to many that the amount of money poured into the police department of South San Francisco inaccurately reflects the needs, wants, and demands of the community. Having graduated from South San Francisco High School in 2019, I’ve known for a long time now that my biggest motivator in pursuing higher education has been to do so in order to give back and better the community I have known for so much of my life. The city of South San Francisco, however, is already in the position to do something and show that SSF is a city built by the people, for the people. I urge you to look at the current police budget and recognize that the refurbishing of corvettes and investing into programs of minimal efficacy should not take precedence over pouring money back into departments designed specifically to help the community. Rather than initiatives towards reformed policing or training, it’s important to look towards the development of community led groups and services that will work for the betterment and rehabilitation of South San Francisco and its residents. Defunding the SSFPD is not meant to be a punishment onto the Police department, but rather a strategic move towards showing that the city is truly there for its citizens and wants to uplift them rather than over-police them. With instances of police brutality having the national spotlight for some time now, we have to not only acknowledge South San Francisco’s own issues in regards to biased policing that targets specific community demographics, but devise a way to keep those who have acted on account of racially charged motivations in check by both the community and city officials. Please do not make it so that South San Francisco becomes complicit in the silencing of the public’s demands and wishes. We know what silence can do to damage the relationship between a community and it’s political leaders, and I can only hope that it is not allowed to happen here. Prove that beyond the Industrial City and birthplace of Biotech that South San Francisco is a breeding ground of forward- thinking ideas and community building that encourages both current and emerging leaders to spearhead positive and socially conscious change. Thank you for your time. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:01:10 PM To the Mayor and City Counsel Members, Hello, my name is Gabriella Jimenez born and raised on Ohlone land also known as South San Francisco, I am writing in regards to defunding south city police, when I say defund the police I mean immediate reduction of their budget, to immediately disarm the police of all weapons. and immediately reallocate resources towards public education, healthcare which includes mental health services and affordable public housing as well as ending any contract the police have to patrol schools. The police are not here to protect our Black and Brown relatives, they do not make us feel safe, nor do they protect us. For many Black, Indigenous, Disabled, Mentally ill person, cop intervention is risky than whatever situation they are in, or no help at all. I was at the council meeting On June 9th and saw how insensitive city cunsil members are; when the youth spoke up about the murder of a Black 15 year old Derrick Gaines council member Karyl Matsumato told the community that there is "more to the story", which I found disgusting and disrespectful, as Karyl more than likely has never been affected or scared the police would terrorize her. There was no acknowledgment of the Black Lives Matter Movement on June 9th We must start investing time, money, resources, and care in community, start looking out for one another, and divest from the belief police are here to keep our Black, Brown and Indigenous relatives safe. In conclusion abolish the police. abolish the state, and land back. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:09:53 PM Hello, As a school counselor who worked at El Camino High School this year, I would like to use this space to advocate for an increase in investing in schools instead of the police. We have no school counselors at the elementary school level at SSFUSD and we have no district team to support school counselors. Each middle and high school team are on their own and they are too overloaded with paperwork to do the real work of healing the community. Having more school counselors is linked to better academic success for students, higher graduation rates, and decrease in anxiety levels for students. Please review the American School Counseling Association (ASCA) national model on school counseling and you'll find that the recommended ratio is 250 students per school counselor. At El Camino the ratio is 360:1, which is less then ideal. Redirecting the funds from the police directly to schools with the requirement that they be used to hire more school counselors means that you will directly be contributing to the healing of this community. And the community will continue to reap the benefits for years to come. Continuing to increase spending on the police will keep our community feeling afraid, and you are not doing your job if you are complicit in that. There is a very real history of police based trauma, and redirecting funds towards repairing that damage is an important step. Please do the right thing and listen to what the community wants. Warmly, Rebecca Zavala Pronouns: she/her/hers From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:50:09 PM Please don’t close library weekend hours. Getting a book at the library after a week of hard work is a simple pleasure for the people that can not afford to buy it. Also, it may be extra work hours for librarians that probably don’t make as much money as those who make the financial decisions in our city. Get Outlook for iOS From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment | June 10th City Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:04:30 PM Dear Council Members, I have lifelong times to South San Francisco, where I currently live. Like most of you, I want the best for the people of South City, and want to see the City of South San Francisco do what is moral. We’re in global pandemic, an economic depression, and either witnessing or participating in historically unprecedented mobilizations across the world that were born out of the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd. Now, more than ever, we need all level of governments to avoid austerity cuts, and to take our public tax dollars and investment them, downwards, into people. Our city should not engage in austerity cuts, especially not to programs and services that support and develop life. Moreover, our city should be a leader by expanding programs and services, especially for our residents, specifically those people who are most and directly impacted by COVID-19, economic precarity, and state violence. Our city should generate the funds for this by first defunding SSFPD and redirecting the savings to departments like Parks & Rec, as well as the Library, especially to preserve existing jobs and services in/from those two departments. Secondly, our city should tap into our reserves to sustain funding for Parks & Rec, the Magnolia Center, our Fire Department, as well as the Library, all while defunding SSFPD. Finally, in the mid and long term, our city needs to expand progressive taxation on large industries operating within our city limits, particularly biotech and especially developers, in order to expand existing programs while creating new ones. Our city taxes developers in order to further fund policing, which already consumes more than one out of every four dollars of our discretionary spending. We need new leadership, who will find ways to expand our public coffers, and invest them in HUMAN, not economic, development. Our tax dollars need to be invested into our existing early childhood education centers, our K-12 schools, parks, and senior centers. Moreover, we need more to expand new programs and services in the areas of worker-cooperatives, community land trusts for housing, public health, and beyond. We deserve better, and insist that you develop the courage and vision to do what is best and moral for the people of South City. Thank you for your time and attention. César Rodríguez From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Defund SSFPD Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 4:12:04 PM Hello, With the recent movement going on, I would like to bring in to light all the flaws within our system based on institutionalized racism and the abuse of power. There are multiple cases of evidence all across social media to videotape the abuse of the police force, those including SSFPD. As a community member, I believe strongly that we should be taking steps towards better changes, such as defunding SSFPD and allocating the funds elsewhere to further benefit our health and wellness in our community. Why is it that only ONE riot gear costs equate to 55 frontline care workers full PPE? If our community really cared about our health, safety, and wellness, we should be allocating the funds elsewhere. Thank you, Christy Chai, fellow community member Sent from myMail for iOS From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 3:01:32 PM Attachments:April 2007 commentary Terrazas.pdf Hello, As a brown man raising brown children, I know that one day, they will be likely racially profiled by police. As I was when I was 19. On April 18, 2007, I was unjustly racially profiled by South San Francisco police officer Robby Chon. I was waiting for the bus to take me to the College of San Mateo, where I was completing my GE, studying journalism and serving as the Editor of the college newspaper, The San Matean. The encounter with Chon left me so incensed, that I wrote about it. I was a student getting my education, yet Chon made me feel like a criminal when I had done absolutely nothing wrong. A copy of what I wrote is attached here in this email. I'm now raising my kids in South San Francisco. I was already living here when I heard the news that Chon—the same officer who confronted me—was struck in the head with a skateboard by a brown man who was in the midst of a manic episode. Having history with Chon, I can only imagine how little he did to deescalate the situation. The criminal justice system cared nothing of the man's mental health, and still attemplted to charge Luis Alberto Ramos-Coreas with attempted murder (the jury didn't however, yet from what I last read, he was still facing 20 years in prison). I bring this up to point out how this system in addition to targeting black, indigenous and people of color, also criminalizes mental health. Just imagine if we funded mental health services the way we fund police departments? Just imagine if instead of calling police on Ramos-Coreas, trained medical professionals intervened instead? Everyday, I see South San Francisco change. As gentrification speeds up, so too will wealth inequality. Which likely means that people who truly need access to mental health resources will get treatments in the form of jails and prisons instead. That is something that our communities—specifically black, indigenous and communities of color—don't need. --Alexis Terrazas From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment - Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:52:16 PM Greetings City Council of SSF I, along with the rest of the world, are demanding that we critically look at what we deem as public safety. I ask that we look at the countless data on what has been effective in addressing crime and, more importantly, addressing public safety. The current funds dedicated to the police department at about 30% of the budget is an ineffective way of addressing the needs to the people. The people do not need mass incarceration with a recidivism rate of 76%. They do not need more harassment and unjust killings of black and brown people. We need an investment in healthcare, mental health, housing, education, jobs, and substance abuse. Doing the so would alleviate the top three crimes in the city which are theft, burglary, and auto-theft. The success rate for solving such crimes are very low and we need to be proactive about being preventative and actively addressing poverty and the problems associated with poverty. Begin divesting from the police department and invest in the hard working and vulnerable people of South San Francisco Aristel de la Cruz From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment- SSF Budget Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:38:15 PM Good afternoon, My name is Ollie and I believe the South San Francisco Police Department funds should be reduced. I will keep it short for other people to share their opinion. The top crime in South San Francisco is burglary. The reason for this may be because of how many families are close, on, or under the poverty line in South City. Those who do not have money can resort stealing. You, as the city officials, can overfund the police for them to try and investigate all of the burglaries of the city, or you can prevent further burglaries by helping those in financial need. The absolute best and effective way to prevent thieving is to address poverty in a positive way. Instead of sponsoring guns, try to provide more job skill trainings. Instead of overpaying undertrained cops, try to have better hiring wages for ordinary families. Instead of supporting a system that allows officers like Joshua Cabillo to walk free after shooting and killing 15 year old, Derrick Gaines, in South City, try listening to the demands of the people to Defund SSFPD. Thank you for your time, Ollie SSF Student From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:42:15 PM Dear SSF City Council, I am writing to you today to express my thoughts and concerns with the current funding of the SSFPD. Honestly speaking upon hearing about people wanting to defund the police I had my concerns. As someone who works in the community and was educated in SSF schools I want what is best for the community. We cannot live in a world where violence or force is our answer for everything. We live in times where we need to address things like Mental Health, Afterschool Programs, The Education System. We need to be preventative instead of responsive. Some of the funding that goes to Police could be used for that. Especially since I also understand that Police are not mental health experts and sometimes are put into situations they are not trained for. My experience growing up in SSF was great but I cannot deny that I have felt that it is far from perfect and with looking into some of these changes I feel like the community can address a lot of it's problems especially now with the social injustices going on in America. -- Victor Eco Pilipino Youth Coalition San Mateo County Advisor From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:49:30 PM My name is Cecilia Barrientos and I have been a resident in South San Francisco my whole life. I love a lot about this city, however I believe it is time to make some changes. We need to begin the process of defunding the SSFPD by relocating general funds out of the police budget and into programs that will directly benefit our community members, such as affordable housing, jobs, youth programs, restorative justice, mental health and wellness facilities, schools, etc. I look forward to seeing how the city will carry out these demands, not only for myself but for my friends, family, and everyone else who is also part of the community From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:24:16 PM To the City Council of South San Francisco: I am writing to express my concerns over our city's budget and argue that money spent on the SSF Police Department should be reallocated to develop and fund programs geared towards benefitting our community members by promoting education, employment, mental health services, and affordable housing. Research suggests that police reforms including hiring a diverse workforce and mandating body cameras have not changed the treatment and policing of black, brown, and poor communities like South San Francisco. I join my fellow community members in urging the city to divest from the police and invest in the community's wellbeing and safety in the following ways: Ban the hiring of police who have resigned or been fired during investigations for misconduct Set up a public advisory board that can amend police department union agreements Freeze SSFPD hiring Ban paid leave for officers investigated for misconduct Redistribute at least 30% of the police budget to community-based services not connected to the police department Demilitarize the police Support SSFUSD in cutting ties with SSFPD As a high school teacher working and living in South San Francisco, I especially urge the City Council to support the cutting of ties between SSFUSD and SSFPD in order to provide more equitable, safer campuses for our students. My students have shared multiple incidents where they have felt profiled or targeted based on their racial and gender identities by the police roaming our campus. They deserve to attend schools where they do not feel threatened by police presence. Instead they deserve access to mental health services, youth community centers and activities, and affordable housing that accommodates their families. South San Francisco needs its money to benefit our community instead of supporting an institution that criminalizes race, mental health, and poverty, which is why I urge the City Council to meet these requests in reviewing the 2020-21 budget. Regards, Erin Ritchie 94080 From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment for tonight"s Council meeting about Shared streers Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:36:47 PM Re: Public Comment about shared streets for Council meeting dated June 10, 2020 Dear Council Members of the city of South San Francisco, My name is Sandhya Laddha, San Mateo County Advocate at Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC). Thank you for the opportunity to provide public comment. I am excited that South city is considering slow/shared streets and that the city staff has been working on this and also taking learnings and lessons from what other cities have been doing. It will be great to see a "streetery" in downtown South City - a street closed for vehicles and open for people walking and biking and also for businesses and restaurants along with a slow streets network which runs through the city and connects different parts of the city to the downtown. It would be great to overlap these efforts with the city's bike/ped plan. Learnings from current slow/shared streets efforts will help feed into our final designs and permanent build outs. Lastly, I would like to add that please consider SVBC as an ally in your efforts, and that we are open to working with you and supporting you in your efforts. Thank you once again! -- Cheers, Sandhya Laddha San Mateo County Advocate Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:21:23 PM Good afternoon, My name is Ana Giulia Serra and I have been a resident in South San Francisco for the past 6 years. This has been my first home in the United States and I hope it will be my last as well, and as much as I love this city there are many flaws within it as well. On June 5, 2012, police officer Joshua Cabillo murdered 15 years old Derrick Gaines. The San Mateo District Attorney declined to file charges. He was hired by the San Francisco Police Department in 2013 and just last year he shot a man fleeing from the police. As a resident of SSF, I am asking the city council to start divesting from the police department and start investing where it matters, investing in a healthy community and a better future for SSF, absent of unjust killing of black and brown people. We need to remind our community and those in charge that Black Lives Matter and always will matter. We need to being the process of defunding the SSFPD by reallocating general funds out of the police budget and into programs that will directly benefit our community members such as affordable housing, jobs, youth programs, restorative justice, mental health and wellness facilities, schools, etc. I am looking forward to hearing how the city council members on will carry out these demands with reassessment of the budget and specific itemized changes. Thank you for your time. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:12:59 PM To the City Counsel of South San Francisco, I would like to first take the time to thank you for reading this message. For 19 years I was a proud South City resident until four years ago when I moved to Hawai'i for graduate school. Living in South City as a colored youth was difficult. In the earlier years of my life my mother was unfortunately under the influence of drugs and my father was not in the picture. Countless times I've had the police come into my house and take me away from my mother or my family. As an adult who has had time to reflect I can honestly say these were the most traumatizing times i've had to experience in my life. It was not necessarily the purpose of the actions because I believe the intentions were right, but it was the manner of force that I was taken, which no child should have to remember. After I was taken and sent to live in foster care, little to no support from the city or government programs were provided to myself or my family For many years I struggled with depression with thoughts of suicide. The overall success that drove my support came in college from underfunded community organizers and educators. It was not from the government or the police of South City, but its communities and residents that changed a young man's life for the better. I think only of future youth when I support the propositions of CHANGE South San Francisco. Youth should not have to experience moments such as the ones I have had. As preventative measures I am in support of defunding police and proactively sending funds where it is necessary for the overall development of the community. Funding and developing programs that address issues related to employment, housing, education, substance abuse, and mental health are all small steps this city can take to helping residents of South San Francisco before policing is necessary. Sending money to schools that support community based educators will have a major impact in the community and the overall youth. Creating openings for jobs will also lower the stress levels and hopelessness of many adults, opening pathways for success and staying away from substance abuse. Below are just a few of the many demands in which I support the change for the community. Please take the time to listen to the remaining demands from the community and work together with CHANGE South San Francisco, and I hope we can all work together to bring a peaceful solution in which we can all thrive and create a better for our youth in South City. -Redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department -Every % cut to Parks/Rec, Community Development, Mental Health Services, Social Services, etc, MUST be matched with the same % cut to the police dept. -Increase low market rate and low income housing -Establish a city-wide, participatory committee for all residents (regardless of citizenship status) that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non-police, community-based services for FY2021 Thank you for your time, Lorenzo Pule Finau-Cruz -- Lorenzo Finau-Cruz Educator and coordinator, James Denman Middle School, San Francisco Pin@y Educational Partnerships B.A. Asian American Studies San Francisco State University Academic Mentor Mayors Youth Employment and Educational Program From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 2:15:46 PM Dear City Council Members, I would like to express my concern over the superfluous budget allotted to the South San Francisco Police Department. The vast majority of our crimes are theft which is fundamentally connected to poverty. Instead of investing in an institution that perpetuates a cyclical system of crime committed by those in most need, we should instead invest in remedial programs. While it is true that some already exist, our city would be better off providing these programs with better funding to increase its span of effect. If we were to instead develop and fund programs meant to address unemployment, quality education, housing, mental health, and substance abuse, we would see less theft. Again, investing in remedial social services are ideal; arresting someone makes it harder for them to find employment and thus the cycle starts again. Focusing on the root of why people are committing theft in the first place is how we tackle our issue, not by merely putting people away and hoping they don’t do it again. Please do not overfund the SSFPD and instead reallocate those funds to other social services. Thank you, Daphne Pacia-McCann From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:49:03 PM Dear Members of City Counsel, My name is DeVante Jewett, South San Francisco neighbor, El Camino High SchoolAlumni, and Social Worker. I want to express my concern about this years’ budget and howa high percentage of funds are going to SSFPD. As we all know, the purpose of SSFPD isto serve and protect the citizens of South San Francisco. In addition, they are responsiblefor enforcing law, preventing, detecting, investigating, and solving criminal activity. As a concerned citizen, I feel the budget should fund programs that address issues ofcriminal activity to make our community safer. Typically, criminal activity occurs becausethe person(s) are experiencing poverty and have little to no resources to support them. Ibelieve the budget should reconsider funding more youth programs, mentalhealth/substance use resources, restorative justice, more affordable housing, more jobs,events that celebrate multiculturalism & community, and especially education. Fundingthese programs are more likely l to decrease crime because those resources areaccessible. The goal of SSF CHANGE is to end police violence against Black & Brown communitiesand dismantle racial injustices. In addition, more dialogue & action is needed to make that areality. We must start by defunding the SSFPD and investing our funds into programs thatplace communities in a position where they will succeed and not have to resort to criminalactivity. I am a Black man and I want to live in a city where I do not have to worry about the ongoingpolice violence against people who look like me. I am open for dialogue around the distrustof law enforcement from the Black community's perspective and what can be done about it. Thank you for your consideration, Best Regards, DeVante Jewett, MSW, ASW From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Agenda Item 1 public comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:13:49 PM Good morning, I’m responding with thoughts on the city’s budget meeting. As a mother of young children, I strongly support our enrichment services such as our city’s park and recreation and library services. I have utilized these services every day pre-COVID. I do not think it is fair that the police department get an increase in funds while imperative services for our communities get cut. I urge the city to not defund from our libraries and park and recreation budget as this would be a great disservice to this city and the children who will grow up here. Our libraries deserve additional funding in services for our youth and community members who use it as an educational supplement. The libraries STEM kits were an amazing addition and my kids LOVED it, but they could do so much more with increased funding. Park and Rec services also need additional funding to support our community members and children. Please do not decrease funding to these vital services!!!!! Amanda Vergel de Dios From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 1:40:34 PM To whom it may concern: My name is Marcela Rivera and I have lived in South San Francisco my whole life. Growing up in South City I was often told that there was not enough funding for sports, dance and other programs I was interested in because of the lack of funding. My parents would have to drive me to different cities to get involved in these activities so that I could have the best opportunities. I am lucky my parents did this for me, but I know that this is not the case for many. After doing my research I am appalled by the breakdown of the SSF budget. Kids in South San Francisco deserve better community programming. These kids wants to read, dance, and play sports. If we want to build a better community for the future generations we have to change our ways now. Why do police get 28% of the cities budget, while libraries get 11% cut?? These children need opportunities to succeed, not more cops. As someone who has worked closely with the kids of South San Francisco as a summer camp instructor, I know that these kids need more attention and more resources. If you do not vow to cut the funding for police and reallocate it to social programming to help these kids, I can promise you that the youth and parents of South San Francisco will vote you out. We will not be silenced. Best, Marcela Rivera Sunshine Gardens Class of 2010, Westborough Class of 2013, El Camino High School Class of 2017 From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Fw: SSF letter Date:Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:37:03 PM ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Dave-Janet Theisen <> To: Mike Mulkerrins < Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2020, 04:47:51 PM PDT Subject: Fw: SSF letter Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android Forwarded Message From: Dave Janet he sen < To: Aust n Navarro Sent: ue Jun 9 2020 at 443 PM Subject: SSF etter June 7, 2020 To Whom It May Concern, My name is David Theisen, I have been a part time employee for the Park and Rec Dept. for over 20 years. It has been brought to my attention that the City Council is planning to curtail some, if not all of the Park and Rec events and activities. This issue should be seriously reconsidered. With shops and restaurants starting to reopen, I feel the city should reopen as well, the revenue these activities will generate will greatly benefit our current budget. Families are looking forward to celebrating their children's birthdays and graduation parties. Also, educational and physical activity classes, and rentals that the city offers. It goes without saying, that new guidelines and limitations will need to be agreed upon and drafted by all parties concerned. These new rules can be amended as we move forward through this pandemic. I have been aproched many times by people in our community, asking how they can get involved to spread the word regarding the educational and recreational activities that SSF offers for their families in our community. I always advise them to call the Park and Rec Dept. and voice their opinion regarding their thoughts, write a letter, and attend our City Council meetings. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:10:30 PM Dear South San Francisco City Councilmembers, It is my understanding that you are currently proposing a budget for our community that aims to increase funding for the SSFPD, while simultaneously cutting millions of dollars from other vital services, such as Parks & Recreation, Econ & Community Development, and Libraries. I do not feel that this is a wise use of resources. This time that we are collectively experiencing as Americans is showing, without a doubt, the drastic disparity and skewed priorities of communities all over the country that put the police above the people. As a result of this, communities suffer. People suffer. Many are treated unfairly. many people even die. The police are equal parts overequipped with the resources to potentially abuse, harass, and perhaps even terrorize the members of the community they are allegedly here to “serve and protect”. I am a mental health professional serving the students of Westborough Middle School as their School Safety Advocate, in addition to working with folks at our clinic down the street from Tanforan. On the small handful of occasions that I have had to interact with SSFPD officers because a client presented as a danger to themselves, I see that these officers were undertrained and unqualified to successfully deescalate the situation, at least in a manner that did not further bring distress to my clients. While I had no personal problem with those officers directly, I can say for certain that that is not a part of their job that they are ecstatic about performing. I implore you to recognize the needs of your community and divert money and resources away from the police department, and into the parts of the city that need it the most. This will make your citizens feel more connected, and therefore the need for police intervention will lessen, and the city will be strengthened as a result. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Michael Asuncion, School Safety Advocate, Mental Health Clinician Youth Service Bureaus of the YMCA 1486 Huntington Ave. Suite 100 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) 877-8642 x16/Fax: (650) 877-8643 http://youthservicebureaus.org PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: Please note that the information contained in this message may be protected and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:12:53 PM Please consider the following: I support redistributing a third of the police department budget currently allocated to them to go towards non-police community based services outside of the police department. I also support establishing a city wide participatory committee for all residents, regardless of citizenship status, that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non-police community based services for fiscal year 2020-2021. I support protecting our citizens and banning the use of tear gas and rubber bullets. As we can see through current events, these are weapons that cause more harm than is necessary. I support making it illegal for police departments to hire officers who were previously fired or resigned while being investigated for serious misconduct and/or use of excessive force. I support the need for an independent review board to oversee the state database used by police to record every stop, search, arrest, and use of force. Allow such a review board to recommend disciplinary actions or terminations. This is long overdue. I look forward to hearing how any or all of these ideas can/or will be implemented, along with a reassessment of the budget. Renuka Sibia From: All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:For Public Comment: Not on Agenda Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:23:45 PM I am a long time South City resident, alumna of SSFUSD, Parent of 2 graduates of SSFUSD, and a former HS Security staff at SSFHS. I demand that we defund the police and reallocate those funds to better fund and develop programs that address issues related to employment, mental health, education, housing, and substance abuse. Doing so will reduce the need for militarized policing in our community. Jaime Marcic From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Reallocate the funds Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:25:57 PM To whom this may concern, Hello, name is Brianna Sangco-lee and I’m a resident of South San Francisco. I graduated from El Camino High School and most of my friends and family live in South City as well. I urge you to reconsider increasing the funds going into the SSFPD, instead as a community member, I suggest reallocating 30% of the funds back into non-police community-based programs that would better serve the people of South San Francisco. As a resident of SSF, I am concerned for the future of our city. Increasing funds on schools would be greatly appreciated and would certainly help better the climate of our community. Education should our city’s priority— not the police department. Increasing the SSFPD’s funds will only do more harm than good. Sincerely, Brianna Sangco-lee Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 6/10/2020 Item # General Public Comment From:Breanna Oliveros To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Adjust the Budget Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:38:22 PM My name is Breanna Oliveros, and I am a 23 year old resident of South San Francisco. I’ve claimed our diversity and acceptance throughout our community my entire life. But, to live in a city where my community councils can barely say George Floyd’s name, a Black man who was murdered in the streets, makes me question our community. Are we looking out for one another? In my opinion, no. The community has joined hands, but I ask you council members, where are yours right now? What will you be ACTIVELY doing to make a change in our community? Will you listen to us, and make a REAL call to action? Or will you continue to fiddle your fingers? From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:41:20 PM I have been a resident of South San Francisco for most of my life. Throughout my life here, the library in particular has served as an extremely impactful community resource for not only myself- but for many residents of South City. The library has proven to be an outstanding asset for students of this city as well as everyday residents, as they try their best to provide workshops, activities, books, computer/internet access, tutoring, etc. with what little funding they have been allocated by the city. But as the library has seen continual budget and funding cuts, the city chooses to funnel its funds into the SSFPD- a department that has served no impactful purpose onto the lives of our youth- especially our youth of color- and has instead contributed to fear and an imbalance of community power. I am asking you all to reconsider defunding the SSF Police Department and instead reallocating a large portion of these funds back into our community, into our libraries, and into our youth. By defunding the police department and instead focusing on community wellness- we will in turn see a healthier community and an increase in positive livelihood from our youth and our residents. The South San Francisco Police Department has worked mainly to terrorize and enforce power over our community and have preyed on the livelihoods of our youth that would instead exponentially benefit from community resources- such as the library, in order to combat the same issues that the police are supposedly working to do. The SSFPD does not make me or has it ever made me, as a resident, feel safe or secure. Instead, the library, the schools, the small businesses, the recreational/arts programs, the community- has provided this safe sanctuary for me and for many of the residents of South City and I strongly urge you all to consider where you are putting these funds and how it will impact the lives of those who live here as a result. We must not be a community based in police power, but instead a community based in the wellbeing of one another with the willingness to accept and hear from the diverse community in which we live, have known, and love. With Great Concern, Vanessa Cassandras From:Valeria Olguin To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:48:22 PM Hello, my name is Valeria Olguin, I am a lifetime resident of South San Francisco. I’m asking you today to defund the SSFPD. Often, when a request such as this is made I hear arguments such as, “but the cops serve and protect our community!” But it has long been clear that our local government no longer understands what a community is. Our community has been serving and protecting ourselves for decades from city leaders and the SSFPD as we have watched you sell our city off to foreign investors, self involved transplants, and billionaire tech companies while harassing and mass policing our people. We are tired of watching you flaunt new housing complexes and a new police station as we watch our teachers boycott for an affordable salary, our neighbors lose their homes, our parks fall apart and our children fall behind in school. Throughout this pandemic have you even for a second been concerned about how much our students will fall behind due to lack of resources or do you just not care? Who cares right! If the kids fall behind and slip up you can just send them to juvy and have the cops perpetually harass them! Anything to keep the outsiders happy! What part of the community are the cops protecting? The long time residents that moved to the east bay for affordable housing? The youth that cops mass policed into prison? The library staff you will furlough? The parks and rec staff that onced worked hard to organize little leagues and day in the park? You have chipped away at our city and reallocated funds into an army of cops you keep building to further protect your private investments and interests. You may think that this is a one time, maybe two time event that will die down once the national movements stop being broadcasted, but you are incorrect. The movements occurring nationwide have only but become a catalyst for the community in this city. We are ready to reclaim our city. That is why today we begin by asking you to defund SSFPD. Before I finish I want to publicly make note that this was a comment I had sent in to be read at the budget hearing last night. As a concerned but immunocompromised resident, I was disappointed by the evident ableism in the manner in which the city council managed their budget hearing in the middle of a pandemic. I sat by my computer for three plus hours waiting for comments to be read, but all I heard was continuous accusatory and defensive language spilling from councilWoman Matsumoto. Prioritizing your safety over a national concern regarding the manner in which cops police and murder people of color? Looking directly into the faces of Derrick Gaines’ classmates and telling them they don't know the entire story? Admitting what we all know and telling us cops are here to control us? Cutting off residents in the middle of sentences and reacting in a defensive manner? A complete disappointment. From:Carmela Dizon To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:57:40 PM To the City Council Members, The city is continuously putting barriers for BIPOC low income families in SSF. By calling them, “drug addicts” and “thugs” that the SSFPD must “control”, you are criminalizing and generalizing the residents of this city. I am asking the city council to reconsider the FY2020-2021 budget and redistribute funds from the SSFPD into community services and departments such as parks and rec, library and resources for survivors of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and people with mental illnesses. Also, I am asking you all to educate yourselves in the matters that affect this city. It is one thing to lead and watch from the sidelines of what the residents of this city are experiencing but have you stepped in and tried to understand your constituents’ lives? I implore you to educate yourselves in knowing why crimes are happening in this city and how substance use disorder is a disease that millions of Americans suffer from. Instead of saying we’re “drug addicts” and “thugs” what you can do to help the residents of this city in combating? Divest from the SSFPD and invest in looking for ways in helping your constituents beyond criminalizing and not understanding the root causes of these problems. By continuously funding the SSFPD, you are implementing a band aid solution and not trying to better South San Francisco in the long run. With Concern, Carmela DizonCHANGE SSF -- Carmela Dizon Occupational Therapy Major, Senior Dominican University of California e: pronouns: she/her/hers From:Kanani Cortez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:PUBLIC COMMENT Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:57:54 PM Hello council members and mayor, I am extremely disappointed with your behavior at last night's meeting. You applauded young people showing up to engage with the city, yet you continually tried to silence those speaking and Matsumoto even insisted that she did not wish to "debate" with us. Please do better. CHANGE SSF's demands are as follows: Begin the process of defunding the SSFPD by reallocating general funds out of the police budget and into programs that will directly benefit our community members (affordable housing, jobs, youth programs, restorative justice, mental health and wellness facilities, schools, etc.) Freeze SSFPD hiring to increase numbers of officers indefinitely including incoming police academy candidates/graduates Specifically, make reductions to salary to allocate for social workers and other community workers Make it illegal for police departments to hire officers who were previously fired or who resigned while being investigated for serious misconduct and/or excessive force. Ban paid-leave for officers being investigated for misconduct Set up a public advisory board with the power to amend PD union agreements in interest of ensuring public safety Ban city spending on the assessment or building of any police buildings or corp yards No unauthorized overtime for SSFPD No general fund money to pay legal settlements due to police murder, misconduct, and negligence Change mutual aid policy so SSFPD will not send city officers to other city’s protests Ban use of tear gas and rubber bullets End criminalization and targeting of Black and Brown people by the SSFD by hiring a data analyst to assess the data of those involved in all disciplinary police interactions and arrests to identify disproportionate policing for historically over policed communities. Data must be presented to the public and based on the findings identify problematic officers and tactics, which over policing Black and Brown community members. Demilitarize police - Remove and ban police from receiving military weapons from the federal government including tanks, armored vehicles, drones, grenade launchers, aircraft. No city funds to be used to maintain the Corvette Deny request for new guns in the budget Redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department (City of South San Francisco Community Resources 1 | Page) California already requires every police dept report every stop, search, arrest & use of force to a state database. Includes officer ID, location, perceived race, age, gender, gender identity, disability status. Raw data & analysis published yearly. We want an independent review board to have terminating power and able to recommend disciplinary actions Records of police misconduct & discipline to be made public indefinitely All civil asset forfeiture must be made transparent to the public. Every % cut to Parks/Rec, Community Development, Mental Health Services, Social Services, etc, MUST be matched with the same % cut to the police dept. Increase below market rate and low income housing. Establish a city-wide, participatory committee for all residents (regardless of citizenship status) that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non- police, community-based services for FY2021. A concrete plan from city council members on how they will carry out these demands with reassessment of the budget and specific itemized changes From:JJ Cortez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 5:59:48 PM I am in support in defunding the South San Francisco Police Department for the obvious reasons that are currently taking place. The police brutality and criminalization towards people of color. I am an educator at South San Francisco High School and it is very disturbing to see cops 4-5 days out of week, 3-4 police cars parked in the school parking lot. Colleagues and I sometimes joked on how South San Francisco High School was the 2nd police station because the cops were always on campus. Although it is not a joke, it is completely irresponsible for South San Francisco High School, South San Francisco Unified School District and the South San Francisco police department for their constant presence at a high school campus! Historically police have NOT had a good rapport with communities of color. SSFHS has 50% or more of Latino students and having cops on campus is not only intimidating to students and families but to staff as well. Cops have no roll in schools what the school and district should focus on is stop funding the police department and focus on redirecting funding to more social emotional and counselor support. Having cops on campus is continuing to perpetuate the school to prison path. Students who are caught with drugs should NOT be persecuted by the police but instead focus on providing social emotional support for the student and family. Students who graffiti should NOT have the cops called on them but instead introduce Restorative Practice. But yet the cops are constantly meeting with students to interrogate them for these types of incidents and that is NOT ok. There is absolutely NO need for police to be on any school grounds because they made it very clear that cops are not here, "to protect and serve" they are here to intimidate, bully and criminalize our youth. WE NEED MORE SOCIAL EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, COUNSELORS AND NOT POLICE. Please defund the police deparment and remove ALL police from all schools in south san francisco. From:James Coleman To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:00:07 PM Dear Mayor Garbarino and City Council Members, I am a lifelong resident of South San Francisco, and a graduate of South San Francisco High School, class of 2017. First, I would like to suggest that the city allow for individuals to call in live to express their public comment. Cities all around the country are using Zoom or a similar program to not only stream their city council meetings in an accessible manner, but also allow for members of the public to speak directly to the council. Next, I am urging the City Council of South San Francisco to redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department. The history of policing is a history of violence against the marginalized—American police departments were originally created to dominate and criminalize communities of color and poor white workers, a job that they continue doing to this day. African Americans are 3x more likely to be killed by the police than white people. Despite African Americans representing only 12% of the US population, they represent 26.4% of all those killed by police. Statistics show that rates of police violence DO NOT correlate with levels of violent crime in US cities. It's time that we end the criminalization of poverty, mental health, and addiction. The people who respond to crises in our community should be the people who are best equipped to deal with those crises. Rather than strangers armed with guns, who are not trained to de-escalate tense situations or deal with mental health crises, we want to create space for more mental health service providers, social workers, survivor advocates, religious leaders, neighbors and friends. Thank you. From:Jacqueline Kong To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:02:04 PM To the SSF city council: I am writing to comment that I support CHANGE SSF's demands regarding the city budget. I grew up in South San Francisco and believe that the city now has an opportunity to reinvest in its community by defunding the SSFPD, and I hope to see some positive change in this area moving forward. Best, Jacqueline Kong -- Jacqueline Kong From:Liliana Rivera To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:03:51 PM To whom it may concern: Reading the public comments from yesterday's meeting only highlights the need for a salary adjustment in the budget. Please take care of our part-time workers who do so much to help our senior and our youth population. We cannot afford to lose our dedicated employees at the Magnolia Center or at Parks and Rec because they are being undervalued by the city. With what they have contributed to our community, it isn't fair to furlough them without pay while simultaneously allocating $234k of taxpayer dollars on average to each of our police officer's compensation packages. Thank you, Liliana Rivera From:Eddy Holman To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:04:02 PM City Councilormembers, Upon reviewing the South San Francisco FY 2020-21 General Fund Expenditures, I have some questions and serious concerns with how our taxpayer dollars are spent. I am first and foremost concerned that our budget focuses considerable taxpayer resources on police salary alone. Currently, there are 118 police employees, with a proposed salary of $27,720,684, that would average out to $234,921 average salary for police employees. That is an outrageously high salary for a public employee, can you explain why police officers deserve more than 2 times the median income of south san francisco residents? Yesterday I watched the special city council meeting in dismay. You all spent a considerable amount of time on cuts under 100k to various parks and rec programs, IT, etc. You are ignoring the elephant in the room that is police salaries, the police salaries alone are larger than ALL other city budgets, except for fire, by a small margin. If you refuse to consider police salaries cuts, every single time we have an economic downturn, we will be back to cutting our social services, such as the magnolia centers program for seniors with alzheimers. Understand that when you are protecting bloated police salaries, you are making an active decision to choose police pay over critical, baseline social programs. You cannot see the police budget in a vacuum, its disproportionate focus is preventing the city from empowering our community and creating conditions of opportunity that discourage crime in the first place. Can we imagine a city with a public safety branch of first responders that would handle addiction or mental illness or situations that do not require armed police? Can we think of the big picture? The death of George Floyd has sparked a great reckoning, I am calling on my elected officials to take the difficult decisions and defund our police department, and instead fund social programs that empower South San Francisco, Respectfully, -- Edward Holman From:EJ Unisa To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Public Comment Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 6:13:33 PM To the mayor, city council, and members of the community. My name is EJ Unisa. I am a part of CHANGE SSF, a grassroots, multigenerational and multicultural coalition which aims to advocate for community empowerment through education and political action. Per yesterday’s city council meeting, we had the opportunity of addressing some concerns we had over the 2020-2021 General Funds Budget. What we are asking for is in tandem with the national Black Lives Matter movement: for the push of a comprehensive reflection and action of city government officials in the active protection of Black and Brown Lives. When we say “defund the police” the immediate aim isn’t to completely dissolve the department, but rather to reallocate police department funds into existing community departments and programs that have taken a massive cut at the expense of the police department budget raise. Funding these programs would go a ways in reducing the need for a militarized and overworked police force. We are demanding that the city of SSF redistribute 30% of the police budget to non-police, community-based services outside of the police department (City of South San Francisco Community Resources). Among that, we demand the establishment of a city-wide, participatory committee for all residents (regardless of citizenship status) that will dictate how to reallocate another percent of the police budget to non-police, community-based services for FY2021. And we will follow up with the rest of our demands. I would also like to bring to attention to council member Matsumoto and her tone-deaf comments about calling drug-users “thugs”, implying how it’s the job of the police to “control” city residents, and how she isn’t here to “debate” citizens. I would like to point out that we are not “debating” her, but rather opening the conversation to the genuine concerns the public has about the actions of their city leaders. We are looking to collaborate and enrage in such transformative dialogue as we believe in the decentralization of authority to allow for the practice of democracy. To not hear us, is to silence us. To silence us, is to silence the community you are serving. We are attempting to open the doors to change. We are community centered. We are community focused. And We want our community empowered. EJ Unisa Community Member City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-395 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:4. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of April 22, 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-379 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $41,895 in grant funding from the California Public Utilities Commission to support the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project at the Community Learning Center and approving Budget Amendment 20.047. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $41,895 in grant funding from California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)to support the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project at the Community Learning Center and approve Budget Amendment 20.047. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On March 20,2020,the South San Francisco Public Library’s Community Learning Center (CLC)applied for a grant from CPUC to support digital literacy education services to South San Francisco and our partner cities receiving Project Read adult literacy services.On May 11,2020 the Community Learning Center was awarded $41,895 to provide broadband adoption services including digital literacy training to 135 adults,and education and outreach to educate community of available broadband internet services.Between July 2019 and March 2020 the Community Learning Center provided 25 instruction sessions in its Computer Lab with an average of 12 adult attendees.Instruction included internet use,job search,resume drafting,and English pronunciation. Funding from CPUC will allow the Community Learning Center to continue providing vital digital literacy services to residents of South San Francisco and our partner cities receiving Project Read adult literacy services. FISCAL IMPACT CPUC has approved the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project for a 24-month term,beginning May 11, 2020.The grant amount is $41,895 for the 24-month term.Acceptance of this grant will help us support valuable digital literacy programs and services.Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current FY 19-20 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 20.047.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2:Quality of Life,by strengthening learning programs through the Community Learning Center’s Digital Literacy Project. CONCLUSION Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to provide digital literacy services through the Community Learning Center.It is recommended that the City Council accept $41,895 in grant funding to support CLC’s Digital Literacy Project and approve Budget Amendment 20.047. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-380 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:5a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $41,895 in grant funding from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)to support the South San Francisco Digital Literacy Project at the Community Learning Center and approving Budget Amendment 20.047. WHEREAS,the California Public Utilities Commission has awarded the City $41,895 in grant funding to support the Community Learning Center’s Digital Literacy Project; and WHEREAS,between July 2019 and March 2020,the Community Learning Center provided 25 instruction sessions in its Computer Lab including internet use, job search, resume drafting and English pronunciation; and WHEREAS,funding from the CPUC will support the Community Learning Center in providing digital literacy programs and services to South San Francisco and partner cities receiving Project Read adult literacy services; and WHEREAS,staff recommends the acceptance of the grant funding in the amount of $41,895 from the California Public Utilities Commission to support the Community Learning Center’s Digital Literacy Project; and WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2019-2020 Operating Budget of the Library Department via Budget Amendment 20.047. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby accept $41,895 in grant funding from the California Public Utilities Commission and approve Budget Amendment 20.047 to amend the Library Department’s FY 2019-2020 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $41,895. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-205 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:6. Report regarding a resolution calling for district-based elections to fill City Council District 2 and 4,setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to section 13307 of the California Elections Code,requesting:(1) that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate the district-based election with the regular election to be held on November 3,2020;and (2)that the County Registrar perform certain election services in connection with such election including conducting the November 3,2020 district election for the City of South San Francisco;and (3)authorizing the City Manager to reimburse the County for election service costs associated with the November 3, 2020 Election (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution calling district-based elections to fill City Council District 2 and 4,setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to section 13307 of the California Elections Code,requesting:(1)that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate the general election with the regular election to be held on November 3,2020;(2)that the County Registrar perform certain election services in connection with such election including conducting the November 3, 2020 election for the City of South San Francisco;and (3)authorizing the City Manager to reimburse the County for election service costs associated with the November 3, 2020 election. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Pursuant to Ordinance No.1558-2018,the City of South San Francisco will conduct its first district-based election in November 2020 in consolidation with the statewide election date.On July 11,2018,the City Council scheduled to elect one member from Districts two and four,to respective full four year terms. Accordingly,the proposed resolution calls a district-based municipal election.Further,and in order to minimize costs,the proposed resolution authorizes the County Clerk and the San Mateo County Elections Office to perform election services for the City.Finally,the proposal authorizes the City Manager to reimburse the County for performance of such services. Election Timetable- Candidate Filing Period Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10407, the following timetable will apply: Monday, July 13, 2020 First day to issue nomination papers. Friday, August 07, 2020 Close of nomination period, and last day to call an election for ballot measures. Wednesday, August 12, 2020 Five (5) day extension of nomination period if an incumbent does not file. Candidate Statement Parameters The proposed resolution sets a $600.00 filing fee for funding the estimated cost of candidate statement printing. It also establishes that statements shall not exceed 200 words and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk with nominating documents, as required by Section 13307 of the California Elections Code. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-205 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:6. FISCAL IMPACT The budgeted cost of conducting the 2020 district-based municipal election through the County of San Mateo is $100,000.This estimate is based upon the highly variable costs of the respective 2011,2015 and 2018 elections and assumes the possibility of a citizen or city-sponsored ballot measure or initiative.As with previous elections,the final cost of the election is not available until the County issues the invoice in February of the following calendar year. CONCLUSION Adoption of the proposed resolution will call the 2020 district-based general municipal election and establish candidate statement parameters for electing one member from District two and four,to respective full four (4)year terms.It will allow for a consolidated election with the County.Finally,it will authorize the City Manager to reimburse the County for election services. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-384 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:6a. Resolution calling a general election,setting candidate statement requirements pursuant to Elections Code Section 13307,and requesting that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate a district-based municipal election with the regular election to be held on November 3,2020;requesting that the County Registrar perform certain election services in connection with such election,and authorizing the City Manager to reimburse the County for said election services. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco desires to call a district-based municipal election for the purpose of submitting to the voters the election of:to elect one member from Districts two and four, to respective four year terms; and WHEREAS,pursuant to California Elections Code Section 13307,the City Council desires to set a filing fee for the purpose of funding the cost of candidate statement printing and a word limit for such statements which applies to candidates in the general election; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires that the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consolidate the district-based municipal election with the regular election to be held on November 3,2020 pursuant to the requirements of Section 10403 of the California Elections Code; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to have the San Mateo County Registrar of Voters render certain services in connection with the general municipal election and authorize the City Manager to reimburse the County for election services. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco as follows: 1.The City Council hereby calls a district-based municipal election to be held on November 3,2020 to elect one member from Districts two and four, to respective four year terms. 2.As permitted by Section 13307 of the California Elections Code,all candidates in the district-based election set for November 3,2020 shall be required to pay $600.00 in advance and simultaneously with the submission of a candidate statement,which represents their estimated pro rata share of the cost of printing, handling,translating,and mailing the candidate statement.A candidate who submits a statement and qualifies as indigent under Section 13309 of the Elections Code shall not be required to pay his or her pro rata share of the cost of printing,handling,translating,and mailing the statement until the conditions of indigency are no longer met.The Office of the City Clerk is authorized to require payment in any reasonable form deemed appropriate to ensure collection. 3.Candidate statements submitted for the district-based election shall not exceed 200 words and shall be submitted to the Office of the City Clerk with nominating documents,as required by Section 13307 of the California Elections Code. 4.Pursuant to Sections 10400 and 10403 of the California Elections Code,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby requests that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors direct the Registrar ofCity of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-384 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:6a. South San Francisco hereby requests that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors direct the Registrar of Voters to conduct all necessary services related to the general municipal election,and to bill the City for the costs of conducting said election. 5.The County Election Department is authorized to canvass the returns of the district-based municipal election.The election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election,and only one form of ballot shall be used. 6.The City Manager is hereby authorized to reimburse San Mateo County in full for such services actually performed upon presentation of an invoice from the County. 7.The timing of the submission of nomination documents for candidates shall be governed by Section 10407 of the California Elections Code and submitted to the Office of the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m.,88 days prior to the date of the general election,which is August 07,2020.Nomination documents shall be available at the Office of the City Clerk during the hours that City Hall is normally open to the public. 8.The Office of the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters of San Mateo County. 9.Notice of the time and place of the holding of both the general and special elections is hereby given and the Office of the City Clerk is authorized,instructed,and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-956 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute various Consulting Services Agreements for On-Call Architectural,Engineering and Other Professional Services for various approved City-funded projects in the amount not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal year per agreement with selected consultant.(Jeffrey Chou, Associate Civil Engineer) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving various Consulting Services Agreements for On-Call Architectural,Engineering and other Professional Services for various approved City funded projects in the amount not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal year per agreement with selected consultant. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION In November 2016,City Council approved fifty-five (55)consultant services agreements for on-call,as needed, architectural,engineering and other professional services,which were put in place to augment city staff and help deliver multiple projects at the same time.In the past three years,staff has utilized the on-call consultants regularly as professional services are needed on all city-funded projects. On February 12,2020,staff advertised a Request for Statement of Qualifications (SOQ)for on-call architectural,engineering and other professional services.Staff asked for SOQ's for 16 service areas from consulting firms to support the CIP projects.The professional service areas solicited include:appraisal services; architecture;biological services;civil engineering,construction management and inspection services;electrical engineering;geotechnical engineering and materials testing;hazardous material testing and monitoring; landscape architecture;marine engineering;mechanical engineering;solid waste engineering;structural engineering;surveying,mapping and right-of-way engineering;traffic engineering and transportation ;and water resources. On March 11,2020,staff received one hundred sixty nine (169)proposals for the various professional service areas from consultants in response to the SOQ.Staff from the Engineering Division,Building Division, Economic and Community Development Department,Public Works Department,Parks and Recreation Department,Planning Division,and Water Quality Control Plant reviewed and rated the proposals.Per public contract code,staff selected the consultants not based on the lowest bidder,but based on the firms’ qualifications,project understanding,example projects,expertise,South San Francisco experience,reference checks,and overall quality of their proposal.Attachment 1 shows the various service areas and potential projects and tasks.Attachment 2 shows the recommended consultants to be selected for each service area. Attachment 3 shows all consultants that submitted for each services area.Attachment 4 shows the rater’s evaluation rating criteria and scoring table.Attachment 5 shows the tabulation of the raters’scores and rankings for all consultants of each service area. The on-call consultant services agreements have been very beneficial to the City as they have enabled staff to progress on all projects,provide expertise in specialized services areas,and prepare exhibits and applications for competitive grants.Since November 2016,staff has executed approximately $6.6 million dollars in task orders with the on-call consultants.The services areas that are widely used are civil engineering,landscapeCity of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-956 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:7. orders with the on-call consultants.The services areas that are widely used are civil engineering,landscape architecture,traffic engineering and transportation,and water resources.The on-call consultant services agreements are now expiring and staff is recommending procuring new and/or additional consultants for the various professional services.Based on the anticipated projects to be delivered,staff recommends increasing the number of on-call consultants for all the professional services from 55 to 79.This would allow additional capacity for the widely used services areas listed above. The consulting service agreements with the selected consultants would initially be for the term of July 1,2020 to June 30,2023,with the City Manager having the option to extend for an additional two (2)years.The two year extension would allow for the on-call consultants to complete any work they commenced prior to the end of the term. The first fiscal year of the contract will begin on July 1, 2020 and end on June 30, 2021. The Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)appropriated approximately $53.8 million worth of capital projects.To support this effort,the total not to exceed amount for each agreement over the fiscal one-year term is recommended at $300,000,although it is not anticipated to be reached for all agreements.These costs would be charged against the various approved City funded CIP projects through its sources of funding.There is no city obligation to expend any funds or guarantee any work under these agreements.The consultants will only work on an on-call basis as defined by the City on a project-by-project need.Accordingly,all work performed under the agreements will be pursuant to individual task orders that will have a specifically defined scope and schedule that will be negotiated on a project-by-project need and budget. Further,the individual agreements will acknowledge that the individual task orders will dictate the scope of work under each agreement,up to the not to exceed amount.Should an on-call consultant exceed $300,000 per fiscal year,staff will present an amendment to City Council for approval.The draft Consultant Services Agreement template has been attached to the accompanying resolution as Exhibit B.This template has been reviewed and accepted by the various selected consultants with whom the contract will be executed,and while certain minor modifications to the template agreement have been negotiated by some of these consultants,the terms of the template agreement will be substantially the same for all selected consultants. FISCAL IMPACT No fiscal impact as costs for these special on-call services will be charged to the respective projects that has been previously appropriated and approved by the City Manager and/or City Council.Each specific approved City funded CIP project budget already includes funding for architectural,engineering and/or specialized professional services. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of the various Consulting Services Agreements for On-Call Architectural,Engineering and Other Professional Services supports the City’s Strategic Plan to improve Quality of Life;by advancing the City’s Capital Improvement Program. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that City Council approve and authorize the City Manager to execute various consulting services agreements with the selected consultants listed in Attachment 2 for the various service areas.This would allow city staff to deliver approved city-funded projects in an efficient manner. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-956 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:7. Attachments: 1. Service Areas and Potential Projects 2. Recommended Consultants 3. Consultants Submitted Proposals 4. Rating Criteria and Scoring 5. Consultants Rating Summary City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™   Page 1 of 6   ATTACHMENT 1 – SERVICE AREAS AND POTENTIAL PROJECTS NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 1. Architecture • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Facility Remodels/Renovations and Tenant Improvements for: • City Hall Complex • Conference Center • Fire Stations • Senior Center • Park and other Public Restrooms • Other Administrative Offices • Other City Projects • Building Condition Assessments • Site Selection • Master Planning/Space Planning • Feasibility Studies • Renderings/Models/Displays • Disabled Accessibility Evaluations and Mitigation • Life Cycle Cost Estimates • Peer Review of Building Design by Others • Interior Design/FF&Es • Sustainable Solutions • Public Charrettes/Community Outreach • Technical Studies, Reports and Presentations • Conceptual/Schematic Design • Design Development • Final Design Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services 2. Biological Services • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Private Projects submitted for City Approval • Biological Surveys and Analysis • Mitigation • Regulatory Agency Permitting • Federal, Tribal, Regional and State Consultations • Reporting and Presentations • On-Site Monitoring (during Construction) • On-Call Services 3. Appraisal Services • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, Municipal Service, or Low-Moderate Income Housing Properties • Appraisal Services • Fair Market Lease Rates • Highest and Best Use Determinations • Revenue Projections • On-Call Services   Page 2 of 6   NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 4. Civil Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Roadways and Street Improvements • Parking Lots • Intersection Improvements • ADA Compliance Projects • Pavement Resurfacing Projects •Driveways, Curbs, Gutters, Medians, Sidewalks, Cross Gutters, Walkways • Pavement Management System •Complete Streets •Plan Checking of Private Development Grading, Drainage, and Street Improvement Plans and Technical Reports •Standard Plans & Specifications Update •Preventative Maintenance Plans •Assessment Districts – Engineer’s Reports • Staff Augmentation • Project Management • Plan Checking • Design Survey and Geometrics • Pavement Evaluation and Design • Environmental Permitting • Coordination w/Other Agencies & Utilities • Constructability/Bidability Reviews • Peer Review of PS&Es prepared by Others (Roadways/Traffic/Parks/Drainage/Sewers) • Value Engineering • AutoCAD Services • Preliminary Engineering Studies • Technical Reports • Alternatives Analysis • Final Design PS&Es •Public Outreach •Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services • Staff Augmentation is intended to Provide Qualified Engineering Staff on a Temporary, On-Call, As-Needed Basis. 5. Construction Management and Inspection Services/ Horizontal Construction • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Roadways and Street Improvements • Pavement Resurfacing • Traffic Signals • Drainage, Culverts, Basins • Grading • Sewer Pipelines and Lift Stations • Parks and Trails • Facilities • Constructability/Bidability Reviews • Value Engineering • Public Bidding Phase Support • Submittal Tracking and Reviews • Construction Staking • Construction Management & Controls • Contract Administration • Inter-agency and Third Party Utility Coordination • Construction Inspection • Storm Water Quality Inspections • Materials Testing • Progress Meetings and Reporting • Public Relations/Outreach • Progress Payments and Grant/Fund Tracking • Change Order Management • Permit Monitoring • SWPPP & Erosion/Sediment Control Monitoring •Claims & Disputes Prevention/Mitigation • Project Closeout • On-Call Services   Page 3 of 6   NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 6. Electrical Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Emergency Generators • Facility Lighting • Sports Field Lighting • Switchgear • Communications Systems • Fire Alarm and Security Systems • Street Lighting • HVAC and Building Systems • Radio Systems • Electrical/Mechanical Assessments • Feasibility Studies • Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies • Renewable Energy Solutions • Photometric Studies • Recommendations on Lights & Fixtures • Preliminary Engineering • Final Design PS&Es • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services 7. Geotechnical Engineering and Materials Testing • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Erosion and Stabilization • Site Investigations & Peer Reviews • Geologic Investigations • Soils and Asphalt Pavement Borings • Laboratory Testing • Non-destructive Testing • Geotechnical Reports • Pavement Condition Surveys • Pavement Section Design Alternatives • Retaining Wall Design Parameters • Slope Stabilization • Landslide Monitoring • Grading Observations • Multi-Trades Building Inspections and Materials Testing (asphalt, concrete, masonry, steel) • On-Call Services 8. Hazardous Materials Testing and Monitoring Services and/or Construction Material Testing / Monitoring . • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Hazardous Materials Testing (Asbestos, Molds, and others) • Laboratory Testing • Abatement and Remediation PS&Es • Policies and Procedures • Documentation and Training • Emergency Response • On-Call Services   Page 4 of 6   NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 9. Landscape Architecture • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Park Renovations • Landscaping and Streetscapes • Water-Conserving Irrigation Systems • Xeriscape • Sports Fields • Dog Park • Playgrounds, Picnic Areas • Erosion Control • Parks Condition Assessments • Parks/Trails Master Planning • Playground Equipment Inspections • Feasibility Studies • Cost Estimating • Schematics and Renderings • Reporting and Presentations • Peer Review of PS&Es Prepared by Others • Preliminary Design • Final Design PS&Es • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services 10. Mechanical Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Fuel Tanks Renovations • Grease Traps • HVAC Systems • Mechanical Building Systems • Emergency Generators • Mechanical/Electrical Systems Assessments • Feasibility Studies • Energy and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies • Renewable Energy Solutions • Preliminary Engineering • Final Design PS&Es • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services 11. Structural Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Parking Garages • Retaining Walls • Roadway and Pedestrian Bridges • Utility Vaults • Box Culverts, Headwalls •Building Framing Systems • Foundation Slabs • Buildings/Facilities Condition Assessments • Structural Analysis and Design • Seismic Evaluations • Structural Modifications • Non-destructive Testing • Rehabilitation Strategies • Preliminary Engineering • Final Design PS&Es • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services   Page 5 of 6   NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 12. Surveying, Mapping, and Right-of-Way Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Ground Control • Aerial Photography/Base Mapping • Ortho-Photogrammetry/Mapping • Design Surveys • Digital Terrain Modeling • Topographic Surveys • Construction Staking • Quality Assurance of Contractor’s Staking • Set Monuments • Records and Lands Title Research • Plats and Legal Descriptions for Right-of- Way and Easement Acquisitions • Right-of-Way Certifications (Caltrans) • Acquisition Support • Subdivision or Parcel Map Checking • On-Call Services 13. Traffic Engineering & Transportation • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Private Projects submitted for City Approval • New and Upgraded Traffic Signals • Pedestrian Crossings and Connectivity • Bicycle Lane Linkages • Signal Timing Assessments • Fiber Optics • Interconnection & Synchronization • Intersection Modifications • Transportation Planning • Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects • Traffic Calming Plans • Corridor Evaluations • Circulation Studies • Radar Speed Signs • Electronic Parking Signs • Staff Augmentation • Traffic Counts • Traffic Studies & Modeling • Speed Surveys • Parking Studies & Management • Signal Warrants • Signal Design • Signage and Striping Plans • Traffic Control and Barricading Plans • Interagency Coordination • Reporting and Presentations • Preliminary Engineering • Final Design PS&Es • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services • Staff Augmentation is Intended to Provide Qualified Traffic Engineering Staff on a Temporary, On-Call, As-Needed Basis 14. Water Resources (Storm Water/Drainage and Waste Water) • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • New and Rehabilitated Pipelines • Lift Stations • Storm Drainage Retention and Conveyance Facilities •Pipe Lining and Pipe Bursting • Spot Repairs • Wastewater Collection Master Plan • Preventative Maintenance Plans • Erosion Control • Storm Water C.3 requirements • Utility Condition Assessment & Inspections • Utility Master Planning • Alignment Studies • Hydrology/Hydraulic Analyses • Design Surveying • Environmental Permitting • Coordination with Utilities and Federal, Tribal and Regional Agencies • Utility System Modeling • Preliminary Engineering • Technical Studies and Reports • Final Design PS&Es • Reporting and Presentations • Value Engineering • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services   Page 6 of 6   NO SERVICE AREA POTENTIAL PROJECTS POTENTIAL TASKS 15. Marine Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Marina Evaluation and Design • Marina Design or Re-Design • Modern Dry Storage • Site Expansion & Upgrades • Efficiency & Movement Engineering • Bathometric Analysis • Load Engineering • Wave Studies • Market Research Preliminary Engineering • Technical Studies and Reports • Final Design PS&Es • Reporting and Presentations • Public Bidding and Construction Phase Services • On-Call Services 16. Solid Waste Engineering • Any City Property, Project, Improvements, or Municipal Services • Landfill Engineering and Evaluation • Landfill Engineering & Permitting • Construction Management • Landfill Engineering Support • Leachate Collection Systems • Slope Stability Assessments • Landfill Gas Collection Systems • Closures • Land Reclamation Page 1 of 2    ATTACHMENT 2 – RECOMMENDED CONSULTANTS TO SELECT NO. SERVICE AREA RECOMMENDED CONSULTANTS 1 Architecture Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, CA KRJ Design Group of San Mateo, CA Ratcliff of San Francisco, CA SIM Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA 2 Biological Services AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA SWCA Environmental Consultants of San Francisco, CA 3 Appraisal Services Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill, CA 4 Civil Engineering AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA NCE of Richmond, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 5 Construction Management Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA and Inspection Services / AnchorCM of Lafayette, CA Horizontal Construction Cumming Management Group Inc. of South San Francisco, CA Swinerton Management & Consulting of San Francisco, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA 6 Electrical Engineering Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA 7 Geotechnical Engineering Construction Testing Services, Inc. of San Francisco, CA and Materials Testing Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA Fugro USA Land, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Geocon Consultants, Inc. of Livermore, CA Haley & Aldrich, Inc. of Oakland, CA Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA Smith-Emery of San Francisco, CA 8 Hazardous Materials Testing Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA and Monitoring Services SCA Environmental, Inc. of San Francisco, CA and/or Construction Material Terracon Consultants, Inc. of Emeryville, CA Testing / Monitoring Page 2 of 2    9 Landscape Architecture CALA of Burlingame, CA Gates + Associates of San Ramon, CA MIG of Berkeley, CA NCE of Richmond, CA RHAA of Mill Valley, CA RRM Design Group of San Leandro, CA SSA Landscape Architects, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA SWA Group of San Francisco, CA Verde Design, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA 10 Mechanical Engineering Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 11 Structural Engineering Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 12 Surveying, Mapping, and BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA Right-of-Way Engineering Kier & Wright of Santa Clara, CA SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA 13 Traffic Engineering AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA & Transportation Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CHS Consulting Group of San Francisco, CA Crane Transportation Group of Elk Grove, CA DKS Associates of Oakland, CA Fehr & Peers of San Francisco, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. of San Jose, CA Iteris, Inc. of Oakland, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA TJKM Transportation Consultants of Pleasanton, CA 14 Water Resources BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA (Storm Water/Drainage Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA and Waste Water) Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers of San Francisco, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Woodard & Curran of Walnut Creek, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 15 Marine Engineering Anchor QEA, LLC of San Francisco, CA 16 Solid Waste Engineering NONE Page 1 of 4    ATTACHMENT 3 – CONSULTANTS SUBMITTED PROPOSALS NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANTS 1 Architecture Aetypic, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, CA KRJ Design Group of San Mateo, CA LDA Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Page & Turnbull, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Ratcliff of San Francisco, CA SIM Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA WDA of San Francisco, CA 2 Biological Services AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA A-T-S of San Francisco, CA Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC of San Francisco, CA Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA Horizon Water and Environment, LLC of Oakland, CA MIG of Berkeley, CA NCE of Richmond, CA Rincon Consultants, Inc. of Oakland, CA SWCA Environmental Consultants of San Francisco, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 3 Appraisal Services Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill, CA 4 Civil Engineering ActiveWayz Engineering, Inc. of Oakland, CA AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group of Redwood City, CA Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. of San Jose, CA NCE of Richmond, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA Page 2 of 4    5 Construction Management 4LEAF, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA and Inspection Services / Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Horizontal Construction AnchorCM of Lafayette, CA Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA CPM Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA Cumming Management Group Inc. of South San Francisco, CA Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA Griffin Structures, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA mack5 of Emeryville, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA MCK Americas Inc. of San Francisco, CA Park Engineering, Inc. of Orinda, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Swinerton Management & Consulting of San Francisco, CA Tanner Pacific, Inc. of San Carlos, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA 6 Electrical Engineering Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA IMEG Corp. of San Francisco, CA Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 7 Geotechnical Engineering Apex Testing Laboratories, Inc. of San Francisco, CA and Materials Testing BAGG Engineers of San Jose, CA Cal Engineering & Geology of Walnut Creek, CA Construction Testing Services, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA Fugro USA Land, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Geocon Consultants, Inc. of Livermore, CA Geosphere Consultants, Inc. of San Ramon, CA Haley & Aldrich, Inc. of Oakland, CA Langan of San Francisco, CA Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA Smith-Emery of San Francisco, CA Page 3 of 4    8 Hazardous Materials Testing Intertek-PSI of Oakland, CA and Monitoring Services Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA and/or Construction Material SCA Environmental, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Testing / Monitoring Terracon Consultants, Inc. of Emeryville, CA Vista Environmental Consulting, Inc. of San Leandro, CA 9 Landscape Architecture CALA of Burlingame, CA Gates + Associates of San Ramon, CA Harris Design of Berkeley, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA MIG of Berkeley, CA Miller Company Landscape Architects of San Francisco, CA MSLA of Berkeley, CA NCE of Richmond, CA PlaceWorks Inc. of Berkeley, CA RHAA of Mill Valley, CA RRM Design Group of San Leandro, CA SSA Landscape Architects, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA Studio-MLA of San Francisco, CA SWA Group of San Francisco, CA Tanaka Design Group of San Francisco, CA UDLA of San Francisco, CA Verde Design, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 10 Mechanical Engineering A & S Engineers, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA IMEG Corp. of San Francisco, CA Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 11 Structural Engineering Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, Inc. of Fresno, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA HC Structural Engineering, Inc. of San Mateo, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Lionakis of Oakland, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA Pannu Larsen McCartney Inc. of San Francisco, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. of San Francisco, CA Skyline Engineering Inc. of Salinas, CA TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA ZFA Structural Engineers of San Carlos, CA Page 4 of 4    12 Surveying, Mapping, and Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Right-of-Way Engineering BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA Kier & Wright of Santa Clara, CA Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA 13 Traffic Engineering AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA & Transportation Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CHS Consulting Group of San Francisco, CA Crane Transportation Group of Elk Grove, CA DKS Associates of Oakland, CA Fehr & Peers of San Francisco, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. of San Jose, CA Iteris, Inc. of Oakland, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA RKH Civil and Transpiration Engineering of Foster City, CA SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA TJKM Transportation Consultants of Pleasanton, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA W-Trans of Oakland, CA 14 Water Resources Akel Engineering Group, Inc. of Fresno, CA (Storm Water/Drainage BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA and Waste Water) Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. of San Jose, CA Murraysmith of Roseville, CA Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers of San Francisco, CA Water Works Engineers, LLC of San Mateo, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA Woodard & Curran of Walnut Creek, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 15 Marine Engineering Anchor QEA, LLC of San Francisco, CA 16 Solid Waste Engineering Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA   Page 1 of 1    ATTACHMENT 4 – RATING CRITERIA AND SCORING Rating Criteria Score (100 pts total) Criteria Description Firm and Staff Qualifications and Experience /50  Firm's qualifications and experience are suitable for the execution within the Service Area.  Firm proposed adequate personnel effort.  Firm's assigned personnel have requisite education, experience, and professional qualifications to perform within the Service Area.  Firm’s ability to provide quality control and management. Relevant Projects and Services Offered /40  Firm has demonstrated the ability to deliver similar scopes or projects successfully and demonstrated expert knowledge within the Service Area.  Firm offers the full breadth and quality of skills or services within the Service Area. Familiarity w/ SSF /10  Firm's permanent office housing the assigned team is local or near-local within the Bay Area.  Firm or proposed personnel have the familiarity with the City and the surrounding area required to successfully execute within the Service Area. Page 1 of 16  ATTACHMENT 5 – CONSULTANT RATING SUMMARY  NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING  1 Architecture SIM Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA93 1 95 1 97 1 1.00      Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, CA92 2 90 2 93 3 2.33      Ratcliff of San Francisco, CA87 3 90 2 85 5 3.33      KRJ Design Group of San Mateo, CA66 4 77 4 94 2 3.33      Page & Turnbull, Inc. of San Francisco, CA66 4 77 4 75 8 5.33      Aetypic, Inc. of San Francisco, CA58 8 70 6 80 7 7.00      LDA Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA60 7 58 7 89 4 6.00      WDA of San Francisco, CA61 6 58 7 85 5 6.00  Raters: Jacob Gilchrist Capital Projects Director Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer Philip Vitale Capital Projects Deputy Director     Page 2 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 2 Biological Services AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA94 1 88 2 98 1 1.33      SWCA Environmental Consultants of San Francisco, CA94 1 86 4 98 1 2.00      WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA91 4 86 4 98 1 3.00      Rincon Consultants, Inc. of Oakland, CA93 3 88 2 95 7 4.00      MIG of Berkeley, CA89 6 90 1 94 8 5.00      A‐T‐S of San Francisco, CA69 9 86 4 96 5 6.00      NCE of Richmond, CA88 7 85 7 96 5 6.33      Horizon Water and Environment, LLCof Oakland, CA84 8 85 7 97 4 6.33      Coast Ridge Ecology, LLC of San Francisco, CA91 4 78 9 92 9 7.33      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA63 10 59 10 83 10 10.00  Raters: Andrew Wemmer Water Quality Control Plant Environmental Compliance SupervisorGreg Mediati Parks and Recreation Deputy Director Joshua Richardson Parks and Recreation Parks Program Manager    Page 3 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 3 Appraisal Services Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill, CA100 1 99 1 75 1 1.00  Raters: Ernesto Lucero Economic and Community Development Coordinator Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer Nell Selander Economic and Community Development Deputy Director    Page 4 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 4 Civil Engineering NCE of Richmond, CA96 1 90 4 93 2 2.33      BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA96 1 93 3 78 10 4.67      AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA95 3 95 1 77 12 5.33      WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA94 5 81 9 91 5 6.33      Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA91 11 94 2 81 7 6.67      Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA93 7 80 11 92 3 7.00      Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.of Oakland, CA95 3 89 5 76 13 7.00      Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA85 18 87 6 92 3 9.00      Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA94 5 84 7 74 16 9.33      Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA86 15 80 11 81 7 11.00      Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA86 15 72 19 94 1 11.67      Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA90 13 81 9 76 13 11.67      CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA87 14 80 11 78 10 11.67      Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. of San Jose, CA93 7 82 8 66 22 12.33      TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA83 19 80 11 79 9 13.00      Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA91 11 53 22 90 6 13.00      Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA92 9 79 15 74 16 13.33      CSW/Stuber‐Stroeh Engineering Group of Redwood City, CA86 15 79 15 75 15 15.00      Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA92 9 74 18 72 19 15.33      SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA78 20 69 20 74 16 18.67      ActiveWayz Engineering, Inc. of Oakland, CA65 21 75 17 71 20 19.33      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA61 22 59 21 69 21 21.33  Raters: Angel Torres Engineering Division Senior Engineer Bianca Liu Engineering Division Senior Engineer Jason Hallare Engineering Division Senior Engineer    Page 5 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 5 Construction  Swinerton Management & Consulting of San Francisco, CA93 2 94 1 98 1 1.33   Management and Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA90 3 87 4 88 3 3.33   Inspection Services /  Cumming Management Group Inc. of South San Francisco, CA90 3 92 2 86 7 4.00   Horizontal Construction TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA90 3 83 11 91 2 5.33      AnchorCM of Lafayette, CA86 9 86 6 88 3 6.00      CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA80 11 87 4 87 5 6.67      Tanner Pacific, Inc. of San Carlos, CA79 13 86 6 87 5 8.00      CPM Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA87 7 85 8 81 13 9.33      Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.of Oakland, CA94 1 83 11 71 19 10.33      mack5 of Emeryville, CA87 7 88 3 65 21 10.33      Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA82 10 79 16 86 7 11.00      MCK Americas Inc. of San Francisco, CA80 11 82 13 84 9 11.00      Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA77 16 84 9 82 10 11.67      Park Engineering, Inc. of Orinda, CA89 6 81 15 78 15 12.00      Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA78 14 82 13 80 14 13.67      Ghirardelli Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA78 14 78 17 82 10 13.67      BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA74 17 84 9 77 16 14.00      4LEAF, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA73 18 77 18 82 10 15.33      Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA67 19 74 19 72 17 18.33      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA35 21 54 21 72 17 19.67      Griffin Structures, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA63 20 63 20 67 20 20.00  Raters: Bianca Liu Engineering Division Senior Engineer Greg Mediati Parks and Recreation Deputy Director Jacob Gilchrist Capital Projects Director    Page 6 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 6 Electrical Engineering Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA90 4 94 4 95 1 3.00      Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. OfSan Francisco, CA95 1 97 2 83 7 3.33      Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA95 1 85 6 92 3 3.33      YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA90 4 87 5 93 2 3.67      Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA75 7 99 1 89 4 4.00      Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA95 1 80 7 86 5 4.33      IMEG Corp. of San Francisco, CA85 6 95 3 80 8 5.67      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA75 7 63 8 80 8 7.67      TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA65 9 58 9 86 5 7.67  Raters: Jason Hallare Engineering Division Senior Engineer Nicholas Talbot  Water Quality Control Plant Plant Mechanic II Randy Chen Public Works Lead Electrical Tech    Page 7 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 7 Geotechnical Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA98 1 93 3 89 1 1.67   Engineering and  Fugro USA Land, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA88 6 86 6 81 2 4.67   Materials Testing Smith‐Emery of San Francisco, CA87 9 94 1 78 5 5.00      Haley & Aldrich, Inc. OfOakland, CA88 6 94 1 73 9 5.33      Geocon Consultants, Inc. of Livermore, CA95 2 91 4 70 11 5.67      Construction Testing Services, Inc. of San Francisco, CA95 2 85 9 75 7 6.00      Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA83 10 86 6 81 2 6.00      Cal Engineering & Geology of Walnut Creek, CA88 6 85 9 78 5 6.67      Langan of San Francisco, CA92 4 88 5 70 11 6.67      Apex Testing Laboratories, Inc. of San Francisco, CA 83 10 86 6 75 7 7.67      Geosphere Consultants, Inc. of San Ramon, CA90 5 84 11 73 9 8.33      BAGG Engineers of San Jose, CA60 12 81 12 81 2 8.67  Raters: Angel Torres Engineering Division Senior Engineer Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer    Page 8 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 8 Hazardous Materials  Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA99 1 95 1 93 1 1.00   Testing and Monitoring  SCA Environmental, Inc. OfSan Francisco, CA96 3 93 3 92 2 2.67   Services and/or  Terracon Consultants, Inc. of Emeryville, CA93 4 95 1 86 3 2.67   Construction Material  Vista Environmental Consulting, Inc. of San Leandro, CA99 1 86 5 83 4 3.33   Testing / Monitoring Intertek‐PSI of Oakland, CA92 5 87 4 80 5 4.67  Raters: Andrew Wemmer Water Quality Control Plant Environmental Compliance SupervisorAngel Torres Engineering Division Senior Engineer Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer     Page 9 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 9 Landscape Architecture RRM Design Group of San Leandro, CA96 1 92 5 95 1 2.33      SWA Group of San Francisco, CA89 4 94 4 94 2 3.33      CALA of Burlingame, CA86 5 96 2 93 4 3.67      Gates + Associates of San Ramon, CA81 9 96 2 94 2 4.33      MIG of Berkeley, CA91 2 89 9 93 4 5.00      NCE of Richmond, CA86 5 91 7 92 6 6.00      SSA Landscape Architects, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA85 7 92 5 90 7 6.33      Verde Design, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA84 8 97 1 89 12 7.00      RHAA of Mill Valley, CA90 3 89 9 88 13 8.33      Miller Company Landscape Architects of San Francisco, CA81 9 87 11 90 7 9.00      Studio‐MLA of San Francisco, CA72 14 85 12 90 7 11.00      PlaceWorks Inc. of Berkeley, CA74 13 91 7 85 14 11.33      Harris Design of Berkeley, CA79 12 78 15 90 7 11.33      Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.of Oakland, CA58 17 77 16 90 7 13.33      MSLA of Berkeley, CA80 11 84 13 83 17 13.67      UDLA of San Francisco, CA66 16 84 13 85 14 14.33      Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA71 15 73 17 85 14 15.33      Tanaka Design Group of San Francisco, CA51 18 70 18 80 18 18.00  Raters: Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer Joshua Richardson Parks and Recreation Parks Program Manager Philip Vitale Capital Projects Deputy Director    Page 10 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 10 Mechanical Engineering YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA90 2 95 2 89 1 1.67      Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. OfSan Francisco, CA90 2 93 3 88 2 2.33      Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA96 1 90 4 82 4 3.00      Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA90 2 87 6 87 3 3.67      IMEG Corp. of San Francisco, CA70 6 98 1 80 5 4.00      A & S Engineers, Inc. of San Francisco, CA77 5 86 7 78 6 6.00      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA30 7 88 5 63 7 6.33  Raters: Angel Torres Engineering Division Senior Engineer Brian Crume Parks and Recreation Facilities Manager Nicholas Talbot  Water Quality Control Plant Plant Mechanic II    Page 11 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 11 Structural Engineering Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA100 1 95 1 85 3 1.67   Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA100 1 93 4 92 1 2.00   TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA100 1 95 1 84 4 2.00   Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. OfSan Francisco, CA98 8 95 1 88 2 3.67   TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA100 1 91 5 79 5 3.67   Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.of Oakland, CA100 1 90 6 78 7 4.67   CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA100 1 78 11 73 12 8.00   Pannu Larsen McCartney Inc. of San Francisco, CA100 1 65 14 75 9 8.00   Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. OfSan Francisco, CA90 10 90 6 75 9 8.33   Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA80 11 85 8 78 7 8.67   ZFA Structural Engineers of San Carlos, CA78 13 85 8 79 5 8.67   Lionakis of Oakland, CA95 9 77 13 75 9 10.33   HC Structural Engineering, Inc. OfSan Mateo, CA80 11 78 11 67 14 12.00   Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, Inc. OfFresno, CA65 14 80 10 70 13 12.33   Skyline Engineering Inc. of Salinas, CA15 15 55 15 64 15 15.00  Raters: Erik Rietdorf Building Division Assistant Building Official  Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer    Page 12 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 12 Surveying, Mapping,  Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA91 5 83 1 88 1 2.33   and Right‐of‐Way  BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA93 3 82 2 84 3 2.67   Engineering Kier & Wright of Santa Clara, CA98 1 75 4 83 4 3.00      SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA98 1 75 4 83 4 3.00      CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA92 4 79 3 65 7 4.67      Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA90 7 65 7 85 2 5.33      Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA91 5 70 6 78 6 5.67  Raters: Angel Torres Engineering Division Senior Engineer Jason Hallare Engineering Division Senior Engineer Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer    Page 13 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 13 Traffic Engineering  Fehr & Peers of San Francisco, CA94 1 93 3 96 1 1.67   & Transportation Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton,CA91 4 98 1 87 3 2.67      DKS Associates of Oakland, CA87 12 98 1 90 2 5.00      CHS Consulting Group of San Francisco, CA93 2 91 5 75 10 5.67      Crane Transportation Group of Elk Grove, CA89 8 89 7 86 4 6.33      Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. OfSan Jose, CA91 4 87 10 78 6 6.67      TJKM Transportation Consultants of Pleasanton, CA90 7 90 6 76 8 7.00      Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA91 4 85 12 79 5 7.00      BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA93 2 88 8 70 12 7.33      AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA87 12 92 4 77 7 7.67      Iteris, Inc. of Oakland, CA88 9 88 8 76 8 8.33      Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA88 9 85 12 75 10 10.33      W‐Trans of Oakland, CA88 9 87 10 70 12 10.33      SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA83 15 79 14 70 12 13.67      Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA86 14 75 16 55 16 15.33      RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering of Foster City, CA78 16 78 15 60 15 15.33  Raters: Bianca Liu Engineering Division Senior Engineer Christopher Espiritu  Planning Division Transportation Planner Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer    Page 14 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 14 Water Resources  Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers of San Francisco, CA92 2 98 1 95 2 1.67   (Storm Water/Drainage BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA82 5 97 3 91 3 3.67   and Waste Water) Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA96 1 92 8 86 7 5.33      Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA84 4 93 6 86 7 5.67      WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA74 8 92 8 97 1 5.67      Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA65 14 98 1 91 3 6.00      Woodard & Curran of Walnut Creek, CA72 9 96 4 86 7 6.67      Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA71 10 95 5 86 7 7.33      Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA88 3 88 10 83 13 8.67      Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA66 11 88 10 87 6 9.00      CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA77 7 93 6 80 15 9.33      Akel Engineering Group, Inc. of Fresno, CA78 6 88 10 83 13 9.67      Water Works Engineers, LLC of San Mateo, CA66 11 87 13 86 7 10.33      Mott MacDonald Group, Inc. of San Jose, CA61 15 86 14 88 5 11.33      Murraysmith of Roseville, CA66 11 86 14 78 16 13.67      Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA60 16 86 14 84 12 14.00  Raters: Andrew Wemmer Water Quality Control Plant Environmental Compliance SupervisorBrian Schumacker Water Quality Control Plant Plant Superintendent Jason Hallare Engineering Division Senior Engineer    Page 15 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 15 Marine Engineering Anchor QEA, LLC of San Francisco, CA90 1 89 1 78 1 1  Raters: Jacob Gilchrist Capital Projects Director Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer Philip Vitale Capital Projects Deputy Director    Page 16 of 16      NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANT RATER‐1 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐1 FIRM RANK RATER‐2 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐2 FIRM RANK RATER‐3 TOTAL SCORE RATER‐3 FIRM RANK AVERAGE RATERS' FIRM RANKING 16 Solid Waste Engineering Greeley and Hansen LLC of San Francisco, CA47 1 80 1 74 1 1  Raters: Jason Hallare Engineering Division Senior Engineer Jeffrey Chou Engineering Division Associate Engineer Matthew Ruble Engineering Division Principal Engineer   City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:19-957 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to enter into various consulting services agreements for on-call architectural,engineering,and other professional services for various City-funded projects in an amount not to exceed $300,000 per fiscal year for a three year period per agreement with selected consultants. WHEREAS,on February 12,202,City of South San Francisco ("City")staff issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications ("SOQ")for on-call architectural,engineering,and professional services for 16 service areas from consulting firms,which professional service areas include appraisal services;architecture;biological services;civil engineering,construction management and inspection services;electrical engineering; geotechnical engineering and materials testing;hazardous material testing and monitoring;landscape architecture;marine engineering;mechanical engineering;solid waste engineering;structural engineering; surveying,mapping and right-of-way engineering;traffic engineering and transportation;and water resources; and WHEREAS,on March 11,2020,staff received one hundred sixty nine (169)proposals for the various service areas from consultants in response to the SOQ; and WHEREAS,City staff from the Engineering Division,Building Division,Economic and Community Development Department,Public Works Department,Parks and Recreation Department,Planning Division, and Water Quality Control Plant reviewed the proposals and selected the consultants based on their project understanding, example projects, expertise and proposal; and WHEREAS,staff recommends the Council approve and provide authority for the execution of the consulting services agreements with the selected consultants listed in Exhibit A and utilizing and customizing the form Consultant Services Agreement for each selected consultant, attached as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS,costs for the on-call architectural,engineering and other professional services will be charged to various city-funded projects through their sources of funding and shall not exceed $300,000 per agreement per fiscal year for the term of July 1,2020 to June 30,2023,in which the first fiscal year will begin on July 1,2020 and end on June 30,2021,with the City Manager having the option to extend their agreement for an additional two (2) years. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the Consulting Services Agreement,attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B,and utilizing this agreement for on-call architectural,engineering,and other professional services for various Capital Improvement Projects,for those selected consulting firms listed in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated herein,in an amount not to exceed $300,000 per agreement per fiscal year for the term of July 1, 2020 to June 30,2023,in which the first fiscal year will begin on July 1,2020 and end on June 30,2021,with the City Manager having an option to extend any agreement for an additional two (2) years. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:19-957 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:7a. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute on-call consulting services agreements on behalf of the City for those selected consulting firms listed in Exhibit A by utilizing the agreement listed as Exhibit B and in substantially the same form as Exhibit B,upon timely submission by the selected consultants'signed contracts and all other required documents,subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Manager is authorized to take actions consistent with the intent of this Resolution that does not materially alter the City's obligations hereunder. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page 1 of 2    EXHIBIT A – SELECTED CONSULTANTS NO. SERVICE AREA CONSULTANTS 1 Architecture Group 4 Architecture of South San Francisco, CA KRJ Design Group of San Mateo, CA Ratcliff of San Francisco, CA SIM Architects, Inc. of San Francisco, CA 2 Biological Services AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA SWCA Environmental Consultants of San Francisco, CA 3 Appraisal Services Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. of Pleasant Hill, CA 4 Civil Engineering AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA Bellecci & Associates of Pleasanton, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CSG Consultants. Inc. of Foster City, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. of Oakland, CA NCE of Richmond, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Ruggeri‐Jensen‐Azar of Pleasanton, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 5 Construction Management Aliquot Associates, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA and Inspection Services / AnchorCM of Lafayette, CA Horizontal Construction Cumming Management Group Inc. of South San Francisco, CA Swinerton Management & Consulting of San Francisco, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA 6 Electrical Engineering Interface Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Syska Hennessy Group of San Francisco, CA 7 Geotechnical Engineering Construction Testing Services, Inc. of San Francisco, CA and Materials Testing Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. of Los Gatos, CA Fugro USA Land, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA Geocon Consultants, Inc. of Livermore, CA Haley & Aldrich, Inc. of Oakland, CA Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA Smith-Emery of San Francisco, CA 8 Hazardous Materials Testing Ninyo & Moore of Walnut Creek, CA and Monitoring Services SCA Environmental, Inc. of San Francisco, CA and/or Construction Material Terracon Consultants, Inc. of Emeryville, CA Testing / Monitoring Page 2 of 2    9 Landscape Architecture CALA of Burlingame, CA Gates + Associates of San Ramon, CA MIG of Berkeley, CA NCE of Richmond, CA RHAA of Mill Valley, CA RRM Design Group of San Leandro, CA SSA Landscape Architects, Inc. of Santa Cruz, CA SWA Group of San Francisco, CA Verde Design, Inc. of Santa Clara, CA 10 Mechanical Engineering Randall Lamb Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA YEI Engineers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 11 Structural Engineering Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Quincy Engineering, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA TJC and Associates, Inc. of Oakland, CA TRC Engineers, Inc. of Rancho Cordova, CA Wood Rodgers, Inc. of Oakland, CA 12 Surveying, Mapping, and BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA Right-of-Way Engineering Kier & Wright of Santa Clara, CA SANDIS Civil Engineers Surveyors Planners of Oakland, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA 13 Traffic Engineering AECOM Technical Services, Inc. of Oakland, CA & Transportation Alta Planning + Design, Inc. of Oakland, CA BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA CHS Consulting Group of San Francisco, CA Crane Transportation Group of Elk Grove, CA DKS Associates of Oakland, CA Fehr & Peers of San Francisco, CA Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. of San Jose, CA Iteris, Inc. of Oakland, CA Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. of Pleasanton, CA TJKM Transportation Consultants of Pleasanton, CA 14 Water Resources BKF Engineers of Redwood City, CA (Storm Water/Drainage Carollo Engineers, Inc. of Walnut Creek, CA and Waste Water) Freyer & Laureta, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. of San Francisco, CA Lotus Water of San Francisco, CA Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers of San Francisco, CA Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, CA Woodard & Curran of Walnut Creek, CA WRECO of Walnut Creek, CA 15 Marine Engineering Anchor QEA, LLC of San Francisco, CA 16 Solid Waste Engineering NONE Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 1 of 18 EXHIBIT B – ON CALL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SELECTED CONSULTANTS ON CALL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND ON CALL CONSULTANT THIS AGREEMENT for on-call consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco (“City”) and _____________“Consultant”) (together sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of July 1st. 2020 (the “Effective Date”). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide consulting services on an on-call basis to City as described in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, at the time and place and in the manner specified by the respective executed Task Orders, a sample of is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, and/or and any executed Task Orders, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on June 30, 2023, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Task Order. Prior to execution of a Task Order, the City shall request a Task Order Scope Proposal from the Consultant. Consultant shall provide the City with a Task Order Scope Proposal, and if satisfactory, the City and Consultant shall execute a Task Order. Upon an executed Task Order, Consultant shall perform the services listed in the Task Order and in a manner consistent with this Agreement. 1.3 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.4 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such person or persons. 1.5 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.3 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 2 of 18 1.6 Public Works Requirements. Because the services described in Exhibit A may include “work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work,” the services may constitute a public works within the definition of Section 1720(a)(1) of the California Labor Code. As a result, Consultant is required to comply with the provisions set forth in Exhibit E, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. COMPENSATION. This On-call Services Agreement does not guarantee any amount of work for the Consultant. Task Orders will be developed and executed as needed and provided for in this Agreement. The Consultant shall be paid by the City only for completed services rendered under each approved individual Task Order. Such payment shall be full compensation for payment shall be full compensation for work performed or services rendered and for all labor, materials, supplies, equipment and incidentals necessary to complete the work stated in the Task Order. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not receive total compensation under this Agreement in an amount over Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) per fiscal year, in which the fiscal year shall begin on July 1st and end on June 30th of the following year. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant’s proposal, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. The payments for completed work under an executed Task Order shall be the only payments from City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, Consultant shall not bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the Parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for all services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain all the following information:  Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.);  The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;  A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion;  At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense;  The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder; Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 3 of 18  Consultant shall give separate notice to the City when the total number of hours worked by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds eight hundred (800) hours within a twelve (12)- month period under this Agreement and any other agreement between Consultant and City. Such notice shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete work described in Exhibit A and the estimate of time necessary to complete work under any other agreement between Consultant and City, if applicable.  The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought;  The Consultant’s signature. 2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. Each invoice shall include all expenses and actives performed during the invoice period for which Consultant expects to receive payment. 2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the five percent (5%) of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. 2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. 2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. 2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses, as specified in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein, shall not exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). Expenses not listed below are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. 2.7 Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Contractor represents and warrants that Contractor is a resident of the State of California in accordance with California Revenue & Taxation Code Section 18662, as it may be Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 4 of 18 amended, and is exempt from withholding. Contractor accepts sole responsible for verifying the residency status of any subcontractors and withhold taxes from non-California subcontractors. 2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date. 2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. 2.10 False Claims Act. Presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment, including a change order, is a violation of the California False Claims Act and may result in treble damages and a fine of five thousand ($5,000) to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation. Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s). Consultant shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration of this Agreement. 4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 5 of 18 and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self- insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator, as defined in Section 10.9. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability Insurance and Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (most recent edition). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: a. The Insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 6 of 18 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than One Million Dollars $1,000,000 covering the licensed professionals’ errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) per claim. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant shall purchase an extended period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work under this Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City for review prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. 4.3.3 Additional Requirements. A certified endorsement to include contractual liability shall be included in the policy 4.4 All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A: VII. 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish City with complete copies of all policies delivered to Consultant by the insurer, including complete copies of all endorsements attached to those policies. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. If the City does not receive the required insurance documents prior to the Consultant Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 7 of 18 beginning work, this shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies at any time. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at Consultant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the City’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. 4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. Further, if the Consultant’s insurance policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self- insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self- insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liability. Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self-insured retention and also must disclose the deductible. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 8 of 18 or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a “wasting” policy limit. 4.4.8 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City’s interests are otherwise fully protected. 4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant’s breach: a. Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; b. Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or c. Terminate this Agreement. Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all Services performed in connection with this Agreement, indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance (“Claims”), to the extent caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 9 of 18 actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. [The following should replace Section 5 text above if the consultant is providing architect, landscape architect, professional engineer, or professional land surveyor services under this Agreement.] Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. [5.1.] Separate Professional Liability (PL) Indemnity. As respect to the performance of professional services, Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless City, its officers, employees, authorized agents/volunteers (collectively, the “City Indemnitees”), from and against any damages, losses, liabilities, judgments, settlements, expenses, and costs (including reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs and expenses) to the extent caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct in the performance of services under this Agreement and anyone for whom Consultant is legally liable. Consultant has no obligation to pay for any of City Indemnitees defense related cost prior to a final determination of liability, or to pay any amount that exceeds Consultant’s finally determined percentage of liability based upon the comparative fault of Consultant. [5.2] Separate Other than Professional Liability (OPL) Indemnity. As respect to its operations, other than the performance of professional services, Consultant agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City with counsel approved by City, the City Indemnitees, from and against any damages, liabilities, judgments, settlements, costs, claims, demands, actions, suits, losses, and expenses (including reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees, costs and expenses) arising out of the death or bodily injury to any person or destruction or damage to any property, to the extent caused by Consultant's negligent acts, errors or omissions or willful misconduct in the performance of services under this Agreement and anyone for whom Consultant is legally liable. [5.3] Common PL & OPL Indemnity Provisions. Consultant’s obligations under this Section 5 shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless under Section 5.2 includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. 5.1 Insurance Not in Place of Indemnity. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 10 of 18 insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. 5.2 PERS Liability. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of City. 5.3 Third Party Claims. With respect to third party claims against the Consultant, the Consultant waives any and all rights of any type of express or implied indemnity against the Indemnitees. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however, otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. 6.2 Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work hereunder. Consultant’s failure to comply with such law(s) or regulation(s) shall constitute a breach of contract. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 11 of 18 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals, including from City, of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from City. 7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. 7.6 Contractor’s Residency and Tax Withholding. Contractor declares that Contractor is a resident of the State of California in accordance with the California Franchise Tax Board form 590 (“Form 590”), as may be amended, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit F. Unless provided with valid, written evidence of an exemption or waiver from withholding, City may withhold California taxes from payments to Contractor as required by law. Contractor shall obtain, and maintain on file for three (3) years after the termination of the Contract, Form 590s from all subcontractors. Contractor accepts sole responsibility for withholding taxes from any non-California resident subcontractor and shall submit written documentation of compliance with Contractor's withholding duty to City. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 12 of 18 8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Upon termination, City shall be entitled to all work, including but not limited to, reports, investigations, appraisals, inventories, studies, analyses, drawings and data estimates performed to that date, whether completed or not, and in accordance with Section 9.1. Consultant may cancel this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of notice of termination; City, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City all materials described in Section 9.1. City may temporarily suspend this Agreement, at no additional cost to City, provided that Consultant is given written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of temporary suspension. If City gives such notice of temporary suspension, Consultant shall immediately suspend its activities under this Agreement. A temporary suspension may be issued concurrent with the notice of termination provided for in this section. 8.2 Extension. The City Manager may, in his/her sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1 with a maximum of a two (2) year extension. Any such extension shall require Contractor to execute a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Any additional compensation beyond the not-to-exceed amount provided for under Section 2 of the Agreement may be paid by the City only based on written approval by the City Manager or City Council, as applicable, and by a written amendment between the Parties. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. 8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the Parties. 8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 13 of 18 subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. Notwithstanding any provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to City for damages sustained by City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by Consultant, and City may withhold any payments due to Consultant until such time as the exact amount of damages, if any, due City from Consultant is determined. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. 9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both Parties except as required by law. 9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 14 of 18 to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. 9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds ten thousand ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. 9.4 Records Submitted in Response to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals. All responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) or invitation to bid issued by the City become the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City selects a bid, all proposals received become a matter of public record, and shall be regarded as public records, with the exception of those elements in each proposal that are defined by Consultant and plainly marked as “Confidential,” "Business Secret" or “Trade Secret." The City shall not be liable or in any way responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal or portions thereof, if Consultant has not plainly marked it as a "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act. Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret information may be protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish that the information that a prospective bidder submits is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," and the requester takes legal action seeking release of the materials it believes does not constitute trade secret information, by submitting a proposal, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its agents and employees, from any judgment, fines, penalties, and award of attorneys’ fees awarded against the City in favor of the party requesting the information, and any and all costs connected with that defense. This obligation to indemnify survives the City's award of the contract. Consultant agrees that this indemnification survives as long as the trade secret information is in the City's possession, which includes a minimum retention period for such documents. Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including arbitration or an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief to which that Party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 15 of 18 10.2 Venue. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement. 10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties. 10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. 10.7 Conflict of Interest. During the term of this Agreement, the Consultant shall disclose any financial, business, or other relationship with City that may have an impact upon the outcome of this Agreement or any ensuing City construction project. The Consultant shall also list current clients who may have a financial interest in the outcome of this Agreement or any ensuing City construction project which will follow. Consultant certifies that it has disclosed to City any actual, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest that may exist relative to the services to be provided pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant agrees to advise City of any actual, apparent or potential conflicts of interest that may develop subsequent to the date of execution of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to complete any statements of economic interest if required by either City ordinance or State law. The Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have nor shall it acquire any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of services under this Agreement. The Consultant hereby certifies that the Consultant or subconsultant and any firm affiliated with the Consultant or subconsultant that bids on any construction contract or on any Agreement to provide construction inspection for any construction project resulting from this Agreement, has established necessary controls to ensure a conflict of interest does not exist. An affiliated firm is one, which is subject to the control of the same persons, through joint ownership or otherwise. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000, et seq. Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 16 of 18 Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090, et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve (12) months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090, et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. 10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. 10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Eunejune Kim, City Engineer/Public Works Director ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Further, the Contract Administrator has authority to approve Task Orders under this Agreement. 10.10 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when received if personally delivered; (ii) when received if transmitted by telecopy, if received during normal business hours on a business day (or if not, the next business day after delivery) provided that such facsimile is legible and that at the time such facsimile is sent the sending Party receives written confirmation of receipt; (iii) if sent for next day delivery to a domestic address by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., Federal Express); and (iv) upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. In each case notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows: Consultant ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ City NOTICES INVOICES City Clerk Engineering City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue 315 Maple Ave Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 17 of 18 South San Francisco, CA 94080 South San Francisco, CA 94080 10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. _________________________________________ Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, and F represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral pertaining to the matters herein. Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B Task Order Exhibit C Compensation Schedule Exhibit D Reimbursable Expenses Exhibit E Public Works Requirements Exhibit F Form 590 10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. 10.14 Construction. The headings in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference only and shall not limit or otherwise affect any of the terms of this Agreement. The parties have had an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement; therefore any construction as against the drafting party shall not apply to this Agreement. 10.15 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties hereto with no intent to benefit any non-signatory third parties. The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT Consulting Services Agreement between [Rev:2020.02.05] (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant Page 18 of 18 ____________________________ ______________________________ Mike Futrell, City Manager [NAME, TITLE] Attest: ____________________________ Rosa Acosta, City Clerk Approved as to Form: ____________________________ City Attorney Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant-Exhibit A- Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant-Exhibit B- Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT B SAMPLE TASK ORDER Date NAME OF FIRM FIRM ADDRESS FIRM ADDRESS Subject: Project# XXXXXX - NAME Authorization and Notice-to-Proceed for Services per Agreement per Resolution No. YYY-20YY Between the City of South San Francisco and NAME OF FIRM. Dear Name, This letter shall serve as written authorization for Task Order No. 20YY-0X and Notice- to-Proceed for the work and the cost associated with NAME OF FIRM. This work shall be done under the Agreement between Consultant and the City of South San Francisco executed on DATE per City Council Resolution No. YYY-20YY. The Not- to-Exceed amount for Task Order. 20YY-0X shall be $0.00, based on the authorized tasks in the attached proposal dated DATE. A breakdown of this work and the work authorized to date under this Agreement is as follows: Work Authorized for Agreement (Agreement NTE Amount $300,000.00) Date Authorized Amount Authorized Task Order No. 20YY-0X NAME OF SERVICES DATE $0.00 Task Order No. 20YY-0X NAME OF SERVICES DATE $0.00 Total Authorized (All Task Orders) $0.00 Amount Remaining in Agreement $300,000.00 If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact ENGINEER, Project Manager by phone at (650) 829-66XX or via email at NAME@ssf.net. Sincerely, Matthew Ruble, PE Principal Engineer Attachment: COPY OF PROPOSAL dated DATE Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant -Exhibit C - Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT C COMPENSATION SCHEDULE Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant-Exhibit D - Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT D REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable Expenses. The following constitute reimbursable expenses authorized by this Agreement: mileage, parking, tolls, printing, out of area travel, conference calls, postage, express mail, and delivery. Reimbursable expense shall be attached by the Consultant for approval by the City and shall not exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant -Exhibit E - Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT E PROVISIONS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS I. HOURS OF WORK: A. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1810, eight (8) hours of labor in performance of the services described in Exhibit A shall constitute a legal day’s work under this contract. B. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1811, the time of service of any worker employed in performance of the services described in Exhibit A is limited to eight (8) hours during any one (1) calendar day, and forty (40) hours during any one calendar week, except in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1815, which provides that work in excess of eight (8) hours during any one (1) calendar day and forty (40) hours during any one calendar week is permitted upon compensation for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours during any one (1) calendar day and forty (40) hours during any one (1) calendar week at not less than one-and- one-half (1.5) times the basic rate of pay. C. The Consultant and its subcontractors shall forfeit as a penalty to the City twenty five dollars ($25) for each worker employed in the performance of the services described in Exhibit A for each calendar day during which the worker is required or permitted to work more than eight (8) hours in any one (1) calendar day, or more than forty (40) hours in any one (1) calendar week, in violation of the provisions of California Labor Code Section 1810, et seq.. II. WAGES: A. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1773.2, the Contractor and any subcontractors shall pay not less than the general prevailing wages for each craft or type of work needed for completion of the services described in Exhibit A, as published by the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research. A copy of this publication is on file in the City Public Works Office and shall be made available on request. B. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1775, Contractor may be subject to a penalty of up to two hundred dollars ($200) per day for each worker engaged in the performance of the services described in Exhibit A that the Consultant or any subcontractor pays less than the specified prevailing wage. The Consultant or subcontractor shall also pay the difference between the prevailing wage rates and the amount paid to each worker for each calendar day or portion thereof for which each worker was paid less than the prevailing wage rate. C. Consultant shall comply with all of the following requirements: 1. contracts between the Consultant and the subcontractor for the performance of part of the services described in Exhibit A shall include a copy of the provisions of California Labor Code Sections 1771, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815. Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant -Exhibit E - Page 2 of 2 2. The Consultant shall monitor payment of the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages by the subcontractor by periodic review of the subcontractor’s certified payroll records. 3. Upon becoming aware of a subcontractor’s failure to pay the specified prevailing rate of wages, the Consultant shall diligently take corrective action to halt or rectify the failure, including, but not limited to, retaining sufficient funds due the subcontractor for performance of the services described in Exhibit A. 4. Prior to making final payment to the subcontractor, the Consultant shall obtain an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury from the subcontractor that the subcontractor has paid the specified general prevailing rate of per diem wages for employees engaged in the performance of the services described in Exhibit A and any amounts due pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1813. D. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1776, the Consultant and each subcontractor engaged in performance of the services described in Exhibit A shall keep accurate payroll records showing the name, address, social security number, work, straight time and overtime hours worked each day and week, and the actual per diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed in performance of the services described in Exhibit A. Each payroll record shall contain or be verified by a written declaration that it is made under penalty of perjury, stating both of the following: 1. The information contained in the payroll record is true and correct. 2. The employer has complied with the requirements of Sections 1771, 1811, and 1815 for any work performed by the employer’s employees on the public works project. The payroll records required pursuant to California Labor Code Section 1776 shall be certified and shall be available for inspection by the City and its authorized representatives, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations and shall otherwise be available for inspection in accordance with California Labor Code Section 1776. E. In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1777.5, the Consultant, on behalf of the Consultant and any subcontractors engaged in performance of the services described in Exhibit A, shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with California Labor Code Section 1777.5 governing employment and payment of apprentices on public works contracts. Consulting Services Agreement between (DATE) City of South San Francisco and On Call Consultant-Exhibit F - Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT F FORM 590 3478989.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-291 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding adoption of an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco to implement the ability for Classic Miscellaneous members in the Executive Management Unit to pay a portion of the employer share of their CalPERS pension costs.(Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council waive reading and adopt an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of Administration,California Public Employees’Retirement System (CalPERS)and the City of South San Francisco to implement the ability for Classic Miscellaneous members in the Executive Management Unit to pay a portion of the employer share of their CalPERS pension costs. BACKGROUND The City Council previously waived reading and introduced the following ordinance: ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. (Introduced on 5/13/2020; vote 5-0) This ordinance is now ready for adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-292 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:8a. An Ordinance Approving an Amendment to the Contract Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco WHEREAS,the Public Employees'Retirement Law (California Government Code Section 20000 et seq.,the "Law")permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees'Retirement System by the execution of a contract,and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (the "City")and the Board of Administration California Public Employees'Retirement System have entered into a contract effective September 1,1945 (and heretofore subsequently amended) related to the Public Employees' Retirement System ("Contract"); and WHEREAS,the City has negotiated with its Executive Management Unit a Compensation Plan effective July 1,2017 through June 30,2022,that includes a provision stating that with the implementation of the PERS amendment and as authorized by GC 20516(f),Local Miscellaneous Classic Members and the City agree to a pension-cost sharing arrangement where all Classic members shall pay,in addition to their current 7%or 8% employee contribution,an additional one percent (1%)effective the first full pay period of July 2020 and an additional one percent (1%)for a total additional two percent (2%)effective the first full pay period of July 2021; and WHEREAS,the California Public Employees'Retirement System staff have prepared the attached Amendment to Contract to implement the ability of Executive Management Unit Local Miscellaneous member employees to share in the employer costs of their pension benefit. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. RECITALS. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing Recitals are true and correct. Section 2. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT. The City Council does hereby approve the Amendment to Contract between the Board of Administration, California Public Employees'Retirement System and the City Council of the City of South San Francisco ("Amendment") attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. AUTHORIZATION. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-292 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:8a. The City Council hereby authorizes,empowers and directs the Mayor of the City to execute the Amendment and any documents related thereto on behalf of the City. Section 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the:City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk's Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Section 5. 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. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/11/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-188 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding a resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges,approving the stormwater management service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21,and directing the county to collect stormwater management service charges on the official tax assessment roll.(Andrew Wemmer,Environmental Compliance Supervisor). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and,by a four-fifths vote,adopt a resolution approving the following actions: (1)Approve the report of stormwater management service charges; (2)Approve the stormwater management service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21; and (3)Direct the county to collect stormwater management service charges on the official tax assessment roll. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Environmental Protection Agency imposes regulations that mandate local government to control and reduce stormwater pollution runoff.The Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987 grants regulatory authority to state government.The framework for regulating stormwater discharge exists through a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit.The permit is implemented and enforced by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The NPDES Municipal Regional Permit (MRP)regulates stormwater compliance.The SWRCB renewed the MRP on November 19, 2015. This 152-page permit contains 22 provisions including: ·Municipal operations ·New development and redevelopment ·Industrial and commercial site control ·Illicit discharge detection and elimination ·Construction site control ·Public information and outreach ·Water quality monitoring ·Pesticides toxicity control ·Trash load reduction ·Mercury controls ·Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) controls ·Copper controls City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-188 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. ·Management of other chemical compounds San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP)is the countywide program that works with cities to help them meet the MRP.The fiscal year 2020-21 marks the 28th year of South San Francisco’s participation in this program. Water Pollution Prevention Program Examples of general program responsibilities include: ·Coordinate the overall program efforts; ·Submit annual reports to the Regional Water Quality Control Board; ·Develop and sponsor training workshops; and ·Develop educational/informational materials for dissemination within jurisdictions. Examples of City-specific program activities include: ·Street sweeping,storm drain cleaning and other maintenance-related activities that may increase stormwater quality; ·Minimizing or eliminating potential stormwater pollution sources at commercial and industrial facilities through inspection and educational outreach activities,and to effectively prohibit illicit discharges (such as oil, paint, or soapy wash water) to the City’s storm drain systems; and ·Educating the public about the differences between the sanitary sewer and storm drain systems and the causes of stormwater pollution. Accomplishments of the South San Francisco FY 2019-20 Water Pollution Prevention Program to date include: ·Responded to over 31 spill or illicit discharge complaints of materials (i.e.,paint,oil,fuel,or concrete materials) that had the potential to enter into the storm drain system; ·The Environmental Compliance Inspectors conducted over 133 erosion control inspections; ·The Environmental Compliance Inspectors conducted over 173 stormwater inspections of food facilities, auto repair facilities, and industrial facilities; ·Reviewed over 158 building and construction plans and prepared written comments requesting incorporation of stormwater pollution prevention measures and post-construction stormwater treatment measures; ·On August 27,2019,the Environmental Compliance Program and Water Quality Control Division staffed an outreach and information booth at the SSF Mayor’s Town Hall event.Staff interacted with over 100 community members and distributed 99 reusable bags and various other outreach materials; ·On September 17-18,2019,the City of South San Francisco’s Environmental Compliance Program participated in Pollution Prevention Week.Staff set up an outreach booth at the Public Library,and staff distributed 86 reusable bags and various other outreach materials to the community; ·The Environmental Compliance Program set up an outreach booth on August 10,August 17 and October 5,2019,to provide pollution prevention outreach to the community at the SSF Farmers’Market and staff distributed 267 reusable bags and various other outreach materials to the public; ·On Saturday,September 21,2019,the City of South San Francisco in partnership with the County of City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-188 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. ·On Saturday,September 21,2019,the City of South San Francisco in partnership with the County of San Mateo,sponsored a Creek Clean-Up Event of Colma Creek,north of the Utah Bridge,which was a three-hour event with approximately 96 volunteers,including city staff and community members, collecting over 1200 gallons of trash; ·On Saturday,September 28,2019,the Environmental Compliance Program hosted an outreach table at the SSF Concert in the Park,held at Orange Memorial Park,to provide pollution prevention outreach and information to over 400 members of the public.Environmental compliance staff member distributed 235 reusable bags, and various other outreach materials to community members; ·The Environmental Compliance Program participated in several additional city-sponsored and community events, providing pollution prevention information, and distributing outreach materials. Current Stormwater Fees On July 19,1993,the City Council adopted a stormwater fee that,at the time,represented an equitable distribution of stormwater regulation costs.The City established fees in 1993,taking into consideration the size and use of the parcel and the estimated amount of stormwater runoff generated by the parcel.Over the last 26 years,the MRP compliance requirements have increased,while the funding mechanisms for stormwater management have not increased. The fee continues to remain the same since its inception in 1993. Under the City’s Municipal Code requirements,the Finance Director has filed with the City Clerk a report containing a summary of the annual charges of real property,computed in conformity with the schedule of charges.Additionally,the City Clerk published the notice of the public hearing per the applicable Municipal Code requirements.Following the adoption of the resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21,the City Clerk will file a copy of the report,including the amounts of the service charges for each parcel,with the county auditor so that the county collects stormwater management service charges on the official tax assessment roll. Fee Amendment Process In October 2017, the State Assembly passed Senate Bill (SB) 231. Previously, stormwater was not included under the definition of “sewer” in Proposition 218, so approval of new or increased charges for stormwater management services would have required voter or property owner approval. The Legislature’s intention with SB 231 was for stormwater fees/increases to follow the same path through Public Notice and Hearing as the sanitary sewer service charges. Taxpayer groups have promised to challenge any stormwater fees increased utilizing the process for sanitary sewer charges, as authorized by SB 231. The courts have not yet ruled on the validity of SB 231. As a result, very few (if any) municipalities have implemented this process to increase stormwater fees. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP)Division promotes public health and environmental stewardship. Continuing to fund the Storm Water Program helps to ensure clean stormwater runoff to Colma Creek and the San Francisco Bay.The stormwater program positively influences the quality of life for South San Francisco Residents by protecting public health and safety. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-188 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9. FISCAL IMPACT Expected revenue from the fiscal year 2020-21 stormwater fees is approximately $430,667.The proposed program budget for the fiscal year 2020-21 is $1,243,966.The remaining funding will be supplemented with the gas tax and general funds,as stormwater fees collected continue to fall short of the total service cost by roughly $814,000 per year.To stormwater,fees need to increase to make the fiscal shortfall whole.At the direction of City Council, staff can begin the proposition 218 processes to increase stormwater fees. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing,and by a four-fifths vote,adopt a resolution to: (1)Adopt the report of stormwater management service charges; (2)Approve the stormwater management service charges for the fiscal year 2020-21; and (3)Direct the county to collect the stormwater management service charges on the official tax assessment roll to ensure continued funding of the stormwater program at the current rate. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/4/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-189 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution approving the report of stormwater management service charges for fiscal year 2020-21,approving the stormwater management service charges for fiscal year 2020-21 and directing the stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll. WHEREAS,South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04 enables the City of South San Francisco (“City”)to establish a system of charges for the local portion of the San Mateo County Stormwater Management Program; and WHEREAS,pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04,a public hearing notice, announcing a public hearing to be held on June 10,2020 was published as required for the enactment of the subject stormwater charges; and WHEREAS, the proposed local program budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $1,243,966; and WHEREAS,the Stormwater Service Charges are maintained at the same level established in fiscal year 1993- 94; and WHEREAS,pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 14.04,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 10, 2020; and WHEREAS,staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Report of Stormwater Management Service Charges,approve the Stormwater Management Service Charges for fiscal year 2020-21 for property within the City, and direct stormwater management service charges to be collected on the official tax assessment roll. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby takes the following actions: 1.Adopts the Report of Stormwater Management Service Charges, attached hereto as Exhibit A, 2.Approves the stormwater management service charges,for fiscal year 2020-21,as set forth in Exhibit B , attached hereto and incorporated herein, and 3.Directs the stormwater management service charges for fiscal year 2020-21 to be collected on the official tax assessment roll,together with real property taxes,and that the amount shall constitute liens upon the properties which shall be effective at the same time and to the same extent as is provided for by law in the case of real property taxes with like penalties for delinquencies. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/17/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-189 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:9a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/17/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Exhibit A CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHARGES FOR FY 2020-2021 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SERVICE CHARGES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Public Hearing at a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, June 10, 2020, commencing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chambers, at the Municipal Services Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California, to consider the adoption of charges to be collected on the tax roll for the local portion of the San Mateo Stormwater Management Program pursuant to Chapter 14.04 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. The Council may continue the hearing from time to time without further written notice. Written correspondence may be submitted to the attention of the City Council, at the address below. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the written report containing a description of each parcel receiving stormwater management services and the proposed charge for each parcel has been filed with the City Clerk and is available for public review. The following formula, proposed for adoption, shall be used to calculate stormwater service fees for each parcel: PARCEL SIZE ÷ BASE THRESHOLD x EDU RATE = ANNUAL SERVICE FEE (sq. footage) (average sq. ft. of (per class) single family dwelling) [number of EDU’s] Sample Fees per Classification: Type of Parcels Annual Rate 1.Single Family Residential 5,352 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $8.72 = $ 8.72 [1 EDU] 2.Multi-Family Residential 10,704 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.42 = $ 34.84 [2 EDU] 3.Commercial/Industrial (a)16,056 sq. ft ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.86 = $ 53.58 [3 EDU’s] (b)43,560 sq. ft ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $17.86 = $ 145.36 ( 1 acre) [8.139 EDU’s] 4. Vacant 13,380 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $1.74 = $ 4.35 [2.5 EDU] Exhibit B 5. Parking Lots 10,704 sq. ft. ÷ 5,352 sq. ft. (base) x $26.14 = $ 52.28 [2 EDU] The actual per parcel Stormwater Program Fees scheduled for adoption will be available for review in the City Clerk’s Office. Questions concerning the Stormwater Program Fees should be directed to the Environmental Compliance Supervisor, Water Quality Control Division, Department of Public Works, (650) 877-8555. If you challenge in court the action taken by the City Council regarding the item described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice of in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearings. If you have any questions or wish to submit written correspondence regarding this matter, contact the City Clerk, at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080 or (650) 877- 8518. Rosa Acosta City Clerk City of South San Francisco May 13, 2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding a resolution to update the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds,as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS)to vehicle miles traveled (VMT),pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013)and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines.(Chris Espiritu, Senior Planner and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council ,as recommended by the Planning Commission,adopt a resolution updating the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds to comply with state- mandated change from level of service (LOS)to vehicle miles traveled (VMT),pursuant to Senate Bill 743 and new 2019 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Senate Bill (SB)743 requires changes be made to the method by which agencies analyze transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).It modifies the environmental review process by removing automobile delay (as described by Level of Service (LOS))or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion,as a significant impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA.Instead of LOS,SB 743 requires that CEQA assessments for transportation impacts completed after July 1,2020 be based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT),a measure of how much driving is generated by a project,to better align with state greenhouse gas (GHG)reduction goals.In keeping with SB 743,staff is recommending appropriate VMT thresholds to allow the City of South San Francisco to transition to the VMT metric to assess environmental impacts. BACKGROUND The State of California has adopted several bills over the last decade in an effort to reduce GHG emissions and the effects of climate change.The transportation sector (including private automobiles)is one of the largest producers of GHG emissions.Targets for GHG emission reductions have been established and substantial regulatory efforts are underway to ensure that these reduction targets are met. Reducing the amount of automobile travel throughout the state is one of the major strategies being put forth to reduce GHG emissions.In an effort to reduce auto travel,the State is questioning the traditional use of LOS and congestion-related traffic analysis.Reducing traffic congestion and improving LOS by increasing roadway capacity promotes or induces additional vehicle trips,thereby increasing the total amount of traffic and transportation related GHG emissions.Additionally,by prioritizing the movement of automobiles over other modes of travel through measures such as wider roadways,the use of LOS has also constrained the use of alternative modes of transportation (e.g.,transit,bicycles,walking)that reduce transportation related GHG City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. emissions. Adopted in 2013,SB 743 balances the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development,promotion of public health through active transportation,and reduction of GHG emissions by eliminating traffic congestion as a significant impact under CEQA.It requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to amend CEQA Guidelines by developing alternative criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas.These criteria must promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions,the development of multimodal transportation networks,and a diversity of land uses”.In particular,the measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled,vehicle miles traveled per capita,automobile trip generation rates,or automobile trips generated”. Once the CEQA Guidelines are amended to include those alternative criteria,auto delay will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA. (Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)) Pursuant to SB 743,OPR adopted new CEQA guidelines in 2018,including the new Guidelines Section 15064.3,specifying that a project’s effect on automobile delay no longer constitutes a metric for determining significant environmental impact related to transportation,and analysis will now be related to the amount and distance that a project might cause people to drive,via a new metric,VMT.The metric shift from LOS to VMT focuses on regional traffic patterns and reducing GHG emissions,rather than vehicle delays on local roadway networks.Per the revised CEQA Guidelines,all determinations of transportation impacts under CEQA must be based on VMT analysis after July 1, 2020. The OPR most recently published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018 to provide technical guidance and recommendation on assessment of VMT,thresholds of significance,and mitigation measures.This Technical Advisory provides support for determining the screening criteria and thresholds of significance based on VMT, and is attached to this report as Attachment 2. DISCUSSION Current City Policies related to LOS and CEQA Review of Traffic Impacts Currently,the City’s General Plan Transportation Element has multiple policies related to LOS and one related to VMT,but not specifically related to applying VMT as a threshold of significance for purposes of impact review under CEQA: Street System 4.2-G-10 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and,through the arrangement of land uses,improved alternate modes,and enhanced integration of various transportation systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles travels. Traffic Operations and Service Standards 4.2-G-15 Strive to maintain LOS D or better on arterial and collector streets,at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. 4.2-G-16 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. 4.2-G-17 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station,or a City- designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. Level of Service 4.2-I-17 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS standards. 4.2-I-18 Implement,to the extent feasible,circulation system improvements illustrated in Figures 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 prior to deterioration in levels of service below the stated standard. In addition to the Transportation Element,the City’s Climate Action Plan identifies community policies, programs and projects to reduce GHG emissions and VMT: Land Use and Transportation Goal LUT1: Reduce Emissions from Transportation Measure 1.1 Expand active transportation alternatives by providing infrastructure and enhancing connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian access. Measure 1.2 Support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee commutes. Measure 1.3 Integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities and community facilities,and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices. While local agencies are required to adopt and utilize a VMT threshold for CEQA transportation analysis by July 1,2020,they may still retain LOS as a standard for local planning and/or general plan compliance purposes.LOS analysis could continue to be useful in certain circumstances,such as identifying when an intersection with stop signs should be replaced with a traffic signal,or to evaluate intersection operations when access to a site creates a new leg to the intersection. The City of South San Francisco is currently working on multiple studies/plans that will further coordinate City policies related to transportation, including the implementation of VMT and LOS requirements. ·2040 General Plan Update, which will set overarching policy goals ·Completed Mobility 20/20 transportation study for East of 101 ·Updated East of 101 Specific Plan ·Active SSF Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update ·Zoning Ordinance Update,including a revised Transportation Demand Management Ordinance,as aCity of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. ·Zoning Ordinance Update,including a revised Transportation Demand Management Ordinance,as a companion to the updated General Plan ·Climate Action Plan Update ·Development of a Citywide Transportation Sub-Area Model ·Revised Citywide Transportation Impact Fee to capture multi-modal projects At this time,the City cannot eliminate LOS analysis from transportation review unless the General Plan Transportation Element is amended to remove this analysis requirement,and staff is recommending that any such changes be incorporated into the larger General Plan Update process.Ultimately,the City will be able to comprehensively identify and prioritize all types of transportation projects through this larger process. Therefore,City staff is only recommending that the local impact threshold be amended from LOS to VMT Screening Thresholds and VMT Thresholds of Significance at this time to comply with the July 1,2020 implementation deadline.Specific mitigations related to VMT impacts will be collected as part of the aforementioned planning efforts. As part of the General Plan Update process,the City has contracted with Fehr &Peers as a sub-consultant to Raimi +Associates to provide transportation analysis.One of the included sub-tasks is to develop a VMT methodology and thresholds to be applied per new CEQA guidance,which will allow for future preparation of the General Plan Update EIR documents in accordance with the new VMT requirements.Fehr &Peers has prepared a “Proposed VMT Threshold and Analysis Methods”memo that is attached to this report (Attachment 1). The VMT metric measures how many miles South San Francisco residents travel by vehicle (residential VMT), how many work-based miles employees who work in South San Francisco travel by vehicle (work VMT),or how many total vehicle miles include an origin and/or destination in South San Francisco (total VMT).As indicated in “Table 1:Draft Work,Residential and Total VMT,by Location”of the Fehr &Peers Memo,South San Francisco has a work VMT per employee that is 14 percent higher than the regional average,a residential VMT per resident that is 27 percent lower that the regional average,and a total VMT per service population that is 2 percent lower than the regional average.This means that most employment projects attract employees from the Bay Area region to South San Francisco and will likely have a significant VMT impact.On the other hand,new residential projects result in fewer miles traveled and will likely have a less than significant impact for CEQA purposes. VMT Screening Thresholds OPR recommends strategies to streamline projects (i.e.,not require further transportation analysis)that are proposed in locations that have close proximity to transit or in low-VMT areas,or that fit within a size threshold.If a project meets screening thresholds or falls within the types of transportation projects listed,then it is presumed VMT impacts would be less than significant for the project and a detailed VMT analysis is not required. Staff is recommending that the following screening thresholds be set. Location-Based Screening for VMT ·Proximity to Transit -Projects within ½mile walkshed of an existing or planned high-quality fixedCity of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. ·Proximity to Transit -Projects within ½mile walkshed of an existing or planned high-quality fixed route transit corridor (SamTrans ECR or SamTrans 130 routes)or major transit station (SSF BART,San Bruno BART,SSF Caltrain)should be presumed to have no impact on VMT per CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b)(1).Upcoming changes to the SamTrans bus network and the East of 101 shuttle services may allow some additional areas to be screened out of VMT analysis in the future.(See Figure A in Attachment 1) Ferry terminals only qualify for screening if they are served by high-quality bus service,which is not the case for the SSF Ferry Terminal under current conditions;however,this could change in the future with bus service changes. ·Low-VMT Zones.Residential projects located in low-VMT zones (see Figure B in Attachment 1)would require only a qualitative discussion of VMT to discuss the travel characteristics of the zone that the project is located within. VMT Screening on Project Size and Type (per OPR Guidelines) ·Projects attracting fewer than 110 trips per day. ·Local-serving retail at a size less than 50,000 square feet ·100-percent affordable residential developments in infill locations VMT Impact Thresholds If a project does not fit within one of the screening thresholds identified above,it would then be required to provide further VMT analysis to determine if the project will have any impact in relation to transportation.In its 2018 Guidelines,OPR recommends a reduction in VMT of 15 percent below the regional average.Staff is recommending that the City of South San Francisco follow OPR’s recommendation at this time,with the ability to amend this threshold as part of the larger General Plan Update process in the future.Following are recommended thresholds of significance for specific project types: ·For residential projects,a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. ·For office projects,a project would cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per employee minus 15 percent. ·For mixed-use projects,each component of the mixed-use project would be evaluated independently, per the significance criteria above. ·A land use plan may have a significant impact on VMT if it results in a net increase in total VMT and is not consistent with the region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. ·For retail uses,a project may have a significant impact on VMT if it would result in a net increase in Total VMT. ·For all other land uses,a project may have a significant impact on VMT if it would result in a net increase in Total VMT. ·For transportation projects,a project would cause substantial additional VMT if the project would result City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. ·For transportation projects,a project would cause substantial additional VMT if the project would result in a net increase in VMT.An assessment of total VMT without the project and then with the project would be made,and the difference in the two assessments is the amount of VMT attributable to the project. Practical Impacts of Change to VMT As discussed,South San Francisco has a work VMT per employee that is higher than the regional average,a residential VMT per resident that is lower that the regional average,and a total VMT per service population that is slightly lower than the regional average.This means that most employment projects in South San Francisco will have a significant VMT impact while many residential projects will likely have a less than significant impact.The Fehr &Peers memo includes examples of the transportation impact analysis for five hypothetical projects. The biggest practical effects and changes to the CEQA process are the ability to screen projects and the type of mitigation measures that will be required for a proposed project with VMT impacts.Under current CEQA LOS standards,an employment project that was determined to have a significant impact would be required to provide typical LOS-related mitigations,such as roadway widening (which is typically infeasible in South San Francisco), turning lane or traffic queuing improvements, or other roadway infrastructure-related projects. Under the proposed VMT standards,projects that meet screening criteria would experience a streamlined transportation analysis.Projects with VMT impacts would be required to consider typical VMT related mitigations such as offsite bike lanes and trails to improve access to transit stations,pedestrian improvements to provide a direct path to transit stops/stations,bus and shuttle infrastructure or service improvements,TDM measures beyond the current requirements,or the provision of on-site housing or amenities such as childcare, gym equipment and food service to reduce off-site trips.However,full mitigation of VMT impacts for employment may not be feasible since the City’s VMT per worker is much higher than the regional average. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The identification of the proposed VMT regulations is not a “project”pursuant to CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378,and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060 (c)(3).Separately and independently,the proposal is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3),as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts;and/or Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1),as the proposal is ministerial,because the City is mandated to adopt the proposal.As such,the new thresholds are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply. PLANNING COMMISSION On May 21,2020,the Planning Commission held a public hearing,reviewed the proposed VMT thresholds, and voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed resolution.The Planning Commission resolution is attached to this staff report. The Commission inquired about the process for evaluating mitigation measures related to Transportation City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. The Commission inquired about the process for evaluating mitigation measures related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM)and how those measures would be applied to development projects.Staff clarified that projects are required to meet current code requirements related to TDM,and projects can implement additional measures to increase alternative mode splits.Until such time that more comprehensive VMT-related mitigation measures are adopted by the City as part of the General Plan Update process,each project would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and project-specific mitigation measures would be addressed during each development project’s transportation analysis. The Commission also inquired about the frequency of updates to the regional average VMT metrics being used for comparison analysis with the City’s VMT metrics and shared concerns about approving projects using outdated data in the future.Staff discussed that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)and C/CAG travel demand models,which are used to calculate the regional average VMT metrics,are updated every five years.Projects evaluated between updates to the regional travel models would still be analyzed using the best-available data for analysis of regional VMT. The Commission raised questions regarding flexibility in applicable mitigations and whether local roadway impacts would be addressed in the future.Staff clarified that screening projects per OPR guidance and implementing a VMT-based analysis does not prevent or limit the City’s decision-making bodies from specific measures to reduce a project’s effects.The change from LOS to VMT allows the City to ensure a project is consistent with the City’s vision and goals,while maintaining flexibility in the type and extent of mitigations that can be implemented. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed VMT Thresholds will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The proposed VMT Thresholds help to achieve the following priorities of the City’s Strategic Plan: Priority #2:Quality of Life Initiative 2.2 -Excellent bike paths,pedestrian ways,and multi-modal transportation options. The change in CEQA transportation impact analysis to VMT will ultimately result in Projects with VMT impacts being required to consider VMT related mitigations such as new bike lanes,pedestrian improvements to provide a direct path to transit stops/stations, and other alternative mode transportation options. CONCLUSION The mandate for using VMT thresholds for all CEQA analysis beginning July 1,2020 offers the City the ability to holistically evaluate a project for emissions related impacts.Large employment development that will draw employees from the entire Bay Area region will be required to include mitigations that support transit use and on-site amenities;most residential projects will have a less then significant impact under the VMT metric and cannot be denied for local roadway impacts.If adopted,the proposed resolution would take effect on July 1, City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-313 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10. 2020, consistent with the timeline under CEQA to update the City’s traffic impact analysis threshold. Consistent with the report’s discussion and pending adoption timeline,staff recommends that the City Council take the following action: 1.Adopt a resolution recommending updating the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds,as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS)to vehicle miles traveled (VMT),pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013) and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. Attachment: 1.VMT Memo by Fehr & Peers, dated May 11, 2020 2.CA OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory (December 2018) 3.Planning Commission Resolution 2853-2020 4.Presentation Associated Documents: 1.VMT Resolution (20-314) a.Exhibit A - City of South San Francisco VMT Thresholds City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 1 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Memorandum    Date: May 11, 2020 To: Billy Gross, Tony Rozzi, and Chris Espiritu, City of South San Francisco From: Taylor McAdam, Daniel Jacobson, and Teresa Whinery, Fehr & Peers Subject: Proposed VMT Threshold and Analysis Methods SF19-1040 The following memorandum is meant to summarize the proposed approach for the City of South San Francisco to assess VMT under CEQA. The contents of the memorandum are as follows: Table of Contents  SB 743 Essentials .......................................................................................................................................................... 2  What Does SB 743 Change in South San Francisco? ............................................................................ 2  VMT Metric ............................................................................................................................................................ 2  Comparison Geography .................................................................................................................................... 2  VMT Accounting Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 3  VMT Impact Threshold ...................................................................................................................................... 3  Regional VMT Benchmarks ...................................................................................................................................... 4  Part I: Changes to the Development Review Process .................................................................................... 5  Screening ................................................................................................................................................................ 5  Mitigations ............................................................................................................................................................. 7  Part II: Project and Plan Examples ......................................................................................................................... 9  Project 1: 200-Unit Multi-Family Building Downtown .......................................................................... 9  Project 2: 500,000-Square Foot Office Development East of 101 .................................................... 9  Project 3: City-Led Mixed-Use Specific Plan in Lindenville ................................................................. 9  Project 4: New Primary School .................................................................................................................... 10  Project 5: Intersection Expansion on El Camino Real ......................................................................... 10  City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 2 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com SB 743 Essentials  New statewide legislation requires changes to how agencies analyze transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Historically, many cities used vehicle Level of Service (LOS) to analyze the environmental effects of a project on traffic congestion. California Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires CEQA assessment based on vehicle miles traveled, a measure of how much driving is generated by a project, to better align with state greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals. In short, the new CEQA law changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. The California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has issued a Technical Advisory that includes general guidance for agencies to implement SB 743. Lead agencies have until July 1, 2020 to fully comply. This memorandum outlines the recommendations for VMT impact thresholds and analysis methods for the City of South San Francisco. What Does SB 743 Change in South San Francisco? SB 743 has ramifications for a range of city processes, including but not limited to the General Plan, CEQA process, the entitlements review process, transportation impact fee programs, and the TDM Ordinance. VMT thresholds and methods need to be adopted by the City for land use projects, land use plans, and transportation projects. More detail on changes to the development review process are outlined below in Part I: Changes to the Development Review Process. VMT Metric Different project types will require the use of different VMT metrics, including residential VMT, work VMT, and total VMT. These metrics measure how many miles South San Francisco residents travel by vehicle (residential VMT), how many work-based miles employees who work in South San Francisco travel by vehicle (work VMT), or how many total vehicle miles include an origin and/or destination in South San Francisco (total VMT). OPR guidance recommends assessing residential projects using residential VMT and office projects using work VMT. Mixed use or institutional land use projects are more nuanced and VMT recommendations are outlined below in Part II: Project & Plan Examples. In order to compare the plan’s or project’s relative transportation efficiency to the regional average, OPR recommends presenting VMT as a per capita metric; residential VMT per resident, work VMT per employee, and total VMT per service population. Comparison Geography OPR recommends using a regional geography for office project comparisons and either a regional or city geography for residential project comparisons. Given South San Francisco’s central location in the region, we believe that the city geographic area is not robust enough to capture the full City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 3 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com length of most trips or evaluate the interaction of the project or plan in a regional setting. Fehr & Peers recommends using the nine-county Bay Area region as the default comparison geography for VMT assessment. The nine-county Bay Area region will capture the full length of work trips and would be most consistent with OPR’s guidance. As described in Part II: Project & Plan Examples, there are a few “local-serving” land uses for which we recommend using San Mateo County as the comparison geography. VMT Accounting Methodology A trip-based model looks at each trip in isolation while tour-based models look at a chain of trips including multiple stops. Although both can be used to calculate VMT, OPR recommends using a tour-based VMT accounting method that is based on a chain of trips. The MTC model is the sole tour-based travel demand model available for South San Francisco. However, the MTC model lacks the level of local roadway network and land use detail that is necessary for this assessment. Instead, Fehr & Peers recommends using the C/CAG Regional Model, a trip-based model, plus the South San Francisco Subarea Model to calculate both regional VMT and local VMT for the plan or project in question. VMT Impact Threshold Different project types require different thresholds. For office, residential, and mixed-use projects, OPR suggests a reduction in VMT of 15 percent below the regional average. Exceptions to this recommendation are discussed below in Part II: Project & Plan Examples. For retail projects and capacity-increasing roadway projects the impact should be based on the net increase in total VMT. This means that an assessment of total VMT without the project and an assessment with the project should be made; the difference between the two is the amount of VMT attributable to the project. Following OPR’s guidance, any transportation project that results in a net increase in VMT would constitute a significant impact. VMT Impact Mitigation Options The available methods of mitigating a VMT impact are to either 1) change the project or 2) implement physical or programmatic mitigations designed to reduce VMT. South San Francisco’s current TDM Ordinance does not enforce implementation to the degree necessary for TDM programs to qualify under the new law. TDM mitigation is described in more detail in Part I: Changes to the Development Review Process. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 4 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Regional VMT Benchmarks Table 1 shows the work, residential, and total VMT for the nine-county Bay Area region and the per capita metric for the respective populations. Equivalent metrics are presented for South San Francisco. As shown, South San Francisco has a work VMT per employee that is 14 percent higher than the regional average, a residential VMT per resident that is 27 percent lower than the regional average, and a total VMT per service population that is two percent lower than the regional average. This means that most employment projects in South San Francisco will have a significant VMT impact while many residential projects will likely have a less than significant impact. Mixed use and other unique land use projects will fall somewhere in between as described below in Part II: Project & Plan Examples. San Mateo County VMT summary statistics are also presented as a point of comparison. South San Francisco exhibits lower work VMT per employee, residential VMT per resident, and total VMT per service population compared with county averages. Table 1: DRAFT Work, Residential and Total VMT, by Location Location Total Work VMT Total Employment Work VMT per Employee Total Residential VMT Total Residential Population Residential VMT per Resident Total VMT Total Population (Emp + Residents) Total VMT per Service Population Bay Area Region 60,757,237 4,285,001 14.2 116,114,466 8,198,636 14.2 345,789,041 12,483,637 27.7 South San Francisco 910,023 56,347 16.2 689,853 67,166 10.3 3,362,564 123513 27.2 Percent Difference +14% -27% -2% San Mateo County 6,860,036 394,228 17.4 9,098,066 742,380 12.3 33,946,470 1,136,608 29.9 Source: C/CAG-VTA Bi-County Transportation Demand Model, 2019; South San Francisco Subarea Model, Fehr & Peers, 2020. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 5 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Part I: Changes to the Development Review Process  Screening One of the biggest changes with the implementation of SB 743 is the ability to “screen” or skip the VMT analysis based on project characteristics associated with lower levels of VMT. Screening is determined by proximity to transit, existing zone VMT, project size, and project type. Screening on Project Size and Type According to OPR, projects attracting fewer than 110 trips per day are presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact. The City may also screen “local-serving” uses such as K-12 schools, banks, and parks. The City may also screen “local-serving” retail at a size less than 50,000 square feet. Because of the unique nature of local-serving retail and smaller projects, in that they tend to attract trips that would otherwise go a longer distance, most small projects can be assessed qualitatively and do not require a quantitative VMT analysis. Finally, evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Location-Based Screening Proximity to Transit: CEQA statute explicitly states that projects within ½ mile of an existing or planned high-quality transit corridor or major transit station should be presumed to have no impact on VMT. In South San Francisco, major transit stations include the South San Francisco BART station, South San Francisco Caltrain station, and the San Bruno BART station. The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal does not qualify due to its lower service levels. High-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. In South San Francisco, this includes existing bus stops along the SamTrans ECR route (along El Camino Real) and SamTrans 130 route (along parts of Grand Avenue, Linden Avenue, and Hickey Boulevard). South San Francisco has a unique circumstance where privately operated transit service may also meet the screening criteria of a high-quality transit corridor: Genentech’s Glen Park BART shuttle operates every 12 minutes during peak periods, serving over 1,100 riders per day. The service is open to the public, and a schedule is posted on the SamTrans website. A key consideration is whether this shuttle constitutes a “fixed route” service: unlike transit agencies, Genentech does not publish any planning documents that commit to providing service for a given amount of time; however, it has operated high service levels on this route for over a decade. One possibility is to recognize the Glen Park BART shuttle as a high-quality transit route only if 1) a five year City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 6 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com commitment is made to serving stops at 15 minute or better frequency (similar to a transit agency’s Short Range Transit Plan); and 2) the service is open to the public with a published map and schedule. Upcoming changes to the SamTrans bus network (Reimagine SamTrans) and East of 101 shuttle services may change the transit screening process. The City should ensure its screening process reflects the latest service levels. Fehr & Peers recommends screening based on existing ½-mile walksheds, as shown in Figure A, unless a project includes new pedestrian connections that would change the walkshed. If a project qualifies for screening based on existing walksheds, but these walksheds still present a barrier to pedestrian access, the City may consider adding offsite improvement measures for pedestrian access during entitlement review. Low-VMT Zones: OPR’s Technical Advisory presents a method for “map-based” screening, where projects located in existing low-VMT zones (assessed at the TAZ-level) require only a qualitative discussion of VMT. Map-based screening would only apply to residential projects in South San Francisco given that work VMT is so much higher than the regional average. Attached Figure B shows that residential low-VMT zones cover all but the most auto-oriented corners of the City. Infill Best Practice Location-based screening is only valid if proposed projects comply with planning best practices for infill development. Disqualifications include a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75, parking ratios higher than required by the City, inconsistency with Plan Bay Area, or replacement of affordable residential units with a smaller number of market-rate units. The City may still consider requiring physical improvement measures during entitlement review to further support pedestrian access to transit as described above. Transportation Project Screening The City may screen transportation projects based on whether they result in increased or decreased vehicle capacity on a roadway in the regional Congestion Mitigation Program. Certain transportation projects may be presumed not to increase vehicle capacity, and therefore not to contribute to increased VMT. Example projects include installation of bicycle, pedestrian, or transit facilities, or projects designed to address a local circulation concern. As such, transportation projects that do not result in an increase in vehicle capacity or are not located on a roadway in the regional CMP may be discussed qualitatively only. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 7 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Mitigations Mitigations should exhibit a nexus with the Project’s VMT impact, focusing on physical and programmatic measures to shift project-related trips to transit and active transportation. The following types of mitigations may be considered: • Offsite bike lanes and trails to improve access to transit stations and connect a project with the City’s existing and planned bike network. • Offsite sidewalk and crosswalk additions/improvements, bulbouts, median refuges, slip lane removals, road diets, and other pedestrian improvements to provide a direct path to transit stops/stations and support mode shift to walking for short trips. • Offsite bus and shuttle infrastructure or service improvements, such as on-street stops, transit lanes, queue jumps, transit signal priority, or increased frequency along with access improvements described above. • Site plan modifications to improve project connectivity to transit and active transportation. • Fully subsidized transit fares and participation in local employer shuttle programs, if not already included in a project’s TDM program. • Provision of on-site amenities such as childcare, gym equipment, and food service to reduce off-site trips. Recent South San Francisco CEQA studies with VMT impact analyses have approached mitigations in this manner, emphasizing building out planned citywide improvements that may intersect with or serve a large share of project-related trips. Even with such mitigations, it is likely that most VMT impacts for employment projects will be significant and unavoidable due to the City’s high VMT and lack of available evidence to quantify reductions below the threshold of significance. Nonetheless, by accepting a significant and unavoidable impact, it is still incumbent on the City and project sponsor to implement all reasonable and feasible measure available to partially mitigate the impact. Citywide Planning Considerations What about the TDM Ordinance? The City’s TDM Ordinance functions primarily as a traffic management measure and does not provide “substantial evidence” to mitigate VMT impacts under CEQA. The TDM Ordinance focuses on managing drive alone mode share, resulting in performance consistent with countywide averages.1 VMT is also shaped by vehicle trip generation and vehicle trip lengths, which are not 1In 2017, the TDM Ordinance covered about 19,000 of the City’s 57,000 employees. Drive-alone mode shares vary by employer, with Genentech having the lowest (59 percent for 12,000 employees) while other City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 8 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com monitored by the TDM Ordinance. Data collected for the General Plan and recent transportation impact analyses suggest that South San Francisco employers tend to have average trip generation rates and above-average vehicle trip lengths, which contribute to above-average VMT. Therefore, the effects of TDM programs consistent with the TDM Ordinance requirements should already be reflected in VMT thresholds described in this document. What about Impact Fees? SB 743 does not change anything about the Mitigation Fee Act, so there is no inherent legal contradiction between the City’s existing impact fee programs and the upcoming switchover to using VMT as a CEQA metric. The City currently has two transportation impact fees funding general project expenditures – an East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee, which funds projects targeting intersection LOS, and a Bicycle & Pedestrian Impact Fee, which provides a small funding stream for pedestrian and bicycle projects. However, the City may still want to reconsider its approach to impact fees in the context of the General Plan and citywide planning processes. While projects in the East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee have acted as a de-facto source for intersection LOS mitigations in EIRs, analysis conducted in the Mobility 20/20 Study suggests these projects are increasingly ineffective at addressing corridor- wide transportation issues and often counterproductive in supporting mode shift and VMT goals. What role does LOS play? While SB 743 removes vehicle delay from the assessment of environmental concerns, it continues to allow cities to set standards for local roadways as part of their General Plan and Circulation Element. Essentially, should the City wish to retain LOS as part of its development review process, vehicle delay and traffic concerns would be addressed during the entitlements and development application process rather than as an environmental concern. LOS may also be addressed in an Impact Fee program as described above. If the Circulation Element of the General Plan includes an LOS-based standard, the environmental analysis of the General Plan may find a significant impact to VMT, because such a standard would likely require roadway capacity improvements that increase total VMT in the City. A hybrid approach by some cities has been to maintain an LOS policy goal, but to supersede this goal with a complete streets policy that prioritizes safety and multimodal accessibility over LOS. The City of South San Francisco’s already has a Complete Streets Policy, but in practice it has typically been superseded by the LOS policy goal in the past. office/R&D averaging 73 percent (encompassing 6,00 employees) . The citywide and countywide drive alone commute mode share is 71 percent, suggesting the TDM Ordinance helps the City match county averages. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 9 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Part II: Project and Plan Examples  This section examines the transportation impact analysis process for five hypothetical projects. Project 1: 200-Unit Multi-Family Building Downtown Upon confirming that the proposed project meets infill best practices, the City could use map- based screening to dismiss VMT impacts. This is because the project would be assessed using residential VMT per resident and Downtown is in a low residential-VMT zone. VMT would be discussed qualitatively alongside project impacts on geometric design hazards, emergency vehicle access, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity, and transit. Project 2: 500,000-Square Foot Office Development East of 101 Upon confirming that the proposed project falls outside of the high-quality transit screening buffer, the City would require a quantitative VMT analysis to be performed. The office development is large enough to necessitate a local model run to assess work VMT per capita. The model would first be calibrated to existing conditions, at which point the relevant analysis area would be modified to include the proposed land use. The model would be run for No Project and Plus Project scenarios, and total VMT for the project site would be divided by the projected number of employees. If the total is at least 15 percent below the regional average for work- based VMT per worker, there would be a finding of a less-than-significant impact on VMT; otherwise, there would be a significant impact to VMT. Project 3: City-Led Mixed-Use Specific Plan in Lindenville City-led area plans cannot be screened out of VMT impact analysis. A specific plan would be analyzed using a local model run to assess total VMT. The difference in VMT would be compared with and without the project on both a total VMT basis and a per capita VMT basis. Per capita VMT would be assessed per service population and would be the total VMT for each scenario divided by the total number of daily employees, residents, and visitors for each scenario. The specific plan would need to be fully assessed for its effects on VMT. If the plan increases both total VMT and VMT per service population is more than 15 percent above the regional average, it would have a significant impact on transportation; otherwise, it will have a less-than-significant impact on transportation. This plan could also be assessed by looking at each population separately (i.e., residential VMT per resident, work VMT per employee, other (non-home or work) VMT per visitor). If VMT were increased with the specific plan, the sole mitigation would be to change the plan until the land use changes did not result in a VMT increase. However, once VMT impacts have been discussed and accepted, future projects within the Plan would be able to proceed without necessarily requiring an EIR. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 10 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com Project 4: New Primary School OPR guidance states that increasing access to “common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare” is a potential measure to reduce VMT. Adding a school or grocery store to a neighborhood that does not have one, can reduce the trip length for residents in that neighborhood to access those good and services. OPR only suggests quantitative thresholds for office, residential, and retail projects; it leaves discretion of these “other” land use types to lead agencies. The City could choose to identify a list of “local serving” land uses for exemption from quantitative VMT analysis. This list should be specific, however, in defining “local serving” for each land use category. Some grocery stores may serve a more regional purpose (Costco, for example), as may also be the case for some schools (a private school, for example). The list of local serving uses can be a guide and evaluated on a project-by-project basis at the City’s discretion. Upon confirming that a project is local serving, the project can proceed with a qualitative discussion of VMT only. Should there be concern that a retail, institutional, entertainment, or other use possibly create a regional draw, VMT should be evaluated quantitatively. If a project is large enough, its effect on VMT can be evaluated using the South San Francisco Subarea Model. For smaller projects, VMT per capita can be compared to a County or Regional average using an off-model comparison. For a private school project, for example, school-based VMT per student for the project could be compared to the countywide school-based VMT per student. The intent of this comparison is to prove that the private school is also “local serving” and that the VMT per student is not any higher than the countywide average. This is different than the threshold of 15 percent below the regional average because unlike with office trips and residential trips, local-serving schools or retail are already the best-case scenario. It would be unreasonable to ask a project to reduce its VMT impact below the best-case scenario. Project 5: Intersection Expansion on El Camino Real Transportation projects are assessed using total VMT and not compared on a per capita basis. An intersection expansion—such as adding a left-turn pocket—would require a qualitative discussion of VMT, unless it was located on, or would have capacity effects on, a roadway in the CMP (in South San Francisco this is restricted to El Camino Real or a freeway). Thus a roadway project on El Camino Real would need to be studied quantitatively by using the South San Francisco Subarea Model to assess total VMT with and without the additional roadway capacity. If the intersection expansion resulted in no change in VMT, or a change in VMT less than the margin of error of the model, there would be no significant impact to transportation. If the change increased VMT, there would be a significant impact to transportation. If the model shows an increase in VMT, the primary mitigation would be to change the project. City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 11 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com City of South San Francisco May 11, 2020 Page 12 of 12 332 Pine Street | 4th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94104 | (415) 348-0300 | Fax (415) 773-1790 www.fehrandpeers.com ON EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS IN CEQA TECHNICAL ADVISORY December 2018 Contents A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Technical Considerations in Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled ......................................................... 4 1. Recommendations Regarding Methodology ................................................................................ 4 D. General Principles to Guide Consideration of VMT .......................................................................... 7 E. Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds .................................................................... 8 1. Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects ............................................................................... 12 2. Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects ....................... 15 3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans ............................................................................ 18 4. Other Considerations .................................................................................................................. 19 F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel ........................................... 19 1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects .......................................... 22 2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects ............................................................. 23 G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation ...................................................................... 25 H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives .................................................................................................... 26 Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count ....................................................................... 29 Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches ............ 32 1 | Page December 2018 A. Introduction This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as a service to professional planners, land use officials, and CEQA practitioners. OPR issues technical assistance on issues that broadly affect the practice of land use planning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). (Gov. Code, § 65040, subds. (g), (l), (m).) The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice. Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. As one appellate court recently explained: “During the last 10 years, the Legislature has charted a course of long-term sustainability based on denser infill development, reduced reliance on individual vehicles and improved mass transit, all with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 21099 is part of that strategy . . . .” (Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712, 729.) Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Id., subd. (b)(1); see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts].) To that end, in developing the criteria, OPR has proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).) This advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. Again, OPR provides this Technical Advisory as a resource for the public to use at their discretion. OPR is not enforcing or attempting to enforce any part of the recommendations contained herein. (Gov. Code, § 65035 [“It is not the intent of the Legislature to vest in the Office of Planning and Research any direct operating or regulatory powers over land use, public works, or other state, regional, or local projects or programs.”].) This December 2018 technical advisory is an update to the advisory it published in April 2018. OPR will continue to monitor implementation of these new provisions and may update or supplement this advisory in response to new information and advancements in modeling and methods. 2 | Page December 2018 B. Background VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B- 16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050. The transportation sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided a path forward for achieving these emissions reductions from the transportation sector in its 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. CARB determined that it will not be possible to achieve the State’s 2030 and post-2030 emissions goals without reducing VMT growth. Further, in its 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, CARB found that despite the State meeting its 2020 climate goals, “emissions from statewide passenger vehicle travel per capita [have been] increasing and going in the wrong direction,” and “California cannot meet its [long-term] climate goals without curbing growth in single-occupancy vehicle activity.”1 CARB also found that “[w]ith emissions from the transportation sector continuing to rise despite increases in fuel efficiency and decreases in the carbon content of fuel, California will not achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet mandates for 2030 and beyond without significant changes to how communities and transportation systems are planned, funded, and built.”2 Thus, to achieve the State’s long-term climate goals, California needs to reduce per capita VMT. This can occur under CEQA through VMT mitigation. Half of California’s GHG emissions come from the transportation sector3, therefore, reducing VMT is an effective climate strategy, which can also result in co-benefits.4 Furthermore, without early VMT mitigation, the state may follow a path that meets GHG targets in the early years, but finds itself poorly positioned to meet more stringent targets later. For example, in absence of VMT analysis and mitigation in CEQA, lead agencies might rely upon verifiable offsets for GHG mitigation, ignoring the longer-term climate change impacts resulting from land use development and infrastructure investment decisions. As stated in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan: “California’s future climate strategy will require increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities, and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Accommodating population and economic growth through travel- and energy-efficient land use provides GHG-efficient growth, reducing GHGs from both transportation and building energy use. GHGs can be further reduced at the project level through implementing energy- efficient construction and travel demand management approaches.”5 (Id. at p. 102.) 1 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2018) 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, pp. 4, 5, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf. 2 Id., p. 28. 3 See https://ca50million.ca.gov/transportation/ 4 Fang et al. (2017) Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Only the Beginning: A Literature Review of the Co-Benefits of Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled. 5 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 102, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 3 | Page December 2018 In light of this, the 2017 Scoping Plan describes and quantifies VMT reductions needed to achieve our long-term GHG emissions reduction goals, and specifically points to the need for statewide deployment of the VMT metric in CEQA: “Employing VMT as the metric of transportation impact statewide will help to ensure GHG reductions planned under SB 375 will be achieved through on-the-ground development, and will also play an important role in creating the additional GHG reductions needed beyond SB 375 across the State. Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375.”6 VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near-term and the long- term. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment. Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health. Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.7 VMT and Economic Growth. While it was previously believed that VMT growth was a necessary component of economic growth, data from the past two decades shows that economic growth is possible without a concomitant increase in VMT. (Figure 1.) Recent research shows that requiring development projects to mitigate LOS may actually reduce accessibility to destinations and impede economic growth.8,9 6 Id. at p. 76. 7 Fang et al. (2017) Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Only the Beginning: A Literature Review of the Co-Benefits of Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled, available at https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/NCST-VMT-Co-Benefits-White-Paper_Fang_March-2017.pdf. 8 Haynes et al. (Sept. 2015) Congested Development: A Study of Traffic Delays, Access, and Economic Activity in Metropolitan Los Angeles, available at http://www.its.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2015/11/Haynes_Congested-Development_1-Oct-2015_final.pdf. 9 Osman et al. (Mar. 2016) Not So Fast: A Study of Traffic Delays, Access, and Economic Activity in the San Francisco Bay Area, available at http://www.its.ucla.edu/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Taylor-Not-so-Fast-04-01-2016_final.pdf. 4 | Page December 2018 Figure 1. Kooshian and Winkelman (2011) VMT and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 1960-2010. C. Technical Considerations in Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled Many practitioners are familiar with accounting for VMT in connection with long-range planning, or as part of the CEQA analysis of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions or energy impacts. This document provides technical information on how to assess VMT as part of a transportation impacts analysis under CEQA. Appendix 1 provides a description of which VMT to count and options on how to count it. Appendix 2 provides information on induced travel resulting from roadway capacity projects, including the mechanisms giving rise to induced travel, the research quantifying it, and information on additional approaches for assessing it. 1. Recommendations Regarding Methodology Proposed Section 15064.3 explains that a “lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled . . . .” CEQA generally defers to lead agencies on the choice of methodology to analyze impacts. (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409 [“the issue is not whether the studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better” … rather, the “relevant issue is only whether the studies are sufficiently credible to be considered” as part of the lead agency’s overall evaluation].) This section provides suggestions to lead agencies regarding methodologies to analyze VMT associated with a project. Vehicle Types. Proposed Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). For an apples-to-apples 5 | Page December 2018 comparison, vehicle types considered should be consistent across project assessment, significance thresholds, and mitigation. Residential and Office Projects. Tour- and trip-based approaches 10 offer the best methods for assessing VMT from residential/office projects and for comparing those assessments to VMT thresholds. These approaches also offer the most straightforward methods for assessing VMT reductions from mitigation measures for residential/office projects. When available, tour-based assessment is ideal because it captures travel behavior more comprehensively. But where tour-based tools or data are not available for all components of an analysis, a trip-based assessment of VMT serves as a reasonable proxy. Models and methodologies used to calculate thresholds, estimate project VMT, and estimate VMT reduction due to mitigation should be comparable. For example: • A tour-based assessment of project VMT should be compared to a tour-based threshold, or a trip-based assessment to a trip-based VMT threshold. • Where a travel demand model is used to determine thresholds, the same model should also be used to provide trip lengths as part of assessing project VMT. • Where only trip-based estimates of VMT reduction from mitigation are available, a trip-based threshold should be used, and project VMT should be assessed in a trip-based manner. When a trip-based method is used to analyze a residential project, the focus can be on home-based trips. Similarly, when a trip-based method is used to analyze an office project, the focus can be on home-based work trips. When tour-based models are used to analyze an office project, either employee work tour VMT or VMT from all employee tours may be attributed to the project. This is because workplace location influences overall travel. For consistency, the significance threshold should be based on the same metric: either employee work tour VMT or VMT from all employee tours. For office projects that feature a customer component, such as a government office that serves the public, a lead agency can analyze the customer VMT component of the project using the methodology for retail development (see below). Retail Projects. Generally, lead agencies should analyze the effects of a retail project by assessing the change in total VMT 11 because retail projects typically re-route travel from other retail destinations. A retail project might lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns. 10 See Appendix 1, Considerations About Which VMT to Count, for a description of these approaches. 11 See Appendix 1, Considerations About Which VMT to Count, “Assessing Change in Total VMT” section, for a description of this approach. 6 | Page December 2018 Considerations for All Projects. Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries, for example, by failing to count the portion of a trip that falls outside the jurisdiction or by discounting the VMT from a trip that crosses a jurisdictional boundary. CEQA requires environmental analyses to reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) Thus, where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT. Combining land uses for VMT analysis is not recommended. Different land uses generate different amounts of VMT, so the outcome of such an analysis could depend more on the mix of uses than on their travel efficiency. As a result, it could be difficult or impossible for a lead agency to connect a significance threshold with an environmental policy objective (such as a target set by law), inhibiting the CEQA imperative of identifying a project’s significant impacts and providing mitigation where feasible. Combining land uses for a VMT analysis could streamline certain mixes of uses in a manner disconnected from policy objectives or environmental outcomes. Instead, OPR recommends analyzing each use separately, or simply focusing analysis on the dominant use, and comparing each result to the appropriate threshold. Recommendations for methods of analysis and thresholds are provided below. In the analysis of each use, a mixed-use project should take credit for internal capture. Any project that includes in its geographic bounds a portion of an existing or planned Transit Priority Area (i.e., the project is within a ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor) may employ VMT as its primary metric of transportation impact for the entire project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subds. (a)(7), (b)(1).) Cumulative Impacts. A project’s cumulative impacts are based on an assessment of whether the “incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2); see CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(1).) When using an absolute VMT metric, i.e., total VMT (as recommended below for retail and transportation projects), analyzing the combined impacts for a cumulative impacts analysis may be appropriate. However, metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, 223; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(3).) 7 | Page December 2018 D. General Principles to Guide Consideration of VMT SB 743 directs OPR to establish specific “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects[.]” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1).) In establishing this criterion, OPR was guided by the general principles contained within CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable case law. To assist in the determination of significance, many lead agencies rely on “thresholds of significance.” The CEQA Guidelines define a “threshold of significance” to mean “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative 12 or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) Lead agencies have discretion to develop and adopt their own, or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies, “provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at subd. (c); Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Substantial evidence means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Id. at § 15384 (emphasis added); Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109.) Additionally, the analysis leading to the determination of significance need not be perfect. The CEQA Guidelines describe the standard for adequacy of environmental analyses: An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151 (emphasis added).) These general principles guide OPR’s recommendations regarding thresholds of significance for VMT set forth below. 12 Generally, qualitative analyses should only be conducted when methods do not exist for undertaking a quantitative analysis. 8 | Page December 2018 E.Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds As noted above, lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 218-223 [lead agency had discretion to use compliance with AB 32’s emissions goals as a significance threshold]; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) However, Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code states that the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote: (1) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) development of multimodal transportation networks; and (3) a diversity of land uses. It further directed OPR to prepare and develop criteria for determining significance. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1).) This section provides OPR’s suggested thresholds, as well as considerations for lead agencies that choose to adopt their own thresholds. The VMT metric can support the three statutory goals: “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1), emphasis added.) However, in order for it to promote and support all three, lead agencies should select a significance threshold that aligns with state law on all three. State law concerning the development of multimodal transportation networks and diversity of land uses requires planning for and prioritizing increases in complete streets and infill development, but does not mandate a particular depth of implementation that could translate into a particular threshold of significance. Meanwhile, the State has clear quantitative targets for GHG emissions reduction set forth in law and based on scientific consensus, and the depth of VMT reduction needed to achieve those targets has been quantified. Tying VMT thresholds to GHG reduction also supports the two other statutory goals. Therefore, to ensure adequate analysis of transportation impacts, OPR recommends using quantitative VMT thresholds linked to GHG reduction targets when methods exist to do so. Various legislative mandates and state policies establish quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. For example: •Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020. •Senate Bill 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030. •Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2008), the California Air Resources Board GHG emissions reduction targets for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to achieve based on land use patterns and transportation systems specified in Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS). Current targets for the State’s largest MPOs call for a 19 percent reduction in GHG emissions from cars and light trucks from 2005 emissions levels by 2035. •Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. 9 | Page December 2018 • Executive Order S-3-05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. • Executive Order B-16-12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation. • Executive Order B-55-18 (2018) established an additional statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. It states, “The California Air Resources Board shall work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal.” • Senate Bill 391 requires the California Transportation Plan to support 80 percent reduction in GHGs below 1990 levels by 2050. • The California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy (2016) describes California’s strategy for containing air pollutant emissions from vehicles, and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets. • The California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target describes California’s strategy for containing GHG emissions from vehicles, and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets. Considering these various targets, the California Supreme Court observed: Meeting our statewide reduction goals does not preclude all new development. Rather, the Scoping Plan … assumes continued growth and depends on increased efficiency and conservation in land use and transportation from all Californians. (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 220.) Indeed, the Court noted that when a lead agency uses consistency with climate goals as a way to determine significance, particularly for long-term projects, the lead agency must consider the project’s effect on meeting long-term reduction goals. (Ibid.) And more recently, the Supreme Court stated that “CEQA requires public agencies . . . to ensure that such analysis stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504.) Meeting the targets described above will require substantial reductions in existing VMT per capita to curb GHG emissions and other pollutants. But targets for overall GHG emissions reduction do not translate directly into VMT thresholds for individual projects for many reasons, including: • Some, but not all, of the emissions reductions needed to achieve those targets could be accomplished by other measures, including increased vehicle efficiency and decreased fuel carbon content. The CARB’s First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan explains: 10 | Page December 2018 “Achieving California’s long-term criteria pollutant and GHG emissions goals will require four strategies to be employed: (1) improve vehicle efficiency and develop zero emission technologies, (2) reduce the carbon content of fuels and provide market support to get these lower-carbon fuels into the marketplace, (3) plan and build communities to reduce vehicular GHG emissions and provide more transportation options, and (4) improve the efficiency and throughput of existing transportation systems.”13 CARB’s 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act states on page 28 that “California cannot meet its climate goals without curbing growth in single-occupancy vehicle activity.” In other words, vehicle efficiency and better fuels are necessary, but insufficient, to address the GHG emissions from the transportation system. Land use patterns and transportation options also will need to change to support reductions in vehicle travel/VMT. • New land use projects alone will not sufficiently reduce per-capita VMT to achieve those targets, nor are they expected to be the sole source of VMT reduction. • Interactions between land use projects, and also between land use and transportation projects, existing and future, together affect VMT. • Because location within the region is the most important determinant of VMT, in some cases, streamlining CEQA review of projects in travel efficient locations may be the most effective means of reducing VMT. • When assessing climate impacts of some types of land use projects, use of an efficiency metric (e.g., per capita, per employee) may provide a better measure of impact than an absolute numeric threshold. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra.) Public Resources Code section 21099 directs OPR to propose criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in selecting a significance threshold that may be appropriate for their particular projects. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance . . . recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research, and in light of an assessment by the California Air Resources Board quantifying the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold. Fifteen percent reductions in VMT are achievable at the project level in a variety of place types.14 Moreover, a fifteen percent reduction is consistent with SB 743’s direction to OPR to select a threshold that will help the State achieve its climate goals. As described above, section 21099 states that the 13 California Air Resources Board (May 2014) First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 46 (emphasis added). 14 CAPCOA (2010) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 55, available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. 11 | Page December 2018 criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.” In its document California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals 15, CARB assesses VMT reduction per capita consistent with its evidence-based modeling scenario that would achieve State climate goals of 40 percent GHG emissions reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent GHG emissions reduction levels from 1990 by 2050. Applying California Department of Finance population forecasts, CARB finds per-capita light-duty vehicle travel would need to be approximately 16.8 percent lower than existing, and overall per-capita vehicle travel would need to be approximately 14.3 percent lower than existing levels under that scenario. Below these levels, a project could be considered low VMT and would, on that metric, be consistent with 2017 Scoping Plan Update assumptions that achieve climate state climate goals. CARB finds per capita vehicle travel would need to be kept below what today’s policies and plans would achieve. CARB’s assessment is based on data in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. In those documents, CARB previously examined the relationship between VMT and the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets. The Scoping Plan finds: “While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific goals and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32. Through developing the Scoping Plan, CARB staff is more convinced than ever that, in addition to achieving GHG reductions from cleaner fuels and vehicles, California must also reduce VMT. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward needed reductions, but alone will not provide the VMT growth reductions needed; there is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals.”16 Note that, at present, consistency with RTP/SCSs does not necessarily lead to a less-than-significant VMT impact.17 As the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update states, VMT reductions are necessary to achieve the 2030 target and must be part of any strategy evaluated in this Plan. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward this goal, but alone will not provide all of the VMT growth reductions that will be needed. There is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals.”18 15 California Air Resources Board (Jan. 2019) California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-plan-identified-vmt-reductions-and- relationship-state-climate. 16 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 101. 17 California Air Resources Board (Feb. 2018) Updated Final Staff Report: Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, Figure 3, p. 35, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb2018.pdf. 18 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 75. 12 | Page December 2018 Also, in order to capture the full effects of induced travel resulting from roadway capacity projects, an RTP/SCS would need to include an assessment of land use effects of those projects, and the effects of those land uses on VMT. (See section titled “Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects” below.) RTP/SCSs typically model VMT using a collaboratively-developed land use “vision” for the region’s land use, rather than studying the effects on land use of the proposed transportation investments. In summary, achieving 15 percent lower per capita (residential) or per employee (office) VMT than existing development is both generally achievable and is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals. 1. Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects Many agencies use “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(c)(3)(C), 15128, and Appendix G.) As explained below, this technical advisory suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing. Screening Threshold for Small Projects Many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed. Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day19 generally may be assumed to cause a less-than- significant transportation impact. Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are 19 CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 13 | Page December 2018 currently below threshold VMT (see recommendations below). Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis. Figure 2. Example map of household VMT that could be used to delineate areas eligible to receive streamlining for VMT analysis. (Source: City of San José, Department of Transportation, draft output of City Transportation Model.) Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Stations Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop20 or an existing stop 20 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”). 14 | Page December 2018 along a high quality transit corridor21 will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the project: ● Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75 ● Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking) ● Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization) ● Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units A project or plan near transit which replaces affordable residential units22 with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units may increase overall VMT because the increase in VMT of displaced residents could overwhelm the improvements in travel efficiency enjoyed by new residents.23 If any of these exceptions to the presumption might apply, the lead agency should conduct a detailed VMT analysis to determine whether the project would exceed VMT thresholds (see below). Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT.24,25 Further, “… low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if one is available.”26 In areas where existing jobs- housing match is closer to optimal, low income housing nevertheless generates less VMT than market- 21 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”). 22 Including naturally-occurring affordable residential units. 23 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, Chapter 4, pp. 159-160, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 24 Karner and Benner (2016) The convergence of social equity and environmental sustainability: Jobs- housing fit and commute distance (“[P]olicies that advance a more equitable distribution of jobs and housing by linking the affordability of locally available housing with local wage levels are likely to be associated with reduced commuting distances”). 25 Karner and Benner (2015) Low-wage jobs-housing fit: identifying locations of affordable housing shortages. 26 Karner and Benner (2015) Low-wage jobs-housing fit: identifying locations of affordable housing shortages. 15 | Page December 2018 rate housing.27,28 Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence. Furthermore, a project which includes any affordable residential units may factor the effect of the affordability on VMT into the assessment of VMT generated by those units. 2.Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects Recommended threshold for residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS. Residential development that would generate vehicle travel that is 15 or more percent below the existing residential VMT per capita, measured against the region or city, may indicate a less-than- significant transportation impact. In MPO areas, development measured against city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the population or number of units specified in the SCS for that city because greater-than-planned amounts of development in areas above the region-based threshold would undermine the VMT containment needed to achieve regional targets under SB 375. For residential projects in unincorporated county areas, the local agency can compare a residential project’s VMT to (1) the region’s VMT per capita, or (2) the aggregate population-weighted VMT per capita of all cities in the region. In MPO areas, development in unincorporated areas measured against aggregate city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the population or number of units specified in the SCS for that city because greater-than-planned amounts of development in areas above the regional threshold would undermine achievement of regional targets under SB 375. 27 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 28 CAPCOA (2010) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, pp. 176-178, available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. 16 | Page December 2018 These thresholds can be applied to either household (i.e., tour-based) VMT or home-based (i.e., trip- based) VMT assessments.29 It is critical, however, that the agency be consistent in its VMT measurement approach throughout the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison. For example, if the agency uses a home-based VMT for the threshold, it should also be use home-based VMT for calculating project VMT and VMT reduction due to mitigation measures. Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips,30 estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts. By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact. Where such development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less-than-significant. Many cities and counties define local-serving and regional-serving retail in their zoning codes. Lead agencies may refer to those local definitions when available, but should also consider any project- 29 See Appendix 1 for a description of these approaches. 30 Lovejoy, et al. (2013) Measuring the impacts of local land-use policies on vehicle miles of travel: The case of the first big-box store in Davis, California, The Journal of Transport and Land Use. Recommended threshold for retail projects: A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact. Office projects that would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below existing VMT per employee for the region may indicate a significant transportation impact. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as the county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live. Office VMT screening maps can be developed using tour-based data, considering either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Similarly, tour-based analysis of office project VMT could consider either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Where tour-based information is unavailable for threshold determination, project assessment, or assessment of mitigation, home-based work trip VMT should be used throughout all steps of the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Recommended threshold for office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. 17 | Page December 2018 specific information, such as market studies or economic impacts analyses that might bear on customers’ travel behavior. Because lead agencies will best understand their own communities and the likely travel behaviors of future project users, they are likely in the best position to decide when a project will likely be local-serving. Generally, however, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT. Mixed-Use Projects Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. Combining different land uses and applying one threshold to those land uses may result in an inaccurate impact assessment. Other Project Types Of land use projects, residential, office, and retail projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. For that reason, OPR recommends the quantified thresholds described above for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those recommended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7). Strategies and projects that decrease local VMT but increase total VMT should be avoided. Agencies should consider whether their actions encourage development in a less travel-efficient location by limiting development in travel-efficient locations. Redevelopment Projects Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply. As described above, a project or plan near transit which replaces affordable 31 residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units may increase overall VMT, because 31 Including naturally-occurring affordable residential units. 18 | Page December 2018 displaced residents’ VMT may increase.32 A lead agency should analyze VMT for such a project even if it otherwise would have been presumed less than significant. The assessment should incorporate an estimate of the aggregate VMT increase experienced by displaced residents. That additional VMT should be included in the numerator of the VMT per capita assessed for the project. If a residential or office project leads to a net increase in VMT, then the project’s VMT per capita (residential) or per employee (office) should be compared to thresholds recommended above. Per capita and per employee VMT are efficiency metrics, and, as such, apply only to the existing project without regard to the VMT generated by the previously existing land use. If the project leads to a net increase in provision of locally-serving retail, transportation impacts from the retail portion of the development should be presumed to be less than significant. If the project consists of regionally-serving retail, and increases overall VMT compared to with existing uses, then the project would lead to a significant transportation impact. RTP/SCS Consistency (All Land Use Projects) Section 15125, subdivision (d), of the CEQA Guidelines provides that lead agencies should analyze impacts resulting from inconsistencies with regional plans, including regional transportation plans. For this reason, if a project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the lead agency should evaluate whether that inconsistency indicates a significant impact on transportation. For example, a development may be inconsistent with an RTP/SCS if the development is outside the footprint of development or within an area specified as open space as shown in the SCS. 3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans As with projects, agencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans across the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography. And as with projects, VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origin and destination. (Emissions inventories have sometimes spit cross-boundary trips in order to sum to a regional total, but CEQA requires accounting for the full impact without truncation or discounting). Analysis of specific plans may employ the same thresholds described above for projects. A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended above. Where the lead agency tiers from a general plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15152 and 15166, the lead agency generally focuses on the environmental impacts that are specific to the later project and were not analyzed as significant impacts in the prior EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21068.5; Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (a).) Thus, in analyzing the later project, the lead agency 32 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, Chapter 4, pp. 159-160, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 19 | Page December 2018 would focus on the VMT impacts that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. In the tiered document, the lead agency should continue to apply the thresholds recommended above. Thresholds for plans in non-MPO areas may be determined on a case-by-case basis. 4. Other Considerations Rural Projects Outside of MPOs In rural areas of non-MPO counties (i.e., areas not near established or incorporated cities or towns), fewer options may be available for reducing VMT, and significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. Note, however, that clustered small towns and small town main streets may have substantial VMT benefits compared to isolated rural development, similar to the transit oriented development described above. Impacts to Transit Because criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote “the development of multimodal transportation networks” pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099, subd. (b)(1), lead agencies should consider project impacts to transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks. For example, a project that blocks access to a transit stop or blocks a transit route itself may interfere with transit functions. Lead agencies should consult with transit agencies as early as possible in the development process, particularly for projects that are located within one half mile of transit stops. When evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. An infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility. Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network. Increased demand throughout a region may, however, cause a cumulative impact by requiring new or additional transit infrastructure. Such impacts may be adequately addressed through a fee program that fairly allocates the cost of improvements not just to projects that happen to locate near transit, but rather across a region to all projects that impose burdens on the entire transportation system, since transit can broadly improve the function of the transportation system. F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel Many transportation projects change travel patterns. A transportation project which leads to additional vehicle travel on the roadway network, commonly referred to as “induced vehicle travel,” would need to quantify the amount of additional vehicle travel in order to assess air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions impacts, energy impacts, and noise impacts. Transportation projects also are required to 20 | Page December 2018 examine induced growth impacts under CEQA. (See generally, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065 [defining “project” under CEQA as an activity as causing either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change], 21065.3 [defining “project-specific effect” to mean all direct or indirect environmental effects], 21100, subd. (b) [required contents of an EIR].) For any project that increases vehicle travel, explicit assessment and quantitative reporting of the amount of additional vehicle travel should not be omitted from the document; such information may be useful and necessary for a full understanding of a project’s environmental impacts. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, 21001, 21001.1, 21002, 21002.1 [discussing the policies of CEQA].) A lead agency that uses the VMT metric to assess the transportation impacts of a transportation project may simply report that change in VMT as the impact. When the lead agency uses another metric to analyze the transportation impacts of a roadway project, changes in amount of vehicle travel added to the roadway network should still be analyzed and reported.33 While CEQA does not require perfection, it is important to make a reasonably accurate estimate of transportation projects’ effects on vehicle travel in order to make reasonably accurate estimates of GHG emissions, air quality emissions, energy impacts, and noise impacts. (See, e.g., California Clean Energy Com. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 [EIR failed to consider project’s transportation energy impacts]; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 266.) Appendix 2 describes in detail the causes of induced vehicle travel, the robust empirical evidence of induced vehicle travel, and how models and research can be used in conjunction to quantitatively assess induced vehicle travel with reasonable accuracy. If a project would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel, the lead agency should conduct an analysis assessing the amount of vehicle travel the project will induce. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include: • Addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges Projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis, include: • Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity • Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such as median barriers and guardrails 33 See, e.g., California Department of Transportation (2006) Guidance for Preparers of Growth-related, Indirect Impact Analyses, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/Growth- related_IndirectImpactAnalysis/GRI_guidance06May_files/gri_guidance.pdf. 21 | Page December 2018 • Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes • Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes • Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit • Conversion of existing general purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel • Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles • Reduction in number of through lanes • Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features • Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow • Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow • Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles • Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices • Adoption of or increase in tolls • Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase • Initiation of new transit service • Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes • Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces • Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs) • Addition of traffic wayfinding signage • Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity • Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way • Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non- motorized travel • Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure • Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake-check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor 22 | Page December 2018 1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects As noted in Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies for roadway capacity projects have discretion, consistent with CEQA and planning requirements, to choose which metric to use to evaluate transportation impacts. This section recommends considerations for evaluating impacts using vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies have discretion to choose a threshold of significance for transportation projects as they do for other types of projects. As explained above, Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), provides that criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. (Id.; see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts].) With those goals in mind, OPR prepared and the Agency adopted an appropriate transportation metric. Whether adopting a threshold of significance, or evaluating transportation impacts on a case-by-case basis, a lead agency should ensure that the analysis addresses: • Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subds. (d), (h)) • Near-term and long-term effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (a)(1), 15126.2, subd. (a)) • The transportation project’s consistency with state greenhouse gas reduction goals (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099)34 • The impact of the transportation project on the development of multimodal transportation networks (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099) • The impact of the transportation project on the development of a diversity of land uses (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099) The CARB Scoping Plan and the CARB Mobile Source Strategy delineate VMT levels required to achieve legally mandated GHG emissions reduction targets. A lead agency should develop a project-level threshold based on those VMT levels, and may apply the following approach: 1. Propose a fair-share allocation of those budgets to their jurisdiction (e.g., by population); 34 The California Air Resources Board has ascertained the limits of VMT growth compatible with California containing greenhouse gas emissions to levels research shows would allow for climate stabilization. (See The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (p. 78, p. 101); Mobile Source Strategy (p. 37).) CARB’s Updated Final Staff Report on Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets illustrates that the current Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies will fall short of achieving the necessary on-road transportation-related GHG emissions reductions called for in the 2017 Scoping Plan (Figure 3, p. 35). Accordingly, OPR recommends not basing GHG emissions or transportation impact analysis for a transportation project solely on consistency with an RTP/SCS. 23 | Page December 2018 2. Determine the amount of VMT growth likely to result from background population growth, and subtract that from their “budget”; 3. Allocate their jurisdiction’s share between their various VMT-increasing transportation projects, using whatever criteria the lead agency prefers. 2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects CEQA requires analysis of a project’s potential growth-inducing impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(5); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (d).) Many agencies are familiar with the analysis of growth inducing impacts associated with water, sewer, and other infrastructure. This technical advisory addresses growth that may be expected from roadway expansion projects. Because a roadway expansion project can induce substantial VMT, incorporating quantitative estimates of induced VMT is critical to calculating both transportation and other impacts of these projects. Induced travel also has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits. An accurate estimate of induced travel is needed to accurately weigh costs and benefits of a highway capacity expansion project. The effect of a transportation project on vehicle travel should be estimated using the “change in total VMT” method described in Appendix 1. This means that an assessment of total VMT without the project and an assessment with the project should be made; the difference between the two is the amount of VMT attributable to the project. The assessment should cover the full area in which driving patterns are expected to change. As with other types of projects, the VMT estimation should not be truncated at a modeling or jurisdictional boundary for convenience of analysis when travel behavior is substantially affected beyond that boundary. Transit and Active Transportation Projects Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Streamlining transit and active transportation projects aligns with each of the three statutory goals contained in SB 743 by reducing GHG emissions, increasing multimodal transportation networks, and facilitating mixed use development. Roadway Projects Reducing roadway capacity (for example, by removing or repurposing motor vehicle travel lanes) will generally reduce VMT and therefore is presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. Generally, no transportation analysis is needed for such projects. 24 | Page December 2018 Building new roadways, adding roadway capacity in congested areas, or adding roadway capacity to areas where congestion is expected in the future, typically induces additional vehicle travel. For the types of projects previously indicated as likely to lead to additional vehicle travel, an estimate should be made of the change in vehicle travel resulting from the project. For projects that increase roadway capacity, lead agencies can evaluate induced travel quantitatively by applying the results of existing studies that examine the magnitude of the increase of VMT resulting from a given increase in lane miles. These studies estimate the percent change in VMT for every percent change in miles to the roadway system (i.e., “elasticity”).35 Given that lead agencies have discretion in choosing their methodology, and the studies on induced travel reveal a range of elasticities, lead agencies may appropriately apply professional judgment in studying the transportation effects of a particular project. The most recent major study, estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every percent change in lane miles results in a one percent increase in VMT.36 To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects: 1. Determine the total lane-miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions). 2. Determine the percent change in total lane miles that will result from the project. 3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area. 4. Multiply the percent increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature: [% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project] A National Center for Sustainable Transportation tool can be used to apply this method: https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research/tools This method would not be suitable for rural (non-MPO) locations in the state which are neither congested nor projected to become congested. It also may not be suitable for a new road that provides new connectivity across a barrier (e.g., a bridge across a river) if it would be expected to substantially 35 See U.C. Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion; Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf. 36 See Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376. 25 | Page December 2018 shorten existing trips. If it is likely to be substantial, the trips-shortening effect should be examined explicitly. The effects of roadway capacity on vehicle travel can also be applied at a programmatic level. For example, in a regional planning process the lead agency can use that program-level analysis to streamline later project-level analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.) A program-level analysis of VMT should include effects of the program on land use patterns, and the VMT that results from those land use effects. In order for a program-level document to adequately analyze potential induced demand from a project or program of roadway capacity expansion, lead agencies cannot assume a fixed land use pattern (i.e., a land use pattern that does not vary in response to the provision of roadway capacity). A proper analysis should account for land use investment and development pattern changes that react in a reasonable manner to changes in accessibility created by transportation infrastructure investments (whether at the project or program level). Mitigation and Alternatives Induced VMT has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits, increase VMT, and increase other environmental impacts that result from vehicle travel.37 If those effects are significant, the lead agency will need to consider mitigation or alternatives. In the context of increased travel that is induced by capacity increases, appropriate mitigation and alternatives that a lead agency might consider include the following: • Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements • Converting existing general purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes • Implementing or funding off-site travel demand management • Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies to improve passenger throughput on existing lanes Tolling and other management strategies can have the additional benefit of preventing congestion and maintaining free-flow conditions, conferring substantial benefits to road users as discussed above. G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation While requiring a change in the methodology of assessing transportation im pacts, Public Resources Code section 21099 notes that this change “does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a project’s potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation.” OPR expects that lead agencies will continue to 37 See National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf; see Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376. 26 | Page December 2018 address mobile source emissions in the air quality and noise sections of an environmental document and the corresponding studies that support the analysis in those sections. Lead agencies should continue to address environmental impacts of a proposed project pursuant to CEQA’s requirements, using a format that is appropriate for their particular project. Because safety concerns result from many different factors, they are best addressed at a programmatic level (i.e., in a general plan or regional transportation plan) in cooperation with local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and, where the state highway system is involved, the California Department of Transportation. In most cases, such an analysis would not be appropriate on a project- by-project basis. Increases in traffic volumes at a particular location resulting from a project typically cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or precision to provide useful information for an analysis of safety concerns. Moreover, an array of factors affect travel demand (e.g., strength of the local economy, price of gasoline), causing substantial additional uncertainty. Appendix B of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines summarizes research which could be used to guide a programmatic analysis under CEQA. Lead agencies should note that automobile congestion or delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact (Pub. Resources Code, §21099(b)(2)), and safety should not be used as a proxy for road capacity. H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives When a lead agency identifies a significant impact, it must identify feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce that impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a).) Additionally, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts. Indeed, the California Court of Appeal recently held that a long-term regional transportation plan was deficient for failing to discuss an alternative which could significantly reduce total vehicle miles traveled. In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, et al. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, the court found that omission “inexplicable” given the lead agency’s “acknowledgment in its Climate Action Strategy that the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 436.) Additionally, the court noted that the project alternatives focused primarily on congestion relief even though “the [regional] transportation plan is a long-term and congestion relief is not necessarily an effective long- term strategy.” (Id. at p. 437.) The court concluded its discussion of the alternatives analysis by stating: “Given the acknowledged long-term drawbacks of congestion relief alternatives, there is not substantial evidence to support the EIR’s exclusion of an alternative focused primarily on significantly reducing vehicle trips.” (Ibid.) Several examples of potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce VMT are described below. However, the selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of 27 | Page December 2018 the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Further, OPR expects that agencies will continue to innovate and find new ways to reduce vehicular travel. Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to: • Improve or increase access to transit. • Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare. • Incorporate affordable housing into the project. • Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network. • Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service. • Provide traffic calming. • Provide bicycle parking. • Limit or eliminate parking supply. • Unbundle parking costs. • Provide parking cash-out programs. • Implement roadway pricing. • Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program. • Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. • Provide transit passes. • Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ride- matching services. • Providing telework options. • Providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle. • Providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms. • Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. • Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes. Notably, because VMT is largely a regional impact, regional VMT-reduction programs may be an appropriate form of mitigation. In lieu fees have been found to be valid mitigation where there is both a commitment to pay fees and evidence that mitigation will actually occur. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140-141; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728.) Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(3) [a “project’s incremental contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact”].) The mitigation program must undergo CEQA evaluation, either on the program as a whole, or the in-lieu fees or other mitigation must be evaluated 28 | Page December 2018 on a project-specific basis. (California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026.) That CEQA evaluation could be part of a larger program, such as a regional transportation plan, analyzed in a Program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.) Examples of project alternatives that may reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to: • Locate the project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT. • Locate the project near transit. • Increase project density. • Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings. • Increase connectivity and/or intersection density on the project site. • Deploy management strategies (e.g., pricing, vehicle occupancy requirements) on roadways or roadway lanes. 29 | Page December 2018 Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count Consistent with the obligation to make a good faith effort to disclose the environmental consequences of a project, lead agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate project impacts.38 A lead agency can evaluate a project’s effect on VMT in numerous ways. The purpose of this document is to provide technical considerations in determining which methodology may be most useful for various project types. Background on Estimating Vehicle Miles Traveled Before discussing specific methodological recommendations, this section provides a brief overview of modeling and counting VMT, including some key terminology. Here is an illustrative example of some methods of estimating vehicle miles traveled. Consider the following hypothetical travel day (all by automobile): 1. Residence to Coffee Shop 2. Coffee Shop to Work 3. Work to Sandwich Shop 4. Sandwich Shop to Work 5. Work to Residence 6. Residence to Store 7. Store to Residence Trip-based assessment of a project’s effect on travel behavior counts VMT from individual trips to and from the project. It is the most basic, and traditionally the most common, method of counting VMT. A trip-based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 5, 6 and 7. For residential projects, the sum of home-based trips is called home-based VMT. A tour-based assessment counts the entire home-back-to-home tour that includes the project. A tour- based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in one tour, and 6 and 7 in a second tour. A tour-based assessment of the workplace would include segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Together, all tours comprise household VMT. 38 The California Supreme Court has explained that when an agency has prepared an environmental impact report: [T]he issue is not whether the [lead agency’s] studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better. The relevant issue is only whether the studies are sufficiently credible to be considered as part of the total evidence that supports the [lead agency’s] finding[.] (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409; see also Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 372.) 30 | Page December 2018 Both trip- and tour-based assessments can be used as measures of transportation efficiency, using denominators such as per capita, per employee, or per person-trip. Trip- and Tour-based Assessment of VMT As illustrated above, a tour-based assessment of VMT is a more complete characterization of a project’s effect on VMT. In many cases, a project affects travel behavior beyond the first destination. The location and characteristics of the home and workplace will often be the main drivers of VMT. For example, a residential or office development located near high quality transit will likely lead to some commute trips utilizing transit, affecting mode choice on the rest of the tour. Characteristics of an office project can also affect an employee’s VMT beyond the work tour. For example, a workplace located at the urban periphery, far from transit, can require an employee to own a car, which in turn affects the entirety of an employee’s travel behavior and VMT. For this reason, when estimating the effect of an office development on VMT, it may be appropriate to consider total employee VMT if data and tools, such as tour-based models, are available. This is consistent with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of a project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).) Assessing Change in Total VMT A third method, estimating the change in total VMT with and without the project, can evaluate whether a project is likely to divert existing trips, and what the effect of those diversions will be on total VMT. This method answers the question, “What is the net effect of the project on area VMT?” As an illustration, assessing the total change in VMT for a grocery store built in a food desert that diverts trips from more distant stores could reveal a net VMT reduction. The analysis should address the full area over which the project affects travel behavior, even if the effect on travel behavior crosses political boundaries. Using Models to Estimate VMT Travel demand models, sketch models, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and estimate VMT (see Appendix F of the preliminary discussion draft). To the extent possible, lead agencies should choose models that have sensitivity to features of the project that affect VMT. Those tools and resources can also assist in establishing thresholds of significance and estimating VMT reduction attributable to mitigation measures and project alternatives. When using models and tools for those various purposes, agencies should use comparable data and methods, in order to set up an “apples-to-apples” comparison between thresholds, VMT estimates, and VMT mitigation estimates. Models can work together. For example, agencies can use travel demand models or survey data to estimate existing trip lengths and input those into sketch models such as CalEEMod to achieve more 31 | Page December 2018 accurate results. Whenever possible, agencies should input localized trip lengths into a sketch model to tailor the analysis to the project location. However, in doing so, agencies should be careful to avoid double counting if the sketch model includes other inputs or toggles that are proxies for trip length (e.g., distance to city center). Generally, if an agency changes any sketch model defaults, it should record and report those changes for transparency of analysis. Again, trip length data should come from the same source as data used to calculate thresholds to be sure of an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Additional background information regarding travel demand models is available in the California Transportation Commission’s “2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines,” beginning at page 35. 32 | Page December 2018 Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches Induced travel occurs where roadway capacity is expanded in an area of present or projected future congestion. The effect typically manifests over several years. Lower travel times make the modified facility more attractive to travelers, resulting in the following trip-making changes: ● Longer trips. The ability to travel a long distance in a shorter time increases the attractiveness of destinations that are farther away, increasing trip length and vehicle travel. ● Changes in mode choice. When transportation investments are devoted to reducing automobile travel time, travelers tend to shift toward automobile use from other modes, which increases vehicle travel. ● Route changes. Faster travel times on a route attract more drivers to that route from other routes, which can increase or decrease vehicle travel depending on whether it shortens or lengthens trips. ● Newly generated trips. Increasing travel speeds can induce additional trips, which increases vehicle travel. For example, an individual who previously telecommuted or purchased goods on the internet might choose to accomplish those tasks via automobile trips as a result of increased speeds. ● Land Use Changes. Faster travel times along a corridor lead to land development farther along that corridor; that new development generates and attracts longer trips, which increases vehicle travel. Over several years, this induced growth component of induced vehicle travel can be substantial, making it critical to include in analyses. Each of these effects has implications for the total amount of vehicle travel. These effects operate over different time scales. For example, changes in mode choice might occur immediately, while land use changes typically take a few years or longer. CEQA requires lead agencies to analyze both short-term and long-term effects. Evidence of Induced Vehicle Travel. A large number of peer reviewed studies 39 have demonstrated a causal link between highway capacity increases and VMT increases. Many provide quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the induced VMT phenomenon. Collectively, they provide high quality evidence of the existence and magnitude of the induced travel effect. 39 See, e.g., Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf; National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf. 33 | Page December 2018 Most of these studies express the amount of induced vehicle travel as an “elasticity,” which is a multiplier that describes the additional vehicle travel resulting from an additional lane mile of roadway capacity added. For example, an elasticity of 0.6 would signify an 0.6 percent increase in vehicle travel for every 1.0 percent increase in lane miles. Many of these studies distinguish “short run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel in the first few years) from “long run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel beyond the first few years). Long run elasticity is larger than short run elasticity, because as time passes, more of the components of induced vehicle travel materialize. Generally, short run elasticity can be thought of as excluding the effects of land use change, while long run elasticity includes them. Most studies find a long run elasticity between 0.6 and just over 1.0,40 meaning that every increase in lanes miles of one percent leads to an increase in vehicle travel of 0.6 to 1.0 percent. The most recent major study finds the elasticity of vehicle travel by lanes miles added to be 1.03; in other words, each percent increase in lane miles results in a 1.03 percent increase in vehicle travel.41 (An elasticity greater than 1.0 can occur because new lanes induce vehicle travel that spills beyond the project location.) In CEQA analysis, the long-run elasticity should be used, as it captures the full effect of the project rather than just the early-stage effect. Quantifying Induced Vehicle Travel Using Models. Lead agencies can generally achieve the most accurate assessment of induced vehicle travel resulting from roadway capacity increasing projects by applying elasticities from the academic literature, because those estimates include vehicle travel resulting from induced land use. If a lead agency chooses to use a travel demand model, additional analysis would be needed to account for induced land use. This section describes some approaches to undertaking that additional analysis. Proper use of a travel demand model can capture the following components of induced VMT: • Trip length (generally increases VMT) • Mode shift (generally shifts from other modes toward automobile use, increasing VMT) • Route changes (can act to increase or decrease VMT) • Newly generated trips (generally increases VMT) o Note that not all travel demand models have sensitivity to this factor, so an off-model estimate may be necessary if this effect could be substantial. However, estimating long-run induced VMT also requires an estimate of the project’s effects on land use. This component of the analysis is important because it has the potential to be a large component of 40 See Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, p. 2, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf. 41 Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376. 34 | Page December 2018 the overall induced travel effect. Options for estimating and incorporating the VMT effects that are caused by the subsequent land use changes include: 1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel. Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature. 2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature. 3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result. A project which provides new connectivity across a barrier, such as a new bridge across a river, may provide a shortened path between existing origins and destinations, thereby shortening existing trips. In rare cases, this trip-shortening effect might be substantial enough to reduce the amount of vehicle travel resulting from the project below the range found in the elasticities in the academic literature, or even lead a net reduction in vehicle travel overall. In such cases, the trip-shortening effect could be examined explicitly. Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise. RESOLUTION NO. 2853-2020 PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO UPDATE THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO’S TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS THRESHOLDS, AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), TO COMPLY WITH STATE- MANDATED CHANGE FROM LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) TO VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT), PURSUANT TO SENATE BILL 743 (2013) AND NEW 2019 CEQA GUIDELINES. WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 to ensure the long-term protection of the environment and requires pu blic agencies to analyze and disclose the effects of their action on the environment; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects; and WHEREAS, SB 743 specifically requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend CEQA Guidelines by developing alternative criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas, and which criteria shall promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses”; and WHEREAS, for such alternative criteria, the measurements of transportation impacts may inc lude “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated”; and WHEREAS, in 2018, OPR proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted, new CEQA Guidelines, including Guidelines section 15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project – as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts; and WHEREAS, as a result, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA and may no longer serve as a threshold for analyzing the significance of traffic impacts resulting from a project under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 will apply state-wide on July 1, 2020; and WHEREAS, OPR most recently published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018 to provide technical guidance and recommendation on assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, lead agencies are encouraged to develop standards and procedures necessary to evaluate their actions and therefore protect environmental quality, including thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, thresholds of significance are identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level measures of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant, and compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be less than significant; and WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21082 requires all public agencies to adopt by ordinance, resolution, rule, or regulation, the objectives, criteria, and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and WHEREAS, similarly, in circumstances where public agencies decide to develop their own thresholds of significance for general use as a part of the public agency’s environmental review process, section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines require such thresholds of significance be adopted by ordinance, resolution, rule or regulation, and be developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco, as a lead agency, implements CEQA pursuant to South San Francisco Munic ipal Code Chapter 20.460 Environmental Review, which delegates administration to the Chief Planner; and WHEREAS, City staff prepared a proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds of Significance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, to incorporate the most recent State VMT requirements; and WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018) provide substantial evidence that VMT is an appropriate standard to utilize in analyzing transportation impacts to protect environmental quality and a better indicator of greenhouse gas, air quality, and energy impacts than LOS, and that the screening criteria and impact analysis contained therein are appropriate metrics for assessing VMT impacts and determining thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS, the identification and adoption of proposed VMT regulations is not a “project” pursuant to CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3). Separately and independently, the proposal is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts; and/or Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1), as the proposal is ministerial, because the City is mandated to adopt the proposal. As such, the new thresholds are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing May 21, 2020 to solicit public comment and consider the proposed the proposed VMT thresholds and take public testimony, at which time all persons wishing to testify in connection with the proposed threshold were heard and the proposed threshold was comprehensively reviewed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance; and all reports, minutes, and public testimony submit ted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 21, 2020 meeting; and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A. General Findings 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2. The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3. The documents and other materials constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. B. CEQA Finding 1. The adoption of proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance is not a “project” pursuant to CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3). 2. Separately and independently, the proposal is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts; and/or Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1), as the proposal is ministerial, because the City is mandated to adopt the proposal. As such, adoption of proposed new thresholds are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply. C. Adoption of Thresholds of Significance Findings 1. The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance in Exhibit A is consistent with the adopted General Plan because they will reinforce the General Plan policies, and is consistent with the City’s overall vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Climate Action Plan policies to expand active transportation alternatives, support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee commutes, and integrate higher -density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities. None of the new or revised VMT Thresholds of Significance will conflict with or impede any of the goals, policies, or land use designations established in the General Plan. 2. The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance have been developed through a public review process that includes an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance and a duly noticed public hearing by the South San Francisco Planning Commission to consider the methodology changes and to consider public comment on those changes. 3. The proposed VMT Thresholds are supported by substantial evidence based on the entirety of the record before the Planning Commission including all documents, submittals, and public testimony before it. SECTION 2 RECOMMENDATION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed VMT Thresholds of Signif icance in Exhibit A and update the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS) to vehicle miles tr aveled (VMT), pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013) and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. * * * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of May, 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Chair Murphy, Vice-Chair Wong, Commissioner Faria, Commissioner Shihadeh, Commissioner Evans, Commissioner Bernardo , Commissioner Tzange NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: RECUSE: Attest_/s/Sailesh Mehra__________ Secretary to the Planning Commission City Council Meeting June 10, 2020 Project Team Christopher Espiritu, Billy Gross, Tony Rozzi, Taylor McAdam, Daniel Jacobson In 2013, the State of California passed Senate Bill (SB) 743 1.Ensure that environmental impacts of traffic, noise, air pollution, and safety concerns, continue to be addressed and mitigated through CEQA 2.Balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, transit investments, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of GHG emissions by eliminating traffic congestion as a significant impact under CEQA. 2 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) adopted revised CEQA guidelines: ◦Automobile delay (LOS) can no longer be used to measure a project’s impact on the environment ◦Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) will be the new metric to measure a project’s impact July 1, 2020 deadline for public agencies to adopt the new process 3 General Plan Traffic Impact Fee Programs County Congestion Management Plan Climate Action Plan 4 VMT Metrics ◦Residential VMT (per resident) ◦Work VMT (per worker) ◦Total VMT (per service population) VMT Screening Thresholds VMT Impact Thresholds 5 6 VMT SSF Comparison with Regional Average Residential VMT 10.3 VMT per resident -27 percent (14.2 VMT per resident) Work VMT 16.2 VMT per worker +14 percent (14.2 VMT per worker) Total VMT 27.2 VMT per service population -2 percent (27.7 VMT per service population) Location-Based Screening for VMT ◦Proximity to existing (or planned) high -quality transit corridor or major transit station (within a ½-mile walkshed) ◦Residential Low-VMT Zones VMT Screening on Project Size and Type ◦Projects attracting fewer than 110 trips per day. ◦Local-serving retail at a size less than 50,000 square feet ◦100-percent affordable residential developments in infill locations 7 Other Projects ◦Quantitative VMT Analysis to determine impact on transportation ◦OPR recommends a reduction of 15 percent below the regional average Transportation Projects ◦Impact analysis based on net increase in total VMT 8 9 LOS Mitigation VMT Mitigation Roadway widening Off-site bike lanes and trails to improve access to transit Turning lane / Traffic Queuing Pedestrian realm improvements to provide direct paths of travel to existing transit stops Roadway Infrastructure (new signals) TDMs or provision of on -site amenities (childcare, gym, food services, etc) Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update Zoning Ordinance Update, including Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance Climate Action Plan Update Development of a Citywide Transportation Sub- Area Model Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Update 10 May 21, 2020 -Planning Commission Commission Inquiries ◦Mitigation measures related to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ◦Frequency of updates to the regional data metrics ◦Changes in analysis and how local roadway impacts would be addressed in the future 11 Adopt and utilize a VMT threshold for CEQA transportation analysis to align with State requirements LOS analysis could continue to be useful in certain circumstances (such as operational impacts) General Plan –Transportation Element maintains specific LOS analysis requirement 12 Adopt a resolution modifying the local environmental review process to identify appropriate Vehicle Miles Traveled thresholds for the analysis of transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act 13 14 Thank you! City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-314 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution updating the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds,as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS)to vehicle miles traveled (VMT),pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013)and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. WHEREAS,the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)was enacted in 1970 to ensure the long-term protection of the environment and requires public agencies to analyze and disclose the effects of their action on the environment; and WHEREAS,Senate Bill 743 (SB 743),enacted in 2013 and codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects; and WHEREAS,SB 743 specifically requires the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)to amend CEQA Guidelines by developing alternative criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas,and which criteria shall promote “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses”; and WHEREAS,for such alternative criteria,the measurements of transportation impacts may include “vehicle miles traveled,vehicle miles traveled per capita,automobile trip generation rates,or automobile trips generated”; and WHEREAS,in 2018,OPR proposed,and the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted,new CEQA Guidelines,including Guidelines section 15064.3 that identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT)- meaning the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project -as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts; and WHEREAS,as a result,automobile delay,as measured by “level of service”(LOS)and other similar metrics, will no longer be considered a significant impact under CEQA and may no longer serve as a threshold for analyzing the significance of traffic impacts resulting from a project under CEQA; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-314 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. WHEREAS, the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 will apply state-wide on July 1, 2020; and WHEREAS,OPR most recently published a Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA in December 2018 to provide technical guidance and recommendation on assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures; and WHEREAS,lead agencies are encouraged to develop standards and procedures necessary to evaluate their actions and therefore protect environmental quality, including thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS,thresholds of significance are identifiable quantitative,qualitative or performance level measures of a particular environmental effect,non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant,and compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be less than significant; and WHEREAS,Public Resources Code section 21082 requires all public agencies to adopt by ordinance, resolution,rule,or regulation,the objectives,criteria,and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations in connection with that evaluation; and WHEREAS,similarly,in circumstances where public agencies decide to develop their own thresholds of significance for general use as a part of the public agency’s environmental review process,section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines require such thresholds of significance be adopted by ordinance,resolution,rule or regulation, and be developed through a public review process and be supported by substantial evidence; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco,as a lead agency,implements CEQA pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.460 Environmental Review,which delegates administration to the Chief Planner; and WHEREAS,City staff prepared a proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds of Significance,attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated herein,to incorporate the most recent State VMT requirements; and WHEREAS,the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (2018)provide substantial evidence that VMT is an appropriate standard to utilize in analyzing transportation impacts to protect environmental quality and a better indicator of greenhouse gas,air quality,and energy impacts than LOS,and that the screening criteria and impact analysis contained therein are appropriate metrics for assessing VMT impacts and determining thresholds of significance; and WHEREAS,the identification and adoption of proposed VMT regulations is not a “project”pursuant to CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378,and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3); and WHEREAS,separately and independently,the proposal is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3),as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts;and/or Public City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-314 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. 15061(b)(3),as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts;and/or Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1),as the proposal is ministerial,because the City is mandated to adopt the proposal.As such,the new thresholds are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held a lawfully noticed public hearing May 21,2020,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard,to review the proposed VMT thresholds in advance of the public hearing,as well as supporting documents,and recommended that the City Council consider the proposed VMT thresholds; and WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 10,2020,to solicit public comment and consider the proposed Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds of Significance,at which time interested parties had the opportunity to be heard and to review the proposed VMT thresholds in advance of the public hearing. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,which includes without limitation,the California Environmental Quality Act,Public Resources Code §21000,et seq. (“CEQA”)and the CEQA Guidelines,14 California Code of Regulations §15000,et seq.;the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR;the proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance;all reports, minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning Commission’s duly noticed May 21,2020 meeting;and all reports,minutes,and public testimony submitted as part of the City Council’s duly noticed June 10,2020 meeting;and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e)and §21082.2), the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows: SECTION 1 FINDINGS A.General Findings 1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. 2.The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance,attached hereto as Exhibit A,is incorporated by reference and made a part of this Resolution, as if set forth fully herein. 3.The documents and other materials constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco,315 Maple Avenue,South San Francisco,CA 94080, and in the custody of the Planning Manager, Sailesh Mehra. B.CEQA Finding 1.The adoption of proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance is not a “project”pursuant to CEQA as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378,and is therefore not subject to review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3). 2.Separately and independently,the proposal is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3),as it will not result directly or indirectly in significant environmental impacts;and/or Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1),as the proposal is ministerial,because the City is mandated to adopt City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-314 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resources Code Section 21080(b)(1),as the proposal is ministerial,because the City is mandated to adopt the proposal.As such,adoption of proposed new thresholds are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 and none of the exceptions in Section 15300.2 apply. C.Adoption of Thresholds of Significance Findings 1.The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance in Exhibit A is consistent with the adopted General Plan because they will reinforce the General Plan policies,and is consistent with the City’s overall vision to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and Climate Action Plan policies to expand active transportation alternatives,support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee commutes,and integrate higher-density development and mixed-use development near transit facilities.None of the new or revised VMT Thresholds of Significance will conflict with or impede any of the goals,policies,or land use designations established in the General Plan. 2.The proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance have been developed through a public review process that includes an opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance in advance of such document being considered by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and the City Council,and duly noticed public hearings by the South San Francisco Planning Commission and City Council to consider the methodology changes and to consider public comment on those changes. 3.The proposed VMT Thresholds are supported by substantial evidence based on the entirety of the record before the City Council including all documents, submittals, and public testimony before it. SECTION 2 DETERMINATION NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby makes the findings contained in this Resolution and adopts the proposed VMT Thresholds of Significance in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated herein,and update the City of South San Francisco’s transportation impact analysis thresholds,as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),to comply with state-mandated change from level of service (LOS)to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), pursuant to Senate Bill 743 (2013) and new 2019 CEQA Guidelines. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective on July 1, 2020. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Significance Thresholds for Transportation Consistent with State CEQA guidelines section 15064.3, the City of South San Francisco has adopted the thresholds of significance set forth in Table 1 to guide in determining when a project will have a significant transportation impact. Table 1 Vehicle Miles Traveled VMT Impact Thresholds Project Type Threshold (when screening does not apply) Land Use Plan A significant impact would occur if the plan would result in a net increase in Total VMT and VMT per capita1 is more than 15% above the applicable Baseline VMT2. Land Use Project (non-retail) A significant impact would occur if the VMT1 for the project would be 15% below the applicable Baseline VMT2. Retail Project The project would result in a net increase in Total VMT. Transportation Project The project would result in a net increase in Total VMT. Note: 1. VMT to be reported as VMT per Service Population, VMT per resident, or VMT per employee. 2. Baseline VMT is defined as the nine-county Bay Area average for total, residential, or employee VMT. Certain projects may qualify for VMT screening based on the criteria presented in Table 2. Projects screened from requiring a VMT analysis would not have an impact under State CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 and can be discussed qualitatively. The following activities generally will not require a TIA that includes VMT. This presumption is based on the substantial evidence provided in the OPR Technical Advisory supporting SB 743 implementation or is related to projects that are local serving which, by definition, would decrease the number of trips or the distance th ose trips travel to access the development (and are VMT-reducing projects). Table 2 Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Options Screening Category Screening Criteria Project type screening Presumed less than significant impact for:  Local-serving K-12 schools and day care centers  Local parks  Local-serving banks  Local-serving hotels (e.g. non-destination hotels)  Local-serving retail projects (defined as less than 50,000 square feet per OPR’s Technical Advisory)  100 percent affordable residential developments  Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS  Projects generating less than 110 daily vehicle trips.1 This generally corresponds to the following “typical” development potentials:  11 single family housing units  16 multi-family, condominiums, or townhouse housing units  10,000 sq. ft. of office  15,000 sq. ft. of light industrial2  63,000 sq. ft. of warehousing2 Low VMT area screening Presumed less than significant VMT impact for residential and office projects located in low VMT areas. These areas generate total daily VMT that is 15% less than the Baseline VMT. In South San Francisco, there are many low VMT residential areas and no low VMT office areas. 1 This threshold ties directly to the OPR technical advisory and notes that CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area wher e public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive a rea. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet. Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 2 Threshold may be higher depending on the use of the site; however, if an alternate threshold is used it is to be memorialized through a use restriction placed on the site through agreement with the project applicant. This number was estimated using rates from ITE’s Trip Generation Manual. High-quality transit area screening Presumed less than significant VMT impact for projects located within ½-mile of high-quality transit that do not have the following characteristics: o Floor Area Ratio (FAR) < 0.75 o More parking than required by City o Inconsistent with the applicable SCAG RTP/SCS (as determined by the City) o Replacing affordable housing units with market - rate units In South San Francisco, the high-quality transit definition is currently limited to service provided by Samtrans routes 130 and ECR. Transportation projects Transportation projects that promote non -auto travel, improve safety, or improve traffic operations at current bottlenecks, such as transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, intersection traffic control (e.g., traffic signals or roundabouts), or widening at intersections to provide new turn lanes. City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-331 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. Report regarding a resolution establishing sewer service rates for the fiscal year 2020-2021;amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the fiscal year 2020-2021 Sewer Service Rates;adopting the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals Charges for the fiscal year 2020-2021.(Mike Futrell,City Manager &Brian Schumacker,Plant Superintendent). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt a Resolution establishing sewer service rates for the fiscal year 2020-2021,amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the fiscal year 2020-2021 Sewer Service Rates;adopting the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals Charges for the fiscal year 2020-2021. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The South San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant went into service in 1952 to meet the community’s growing need to protect public health and safeguard San Francisco Bay.The sewage collection and treatment system operates 24 hours per day,seven days per week,and can process up to 62 million gallons per day (MGD)of wastewater.The collection system conveys wastewater through a network of over 165 miles of underground sewer lines and thirteen sanitary sewage pump stations in South San Francisco to the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP).This infrastructure serves 16,461 residential and 1,584 commercial connections. Complex systems thoroughly treat wastewater at the WQCP.Local,state,and federal regulators heavily regulate the treatment processes.These regulations help to protect the health and safety of humans,animals, plants,and the environment.The discharge requirements for the WQCP are governed by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and defined in Order No.R2-2019-0021,National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CA 0038130 adopted on July 10, 2019. Sewer fees collected from the users fund critical services such as the operation,maintenance,compliance monitoring,and upgrade of the sewer collection system and treatment plant required by the NPDES permit.The plant staff has engaged in further planning at the treatment plant and has started or completed several reliability improvement projects and engineering studies. ·Completed: o Standby generator No. 1 replacement project o Effluent storage pond relining project (initially constructed in 2005) o WQCP rehabilitation building seismic retrofitting City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-331 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. ·Under design and construction: o Design and rebuilding/rehabilitation of anaerobic digesters o Bulk chemical storage tank rehabilitation (initially constructed in 1997) o Secondary clarifier restoration (initially constructed in 1964) o Sewer collection system inspection and repair o Sanitary Pump Station No. 4 redundant force main Plant management consistently looks for opportunities to operate more efficiently and to implement cost- savings measures, including the following: ·Replacement of two low-efficiency centrifugal blowers with two high-efficiency turbo blowers.These new turbo blowers use up to 25% less electricity ·Digestion process redesign that will replace two conventional anaerobic digesters with one high solids digester. This redesign saved 50% in tank construction costs. ·Planning a 520 kW battery energy storage system to reduce peak energy charges of up to 35% per year ·Feasibility planning for biosolids drying that can reduce biosolids disposal cost by 75% per year ·205 kW solar photovoltaic (PV)covered parking.This project can reduce plant electrical cost by up to 20% per year Regulators continue to make discharge requirements more stringent since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.The Clean Water Act requires adequate plant upgrades to meet new state and federal mandates.The most recent mandate requires additional plant upgrades and necessitated the adjustment of user sewer rates to fund the required changes.On June 28,2017,the City Council conducted a Proposition 218 process to set sewer rates.Subsequently,this process approved a five-year rate plan that increased sewer fees to fund the mandated sewer collection system and treatment plant improvements, as follows: ·In the fiscal year 2017-18, a 13% increase across all rate types ·In the fiscal year 2018-19,a 10%increase across all rate types (financing required only a 9%increase in FY 2018-19) ·In fiscal years 2019-20 through 2021-2022, a 2% increase each year across all rate types Revenues and expenses are in alignment with the staff’s projections from the approved five-year rate plan. However, the staff does not recommend the 2% increase this year for two reasons. 1.Staff successfully secured low-interest Clean Water State Revolving Funding (CWSRF)resulting in a lower interest rate on debt service; and 2.The CWSRF Green Project Reserve approved 4 million dollars in principal forgiveness. The CWSRF targets critical green infrastructure,energy efficiency improvements,and other City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-331 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. The CWSRF targets critical green infrastructure,energy efficiency improvements,and other environmentally innovative projects.Several of the WQCP’s projects qualified,for instance,the new high solids digester technology,solar,and high-efficiency sludge mixing systems.Finance Staff anticipates that the CWSRF loan will save the City roughly 23.7 million dollars in fees,principal forgiveness,and interest charges over the 20-year life of the loan in comparison to open market sources, such as bond issuance. If the City Council elects to do so,the residential rates will remain at $61.58 per month.The rate will not increase from the previous fiscal year.Commercial and industrial rates will also remain even.Commercial rates vary depending upon actual water use of the prior year.The sewer service charge for each type of commercial business also depends on the customer type,customer class (there are different classes for commercial and institutional customers), and the amount of wastewater discharged. The chart below displays how the City of South San Francisco residential sewer rates compare to other cities within San Mateo County. Under the City’s Municipal Code requirements,the Finance Director has filed with the City Clerk a report containing a summary of the annual rentals or charges by type of real property,receiving sewer service, computed in conformity with the schedule of fees.Additionally,the City Clerk published the notice of the public hearing per the applicable state law and Municipal Code requirements.Following the adoption of the Resolution approving the report of sewer service charges for the Fiscal Year 2020-21,the City Clerk will file a copy of the report with the county auditor.The county will then collect the sewer service charges will on the official tax assessment roll. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-331 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11. RELATIONSHIP TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN The Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP)Division promotes public health and environmental stewardship. Continuing to fund infrastructure capital improvements positively affects the quality of life for South San Francisco residents by protecting public health and safety. FISCAL IMPACT Staff developed the FY 2020-21 Sewer Fund budget based on revenue from the proposed rate.Projected revenues for FY 2020-21 are $24,329,908 if approved by the City Council. CONCLUSION The staff has updated the financial forecast for the City based on predicted operational costs,state NPDES permit requirements,and estimates of Sewer Fund revenues and expenses.Staff recommends the existing rate structure remain as set forth for FY 2020-21 within the five-year rate plan initially adopted by City Council in 2017. The City determined Sewer service rates following state guidelines,and staff believes the proposed rates represent a fair and equitable allocation of costs to the various classes of users and are in proportion to the amount of sewage discharged into the sewer system. Attachment: 1.Proposed FY 2020-21 Sewer Rate Plan PowerPoint Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ FY 2020-21 Proposed Sewer Rate Plan1 2• The Water Quality Control Plant Division • Sewer System Users• Regulatory Considerations• Sewer Rate Plan•Infrastructure Investments• Council Questions and Discussion Presentation Overview Wastewater Treatment Plant19522020368 Years of Continuous OperationSouth San Francisco -San Bruno PartnershipSSFSB 4165 Miles of Sewer Line Connecting All of South San Francisco including Thirteen Major Sewage Pumping Stations 5Awarded Winning Team! •Recognized as California’s 2020 Medium Sized Plant of the year for outstanding leadership, efficiency and innovation by the California Water Environment Association 654 Full Time Wastewater Professionals Working 24 Hours/Day, 365 Days/Year 7Single Family Residential, 10,760Multiple Family Residential, 5,701Commercial, 1,584Other/Trailer, 356 8Biotech, $2,838,338Industrial Laundry, $712,638Food Manufacturing, $513,883 9Residential Monthly Charge: $61.58Commercial Monthly Avg. Charge: $636.01Single Family Residential, $7,934,643Multiple Family Residential, $3,779,763Commercial, $12,089,315Other/Trailer, $236,028 Federal, State and County Regulations and MandatesRegional Water Quality Control BoardMandatory Continued Compliance Mandates are not Related to GrowthNew Developments Pay Sewer Impact Fees11 Comply with mandatory regulatory requirementsIncrease level of treatment and plant reliabilityProtect fragile San Francisco Bay ecosystem 13Staff is happy to report that the 2% increase isnot recommendedthis year for tworeasons.1. Low-interest CWSRF fundingresulting in a lower interest rate on debt service;and2. 4 million dollars in principal forgiveness.a. The CWSRF targets critical greeninfrastructure, energy efficiencyimprovements, and other environmentally innovative projects. FY 2017-18FY 2018-19FY 2019-20FY 2020-21FY 2021-22Single Unit Residential$664.00 per EDU(13% Increase)$724.00 per EDU(9% Increase)$739.00 per EDU(2% Increase)$739.00 per EDU(0% Increase)$751.00 per EDU(2% Increase)Multi-Unit/Trailer Residential $596.00 per EDU(13% Increase)$650.00 per EDU(9% Increase)$663.00 per EDU(2% Increase)$663.00 per EDU(0% Increase)$676.00 per EDU(2% Increase)Commercial*(13% Increase)(9% Increase)(2% Increase)(0% Increase)(2% Increase)14*Minimum commercial rate is tied to Single Unit Residential 15The City’s residential sewer rates will remain among the lowest in San Mateo County Anaerobic Digester Replacement ProjectImproved Reliability Increased water quality Digesters No. 1-3 and Control BuildingsN100 ft New Secondary Clarifier No. 4Process ImprovementsProcess ImprovementsRaise Walls of Main Conveyance ChannelStorm Water Pump Station No.4Storm Water Pump Station No. 5Convert Aeration Basins No. 1-4NRehabilitate Switchgear Replacement 2019 2020 21Loadings of Pollutants to the Bay from Sewage treatment Plants vs Population0501001502002501955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015Pounds ofPollutantsBay Area Population Trend 22 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-332 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution establishing sewer service rates for fiscal year 2020-2021;amending the Master Fee Schedule to include the fiscal year 2020-2021 Sewer Service Rates;adopting the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals Charges for fiscal year 2020-2021. WHEREAS,Chapter 14.12 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to assess sewer rates by resolution; and WHEREAS,in April and May of 2017,in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218,the City notified the owners of property within South San Francisco of the proposed five-year rate plan and the Water Quality Control Plant’s (“WQCP”)capital improvement needs,state regulatory changes,the proposed rate increase and the structure of the rate changes; and WHEREAS,on June 28,2017,the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing,at which there was not a majority protest, and approved the five year rate plan; and WHEREAS,the adopted five year rate plan included a 13%increase for all rate classifications for fiscal year 2017-2018;a 10%increase,if needed,for all rate classifications for fiscal year 2018-2019;and a 2%increase per year, if needed, for all classifications in fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022; and, WHEREAS,on May 27,2020 and June 2,2020,as required by law,notice of the proposed rates for fiscal year 2020-2021 and notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation; and WHEREAS,on June 10,2020,the City Council held a public hearing on the implementation of the fiscal year 2020-2021 sewer rates as stated in the five-year rate plan; and WHEREAS,the rates reflected in the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals and Charges are consistent with the five year financing plan. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the schedule of sewer rates as set forth in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated into this resolution,which is consistent with the previously approved financing plan,and hereby amends the City’s Master Fee Schedule for sewer service rates, consistent with the schedule of rates set forth in Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals and City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-332 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:11a. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Report of Annual Sewer Rentals and Charges for fiscal year 2020-2021,as set forth in Exhibit B,attached hereto and incorporated herein,and directs that the rates so established shall be collected on the official tax assessment roll,together with real property taxes,and that the amount shall constitute liens upon the properties which shall be effective at the same time and to the same extent as is provided for by law in the case of real property taxes,with like penalties for delinquencies. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ How rates are calculated:City of South San FranciscoProposed Sewer Rate IncreaseResidential Rates. Rates for residential properties are calculated by multiplying the number of dwelling units on each property by the annual rate. The dwelling unitrate for Single Residential assumes an "average" annual effluent flow of 8,400 cubic feet. The Multi-Unit Residential and Trailer Unit rate assumes an "average" annual effluent flow of 7,500 cubic feet.Commercial and Institutional Rates. Restaurant, Institutional and Commercial Rates are calculated by: A) Measuring the annual water use at each property andmultiplying this usage by the inflow rate; or by B) Measuring the annual sewer flow from each property and multiplying by the effluent rate.Industrial Rates. Industrial Rates are calculated based on the annual amount of flow, chemical oxygen demand and total suspended solids from each property.Separate sewer rates are calculated for each component and then added for the total sewer fee for each property. Annual measurement and testing are performed at each property to confirm the flow and loading.Septage Rates. Septage rates are calculated by multiplying the gallons of flow discharged from the septic pumper by the septage rate.Proposed Sewer Rate Increases over the next 5 yearsUser GroupBasis of CalculationMaximum Rate FY2016-17$/Unit/YearProposed Maximum Rate FY2017-18$/Unit/YearProposed Maximum Rate FY2018-19$/Unit/YearProposed Maximum Rate FY2019-20$/Unit/YearProposed Maximum Rate FY2020-21$/Unit/YearProposed Maximum Rate FY2021-22$/Unit/YearSingle Unit ResidentialDwelling Unit588664730745760775Multi-Unit ResidentialDwelling Unit527596655668682695Trailer Unit ResidentialDwelling Unit5275966556686826955886647307457607757.55088.53249.38569.57349.76489.96018.38989.480510.428510.637110.849811.066858866473074576077511.816613.352814.688014.981815.281415.587113.129514.836316.320016.646416.979317.318958866473074576077517.264619.509021.459921.889122.326922.773419.182921.676723.844324.321224.807725.30385886647307457607754.52355.11165.62275.73525.84995.96695.02615.67956.24746.37246.49986.62980.46900.53000.58300.59460.60650.61861.51851.71591.88751.92521.96382.00305886647307457607756.09066.88247.57067.72207.87658.03406.76737.64708.41188.58008.75168.9266Septage HaulersGallons0.32200.36390.40020.40830.41640.4247IndustrialMinimum Charge Hundred Cubic Feet InflowOr Effluent Chemical Oxygen DemandPounds Total Suspended SolidsPoundsInstitutionsMinimum Charge Hundred Cubic Feet InflowOr EffluentLight Strength CommercialMinimum Charge Hundred Cubic Feet InflowOr EffluentModerate Strength CommercialMinimum Charge Hundred Cubic Feet InflowOr EffluentRestaurantsMinimum Charge Hundred Cubic Feet InflowOr Effluent City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-394 Agenda Date:6/10/2020 Version:1 Item #:12. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957) Title: City Attorney City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/5/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™