BMC Section 17.32.220 requires Planning Commission review of a grading permit when more than 50 cubic yards of material is to be removed from the site and/or when more than 250 of material are involved.
SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is approximately 3 acres in size and is located south of the Golden State Lumber storage yard, between the CalTrain rail lines and Tunnel Avenue, on the westernmost edge of the former municipal landfill. Most of the parking area will be set back from Tunnel Avenue by approximately 78 to 100 feet and set back from CalTrain by approximately 40 to 115 feet.
The subject area is vegetated with Coyote brush scrub and grasses that have grown on the soil cap over the landfill following cessation of the landfilling in this area in the mid-1900’s. The City’s biological consultant for the Baylands has previously identified seasonal wetlands in the areas east and west of this site, but the proposal site would not encroach into those areas.
The attached photo by staff taken in September 2019 shows the general state of the site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed operations as described by the applicant are summarized as follows:
Site Preparation The site would run parallel to Tunnel Avenue with a one-way entrance from Tunnel Avenue at the north end and a one-way exit at the south end of the site.
Prior to occupying the site with the buses, the site would be prepared by grubbing the vegetation and laying base rock across the site. The total grading volume would be approximately 4,075 cubic yards. Approximately 400 cubic yards of the grubbed material would be exported from the site and approximately 3,675 cubic yards would be imported base rock to provide a parking surface.
A six foot high chain link fence would be placed around the perimeter of the site, with a manually operated, lockable gate at the driveway entrance and exit. Solar powered temporary light standards would be placed at eleven locations across the site for safety and security, as shown on the applicant’s site plan.
Per a draft condition of approval, prior to preparing the site for the proposed use, the nearby wetlands would be marked by the project biologist, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, to prevent inadvertent disruption of those areas during the site preparation work.
Proposed Use As indicated above, the site would be used for staging up to 90 Google buses for transporting Google employee commuters. The buses would be picked up and dropped off by contracted Google bus drivers Monday through Friday, between 3 and 7 am and 3 and 9 pm.
Drivers arriving by personal vehicle would park those vehicles on the site, in place of the Google buses. The total vehicle trips per day is estimated at 360, with the peak hours being between 4 and 6 am at a rate of 60 trips per hour and between 7 and 8 pm at a rate of 50 trips in that hour.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/24/19 Meeting
73 589
L.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/10/19 Meeting
Note that a trip is counted for each time either a personal vehicle or bus would enter or exit the yard.
Vehicle maintenance would not be conducted on the site.
No permanent employees would be located on the site, since the site would only serve as a staging location to store, pick up and drop off buses. The buses are equipped with lavatories and trash receptacles and so no restroom or trash collection facilities are planned for the site. All waste products would be handled off-site, outside of Brisbane.
As indicated above the yard would be fenced and gated for security. Additionally, security personnel would periodically patrol this site along with two other nearby Google sites 7 days a week. Portable solar-powered lighting standards with security cameras would be located on the site for security and safety during early morning and evening vehicle transfers. Lighting would be on in the mornings at 4:30 am and in the evenings to 11 pm. The Police Department reviewed the applicant’s proposal and had no objections.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: The required findings under BMC Sections 17.41.060.A-F and project analysis are as follows:
Interim Use Permit
a) The interim use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to nearby properties or improvements;
The proposal complies with this finding.
The site is within an industrial area of Brisbane and the proposal is not anticipated to have any detrimental or injurious effects. The area is largely surrounded by vacant lands, and the CalTrain rail line. CalTrain’s north-south rail lines run adjacent to the site immediately to the west. The Golden State Lumber storage yard is located approximately 200 feet to the north. To the east, across Tunnel Avenue, are the Brisbane Recycling Company and Brisbane Soil Processing operations. To the south are vacant lands of the Baylands. Note that CalTrain has indicated that their fiber line runs on the property and appears to be immediately to the west of the proposed yard. To ensure that there is no damage to the nearby fiber line, a condition of approval is included to coordinate locating it in the field prior to grading.
Given the site’s location, the closest residential uses are approximately 1/3 mile away, to the southwest, at the Northeast Ridge, and slightly more distant to the west and north in Daly City and San Francisco, at approximately ½ mile. Given those distances, and the operational conditions of approval, including the number of vehicle trips per hour, the use is not anticipated to have any detrimental effects on the residential areas. Despite that, since the CalTrain Bayshore station is located approximately ¼ mile to the north on Tunnel Avenue, due to the anticipated increase in bus traffic, CalTrain has requested that UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/24/19 Meeting
74 590
L.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/10/19 Meeting
prior to the start of operations, outreach be made by Google to the nearby residential neighborhood. This would be to inform the nearby residents that the Google buses, to be housed on the subject site, will be operating near that station. b) the interim use will not create any significant environmental impacts; The proposal complies with this finding.
The use is temporary in nature with no permanent structures or utilities and the use would have negligible or no permanent effects on the environment. As such it is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. As indicated above, there are wetlands in the vicinity of the site, but these are outside the area of proposed use. A condition of approval is included for a qualified project biologist to delineate the wetlands in the field and that they be marked with temporary orange fencing to prevent inadvertent damage during grading.
The use of buses for Googles employees will serve to remove single occupancy vehicles from the roadways and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the region, reducing environmental impacts that would otherwise result from single occupant vehicles. c) the interim use will not obstruct redevelopment;
The proposal complies with this finding.
In considering approval of the Interim Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the use “…will not obstruct, interfere with, or delay the intended redevelopment of the property…” (BMC Section 17.41.060.C). Given the short duration of the proposed use and that fact that it will not include any permanent structures, there would be no obstruction to redevelopment plans. A condition of approval is included to address vacation of the site should redevelopment be advanced during the permit period. d) all required public utilities and other infrastructure are or will be available; This proposal complies with this finding.
The infrastructure of the roadway is provided via Tunnel Avenue with nearby U.S. 101 freeway access via Beatty Avenue. No utilities are required for this use. e) the use will benefit the property and/or the public; The proposal complies with this finding.
The use would benefit the public in that the bus yard would support the use of commuter buses and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the region.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/24/19 Meeting
75 591
L.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/10/19 Meeting
f) encourage the employment of Brisbane residents to the extent it is reasonably possible to do so.
The proposal complies with this finding.
The applicant indicates that their employment recruitment program will include directed outreach to Brisbane residents, to the extent possible. Google utilizes vendor partners for bus driver services and has indicated that they will encourage those vendors to post job openings in the City’s Chamber of Commerce publication, the Luminary.
Grading
In 2003, the Planning Commission adopted guidelines and findings for reviewing grading applications based on General Plan policies.
a. The proposed grading is minimized and designed to reflect or fit comfortably with the natural topography.
b. The proposed grading is designed to avoid large exposed retaining walls. c. The proposed grading is designed to conserve existing street trees. d. The proposed grading complies with the terms of the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan Agreement and Section 10(a) Permit, if and as applicable.
The proposal either complies or is not applicable to these findings. The only applicable finding is the first and the grading will not appreciably change the relatively flat topography of the site, except to even out the surface of this relatively flat site and provide a layer of base rock. There would be no retaining walls, no effected trees and the site is not within the HCP. It should be noted that technical issues such as soil stability, erosion control and site drainage are under the purview of the City Engineer, as a separate grading permit.
Finally, note that this application was routed to the City Engineer/Public Works Director, Fire Dept., Police Dept., San Mateo County Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Bayshore Sanitary District, San Francisco Water and CalTrain JPB for review and comment. There were no objections to the proposed use. Proposed conditions of approval are provided with the attached resolution.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/24/19 Meeting
76 592
L.
UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/10/19 Meeting
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Photograph
C. Applicant’s Project Description
D. Applicant’s Vehicle Trip Estimates
E. Applicant’s Proposed Plans
F. Draft Resolution UP-4-19/EX-3-19
______________________________ _______________________________________ Ken Johnson, Senior Planner John Swiecki, Community Development Director UP-4-19/EX-3-19
10/24/19 Meeting
77 593
L.
78 594
L.
79 595
L.
80 596
L.
Brisbane Planning Commission Minutes
October 24, 2019
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Use Permit UP-7-19 (Continuation of UP-4-18); Baylands, East of Bayshore Boulevard, between Icehouse Hill and the Caltrain rail lines; C-1 Commercial Mixed Use District; Interim Use Permit to allow the previously approved interim use to continue through December 2020, to allow outdoor staging of construction materials and equipment and assembly of work trains and rail track segments on an approximately 3.5-acre vacant site with an existing rail spur, to support improvements along the Caltrain rail-line corridor; Zach Mayes, applicant; Universal Paragon Corp., owner.
Senior Planner Johnson gave the staff presentation and answered Commissioner questions regarding metering of the temporary water connection and the lack of noise complaints.
Chairperson Sayasane opened the public hearing.
Zach Mayes, applicant, addressed the Commission in support of the application.
Seeing no others wishing to speak, Commissioner Mackin moved and Commissioner Gomez seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was approved 5-0.
Commissioner Mackin moved to adopt resolution UP-7-19. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel and approved 5-0.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Use Permit UP-4-19/Grading Review EX-3-19; 600 Tunnel Avenue, in the Baylands subarea, a vacant site south of the Golden State Lumber storage yard, between Tunnel Avenue and the Caltrain rail lines; C-1 Commercial Mixed Use District; Interim Use Permit to allow staging of up to 90 Google commuter buses to serve Peninsula Google employees on an approximately 3-acre vacant site for up to 5 years, including preparatory site grubbing and approximately 4,500 cubic yards of grading with base rock; Eric Aronsohn, applicant; Oyster Point Properties Inc. (Universal Paragon Corp.), owner.
Senior Planner Johnson gave the staff presentation and answered Commissioner questions regarding proposed on and off-site circulation, potential impacts to the capped landfill and adjacent wetland habitat, truck travel patterns of other businesses in the area, lighting, dust control, and stormwater management.
Chairperson Sayasane opened the public hearing.
Eric Aronsohn, representing owner Universal Paragon Corp, and Ross Benson, representing proposed tenant Google, addressed the Commission in support of the application.
Mary Rogers, Brisbane resident, addressed the Commission in opposition to the application.
Tamara, employee of Golden Gate Lumber, addressed the Commission regarding the timing of lumber yard operations within the vicinity of the proposed parking lot.
Seeing no others wishing to speak, Commissioner Patel moved and Commissioner Gooding seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was approved 5-0.
After deliberation, Commissioner Gooding moved to adopt resolution UP-4-19/EX-3-19, modified to reduce the term of the interim use permit to two years and to require that routing of vehicles be to the north to connect to U.S. 101. It was also advised that any application to extend the use permit beyond 2 years should include traffic circulation and trip count data. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gomez and approved 4-1 (Mackin).
I. STUDY SESSION
81 597
L.
ATTACHMENT 9.C
82 598
L.
EXHIBIT A
ACTION TAKEN: Conditionally approved Interim Use Permit UP-4-19 and Grading Review EX-3-19 per the staff memorandum with attachments, via adoption of Resolution UP-4-19/EX-3-
19. (Note: Modifications imposed by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2019 are shown in redline/strikeout.)
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed interim use and the conditions under which it would be operated will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, as described in the staff memorandum;
2. The proposed interim use is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15304(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts;
3. The proposed interim use will not obstruct, interfere with, or delay the intended redevelopment of the property in accordance with the uses anticipated in the General Plan or any adopted specific plan applicable to the site, inasmuch as there are no permanent site improvements proposed.
4. There are no required public utilities since the use is for bus staging only. The infrastructure of Tunnel Avenue will provide for roadway access and lavatories and recycling is contained on the buses, so that the interim use will operate in a safe, sanitary, and lawful manner.
5. The use will benefit the property and/or the public in that it would be used to facilitate bus ridership for Google employees thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions that will benefit the public throughout the region.
6. The use would encourage the employment of Brisbane residents to the extent it is reasonably possible to do so.
7. The proposed grading is minimized and designed to reflect or fit comfortably with the natural topography.
8. The proposed grading would not include retaining walls.
9. The proposed grading would not impact trees.
10. The proposed grading is not within the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan area.
83 599
L.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Site Preparation
A. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the City Engineer prior to start of grading and shall complete grading to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
B. Grading shall comply with stormwater NPDES requirements, including Best Management Practices, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
C. Prior to grading, the applicant shall coordinate with CalTrain to locate and mark the location of the CalTrain fiber line that runs near the proposed site.
D. Prior to grading, the project biologist shall clearly mark out the extents of the wetlands area in the field and temporary orange safety fencing shall be placed at least 20 feet from the wetlands perimeter, to prevent damage to these areas during grading.
E. Applicant shall notify the County and Water Board at least 72 hours prior to grading operations and shall comply with any conditions imposed by these agencies.
F. Portable security lighting shall be placed and maintained downwards onto the site and not up or outwards, such that it would present a hazard or significant glare to off-site properties.
Any modification to the lighting plan shall be subject to Planning Director approval.
G. Security fencing shall be placed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Entry gates shall be set back from Tunnel Avenue, such that buses will not back up onto Tunnel Avenue while gates are being opened or closed.
H. Per the Fire Department:
a. Minimum 4 inch tall address numbers shall be posted at each entrance gate. b. All flammable vegetation must be cut and removed from the interior of the lot. c. Flammable vegetation must be cut and removed a minimum of 30 feet away from the property line, around the exterior of the lot being used, to provide a fuel break from the Baylands vegetation, except that vegetation within the wetlands areas shall not be removed without approval by the project biologist.
Prior to Bus Yard Operation
I. The prospective operator shall maintain a business license through the City’s Finance Dept.
J. Prior to start of operations, Google shall coordinate with CalTrain to provide residential outreach to inform them of the Google buses to be operating in the area.
K. Per the County Environmental Health Services, the operator shall provide to the County a maintenance and monitoring program to maintain the base rock surface and to minimize surface ponding of the storm water. A copy shall also be provided to the City Planning Director.
84 600
L.
Operational Conditions
L. No storage is permitted, other than the Google bus parking and parking of the drivers’ vehicles used to retrieve buses.
M. The site shall be maintained free of trash and debris. Trash and recycling shall be contained on the buses for disposal at an authorized off site location.
N. The project shall comply with stormwater NPDES requirements on an ongoing basis to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
O. Per the City Engineer, all vehicles utilizing the yard shall be in compliance with vehicle weight requirements specified in California Vehicle Code Sections 35550-35558. Storage of any vehicles over these weight requirements shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, who may impose additional conditions.
P. Routing of vehicles shall be to the north along Beatty Avenue to connect to U.S. 101 to and from the site.
Q. The site and surrounding area shall be maintained for the duration of the use in compliance with North County Fire Authority requirements, per condition H.
R. Maintenance of vehicles is not permitted on the site.
S. The gravel site surface shall be maintained to prevent water from ponding on the site and to provide for dust control to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
T. This site shall not be paved with an impervious surface. Any such proposal would be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Director and City Engineer and review under the Water Board C.3 provisions.
U. Per the Bayshore Sanitary District requirements:
No onsite wastewater facilities, other than those on the buses are permitted. No SFPUC water connection is permitted without a permit amendment. No wastes from the buses into the District’s wastewater collection system shall be permitted.
V. Minor modifications to this use permit may be approved by the Planning Director upon written request.
W. If the City determines that the interim use would interfere or obstruct planned public improvements, within a 90-day written notice by the City the permittee shall abandon the interim use and remove improvements at its own expense.
X. This Use Permit is subject to the revocation procedures established in Brisbane Municipal Code Chapter 17.48.
85 601
L.
Mandatory Conditions, per BMC Section 17.41.070:
Y. Since the use is being operated by a person other than the owner of the property, the owner and the operator are furnish the city with an agreement (or a copy of a lease containing such agreement) that: (i) the operator's right to possession of the premises for the purpose of conducting the interim use is dependent upon the interim use permit having been granted and maintained in full force and effect; and (ii) the operator's right to possession of the premises for the purpose of conducting the interim use will terminate upon any expiration or revocation of the interim use permit; and (iii) it shall be the responsibility of the owner to terminate the operator's possession of the premises upon any expiration or revocation of the interim use permit if the operator continues to utilize the premises for the conduct of such interim use.
Z. The permittee shall be jointly and severally liable for all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, the city may incur to enforce the conditions of the interim use permit upon any breach thereof by the permittee, or to abate and remove the interim use upon any failure by the permittee to discontinue such use, or to evict the operator of such use, upon the expiration or revocation of the interim use permit.
Project Close Out:
AA. Vehicles, fencing and lighting shall be removed from the site by the close of the interim use permit period or upon other vacation of the use.
BB. This Interim Use Permit shall expire five years two years from the effective date of the interim use permit.
CC. Reapplication for use permit renewal should include actual traffic routing and trip count data.
*****
86 602
L.
File Attachments for Item:
M. Consider Approval of Use Permit 2022-UP-2; 1000 Sierra Point Parkway; SP-CRO Sierra Point Commercial District; Use Permit application to allow the use of minipigs in medical research and development (R&D) by Bristol-Myers Squibb in the existing, approximately 9,000 square foot vivarium; Ricardo Garcia, applicant; HCP LS Brisbane LLC, owner 603
M.
Use Permit Application 2022-UP-2 Page 1 of 3
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 19, 2022
From: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
Subject: Use Permit Application 2022-UP-2, 1000 Sierra Point Parkway, within the SP-CRO Sierra Point Commercial District, to allow the use of minipigs in medical research and development (R&D) by BristolMyers Squibb.
Community Goal/Result
Safe Community - Residents and visitors will experience a sense of safety.
Purpose
To consider the proposed use permit application for Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) to conduct research on minipigs for cardiovascular research.
Recommendation
That the City Council approve the requested use permit application 2022-UP-2, via adoption of the draft Resolution, containing the findings and conditions of approval (Attachment 1).
Background
On June 16, 2008, City Council adopted Ordinance 528 which allowed for research and development (R&D) uses at Sierra Point. That ordinance, codified as BMC Section 17.18.035.B allows for R&D using certain live animals (live insects, rodents, rabbits, fish, and amphibians) as permitted by-right while certain others (live dogs, cats, or nonhuman primates) are prohibited.
Those that are not identified as either permitted or prohibited are subject to a use permit, pursuant to Section 17.18.020.K. The findings required for Use Permit approval are contained in BMC Sections 17.40.060.A & B and are listed below in this report.
Notably, per Brisbane Municipal Code Section 17.18.035, R&D use permits in this district are subject to the City Council’s review and approval authority rather than the Planning Commission, which typically has approval authority over use permits. The provision establishing City Council authority over R&D use permits in this zoning district was added by the City Council itself during deliberations on the draft ordinance in 2008. Until now no R&D use permit applications have been filed pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance.
The subject application was initially noticed in error for Planning Commission review; however it was removed from the Planning Commission agenda without being heard. All correspondence provided to the Planning Commission has been attached to this Council report for reference.
1 604
M.
Use Permit Application 2022-UP-2 Page 2 of 3
Discussion
As indicated above, the applicant proposes to utilize the existing vivarium to conduct R&D using minipigs. This is for cardiovascular medical research. The location of the use would be within BMS’s existing, 9,000 square foot vivarium on the first floor of this 4-story, approximately 125K square foot R&D building, within The Shore biotechnology campus.
The applicant has indicated that the cardiovascular makeup of minipigs is similar to that of humans and so they serve an important function in this type of research. The BMS project description states that, “While smaller animals (rats and mice for instance) are valuable contributors at the beginning stages of disease research, many question about how a drug acts in the body need to be studied in an animal that more closely recapitulates the human physiology, metabolism, and disease process.” The applicant has estimated that approximately 5 to 15 minipigs would be at the facility at any given time. Further details on the use are provided in the applicant’s project description (Attachment 3) The use permit provisions provide two findings for approval, per BMC Section 17.40.060. They are:
i. In considering an application, the City Council shall consider and give due regard to the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures, and to general and specific plans for the area in question.
ii. The City Council shall determine whether or not the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, or whether it will be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.
Adjacent Uses and General Plan Consistency— In regards to the first finding, the property is within The Shore biotechnology campus, adjacent to other R&D uses. The other nearest use is the City’s Marina to the west. The use would be conducted indoors within a controlled vivarium environment in an existing R&D building.
The property is designated for a broad range of commercial land uses in the General Plan, including research and development, which is implemented through the SP-SCRO Sierra Point Commercial District zoning (BMC Chapter 17.18). This allows for the use via conditional use permit, as noted above.
Not Detrimental or Injurious to the Property, Neighborhood or City— On the second finding, the proposal would not be detrimental or injurious to the property, neighborhood or City. As noted above, the use would be conducted indoors within a controlled vivarium environment of an existing R&D building. As such, there would be no detrimental effects on any persons working in the neighborhood and there are no residences in the neighborhood, nor would there be injurious 2 605
M.
Use Permit Application 2022-UP-2 Page 3 of 3
or detrimental effects to property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
As such staff believes this use permit application meets the findings required for approval.
It should be noted that various correspondence has been received expressing opposition to the use of minipigs for research (Attachment 4). The opposition has been based on ethical questions that arise from R&D uses on minipigs, or animals in general. Conversely, the argument in favor of such research might be summarized in that it provides opportunities to advance research and knowledge into treatment of human heart disease and associated conditions, potentially providing broad health benefits. While staff recognizes and respects the differing perspectives surrounding this issue, the findings in the city’s ordinance focus on whether there are impacts of a given use that would impact the health and safety of neighbors and potential impacts on property.
Despite that, note that the use is under the regulatory authority of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Staff contacted the Veterinary Medical Officer with the USDA who has oversight responsibility for this facility. He indicated that the use will be subject to unannounced inspections by the USDA to ensure the welfare of the animals and indicated that there were no concerns with the proposed use at this facility. Zoning district requirements further require that R&D uses involving live animals comply with the latest version of The Institute of Laboratory Animals Resources Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
This application has also been reviewed by the Public Works Department, Police Department and North County Fire Authority and Building Department. None of the departments had objections to the proposed application.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Measure of Success
Processing of this application for an R&D use permit consistent with Brisbane’s Municipal Code.
Attachments
1. Draft Resolution 2022-XX with Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Aerial photo of site location & vicinity
3. Applicant’s Project Description
4. Correspondence from the Public
__________________________________ _____________________________ John Swiecki, Community Development Director Clay Holstine, City Manager 3 606
M.
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft - RESOLUTION 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF BRISBANE
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING USE PERMIT 2022-UP-2
TO ALLOW FOR USE OF MINIPIGS FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D)
AT 1000 SIERRA POINT PARKWAY
WHEREAS, Ricardo Garcia, the applicant, on behalf of the tenant Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), applied to the City of Brisbane for a Use Permit to allow for R&D use of minipigs within the existing BMS vivarium at 1000 Sierra Point Parkway, such application being identified as Use Permit 2022-UP-2; and
WHEREAS, the use of existing facilities are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines and the exceptions to the categorical exemptions referenced in Section 15300.2 do not apply; and
WHEREAS, notice of the City Council public hearing was posted and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the boundaries of the subject property and all interested parties requesting notice, per BMC Section 17.54.020 prior to the City Council hearing; and WHEREAS, on May 19, 2022, City Council conducted a hearing of the application, at which time any person interested in the matter was given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby makes the findings attached herein as Exhibit A in connection with the Use Permit.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that:
Section 1.
A. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
B. The City Council approves Use Permit 2022-UP-2 based on the findings and with the conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit A.
Section 2.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. 4 607
M.
_______________
COLEEN MACKIN, Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-XX was duly and regularly adopted at the regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on May 19th, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_______________
INGRID PADILLA, City Clerk
5 608
M.
EXHIBIT A
Action Taken: Conditionally approve Use Permit 2022-UP-2 per the staff memorandum with attachments, via adoption of Resolution 2022-XX.
Findings:
1. The City Council has considered and given due regard to the nature and condition of adjacent uses and structures and the use permit is consistent with the general plan and there is no specific plan adopted by the city council for the area in question.
2. The establishment, maintenance and operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use, nor will it be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city.
Conditions of Approval:
A. The operator shall maintain its Business License with the City of Brisbane.
B. The operator shall comply with the performance standards provided in BMC Section
17.18.045 regarding R&D uses.
C. Operator shall comply with the requirements of the USDA, to ensure the welfare of the animals complies with USDA standards.
D. Minor modifications to the use permit may be approved by the Community Development Director in conformance will all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. .
******
6 609
M.
7 ATTACHMENT 2
610
M.
1 Introduction
This application describes a request for a use permit for the use of minipigs (Sus scrofa) in research in the existing Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) vivarium at 1000 Sierra Point Parkway, per Sections 17.18.020(K), 17.18.035(B) of the City of Brisbane Municipal Code. The BMS vivarium at Sierra Point is already constructed and staffed with suitability for indoor pig housing. The permit for the existing structure was granted by the City in 2008 as Building D of the Shore at Sierra Point project, an approximately 23-acre research and development campus in the current SP-CRO Sierra Point Commercial District. Occupancy began in 2020; the site is currently fully operational with approximately 150 full-time employees.
No modifications to the building are proposed in this application or associated with this proposed use. No changes in hazardous chemical storage or noise/odor generation are associated with this proposed use. The facility itself will be used to house swine that will be the subject of ongoing scientific investigation to advance scientific knowledge and treatment of human heart disease and associated conditions. Typical laboratory equipment, office space and other furnishings typical of a science lab are housed within the building on the property in question.
Background and Objective
While smaller animals (mice and rats, for instance) are valuable contributors at the beginning stages of disease research, many questions about how a drug acts in the body need to be studied in an animal that more closely recapitulates the human physiology, metabolism, and disease process. Pigs are a particularly valuable species and are especially notable for their similarities to the human cardiovascular system. BMS employs sound, scientifically advanced methods to develop swine populations that mirror heart disease found in humans.
Project Conduct
BMS has substantial experience and expertise in conducting a wide range of scientific research which often necessarily involves the use of animals. It is for this reason that BMS has established strict internal policies and practices that are designed to meet our own standards and those of all applicable governmental agencies. BMS proudly promotes a culture of excellence in animal welfare, with an active oversight committee, 24/7 availability of laboratory animal veterinarians and veterinary staff, regular internal welfare assessments, and third-party accreditation in AAALAC International, the leading, internationally-recognized organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals in science through voluntary accreditation and assessment programs. All animal activities will comply with federal and local regulations, and the site has obtained and maintains a research registration with the United States Department of Agriculture. Additionally, the animal program will adhere to or exceed the standards described in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, National Research Council).
BMS is committed to the humane and scientifically appropriate use of animals in research, in unison with our dedication to innovative clinical advancements. Through sophisticated study methods and rigorous scientific principles, our investigators drive the development of high-quality medicines that address the unmet medical needs of patients with serious diseases. Establishing this research at the Sierra Point site will connect our existing cardiovascular team with the resources needed to rapidly develop and progress novel therapies to waiting patients. Beyond satisfying the City’s permit requirements, BMS views its commitment to its planned operation at this location as vital to the continued scientific advances critical to our public health mission.
With approval, we look forward to initiating this much-needed work. We have carefully reviewed the permit submission requirements and guidance and believe we have furnished all information necessary to support issuance of the requested use permit. We appreciate the City Council’s thoughtful review of this permit application for the use of minipigsin research at the BMS Sierra Point site. We are available for any questions, clarifications, or additional information the Council would find helpful during the review process. 8 ATTACHMENT 3
611
M.
2 Selected Scientific Publications:
Olivotto, I., Oreziak, A., Barriales-Villa, R., Abraham, T. P., Masri, A., Garcia-Pavia, P., Saberi, S., Lakdawala, N. K., Wheeler, M. T., Owens, A., Kubanek, M., Wojakowski, W., Jensen, M. K., Gimeno-Blanes, J., Afshar, K., Myers, J., Hegde, S. M., Solomon, S. D., Sehnert, A. J., … Yamani, M.. (2020). Mavacamten for treatment of symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (EXPLORER-HCM): a randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled, phase 3 trial. The Lancet, 396(10253), 759–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31792-x Ho, C. Y., Mealiffe, M. E., Bach, R. G., Bhattacharya, M., Choudhury, L., Edelberg, J. M., Hegde, S. M., Jacoby, D., Lakdawala, N. K., Lester, S. J., Ma, Y., Marian, A. J., Nagueh, S. F., Owens, A., Rader, F., Saberi, S., Sehnert, A. J., Sherrid, M. V., Solomon, S. D., Wang, A., … Heitner, S. B. (2020). Evaluation of Mavacamten in Symptomatic Patients With Nonobstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 75(21), 2649–2660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.064 Silva, K., & Emter, C. A. (2020). Large Animal Models of Heart Failure: A Translational Bridge to Clinical Success. JACC. Basic to translational science, 5(8), 840–856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacbts.2020.04.011 Stricker-Krongrad, A., Shoemake, C., Brocksmith, D., Liu, J., Hamlin, R., & Bouchard, G.. (2017). Comparative cardiovascular physiology and pathology in selected lineages of minipigs. Toxicology Research and Application, 1, 239784731769636. https://doi.org/10.1177/2397847317696367 Gutierrez, K., Dicks, N., Glanzner, W. G., Agellon, L. B., & Bordignon, V. (2015). Efficacy of the porcine species in biomedical research. Frontiers in genetics, 6, 293. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00293 Animal Welfare Resources:
Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (USDA): https://www.nal.usda.gov/legacy/awic/animal-welfare-act Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, 8th Ed. (“The Guide”):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK54050/
AAALAC International: https://www.aaalac.org/
The “3Rs”: https://nc3rs.org.uk/the-3rs
9 612
M.
3 Attachment A
How has the project been designed and operated in order to be compatible with the nature and condition of all adjacent uses and structures, and with general and specific plans for the area in question? This proposal incorporates no alterations to the existing area at or around 1000 Sierra Point Parkway. All work will be conducted entirely inside the facility.
How will the proposed use be designed and operated in order to not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood? The proposed use would have no detrimental effect on the safety, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing in the Brisbane community. All elements of this work will be contained within the facility. All scientific work within BMS is designed and conducted in compliance with local, federal, and company safety requirements under the direction of the BMS biosafety officer.
How will the proposed use be designed and operated in order to not be injurious or detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the city? The proposed use will be conducted entirely within the BMS facility, therefore, there is no risk of detrimental impact on the property or improvements in the neighborhood. The objective of all scientific work at BMS is for the ultimate improvement of human health, and seeks to improve the welfare of patients at a city level and global scale.
10 613
M.
From: Chris Brinkman <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 5:38:39 PM PDT
To: "Holstine, Clay" <[email protected]>
Subject: Important - re: pig testing
Dear Clay,
I would like to register my very strong opposition to the permit application by Bristol-Myers Squibb to add baby pig testing in there vivarium. This type of testing is cruel and unusual to sentient beings particularly those as intelligent as pigs. These animals will suffer needlessly unless we deny this inappropriate testing scheme. As a society we can do better than taking shortcuts like this, we can improve and develop pharmaceuticals in more humane ways. If humans are the Apex creature, we need to use our brains in our compassion to care for other animals that don’t have a voice in this matter. I hope you will use your best judgment in considering my request.
If you would, please forward my email to the planning commission and add this to the public document records for this permit application.
In mutual compassion,
Chris Brinkman
Santa Rosa, CA
11 ATTACHMENT 4
614
M.
From: Jennifer Kalk <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 11:28:33 PM PDT
To: "Holstine, Clay" <[email protected]>
Subject: Use of piglet’s for testing
Dear Sir
I am very much against, in fact horrified that Bristol Myers Squibb is applying for a permit to use baby pigs for testing heart medications. This cannot be allowed!! Please forward my email to the entire Planning Commission and make my request and comment public by making it part of the “Public Documents” for this permit application.
Thank you
Jennifer Kalk
Sent from my iPhone
12 615
M.
From: Laura Watson <[email protected]>
Date: April 12, 2022 at 7:05:00 PM PDT
To: "Holstine, Clay" <[email protected]>
Subject: Bristol Myers Squibb -- Pig Testing
Dear Clay Holstine,
As an advocate for animals and a volunteer at Goatlandia, farm animal sanctuary, I am writing to you in regards to the application from Bristol Myers Squibb to put before the Brisbane Planning Commission to add baby pig testing in their Vivarium. This is an expansion of the testing that they do on Rats and Mice.
In my experience, I have seen first-hand how so many animals are in desperate need to to have a safe and loving environment because they have been mistreated. Please do not allow the mistreatment and testing to go this far and expand to baby pigs.
I am asking for a denial of the permit and for Bristol Myers Squibb to find appropriate and alternate ways to test their new heart medications.
Please forward this email to the entire Planning Commission and please make this request public by making it part of the “Public Documents” for this permit application.
Thank you,
Laura Watson
13 616
M.
From: Jane McLaughlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Holstine, Clay <[email protected]>
Subject: NO pig testing
Dear Mr. Holstine,
I understand that Bristol Myers Squibb will be applying to the city of Brisbane for a permit that will allow them to test their product Vivarium on baby pigs. It’s already bad enough that they test on rats and mice, but testing on baby pigs is especially disgusting.
As an advocate for all animals (yes, even rats and mice), I request that you deny Bristol Myers Squibb their permit application.
Please forward this email to the entire Planning Committee. At the same time, I ask that you make my opposition public by including this request as part of the “Public Documents” for the permit application.
Sincerely,
Jane McLaughlin
301 Orchards St
Healdsburg CA
650-533-5866
14 617
M.
From: Michele Buchanan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 8:48 AM
To: Holstine, Clay <[email protected]>
Subject: STOP Bristol Myers Squibb from testing on baby pigs Mr. Holstine,
I am VERY opposed to the permit application to test on baby pigs by Bristol Myers Squibb for their Vivarium.
I am asking denial of the permit and for Bristol Myers Squibb to find appropriate and alternate ways to test their new heart medications.
Please forward my email to the entire Planning Commission and PLEASE make my request and comment public by making it part of the “Public Documents” for this permit application.
Thank you for considering the welfare of animals and humans.
Michele Derum
15 618
M.
From: Jean Sieper <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Planning Commissioners <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Urgent: Please Reject Use Permit 2022-UP-2
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
As a physician and scientist, we urge you to reject Use Permit 2022-UP-2 for BristolMyers Squibb (BMS), which is requesting to expand its animal experimentation facility to include minipigs. Approval of this permit would be a detriment to our community and an endorsement of the inhumane and flawed use of animals in the testing of pharmaceuticals.
While the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) requires that companies test pharmaceuticals in nonhuman animals, 95 percent of drugs that prove safe in animals fail in human clinical trials. To address this problem, Sen. Cory Booker, who represents a state heavy with pharmaceutical and biotech companies, and Sen. Rand Paul cosponsored theFDA Modernization Act. The bill, which is gaining steam in Congress, would help remove FDA’s antiquated requirement for animal tests—a prerequisite that many pharmaceutical companies would like to see abolished.
One drug company, Vanda Pharmaceuticals, sued FDA in an effort to avoid unnecessarily testing its drug on beagles, pointing out that the test would not provide human-relevant data. While Vanda and others recognize the lack of scientific necessity when it comes to the use of animals, Bristol-Meyers Squibb is investing even more in the antiquated approach. FDA has even identified “Advancing Novel Technologies to Improve Predictivity of Non-clinical Studies and Replace, Reduce, and Refine Reliance on Animal Testing” as a priority area.
Brisbane should invest in organizations that are employing 21st century research methods. Further, high-paying jobs in science and research need not involve the use of animals. Many major pharmaceutical companies and private research labs have, in recent years, invested heavily in non-animal methods:
In 2013, Harvard University announced that it would close its New England Primate Research Center, choosing to instead focus on other areas of research.
In 2012, contract research company Covance announced that it was closing its animal testing facility in Chandler, Ariz., just 3 years after the local government had heavily aided its creation.
In comparison, labs entirely focused on non-animal methods or replacing animals in testing and research are more plentiful now than ever before. In Maryland, there is the Institute for In Vitro Sciences. Harvard now has the internationally recognized Wyss Institute, which is a leader in developing organs-on-a-chip, which allow for the testing of drugs and chemicals using human cells rather than 16 619
M.
nonhuman animals.
One of the “Conditions of Approval” for the requested permit states that Bristol-Myers Squibb “shall comply with the requirements of the USDA, to ensure the welfare of the animals comply with USDA standards.” However, this requirement is toothless.
Compassionate people would like the laws governing the use of animals in laboratories to forbid cruelty, but that is simply not the case. Research facilities like Bristol-Myers Squibb are subject to incredibly weak federal laws and rules. Under the Animal Welfare Act, no experiments are prohibited—including those that inflict pain. The law is primarily a husbandry statute that regulates the size of cages, cleanliness, and food and water. In addition, the USDA, which is supposed to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, was cited by its own inspector general for closing investigations involving grave violations, including animal deaths and serious repeat violations; failing to properly apply financial penalties, reducing fines by an average of 86 percent; and wasting resources by conducting inspections at facilities that did not house animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act. In February 2019,The Washington Post
reported: “USDA inspectors documented 60 percent fewer violations at animal facilities in 2018 from the previous year. ...The drop in citations is one illustration of a shift—or what critics call a gutting—in USDA’s oversight of animal industries.” In May 2021, Science reported that “USDA now only partially inspects some lab animal facilities, internal documents reveal,” further revealing the agency’s low standards.
We urge you to reject Use Permit 2022-UP-2 and stand up for modern science and the welfare of animals. If you have further questions about this issue, we urge you to contact the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a global nonprofit that is one of the world’s preeminent sources of education on modern research and testing methods.
Thank you for your time and attention to this issue.
Very truly,
William J. Sieper, D.O. and Jean M. Sieper, Ph.D.
475 Crestmont Dr.
San Francisco, CA 94131-1018
17 620
M.
File Attachments for Item:
N. Consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 15.01 (Grading Ordinance) and Section 17.32.220, Brisbane Municipal Code (Review of Grading Permits) 621
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 1 of 6
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 19, 2022
From: Clay Holstine, City Manager and Michael Roush, Legal Counsel
Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amending Chapters 15.01 (Grading Ordinance) and Section 17.32.220, Brisbane Municipal Code (Review of Grading Permits) RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce the attached Ordinance comprehensively updating the City’s Grading Ordinance and amending Section 17.32.220, Brisbane Municipal Code. Note that the Infrastructure and Utilities has recommended the Ordinance be introduced/adopted.
BACKGROUND
The City’s Grading Ordinance, codified in Chapter 15.01 of the Brisbane Municipal Code, was comprehensively revised in 1989. In 2012-2013 the City undertook a comprehensive update of the Grading Ordinance, partially in response to the settlement of a lawsuit arising out of the City’s approval of a condominium project on Bayshore Boulevard in 2007.
Based on that settlement, specific provisions were recommended to be included in the Grading Ordinance including: (a) increasing the amount of the fines and penalties for violations; (b) prohibiting the removal of existing vegetation having habitat value without providing mitigation; and (c) requiring habitat restoration of graded areas within the boundaries of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) where the grading would decrease the presence of exotic/ non-native plant species. Additional revisions were proposed to reflect either best technical practices or to clarify procedures within the Ordinance.
In 2013, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments but the draft ordinance was tabled by the City Council in 2013. The City Council discussed the amendments but never voted on them in light of potentially related matters, including a proposed development of the Baylands.
In April 2021, the City Council reconsidered the draft Grading Ordinance. Council did not have any concerns with the technical revisions to the Ordinance nor the amendments set forth in (a), (b) and (c) in the prior paragraph. The only area with which Council expressed concern was the 622
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 2 of 6
perception that the amendments would diminish the role of the community in having a voice about certain proposed grading permits, in particular where grading resulted in retaining walls that would be visible to the public. (The Planning Commission expressed a similar concern.) Because of that concern, Council deferred action on all the amendments to the Ordinance and requested that staff bring back the Ordinance for further consideration after having given due consideration to ensuring a role for the community when the Planning Commission was reviewing certain applications for grading permits.
Staff has reviewed the issue as directed by Council and is proposing revisions to the Ordinance to address that concern. Before scheduling the Ordinance for full Council consideration, however, staff presented the amendments to the Infrastructure and Utilities subcommittee (Mayor Mackin and Councilmember Lentz) on April 25. After review and discussion, the subcommittee recommended support for all the proposed amendments.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission Review
Under the current Grading Ordinance, in addition to the City Engineer’s review and approval of a grading permit, a permit (undefined) is also required from the Planning Commission under certain circumstances, for example, when more than 250 cubic yards of material are involved in a single operation. Section 15.01.081, Brisbane Municipal Code. (The Zoning Ordinance, at Section 17.32.220, has a parallel provision.) In addition, any person may appeal to the Planning Commission the issuance, denial, conditions, suspension or revocation of a grading permit.
Section 15.01.130, BMC.
The amendments brought forward in 2021 continued the Planning Commission’s review of certain grading permit applications but, because of legal concerns, eliminated appeals to the Planning Commission. That change caused concern that the community would not have an opportunity to be heard concerning certain grading permit applications. That was not staff’s intent but the amendments now set forth in Sections 15.01.110 and 17.32.220 of the attached Ordinance now make clear that the community, as well as the Planning Commission, will continue to have a meaningful role concerning certain grading permit applications.
As proposed, the Ordinance would provide that in certain instances, before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing, will review the application. (Sections 15.01.110 A and 17.32.220.) Those instances will be (a) where (as now) 623
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 3 of 6
more than 250 cubic yards of material are to be moved in any single grading/excavation operation, (b) where (somewhat different than now) in certain zoning districts (and the Quarry) more than 50 cubic yards of material are to be moved in a grading/excavation operation, or (c) where (new) grading is to be performed within the HCP. Section 15.01.110 A.
The amendments, moreover, unlike the current ordinance, will provide criteria for the Planning Commission to consider in its review. For example, will the proposed grading be designed to reflect or fit comfortably with the site and natural topography? Or, will the proposed grading be designed to ensure the retaining walls visible to the public are designed to be visually unobtrusive as possible? Section 15.01.110 B.
Finally, to ensure the Commission that its comments and concerns are given appropriate consideration, the amendments also provide the Commission may request that the grading permit application be “peer reviewed” by a professional engineer. In that way, the Commission will have assurances that its comments and concerns will be taken into account before the City Engineer makes a final decision whether to approve or deny a grading permit. Section
15.01.110 C.
The new section 15.01.110 is embodied in red line form in the attached revised Grading Ordinance. As a companion, an amended Section 17.32.220 (in red lined form) is also in the attached Ordinance (at the very end).
Appeals
As mentioned above, under the current Grading Ordinance, any person may appeal to the Planning Commission the issuance, denial, conditions, suspension or revocation of a grading permit. (A further appeal may be made to the City Council.) In other contexts, for example, where the Building Official issues, denies, suspends or revokes a building permit, the Uniform Codes (which are incorporated into the Municipal Code by reference) provide that appeals not be heard by the Council, Commission or City staff but, instead, be heard by an “Appeals Board”, typically members of the trades or building officials from other jurisdictions. Decisions by those Boards are final but subject to judicial review. 624
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 4 of 6
Accordingly, staff recommends that appeals concerning grading permits be heard by a “Local Grading Permit Appeals Board”. That Board, similar to what occurs in the Uniform Code context, would consist of licensed professional engineers and/or City Engineers from other jurisdictions. That Board’s decision would likewise be final, subject only to judicial review.
The new section 15.01.290 is set forth in the attached Grading Ordinance. It shows the new material and deletions of the current section (currently, Section 15.01.130.
HCP Compliance
The draft 2013 ordinance specifies that Site Activity Review be obtained from the HCP Plan Operator prior to vegetation clearing within the HCP. In practice, the Plan Operator may authorize vegetative removal through various means, not limited to a Site Activity Review. It is recommended that the Grading Ordinance be revised to require Plan Operator approval without specifying the means by which such approval may be obtained.
On a related note, the 2013 version of the ordinance included a series of prescriptive requirements for revegetation plans intended to minimize impacts on habitat values. While well-intended, there are some practical difficulties with the language as proposed. It is likely that most areas with habitat value will lie with the HCP area which means that approval from the Plan Operator will be required. The prescriptive requirements set forth in the ordinance may not have any relationship to the requirements imposed by the Plan Operator. It is unclear what legal or technical basis the City would have to impose requirements that differ from what is required under the HCP. For example, while the draft ordinance specifies that on-site mitigation is preferred, the Plan Operator does not generally support the creation of isolated habitat islands that lack connectivity; the Plan Operator prefers the enhancement and creation of meaningful habitat that is contiguous to existing resources. It is therefore recommended that the prescriptive revegetation requirements be deleted. As stated above, Council did not express any concerns about this issue when it reviewed the amendments in 2021 and those amendments are set forth in the attached Ordinance.
Enforcement
The City Council’s policy direction has been that the fines for illegal grading provide a substantial financial incentive to encourage compliance, as opposed to representing a nominal penalty that constitutes the cost of doing business. Currently, the only fines for violating the Ordinance are set forth in Chapters 1.14, 1.16. and 1.18 of the Code. Fines under those 625
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 5 of 6
sections are not significant. For example, for a first offense, the fine is only $100. The fees and penalties for violating the Grading Ordinance have been revised such that in addition to the fines under Chapters 1.14. 1.16 and 1.18, there would be “supplemental fines”, ranging from $1500 where the violation involved grading between 6 and 50 cubic yards to a whopping $250,000 fine for violations involving grading more than 200,000 cubic yards. Section
15.01.560. These increased fines should be sufficient to encourage compliance and to have financial significance for violators.
Other Jurisdictions
The subcommittee requested staff to review how other cities in San Mateo County review grading permit applications. Staff reviewed the Redwood City, San Mateo, Millbrae and Burlingame ordinances. All provide that the ultimate decision on whether to issue a grading permit, and its conditions, vest in the City Engineer/Public Works Director. To the extent the ordinances set forth an appeal procedure, the appeals, like the one presented this evening, are to an “Appeals Board” consisting of licensed professionals or other City Engineers. San Mateo has a similar, two step process as the proposed amendments. Where a project involving grading of 5000 cubic yards or more requires a site development permit, the Planning Commission weighs in on the planning issues. Thereafter—in Step Two—the Public Works Director considers the technical details of the grading permit applications and decides whether to issue or deny such permit. Accordingly, the proposed amendments provide for more, not less, public input on grading permit applications that most other jurisdictions in San Mateo County.
Street Trees
Under the City’s “Tree Ordinance”, trees on public property may be removed as determined by the city engineer. Section 12.12.030 B 2, Brisbane Municipal Code. The Planning Commission had expressed some concern whether that provision impermissibly intruded on the Commission’s purview under its authority under the General Plan when it reviews projects if such a project involves the removal of trees in the public right of way. The subcommittee requested staff to address that concern.
The proposed amendments retain the Commission’s review concerning the removal of street trees. In particular, when the Planning Commission reviews an application for a grading permit, the review specifically includes (a) whether the proposed grading is designed to minimize the removal of existing street trees, as well as certain species of trees, and trees of large 626
N.
Grading Ordinance Amendments Page 6 of 6
circumference and (b) where removal of existing trees is necessary, that the landscaping plan include replacement. See section 15.01.110 B (3) and (4).
CONCLUSION
These changes satisfy the recommendations coming out of the settlement of the lawsuit, continue the role of the Planning Commission and the public in reviewing certain grading permit applications, clarify the procedures to be followed when grading occurs in an HCP area, and provide financial incentives for persons not to violate the Grading Ordinance.
Attachments
2022 Proposed Draft Ordinance
___________________________________ ___________________________________ Michael Roush, Legal Counsel Clay Holstine, City Manager 627
N.
18 April 2022 -1-
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. 579
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
AMENDING CHAPTER 15.01 AND SECTION 17.32.220
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO GRADING
The City Council of the City of Brisbane hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: Chapter 15.01 of the Municipal Code, entitled "Grading," is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Chapter 15.01
GRADING
Sections:
15.01.010 Title
15.01.020 Purpose and objectives
15.01.030 Scope
15.01.040 Definitions
15.01.050 Precautions imposed by City Engineer
15.01.060 Discovery of prehistoric, historic, or unique archaeological resources, or human remains
15.01.070 Other laws
15.01.080 Severability and validity
15.01.090 Permit required
15.01.100 HCP Permission required
15.01.110 Planning Commission review of application for grading permit
15.01.120 Quarry operations
15.01.130 Application to annexed territory
15.01.140 Exemptions
15.01.150 Application for grading permit
15.01.160 Application form
15.01.170 Site map and grading plan
15.01.180 Interim erosion and sediment control plan (interim plan)
15.01.190 Final erosion and sediment control plan (final plan)
15.01.200 Revegetation plan
15.01.210 Soils engineering report (soils report)
15.01.220 Engineering geology report
15.01.230 Work schedule and transport routes
15.01.240 Security
15.01.250 Fees
628
N.
18 April 2022 -2-
15.01.260 Grading permit fee exemption
15.01.270 Action on application
15.01.280 Permit duration
15.01.290 Appeals
15.01.300 Revised plans
15.01.310 Cessation of operations
15.01.320 Assignment of permit
15.01.330 No improvements planned
15.01.340 Grading permit, paving
15.01.350 Grading permit, drainageway alteration
15.01.360 Excavation blasting permit
15.01.370 Truck haul permit
15.01.380 Issuance of grading permits
15.01.390 Time and noise limitations on grading operations
15.01.400 Implementation of permits - permittee's duties
15.01.410 Implementation of permits – requirements of City Engineer
15.01.420 Grading inspection
15.01.430 Completion of work
15.01.440 Removal of ground cover
15.01.450 Wet season grading
15.01.460 Cuts
15.01.470 Fills
15.01.480 Setbacks
15.01.490 Drainage and terracing
15.01.500 Import and export of earth material
15.01.510 Dust control
15.01.520 Protection of adjoining property
15.01.530 Removal of hazards
15.01.540 Post-grading procedures
15.01.550 Revocation or suspension of permits
15.01.560 Violation – penalties
15.01.570 Action against the security
15.01.580 Public nuisance abatement
15.01.590 Release of security
15.01.600 Cumulative enforcement procedures
§15.01.010 Title
This Chapter shall be known as the "City of Brisbane Grading Ordinance" and may be so cited.
§15.01.020 Purpose and objectives
A. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for grading operations; to safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare; and to preserve and enhance the natural environment, including but not limited to water quality, by regulating and controlling clearing and grading of property within the City.
629
N.
18 April 2022 -3-
B. This Chapter is intended to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Grading plans shall be designed so that grading operations do not create or contribute to landslides, accelerated soil creep, settlement, subsidence, or hazards associated with strong ground motion and soil liquefaction. (2) Grading plans shall contain reasonable provisions for the preservation of natural land and water features, vegetation, drainage, and other indigenous features of the site.
(3) Grading plans shall be designed to preserve and enhance the city’s aesthetic character.
(4) Grading plans shall require compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations pertaining to air and water pollution, noise control, and preservation of archaeological remains.
(5) Grading operations shall be conducted so as to expose the smallest practical area of soil to erosion for the least possible time, consistent with an anticipated build-out schedule.
§15.01.030 Scope.
A. This Chapter amends the regulations pertaining to grading as set forth in the California Building Standards Code, as adopted in Chapter 15.04 of this Code. In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between the provisions of this Chapter and the provisions of Chapter 15.04 or any of the codes adopted by reference therein, the provisions of this Chapter shall be controlling.
B. This Chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, land disturbances, land fill, soil storage, and erosion and sedimentation resulting from such activities. This Chapter provides that all excavation or landfilling activities or soil storage shall be undertaken in a manner designed to minimize surface runoff, erosion, and sedimentation and to avoid or mitigate damage caused by grading activities to areas having habitat value. This Chapter also establishes procedures for the issuance, administration and enforcement of grading permits.
§15.01.040 Definitions
When used in this Chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this Section:
(1) Applicant means any person, corporation, partnership, association of any type, public agency or any other legal entity that submits an application to the City Engineer for a permit pursuant to this chapter. 630
N.
18 April 2022 -4-
(2) As-graded means the surface conditions extant on completion of grading. (3). BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines means the recommended measures detailed in Table 8-1 of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s “California Environmental Quality Act-Air Quality Guidelines, Updated May 2011”, or any amendment, revision, or reissuance thereof and any additional measures, including those recommended in Table 8-2 of the reference, as determined necessary and appropriate by the City Engineer.
(4) Bedrock means in-place solid rock.
(5) Bench means a relatively level step excavated into earth material. Bench also includes terraces.
(6) Best management practices (BMPs) means a technique or series of techniques which, when used in an erosion control plan, is proven to be effective in controlling construction-related runoff, erosion and sedimentation. Approved BMPs can be found in the California Stormwater Quality Association “Construction BMP Handbook/Portal”, the State of California Department of Transportation March 2003 “Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual”, the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Construction Best Management Practices” plan sheet, Erosion & Sediment Control Handbook, by Goldman, Jackson and Bursztynsky, and any amendment, revision or reissuance thereof. (7) Borrow means earth material acquired from an off-site location for use in grading on a site.
(8) City means the City of Brisbane.
(9) City Engineer means the Director of Public Works/City Engineer of the City of Brisbane and his/her duly authorized designees. The City Engineer may delegate any of his or her duties under this Chapter to his or her authorized agents or representatives.
(10) City street means any public or private street in the city of Brisbane. (11) Civil engineer means a professional engineer registered in the state of California to practice in the field of civil engineering. (12) Civil engineering means the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of mechanics and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of humankind.
(13) Clearing and grubbing means the removal of trees, shrubs, bushes, windfalls and all other materials from above and below the natural ground surface. This activity removes vegetative ground cover, removes top soil, and 631
N.
18 April 2022 -5-
removes/disturbs root mat. Except in those cases where specifically approved by a grading permit , “grubbing” for the removal of stumps and roots shall not exceed 18” below the original surface of the ground.
(14) Community Development Director means the director of planning of the City of Brisbane.
(15) Compaction means the densification of a fill by mechanical means. (16) Contour rounding means the rounding of cut and fill slopes in the horizontal and/or vertical planes to blend with existing contours or to provide horizontal variation to eliminate the artificial appearance of slopes. (See Figure 1)
(17) Drainageway means natural or manmade channel that collects and intermittently or continuously conveys stormwater runoff. (18) Dry season means the period from April 15th to October 15th. (19) Earth material means any rock, natural soil, fill or combination thereof. (20) Engineering geologist means a geologist experienced and knowledgeable in engineering geology and qualified to practice engineering geology in the State of California.
(21) Engineering geology means the application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of civil works.
(22) Erosion means the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind or water.
(23) Excavation means any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock or any other similar material is cut into, dug, quarried, uncovered, removed, displaced, relocated, or bulldozed, including the conditions resulting therefrom. (24) Fill/land fill means any act by which earth, sand, gravel, rock or any other similar material is deposited, placed, pushed, pulled or transported to a place other than the place from which it was excavated, including the conditions resulting therefrom.
(25) Final erosion and sediment control plan (final plan) means a set of best management practices or equivalent measures designed to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain sediment on a particular site after all other planned final structures and permanent improvements have been erected or installed.
632
N.
18 April 2022 -6-
(26) General Plan means the General Plan adopted by the City of Brisbane and all amendments thereto.
(27) Grade means the vertical location of the ground surface. (a) Existing grade means the grade prior to grading.
(b) Rough grade means the stage at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved plan.
(c) Finish grade means the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved plan.
(28) Grading means any land disturbance or excavation or fill or any combination thereof and shall include the conditions resulting from any land disturbance, excavation or fill. Grading shall include trenching on public or private property including within public streets.
(29) Grading permit means the formal approval required by this Chapter for any grading, filling, excavating, storage or disposal of soil or earth materials or any other excavation or land filling activity. Application to the City Engineer and the City Engineer's approval is required under the process of this Chapter.
(30) HCP means the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan, as approved and adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1983, including subsequent amendments and updates.
(31). Interim erosion and sediment control plan (interim plan) means a set of best management practices or equivalent measures designed to control surface runoff and erosion and to retain sediment on a particular site during the period in which construction-related excavations, fills and soil storage occur, and before the final plan is completed.
(32) Key means a designed compacted fill placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath the toe of a proposed fill slope.
(33) Permittee means the applicant in whose name a valid permit is duly issued pursuant to this Chapter and his/her agents, employees and others acting under his/her direction.
(34) Plan Operator is the Habitat Conservation Plan Manager, presently the San Mateo County Department of Parks, and also means any successor agency.
(35) Revegetation means the replanting of disturbed natural ground surfaces on properties within the HCP and on properties that the Community 633
N.
18 April 2022 -7-
Development Director has determined requires mitigation to restore habitat value.
(36) Sediment means earth material deposited by water or wind. (37) Site means a parcel or parcels of real property owned by one or more than one person that is being or is capable of being developed as a single project, including phased construction. Site also includes any public or private property or rights-of-way on which excavation, fill or land disturbance occurs. (38) Slope means an inclined ground surface the inclination of which is expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance. (39) Soil means naturally occurring superficial deposits overlying bedrock. (40) Soils engineer means a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering. Soils engineer and geotechnical engineer are synonymous.
(41) Soils engineering means the application of the principles of soil mechanics in the investigation, evaluation and design of improvements involving the use of earth materials and the inspection and testing of the construction thereof.
Soils engineering and geotechnical engineering are synonymous. (42) Structure means anything built or constructed including pavement and pipelines.
(43) Temporary erosion control consists of, but is not limited to, constructing such facilities and taking such measures as are necessary to prevent, control, and abate water, mud and wind erosion damage to public and private property during grading operations.
(44) Terrace means a relatively level step constructed in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and maintenance purposes. Terrace also includes benches.
(45) Truck haul means the movement over public streets of any excavated material.
(45) Vertical slope rounding means the rounding of the top and toes of cut and fill slopes.
(47) Weeding means the removal of noxious, dangerous, or invasive plants. This activity also includes the removal of vegetation which attains such a large growth as to become a fire menace when dry, and further includes the removal of dry grass, grass cuttings, tree trimmings, vines, stubble or other growth material which endangers the public by creating a fire hazard, including any such hazard determination made by the fire department 634
N.
18 April 2022 -8-
pursuant to the City's weed abatement ordinance. Any activity that disturbs more than 15% of the natural ground surface shall be classified as “clearing and grubbing.”
(48) Wet season means the period from October 15th to April 15th. §15.01.050 Precautions imposed by City Engineer
A. If, at any stage of grading, the City Engineer determines by inspection that conditions are such that further work as authorized by an existing grading permit is likely to endanger any property or public way, the City Engineer may require, as a condition to allowing the work to be continued, that reasonable safety precautions be formulated by the permittee and submitted to the City Engineer for his/her consideration and the grading permit be amended to avoid such danger. "Safety precautions" may include but shall not be limited to specifying a flatter exposed slope, construction of additional drainage facilities, berms, terracing, compaction, cribbing, or retaining walls, or planting of slopes.
B. The sole and primary responsibility for meeting the requirements of this Section and of this Chapter for any civil or criminal liability as a result of the performance of grading work pursuant to a grading permit shall be upon the permittee. Neither the City, the City Engineer, or any employees or agents of the City shall be responsible for any liability for issuance of a grading permit or the conduct of any inspections thereunder. §15.01.060 Discovery of prehistoric, historic, or unique archaeological resources, or human remains.
A. In the event of the accidental discovery of prehistoric, historic, or unique archaeological resources, the permittee shall immediately cease work and follow the protocol established in the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as contained in California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines"), specifically, Section 15064.5(f) and any amendments thereto. This includes obtaining an evaluation from a qualified archaeologist to be forwarded to the Community Development Director for review/approval, and will include a finding as to the categorization of the discovery, any recommended avoidance measures or appropriate mitigation, and a statement as to what portions of the site, if any, are cleared for resumption of work while the recommended mitigation is being performed. If the find is determined to be significant, contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of appropriate mitigation or avoidance measures shall be provided.
B. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the permittee shall immediately cease work and implement the protocol established in the CEQA Guidelines, specifically, Section 15064.5(e)(1) et. seq. and any amendment thereto. §15.01.070 Other laws
635
N.
18 April 2022 -9-
Neither this Chapter nor any administrative decision made under it:
A. Exempts the permittee from complying with other applicable laws or from procuring other required permits or complying with the requirements and conditions of such a permit; or
B. Limits the right of any person to maintain, at any time, any appropriate action, at law or in equity, for relief or damages against the permittee arising from the permitted activity; or
C. Exempts any person from complying with any applicable laws or allows any person to perform any grading without complying with such other applicable laws. §15.01.080 Severability and validity
If any part of this Chapter is found not valid, the remainder shall remain in effect. §15.01.090 Permit required
Except as exempted under Section 15.01.140, it shall be unlawful for any person to clear and grub, grade, fill, excavate, store or dispose of soil and earth materials or perform any other excavation or land-filling activity without first obtaining a grading permit as set forth in this Chapter. A separate grading permit shall be required for each site. With respect to subdivisions, a separate permit will be required for each phase of development.
The grading permit issued for each site may also cover the utility construction associated with the site provided the required information for the utilities is included with the application. A building permit shall not be issued prior to the issuance of a grading permit, when required.
§15.01.100 HCP Permission required
No owner of property within the boundaries of the HCP shall weed, clear and grub, grade, fill, excavate, store, or dispose of soil and earth materials or perform any other excavation or land filling activity without first obtaining permission from the Plan Operator. Permission for the listed activities is presently obtained through submittal of a Site Activity Review Application; no grading permit will be issued by the City for any property within the HCP until the property owner has first complied with the requirements of the Plan Operator.
§15.01.110 Planning Commission review of application for grading permit A. Where a grading permit is required by the provisions of this Chapter, it shall be issued by the City Engineer following the City Engineer’s approval of the permit application. Before the City Engineer issues a grading permit, the permit application shall also be reviewed by the Planning Commission where:
636
N.
18 April 2022 -10-
1. More than two hundred fifty (250) cubic yards of material is to be moved or planned to be moved in any single grading or excavation operation and the parcel or parcels of land on which the grading is to be performed is located within any zoning district as defined by the City’s most current Zoning Map; or
2. The parcel or parcels of land on which the grading will be performed is located is within any of the following zoning districts as defined by the City’s most current Zoning Map—Brisbane Acres, Southwest Bayshore, Central Brisbane, Northeast Ridge, and Northwest Bayshore—or the Quarry and if more than fifty (50)) cubic yards of material is to be exported from any single parcel of land; or
3. Grading is to be performed on any parcel of land within the boundaries of the HCP; provided, however, review by the Planning Commission shall not be required if the only grading operation to be conducted is weeding, or clearing and grubbing, where such work is performed pursuant to an HCP site activity approval issued by the Plan Operator.
B. Where Planning Commission review of an application for a grading permit is required by subsection A of this Section 15.01.110, the review shall be based upon a consideration of the following potential impacts of the proposed grading:
(1) Will the proposed grading be designed to reflect or fit comfortably with the site context and natural topography?
(2) Will the proposed grading be designed to ensure that retaining walls visible to the public are designed to be as visually unobtrusive as possible by means including but not limited to:
(i) ensuring walls are architecturally integrated with proposed or existing structures on the site;
(ii) ensuring wall faces are decorative and treated with color, texture, architectural features, trelliswork or other means to visually break up the wall expanses;
(iii) screening with water conserving, non-invasive landscaping that at maturity will soften and reduce the visible expanse of walls? (3) Will the proposed grading be designed to minimize removal of:
(i) existing street trees (see Section 12.12.020);
(ii) any California Bay Laurel, Coast live Oak or California Buckeye trees; (iii) three or more trees of any species on the same site having a circumference of at least 30 inches measured 24 inches above grade? 637
N.
18 April 2022 -11-
4. Where removal of existing trees is necessary, will the landscape plans for the project include the planting of appropriate replacement trees? C. Where the Planning Commission’s review of an application for a grading permit is required by subsection A of Section 15.01.110, the Planning Commission may request the City Engineer to have the application peer reviewed by a professional engineer, as defined in Business and Profession Code Section 6701, and, as part of that review, take into consideration any comments or concerns the Planning Commission has made under subsection B of this Section 15.01.110. Following that review, the City Engineer may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the grading permit application. §15.01.120 Quarry operations
No grading permit for an excavation shall be issued if the excavation for which a grading permit is required shall allow for the operation of a quarry, where quarrying is otherwise prohibited by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City. §15.01.130 Application to annexed territory
Activities regulated by this Chapter, whether operative or nonoperative, which are located in territory hereafter annexed to the City shall not operate from and after thirty (30) days following annexation to the City, unless, in the case of operative activities, or before recommencement of operations in the case of inoperative activities, a grading permit shall have been granted as provided herein.
§15.01.140 Exemptions
A grading permit shall not be required in the following instances:
A. Exploratory excavations and trenches under the direction of a soils engineer or engineering geologist, provided that these excavations and trenches comply with all of the following:
(1) All earth material removed from the trenches or excavations that is not completely removed from the project site must be stored in a manner that prevents erosion, sedimentation, off-site migration, and smothering of natural vegetative ground cover;
(2) All trenches and excavations are properly backfilled; (3) All excavations and trenches are subject to the applicable sections of Title 8 of the State Safety Order, Division of Industrial Safety.
B. An excavation which does not exceed five (5) cubic yards on any one site and is less than two (2) feet in vertical depth and which does not create a cut slope steeper than 638
N.
18 April 2022 -12-
two feet horizontal to one vertical (2:1). Such excavation, however, is not exempt from the requirements of Sections 15.01.340 and 15.01.350.
C. A fill less than one foot in depth placed on natural grade with a slope flatter than five horizontal to one vertical (5:1), which does not exceed five (5) cubic yards on any one site and does not obstruct a drainageway. Such fill, however, is not exempt from the requirements of Section 15.01.340.
D. Grading in connection with dredging operations in San Francisco Bay for which approval for such grading has been granted by the City under other permits or agreements.
E. Grading in connection with the operation of salvage, garbage and disposal dumps for which approval for such grading has been granted by the City under other permits or agreements.
F. Emergencies posing an immediate danger to life or property, or substantial flood or fire hazards, or interruption of utility services to the public, in which case a permit shall be obtained as soon as possible.
G. Excavation by public utilities in connection with the placement of facilities, including repair and maintenance of local utility distribution and service utilities, if such excavation is authorized by a valid street encroachment permit. §15.01.150 Application for grading permit
The application for a grading permit shall be in writing and filed with the City Engineer in duplicate and must include all of the following items, unless otherwise waived by the City Engineer:
A. Application form;
B. Site map and grading plan;
C. Interim erosion and sediment control plan;
D. Final erosion and sediment control plan;
E. Revegetation plan;
F. Soils engineering report;
G. Engineering geology report;
H. Work schedule and transportation routes;
I. Security;
639
N.
18 April 2022 -13-
J. Fees;
K. Confirmation of the proposed recycling or reuse of all rocks, soils, tree remains, trees and other vegetative matter resulting from the grading operations, which shall be satisfied by providing a copy of the Recycling and Diversion of Debris permit issued by the Building Department pursuant to Chapter 15.75 of this Code.
L. Any other material required by the City Engineer.
§15.01.160 Application form
The following information is required on the application form unless waived or modified by the City Engineer:
A. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant; B. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of any and all contractors, subcontractors or persons actually doing the excavating and land-filling activities and their respective tasks;
C. Name(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the preparation of the site map and grading plan;
D. Names(s), address(es) and telephone number(s) of the person(s) responsible for the preparation of the interim and/or final erosion and sediment control plan, and the revegetation plan;
E. Name, address and telephone number of the soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist responsible for the preparation of the soils and engineering geology reports;
F. A vicinity map showing the location of the site in relationship to the surrounding area's watercourses, water bodies and other significant geographic features, and roads and other significant structures;
G. Date of the application;
H. Title report confirming ownership;
I. Signature(s) of the owner(s) of the site or of an authorized representative. §15.01.170 Site map and grading plan
The site map and grading plan shall contain all the following information unless waived or modified by the City Engineer:
640
N.
18 April 2022 -14-
A. Plan views and cross sections showing the existing and proposed topography of the site. The plan view shall show contours at an interval sufficiently detailed to define the topography over the entire site. The minimum contour interval shall be two feet where ground slope is less than fifteen (15) percent and five (5) feet where ground slope exceeds fifteen (15) percent;
B. Two contour intervals off-site and extension of the on-site contours a minimum of one hundred (100) feet off-site, and sufficient to show on and off-site drainage; C. An accurate plat plan drawn by a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor showing the site's exterior boundaries in true location with respect to the plan's topographic information, all easements, boundaries of the "Habitat Conservation Plan" area, special districts, and any other pertinent information; D. Location and graphic representation of all existing and proposed natural and manmade drainage facilities;
E. Detailed plans of all surface and subsurface drainage devices, walls, cribbing, dams and other protective devices to be constructed with, or as a part of the proposed work, together with a map showing the drainage area and the estimated runoff of the area served by any drain;
F. Location and graphic representation of proposed excavation and fills, of onsite storage of soil and other earthen material, and of on-site disposal of soil and other earthen material;
G. Location of existing vegetation types and the location and type of vegetation to be left undisturbed;
H. Location of proposed final surface runoff, and of erosion and sediment control measures;
I. Quantity of soil or earthen materials in cubic yards to be excavated, filled, stored or otherwise removed from or utilized on-site;
J. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners which are within fifteen (15) feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations;
K. Location and slope of proposed streets and driveways. Driveways shall not exceed a centerline slope of twenty (20) percent and, unless specifically approved by the City Engineer, streets shall not exceed a centerline slope of fifteen (15) percent. §15.01.180 Interim erosion and sediment control plan (interim plan) A. An interim plan containing all of the following information shall be provided with respect to conditions existing on the site during excavation or filling activities or soil 641
N.
18 April 2022 -15-
storage and before the final plan is completed; furthermore, the plan submitted shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit, as defined in Section 13.06.040:
(1) The location and amount of runoff discharging from the site, calculated using a method approved by the City Engineer;
(2) A delineation and brief description of the measures to be undertaken to control erosion caused by surface runoff and by wind and to retain sediment on the site including, but not limited to, the design and specifications for berms and sediment detention basins, types and method of applying mulches, the design and specifications for diverters, dikes and drains, seeding methods, the type, location and extent of pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types, and a schedule for maintenance and upkeep.
B. The location of all the measures listed by the applicant under subsection A(2) above shall be depicted on the site map and grading plan, or on a separate plan, at the discretion of the City Engineer.
C. An estimate of the cost of implementing and maintaining all interim erosion and sediment control measures shall be submitted in a form acceptable to the City Engineer.
D. The applicant may propose the use of any erosion and sediment control techniques in the interim plan provided such techniques are proven to be as or more effective than the equivalent best management practices contained in the manual of standards.
§15.01.190 Final erosion and sediment control plan (final plan) A. A final plan containing all of the following information shall be provided with respect to conditions existing on the site after final structures and improvements (except those required under this section) have been completed; furthermore, the plan submitted shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit, as defined in Section 13.06.040:
(1) The location and amount of runoff discharging from the site, calculated using a method approved by the City Engineer;
(2) A description of and specifications for sediment retention devices; (3) A description of and specifications for surface runoff and wind erosion control devices;
(4) A description of vegetative measures;
(5) A graphic representation of the location of all items in subsections B through D above, and items A through K in 15.01.170 above.
642
N.
18 April 2022 -16-
B. An estimate of the costs of implementing all final erosion and sediment control measures must be submitted in a form acceptable to the City Engineer.
C. The applicant may propose the use of any erosion and sediment control techniques in the final plan provided such techniques are proven to be as or more effective than the equivalent best management practices contained in the manual of standards. §15.01.200 Revegetation plan
A revegetation plan is designed to effectively mitigate impacts to the site’s habitat values by restoring or replacing native vegetation to the maximum extent practical and reasonable to achieve. Sites subject to revegetation requirements shall submit a plan to replant and maintain disturbed surfaces for review and approval by the City Engineer and Community Development Director in accordance with the following:
A. Topsoil removed from the surface shall be stored on or near the site and protected from soil loss while the work is underway. Such storage shall not cause damage to root systems of onsite trees intended to be preserved.
B. Mulching, seeding, planting of groundcover, shrubs or trees, or other suitable stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed soil, to minimize soil loss, and to maximize slope stability. Use of drought tolerant native plant species that are fire resistant is encouraged. Use of plant species identified as invasive in the most current HCP Vegetation Management Activities Report is prohibited, whether or not the project site is within the boundaries of the HCP.
C. The City Engineer may require the permittee to monitor revegetation for a period up to five years, to provide reports of such monitoring to the City Planning Department, to allow for third-party assessment of the success of the revegetation at the applicant's expense, and to provide security to correct, complete, or remediate the approved revegetation plan. The City Engineer and the Community Development Director shall each retain discretion as to whether the approved revegetation plan has been successfully implemented.
D. Onsite mitigation is preferred. In the event that the Community Development Director determines that adequate mitigation can not be reasonably achieved onsite, the City may approve an offsite revegetation plan to achieve the goals of restoring habitat value. Such offsite mitigation shall comply with the provisions of this Chapter that govern onsite mitigation.
E. For sites located within the HCP, the City may impose restoration/revegetation requirements in addition to those required by the Plan Operator, so long as a reasonable rationale is provided for the additional requirements. A decision to require more stringent measures may be based upon the biological features of the site, for example, if the site is an existing or potential wildlife corridor or part of a buffer zone between developed areas and existing habitat, or if the site has particular geological features, such as potential for erosion or susceptibility to seismic hazards. 643
N.
18 April 2022 -17-
§15.01.210 Soils engineering report (soils report)
A. A soils report, when required by the City Engineer, is to be prepared by an approved soils engineer and shall be based on adequate and necessary test borings, and shall contain all the following information, in addition to the minimum applicable requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code adopted by the City:
(1) Data regarding the nature, distribution, strength, and erodibility of existing soils;
(2) Data regarding the nature, distribution, strength and erodibility of soil to be placed on the site, if any;
(3) Conclusions and recommendations for grading procedures; (4) Conclusions and recommended designs for soil stabilization for interim conditions and after construction is completed;
(5) Design criteria for corrective measures when necessary; (6) Foundation and pavement design criteria when necessary; (7) Opinions and recommendations covering suitability of the site for the proposed uses;
(8) Other recommendations, as necessary, commensurate with the project grading and development.
B. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
C. Whenever a soils engineering report is required, the final submitted grading plans shall include a review letter from the soils engineer confirming that his/her recommendations have been incorporated into the plans.
§15.01.220 Engineering geology report
A. An engineering geology report, when required by the City Engineer, is to be prepared by a qualified engineering geologist and shall be based on adequate and necessary test borings and shall contain the following information, in addition to the minimum applicable requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code adopted by the City:
(1) An adequate description of the geology of the site, including identification of actual and potential geologic hazards;
644
N.
18 April 2022 -18-
(2) Conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development;
(3) Recommendations for mitigation of identified hazards wherever appropriate; (4) An opinion as to the extent that instability on adjacent properties may adversely affect the project;
(5) Opinions and recommendations covering suitability of the site for the proposed uses;
(6) Other recommendations, as necessary, commensurate with the project grading and development.
B. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the City Engineer shall be incorporated in the grading plan.
C. Whenever an engineering geology report is required, the final submitted grading plans shall include a review letter from the engineering geologist confirming that his/her recommendations have been incorporated into the plans. §15.01.230 Work schedule and transport routes
A. The applicant shall submit a master work schedule showing the following information:
(1) Proposed grading schedule;
(2) Proposed conditions of the site on each July 15th, August 15th, September 15th, October 1st, and October 15th during which the permit is in effect; (3) Proposed schedule for installation of all interim erosion and sediment control measures including, but not limited to, the stage of completion of erosion and sediment control devices and vegetative measures on each of the dates set forth in subsection A(2);
(4) Schedule for construction of the proposed improvements on the site; (5) Schedule for installation of permanent erosion and sediment control devices where required.
B. The applicant shall also submit a description of the routes of travel to be used for access to and from the site for removing excavated material and bringing in fill or other materials.
§15.01.240 Security
645
N.
18 April 2022 -19-
A. The applicant shall provide a performance bond or other acceptable security for the performance of the work described and delineated on the approved grading plan and the approved revegetation plan prior to the issuance of the grading permit, in an amount to be set by the City Engineer but not less than one hundred (100) percent (100%) of the approved estimated cost of performing said work. The form of security shall be one or a combination of the following to be determined and approved by the City Engineer:
(1) Bond or bonds issued by one or more duly authorized corporate sureties. The form of the bond or bonds shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney;
(2) Deposit, either with the City or a responsible escrow agent or trust company at the option of the City, of money, negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing deposits of public moneys, or an unconditional irrevocable letter of credit other instrument of credit from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the state or federal government wherein said financial institution pledges funds are on deposit and guaranteed for payment;
(3) Cash in U.S. currency.
B. The applicant shall provide security for the performance of the work described and delineated in the interim plan in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer, but not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the approved estimated cost of performing said work. The form of the security shall be as set forth in subsection A of this section.
C. The applicant shall provide security for the performance of the work described and delineated in the final plan in an amount to be determined by the City Engineer but not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the approved estimated cost of performing said work. The form of the security shall be as set forth in subsection A of this section.
D. The applicant shall provide a cash deposit in an amount established by resolution of the City Council to insure the repair of damage to public property or cleaning of public streets. In the event of failure by the applicant, after written notification if time permits, to maintain public property or right-of-way in a manner satisfactory to the City Engineer, the City Engineer may order repairs made or cleaning performed and deduct the cost from the deposit. Any unused balance shall be returned to the applicant upon completion of the grading.
§15.01.250 Fees
A. Before accepting a grading permit application and plans for checking, the City Engineer shall collect all applicable plan checking fees as established by resolution of the City Council and as provided in this Chapter.
646
N.
18 April 2022 -20-
B. Unless exempted under Section 15.01.260 of this Chapter, a fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit, in such amount as established from time to time by resolution of the City Council.
C. Failure to pay fees and obtain a permit before commencing work shall be deemed a violation of this Chapter, except when it can be proven to the City Engineer's satisfaction that an emergency existed that made it impractical to first obtain the permit. A violation shall result in an assessment of double permit fees for work done prior to permit issuance. Payment of a double fee shall not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of this Chapter nor from any other penalties prescribed herein.
D. Additional fees approved by resolution of the City Council and contained in this Chapter shall be paid as required.
E.. If after written notification (if time allows) the City Engineer performs emergency work on private property, he shall charge the property owner all direct and indirect costs which are necessary to complete the work to his satisfaction. In addition, the City Engineer may charge a mobilization cost equal to ten percent (10%) of the cost for performing the work. Fees or deposits required for special purposes, e.g., cleanup, dust control, etc., collected but not expended for the purpose for which they are collected, will be refunded.
§15.01.260 Grading permit fee exemption
A. A fee for a grading permit shall not be required in the following instances:
grading for the foundation, basement, and other features (e.g., walkways, patios, terracing) of a building or structure for which a building permit has been issued, provided that all grading, drainage, retaining wall, and ground cover work will be started and completed within a single dry season. A soils report and other information relating to such grading, and a performance bond or other acceptable security for the performance of the work, and a cash deposit to insure the repair of damage to public property or cleaning of public streets, may be required in connection with the issuance of the grading permit. The amount and form of such security and cash deposit shall be as set forth in Section 15.01.240.
B. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph A above, a grading permit fee will be required where the grading to be performed, other than that solely for the building and its foundation and driveway, is such as to require grading permit approval by the Planning Commission under Section 15.01.110.
§15.01.270 Action on application
A. No grading permit shall be issued by the City Engineer unless the applicant provides sufficient information for the City Engineer to find that the work, as proposed by the applicant, is likely not to endanger any person, property, public resource, or public way or detrimentally affect water quality. Factors to be considered by the City Engineer in making his finding shall include, but shall not be limited to, the soils engineering report, the engineering geology report, possible saturation by rains, earth movements, run-off of 647
N.
18 April 2022 -21-
surface waters, and subsurface conditions such as the stratification and faulting of rock, and the nature and type of soil or rock.
B. Applications shall be reviewed by the City Engineer in the order that they are received.
§15.01.280 Permit duration
Permits issued under this Chapter shall be valid for the period during which the proposed excavation or filling activities and soil storage take place or are scheduled to take place per Section 15.01.230. Permittee shall commence permitted activities within sixty (60) days of the scheduled commencement date for grading or the permittee shall resubmit all required application forms, fees, maps, plans, schedules and security to the City Engineer, except where an item to be resubmitted is waived by the City Engineer. §15.01.290 Appeals
Any person may appeal to the local Grading Permit Appeals Board the issuance, denial, or conditions of a grading permit, the suspension after a hearing by the City Engineer, or the revocation of a grading permit, or the failure to suspend or revoke a grading permit. Any such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Engineer within fifteen (15) days after the action complained of. The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee, as set forth by the City Council, and shall clearly state the reason for appeal. Members of the Appeals Board shall not be employees of the City and shall be professional engineers as defined in Business and Professions Code, Section 6701. Upon receipt of such an appeal, the City Engineer shall bring the appeal before the local Grading Permit Appeals Board within thirty (30) days and shall notify the appellant and (if different) the applicant of the date and time of the meeting at which the appeal will be heard. No other notice need be given, except such additional notice as may be required by state or other law. The local Grading Permit Appeals Board shall proceed to hear and determine the appeal at the same meeting or at such later meeting as it shall determine, and in connection therewith may continue the same from time to time. The action of the local Grading Permit Appeals Board shall be final, subject to timely judicial review.
§15.01.300 Revised plans
If the City Engineer finds the soil or other conditions to be different from those stated in the application for a grading permit, he or she may immediately suspend the grading permit, and permittee shall cease all work on the work site, excepting work to make the site safe, until approval is obtained from the City Engineer for revised plans which conform to the existing conditions.
§15.01.310 Cessation of operations
648
N.
18 April 2022 -22-
If the operation of any activity regulated by this Chapter is voluntarily ceased for a continuous period of more than ninety (90) days (which period is not stated in the approved work schedule per Section 15.01.230) then the grading permit shall be null and void and the operation of said activity shall not be recommenced until a new grading permit is obtained as provided herein.
§15.01.320 Assignment of permit
A permit issued pursuant to this Chapter may be assigned, provided all of the following conditions are satisfied:
A. The permittee notifies the City Engineer of the proposed assignment; B. The proposed assignee:
(1) Submits an application form pursuant to Section 15.01.160; and (2) Agrees in writing to all the conditions and duties imposed by the permit; and (3) Agrees in writing to assume responsibility for all work performed prior to the assignment; and
(4) Provides security pursuant to Section 15.01.240; and (5) Agrees to pay all applicable fees.
C. The City Engineer approves the assignment. The City Engineer may disapprove an assignment for cause and shall not unreasonably withhold approval. §15.01.330 No improvements planned
Where an applicant does not plan to construct permanent improvements on the site, or plans to leave portions of the site graded but unimproved, applicant must meet all the requirements of this Chapter.
15.01.340 Grading permit, paving
No person shall construct pavement surfacing on natural or existing grade for the purpose of a private road, parking lot or travelway without a valid grading permit, unless waived by the City Engineer. Resurfacing or maintenance of existing paved surfaces shall be exempt from this requirement.
§15.01.350 Grading permit, drainageway alteration
649
N.
18 April 2022 -23-
No person shall alter an existing watercourse, channel, or revetment by excavating, or placing fill, rock protection or structural improvements without a valid grading permit, unless waived by the City Engineer, or unless the work is performed as interim protection under an emergency situation (Section 15.01.140.F).
§15.01.360 Excavation blasting permit
No person shall possess, store, sell, transport or use explosives and/or blasting agents in violation of any existing laws or ordinances or do any excavation by explosives or blasting without a grading permit and without a separate blasting permit issued by the City Fire Department.
§15.01.370 Truck haul permit
A truck haul permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer for the movement over a City street of any excavated or fill material to or from any property in the City or to or from any property outside the City which has direct access to a City street. This requirement shall not be applicable, however, to any quarrying operations nor to any transportation of materials not exceeding fifty (50) cubic yards from any one site. Before issuing a truck haul permit for moving excavated material over a City street, the City Engineer shall collect a fee as approved by resolution of the City Council. §15.01.380 Issuance of grading permits
The City Engineer may issue a grading permit upon receipt and approval of the items listed in Section 15.01.150. Permits shall be issued subject to the following conditions:
A. The permittee shall maintain a copy of the permit and all approved plans and reports required under Sections 15.01.150 and 15.01.400.B, on the work site, and the permit, plans and reports shall be available for public inspection during all working hours; B. The permittee shall, at all times, conduct operations in conformity with approved site map, grading plan, and other required plans and reports.
C. The permittee shall comply with other conditions imposed by the City Engineer as are reasonably necessary to prevent the proposed operations from being conducted in such a manner as to constitute or create a nuisance or a hazard to life, property, or the environment. Such conditions may include but are not limited to:
(1) The route and time of travel over public streets so as to cause the least interference with general traffic and to cause the least damage to public streets;
(2) The removal of rock, earth or other material that may be deposited on public streets by reason of said grading operations;
650
N.
18 April 2022 -24-
(3) The payment to City of the cost of repairing damage to public streets caused by trucking operations in connection with said grading operations; (4) The installation of suitable fencing, barricades, signage, and lighting surrounding the grading operations.
D. The permittee shall implement temporary erosion control as necessary to protect public and private property, and as required in Section 15.01.180. Temporary erosion control shall be continuous throughout the work.
E. Permittee shall be knowledgeable of the conditions and/ or restrictions of the grading permit as outlined in applicable sections of this Chapter, and as contained on the approved site map, grading plan, and other required plans and reports. §15.01.390 Time and noise limitations on grading operations A. The time and noise limitations on all grading operations shall be those set forth for construction activities in Chapter 8.28, Noise Control, of this Code.
B. No grading work shall be performed during hours other than the normal working hours of the City Public Works Department's inspection and maintenance personnel without approval of the City Engineer and without first obtaining a special permit for such work from the City Engineer. Before issuing a special permit for such work, the City Engineer shall collect a fee as approved by resolution of the City Council.
Permitted hours of operation may be shortened by the City Engineer's finding of a previously unforeseen effect on the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding community. §15.01.400 Implementation of permits; permittee's duties In addition to performing as required under Section 15.01.380:
A. The permittee shall request an inspection of the site by the City Engineer at each of the stages of the grading operation listed below. The City Engineer shall approve the work inspected or notify, in writing, the permittee or owner wherein it fails to comply with the approved grading plans or any other applicable requirement. Any portion of the work that does not comply with the grading plans or other applicable requirement shall be corrected. The stages of work at which inspections shall be requested are:
(1) Initial: when the permittee is ready to begin grading work; (2) Rough grading: when all rough grading has been completed; (3) Interim erosion control: the installation of all interim erosion control devices and the completion of planting revegetation requirements; 651
N.
18 April 2022 -25-
(4) Final: readiness of the site for final inspection, including, but not limited to, finished grading, installation of drainage devices and final erosion control measures.
B. Permittee shall submit status reports to the City Engineer with revised work schedules required by Section 15.01.230, or other reports as required by City Engineer, for the City Engineer's approval if:
(1) There are delays in obtaining materials, machinery, services, or manpower necessary to the implementation of the grading, interim, or final plans as scheduled;
(2) There are any delays in excavation, land-disturbing, filling activities, or soil storage;
(3) The work is not being done in conformance with any approved grading plans; (4) There are any delays in the implementation of the interim or final plans.
C. Permittee shall submit recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary and appropriate, with the reports made under Subsection B of this Section, unless the City Engineer waives the requirement.
§15.01.410 Implementation of permits – requirements of City Engineer A. The permittee shall submit all reports as may be required in this Section and in Sections 15.01.380 and 15.01.400 to the City Engineer for review. The City Engineer may require permittee to modify the site map and grading plan, interim or final plans, and maintenance methods and schedules. The City Engineer shall notify the permittee in writing of the requirement to modify and may specify a specific period of time within which permittee must comply. All modifications are subject to the City Engineer's approval.
B. The City Engineer may inspect the site:
(1) Upon receipt of any report by permittee under provisions of Section
15.01.400.B;
(2) To verify completion of modifications required under Subsection A of this Section;
(3) During and following any rainfall;
(4) At any other time, at the City Engineer's discretion.
C. Upon completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, the City Engineer may require the following reports and drawings and supplements thereto:
652
N.
18 April 2022 -26-
(1) An as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer who prepared the approved grading plan, including original ground surface elevations, asgraded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface and subsurface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall provide a statement that the work was done in general conformance with the final approved grading plan;
(2) A soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, and other substantiating data and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soil engineering investigation report. The soils engineer shall provide a statement as to compliance of the work with his/her recommendations and as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use;
(3) An engineering geology report prepared by the geologist containing a final description of the geology of the site including any new information disclosed during the grading and the effect of same on recommendations incorporated in the approved grading plan. The geologist shall provide a statement as to compliance of the work with his/her recommendations and as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors.
D. No person shall in any way hinder or prevent the City Engineer or any of his/her authorized representatives from entering and inspecting any property on which grading has been or is being done.
§15.01.420 Grading inspection
A. All grading operations for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the City Engineer. When required by the City Engineer, special inspection of grading operations and special testing shall be performed according to the provisions of Subsection B of this Section.
B. In addition to complying with all requirements of the California Building Code, as amended by this Chapter, "regular grading" and "engineered grading" applicants/permittees shall be subject to and comply with the following:
(1) Engineered and Regular Grading Designation. Grading in excess of one thousand (1000) cubic yards and/or ten (10) feet vertical depth of cut and/or fill shall be performed according to approved grading plan prepared by a civil engineer, and shall be designated as "engineered grading." Grading involving less than one thousand (1000) cubic yards and/or less than ten (10) feet vertical depth of cut and/or fill shall be designated "regular grading" unless the applicant/permittee, with the City Engineer's approval, or the City Engineer, independently, chooses to have the grading performed as "engineered grading."
653
N.
18 April 2022 -27-
(2) Engineered Grading Requirements. For engineered grading, it shall be the responsibility of the civil engineer who prepares the approved grading plan to incorporate all recommendations from the soil engineering and engineering geology reports into the grading plan. He/she shall also be responsible for the professional inspection and approval of the grading within his area of technical specialty. This responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, inspection and approval as to the establishment of line, grade, and drainage of the development area. The civil engineer shall act as the coordinating agent if the need arises for liaison between the other professionals, the contractor and the City Engineer. The civil engineer shall also be responsible for the preparation of revised plans and the submission of as-graded grading plans and compliance statements upon completion of the work.
(3) Soils Engineering and Engineering Geology Requirements. Soils engineering and engineering geology reports shall be required at the discretion of the City Engineer. During grading, all necessary reports, compaction data, soils engineering and engineering geology recommendations shall be submitted to the owner, the geologist, the civil engineer, and the City Engineer by the soils engineer and the engineering geologist. Areas of responsibility shall be as follows:
(a) The soils engineer's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, the professional inspection and approval concerning the preparation of ground to receive fills, testing for required compaction, stability of all finish slopes, and the design of buttress fills, where required, incorporating data supplied by the engineering geologist. (b) The engineering geologist's area of responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, professional inspection and approval of the adequacy of natural ground for receiving fills and the stability of cut slopes with respect to geological matters and the need for subdrains or other groundwater drainage devices. He/she shall report the findings to the owner, the soils engineer, the City Engineer and the civil engineer.
(c) The City Engineer shall inspect the project as required under Section
15.01.410 and at any more frequent interval necessary to determine that the professional consultants are exercising adequate control. (4) Regular Grading Requirements. The City Engineer may require the permittee to provide inspection and testing by a professional testing company acceptable to the City Engineer. The testing agency's responsibility shall include, but need not be limited to, approval concerning the inspection of cleared areas and benches to receive fill, and the compaction of fills. When the City Engineer has reasonable cause to believe that geologic factors may be involved, the grading operation will be required to conform to "engineered grading" requirements.
654
N.
18 April 2022 -28-
(5) Notification of Noncompliance. If, in the course of fulfilling their responsibility under this Section, the civil engineer, the soils engineer, the engineering geologist, or the testing agency finds that the work is not being done in conformance with this Section or the approved grading plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the person in charge of the grading work and to the City Engineer (see Section 15.01.400).
Recommendations for corrective action measures, if necessary, shall be submitted.
(6) Transfer of Responsibility for Approval. If the civil engineer, the soils engineer, the engineering geologist, or the testing agency of record is changed during the course of the work, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed to accept the responsibility within the area of their technical competence for approval upon completion of the work. §15.01.430 Completion of work
A. Final Reports. Upon the completion of the rough grading work and at the final completion of the work, the City Engineer may require the following reports and drawings and supplements thereto:
(1) An as-graded grading plan prepared by the civil engineer who prepared the approved grading plan, including original ground surface elevations, asgraded ground surface elevations, lot drainage patterns and locations and elevations of all surface drainage facilities. The civil engineer shall state that to the best of his/her knowledge the work was done according to the final approved grading plan;
(2) A soil grading report prepared by the soils engineer, including locations and elevations of field density tests, summaries of field and laboratory tests, and other substantiating data and comments on any changes made during grading and their effect on the recommendations made in the soils engineering investigation report. The civil engineer shall render a finding as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors; (3) A geologic grading report prepared by the engineering geologist, including a final description of the geology of the site and any new information disclosed during the grading and the effect of same on recommendations incorporated in the approved grading plan. The engineering geologist shall render a finding as to the adequacy of the site for the intended use as affected by geologic factors.
B. Notification of Completion. The permittee or his/her agent shall notify the City Engineer when the grading operation is ready for final inspection. Final approval shall not be given until all work, including installation of drainage facilities and their protective devices and all erosion control measures have been completed according to the final approved grading plan and the required reports have been submitted. 655
N.
18 April 2022 -29-
§15.01.440 Removal of ground cover
A. All debris from clearing and grubbing shall be removed from the site within three (3) months from the completion of that activity.
B. During the dry season, the natural vegetative ground cover of any watershed shall not be destroyed or removed more than thirty (30) days prior to grading. During the wet season, such ground cover shall not be destroyed or removed more than five (5) days prior to such grading. The City Engineer may grant an extension of time when justified by the circumstances.
§15.01.450 Wet season grading
A. Commencement or continuation of any grading during the wet season is prohibited unless the City Engineer grants permission as provided in this Section.
B. The City Engineer may, at his or her discretion, grant permission to commence or continue grading during the wet season, on the basis of the information submitted by the applicant or permittee, weather forecasts, experience or any other factors which he or she may consider pertinent, so long as such grading will not cause a hazardous condition, erosion, or sedimentation to occur or continue.
C. For continuance of wet season grading activities other than installation, maintenance or repair of measures in the interim or final erosion control plan, applicant/permittee shall submit evidence to the City Engineer, as often as the City Engineer requires, demonstrating that erosion and sedimentation are being effectively controlled.
D. Applicant/permittee's failure to submit the required information to obtain permission for wet season grading activity shall result in suspension or revocation of the grading permit, action against the security, filing a lien on the property to recover City's costs, and/or prosecution as provided in Sections 15.01.550 through 15.01.580 of this Chapter.
§15.01.460 Cuts
A. General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering and/or engineering geology report, and specifically waived by the City Engineer, cuts shall conform to the provisions of this Section and in accordance with Figures 1 and Figure 2 of this Chapter.
B. Cut slopes. Cut slopes shall be no steeper than two to one (2:1 - two horizontal to one vertical) unless otherwise justified in the soil engineering or engineering geology report. Justification shall consist of a geotechnical slope stability analysis acceptable to the City Engineer, with factors of safety in proportion to the affected 656
N.
18 April 2022 -30-
structures and type of loading (e.g. earthquake). The factors of safety to be analyzed shall be those determined at the discretion of the City Engineer.
C. Slope adjustments. The City Engineer may require that the excavation be made with cut face flatter in slope than two (2) horizontal and one (1) vertical if he/she finds the material in which the excavation is to be made is unusually subject to erosion, or if other conditions make such flatter slope necessary for stability and safety.
D. Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided as required by Section 15.01.490.
§15.01.470 Fills
A. General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report and/or engineering geology report, and specifically waived by the City Engineer, fills shall conform to the provisions of this Section and Figure 1 and Figure 2 of this Chapter. In the absence of an approved soils engineering report, these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures.
B. Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than two to one (2:1), or where the fill slope terminates above a planned or existing cut slope, within a horizontal distance equal to one-third (1/3) of the vertical height of the fill, unless specifically addressed in the soils engineering report or the engineering geology report and approved by the City Engineer.
C. Preparation of Ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, top-soil and other unsuitable materials scarifying to provide a bond with the new fill and, where slopes are steeper than five to one (5:1), and the height is greater than five (5) feet, by benching into sound bedrock or other competent material as determined by the soils engineer. The bench under the toe of a fill on a slope steeper than five to one (5:1) shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. The area beyond the toe of fill shall be sloped for sheet overflow, or a paved drain shall be provided. Where fill is to be placed over a cut, the bench under the toe of fill shall be at least ten (10) feet wide, but the cut must be made before placing fill and shall be approved by the soils engineer and engineering geologist as suitable foundation for fill. Unsuitable soil is soil that, in the opinion of the building official or the civil engineer or the soils engineer or the geologist, is not competent to support other soil or fill, to support structures or to satisfactorily perform the other functions for which the soil is intended.
D. Fill Material. Detrimental amounts of organic material shall not be permitted in fills. Except as permitted by the City Engineer, no rock or similar irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than eight (8) inches shall be buried or placed in fills.
Exception: the City Engineer may permit placement of larger rock when the soils engineer properly devises a method of placement, continuously inspects its placement, and approves the fill stability. The following conditions shall also apply:
657
N.
18 April 2022 -31-
(1) Prior to issuance of the grading permit, potential rock disposal areas shall be delineated on the grading plan.
(2) Rock sizes greater than eight (8) inches in maximum dimension shall be ten (10) feet or more below grade, measured vertically.
(3) Rocks shall be placed so as to assure filling of all voids with fines.
E. Compaction. All fills shall be compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density as determined by Appendix J of the 2010 California Building Standards Code or equivalent, as approved by the City Engineer. Field density shall be determined according to Appendix J of the 2010 California Building Standards Code or equivalent, as approved by the City Engineer.
In addition to the inspections of fills, the City Engineer may require a statement from an approved soils engineer based on tests of the fill at selected stages. If favorable conditions exist, the City Engineer may, by prior approval, waive requirements for inspection of or soils tests by an approved soils engineer. The requirements of the City Engineer for the compaction of fills may include but shall not be limited to the following:
(1) Preparation of the natural ground surface by removing top soil and vegetation and by compacting the fill upon a series of terraces; (2) Control of moisture content of the material used for the fill; (3) Limitation of the use of various kinds of materials; (4) Maximum thickness of the layers of the fill to be compacted; (5) Method of compaction;
(6) Density requirements of the completed fill depending upon the location and use of the fill;
(7) Compaction tests required during the process of filling.
F. Slope. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use. Fill slopes shall be no steeper than two (2) horizontal to one (1) vertical (2:1).
The City Engineer may require that the fill be made with a slope face flatter in slope than two to one (2:1) if he or she finds the material of which the fill is to be made is unusually subject to erosion, or if other conditions make such flatter slope necessary for stability and safety.
G. Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided and the area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces shall be graded and paved as required by Section 15.01.490.
§15.01.480 Setbacks
658
N.
18 April 2022 -32-
A. General. The setbacks and other restrictions specified by this Section are minimum and may be increased by the City Engineer or by the recommendations of a civil engineer, soils engineer, or engineering geologist, if necessary for safety and stability or to prevent damage of adjacent properties from deposition or erosion or to provide access for slope maintenance and drainage. Retaining walls may be used to reduce the required setbacks when approved by the City Engineer.
B. Setbacks from Property Lines. The tops of cuts and toes of fill slopes shall be set back from the outer boundaries of the permit area, including slope-right areas and easements, in accordance with Figure 2 of this Chapter. The tops and toes of cut and fill slopes shall be set back from property lines and structures as far as necessary to provide for safety of adjacent property, safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic, required slope rounding, adequate foundation support, required swales, berms, and drainage facilities, and applicable zoning requirements. Except for pier-type foundations or other special foundation design, setbacks shall not be less than as shown on Figure 2 of this Chapter. §15.01.490 Drainage and terracing
A. General. Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this Section.
B. Terrace. Terraces at least six (6) feet in width shall be established at not more than thirty (30) feet vertical intervals on all cut or fill slopes to control surface drainage and debris, except that where only one terrace is required, it shall be at midheight. For cut or fill slopes greater than sixty (60) feet and up to one hundred twenty (120) feet in vertical height, one terrace at approximately mid-height shall be twelve (12) feet in width. Terrace width and spacing for cut and fill slopes greater than one hundred twenty (120) feet in height shall be designed by the civil engineer who prepares the approved grading plan and approved by the City Engineer. Suitable access shall be provided to permit proper cleaning and maintenance. Swales and ditches shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) Swales or ditches on terraces shall have a minimum gradient along and towards the ditch of five (5) percent unless approved by the City Engineer and must be paved with reinforced concrete not less than three (3) inches in thickness or an approved equal paving. They shall have a minimum depth at the deepest point of one (1) foot and a minimum, paved width of three (3) feet or as required by the City Engineer.
(2) A single run of swale or ditch shall not exceed a length of one hundred fifty (150) feet or collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding thirteen thousand five hundred (13,500) square feet (projected) without discharging into a down drain, unless approved by the City Engineer.
C. Subsurface Drainage. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability.
659
N.
18 April 2022 -33-
D. Disposal. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainage way approved by the City Engineer and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. Erosion of ground in the area of discharge shall be prevented by installation of nonerosive down drains or other devices.
Building pads shall have a drainage gradient of two (2) percent toward approved drainage facilities, unless waived by the City Engineer.
Exception: the gradient from the building pad may be one (1) percent if all the following conditions exist throughout the permit area:
(1) No proposed fills are greater than ten (10) feet in maximum depth; (2) No proposed finish cut or fill slope faces have a vertical height in excess of ten (10) feet;
(3) No existing slope faces, which have a slope face steeper than ten (10) horizontally to one (1) vertically, have a vertical height in excess of ten (10) feet;
(4) A two (2) percent gradient is provided for the first five (5) feet adjacent to the structure.
E. Interceptor Drains. Adequate provision shall be made to prevent any surface waters from damaging the cut face of an excavation or the sloping surface of a fill. At the discretion of the City Engineer, paved interceptor drains shall be installed along the top of all cut slopes where the tributary drainage area above slopes towards the cut and has a drainage path greater than forty (40) feet measured horizontally. Interceptor drains shall be paved with a minimum of three (3) inches of concrete or gunite and reinforced. They shall have a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches and minimum paved width of thirty (30) inches measured horizontally across the drain or as required by the City Engineer. The slope of drain shall be subject to the City Engineer's approval. §15.01.500 Import and export of earth material
On project sites where earth materials are moved on public roadways from or to the site, the following requirements shall apply:
A. Dust control shall be implemented as specified in Section 15.01.510 below.
The permittee shall be responsible for maintaining public rights-of-way used for hauling purposes in a condition free of dust, earth, or debris attributable to the grading operation.
B. Loading and hauling of earth from or to the site must be accomplished within the limitations established in Section 15.01.390 of this Chapter.
C. Access roads to the premises shall be only at points designated on the approved grading plan. Access roads shall include stabilized construction entrances and/or other BMPs as required by the City Engineer.
660
N.
18 April 2022 -34-
D. The last fifty (50) feet of the access road, as it approaches the intersection with the public roadway, shall have a grade not to exceed three (3) percent. There shall be a clear, unobstructed sight distance of three hundred (300) feet to the intersection from both the public roadway and the access road. If the three hundred (300) feet sight distance cannot be obtained, flagmen and/or signs shall be posted.
E. A stop sign conforming to the requirements of the California Vehicle Code shall be posted at the entrance of the access road to the public roadway.
F. An advance warning sign, conforming to the requirements of the current California Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, shall be posted on both sides of the access intersection. The advance warning sign shall be covered or removed when the access intersection is not in use.
§15.01.510 Dust control
The movement of earth materials either within, to, or from a site shall require the implementation of dust control measures in accordance with the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and any additional measures that the City Engineer deems to be necessary and appropriate. As determined by the City Engineer, a water truck shall be continuously present on-site to assure maximum control.
§15.01.520 Protection of adjoining property
In accordance with California Civil Code Section 832, each adjacent owner is entitled to the lateral and subjacent support that his/her land receives from the adjoining land, subject to the right of the owner of the adjoining land to make proper and usual excavations on the same for purposes of construction or improvement as provided by law. §15.01.530 Removal of hazards
Whenever the City Engineer determines that any existing excavation, embankment, or fill on private property has become a hazard to any person, endangers property, or adversely affects the safety, use, or stability of a public way or drainage channel, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of such property, upon receipt of notice from the City Engineer, shall immediately repair or eliminate such excavation or embankment so as to remove the hazard and to conform with the requirements of this Chapter. Notice from the City Engineer to remove a hazard may be verbal if the hazard presents an immediate threat of injury or damage, and as soon as reasonably possible thereafter, the verbal notice shall be followed by a written notice from the City Engineer.
§15.01.540 Post-grading procedures
661
N.
18 April 2022 -35-
Upon completion of final grading and permanent improvements, where such permanent improvements are planned at the time grading is performed, permittee shall notify the City Engineer that the grading is completed. The City Engineer shall review the grading performed, and the final reports required in Section 15.01.430, and, if found in substantial conformance to the permit conditions, the City Engineer may release the unexpended and unencumbered amount of the cash deposit and initiate the release of the security bonds posted by the permittee in accordance with Section 15.01.590. §15.01.550 Revocation or suspension of permits
A. The City Engineer may suspend any grading permit for the violation of any condition of the permit, the violation of any provision hereof or any other applicable law or ordinance, or the existence of any condition or the doing of any act constituting or creating a nuisance, threatening water quality, or endangering life, property, or the environment.
Upon written notification of suspension of a permit, the permittee shall cease all work on the work site, except work necessary to remedy the cause of the suspension.
B. Following the suspension, the permittee shall be granted a hearing by the City Engineer within five (5) days of the written notice of suspension. The notice shall state, generally, the grounds of complaint and the time and place where such hearing will be held.
C. At the conclusion of said hearing, and within thirty (30) days thereafter, the City Engineer shall make his/her findings and notify, in writing, the permittee of the action taken.
D. If the permittee, after written notice of suspension, fails or refuses to cease work, as required under Subsection A of this Section, the City Engineer may revoke the permit.
E. The City Engineer may reinstate a suspended permit upon the permittee's correction of the cause of the suspension.
F. The City Engineer shall not reinstate a revoked permit. §15.01.560 Violation - penalties
A. The violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by the fines, penalties and enforcement provisions set forth in Chapters 1.14, 1.16 and 1.18 of this Code.
B. Where a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter is determined by the City to have been willful, reckless, or grossly negligent, then in addition to the fines, penalties and enforcement provisions referenced in Paragraph A above or set forth elsewhere in this Code, 662
N.
18 April 2022 -36-
the City may impose a supplemental fine not to exceed the amounts listed below for each violation:
Grading Quantity Supplemental Fine
6-50 cubic yards $1,500.00
51-100 cubic yards $2,500.00
101-1,000 cubic yards $5,000.00
1,001-10,000 cubic yards $10,000.00
10,001-100,000 cubic yards $25,000.00
100,001-200,000 cubic yards $50,000.00
Greater than 200,000 cubic yards $250,000.00
§15.01.570 Action against the security
The City Engineer may retain and/or execute security required by Section 15.01.240 if one of the conditions listed in Subsections A through D below exists. The City Engineer shall use funds from the appropriate security to finance remedial work undertaken by the City or private contractor under contract to the City, and to reimburse the City for all direct costs incurred in the process of the remedial work, including but not limited to the following conditions:
A. The permittee ceases land-disturbing activities and/or filling and abandons the work site prior to the completion of the work shown on the site map, grading plan and revegetation plan (if applicable) ;
B. The permittee fails to conform to the conditions of the grading permit as approved or as modified under Section 15.01.380 and has had his/her permit revoked under Section 15.01.550;
C. The techniques utilized under the interim or final erosion control plan fail within one (1) year of installation, or before a final erosion control plan is implemented for the site or portions of the site, whichever is later;
D. The City Engineer determines that action by the City is necessary to prevent excessive erosion from occurring on the site.
§15.01.580 Public nuisance abatement
A. The City Council finds and declares that any work site on which grading has been started and has been abandoned or is not completed according to the site plan, grading plan, and grading permit, or on which the interim or final erosion control facilities have failed, or where on-site grading and erosion control facilities either are not working properly or are inadequate or incomplete, creates a danger to public health, safety and welfare, and constitutes a public nuisance. All duties of the City Manager under this Chapter may be delegated to other officers, agents or employees of the City. 663
N.
18 April 2022 -37-
B. The public nuisance abatement procedures provided in this Section are, at the City's option, alternative or additional to the procedures provided in Sections 15.01.570 and 15.01.530 of this Chapter, or to any applicable procedures provided by this Code, including Chapters 1.14, 1.16, 1.18, 8.38, or any other City ordinance, or provided by state law.
C. The City Manager is authorized to abate each and every such nuisance or cause the same to be abated in the manner provided by the provisions of this Section.
D. Before abating any condition which is declared to be a public nuisance, the City Manager shall post upon or in front of the property on which such nuisance exists, a notice which shall be substantially in the following form:
NOTICE TO ABATE NUISANCE OR REMOVE HAZARD
Notice is hereby given that the following activity/condition on the property located at _________________, in the City of Brisbane, County of San Mateo, State of California, identified as Assessors Parcel Number _______ constitutes a violation of the City of Brisbane Grading Ordinance or a violation of a permit or approval issued pursuant to such Ordinance:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Such condition creates a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare and is a public nuisance which must be abated by immediately by taking the following corrective action:
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ If said nuisance is not abated or said hazard is not removed within _______ days from and after the date of posting of this notice, or if good cause is not shown to the undersigned within said time why such corrective action should not be taken, the City will abate such nuisance by removing or causing to be removed said hazard and completing or causing to be completed the corrective action described above, and in such event, the cost and expense of such removal and abatement will be specifically assessed upon or against the parcel of land from which the hazard is removed and on which the corrective action is completed, and such assessment will constitute a lien upon the property until paid.
All interested persons having any objection to the above shall present such objections to the undersigned City Manager at City Hall, 50 Park Place, Brisbane, California 94005, within ______ days from and after the posting, herein specified, of this notice.
Posted/Mailed this ____________ day of ____________,20___
CITY MANAGER OF THE
CITY OF BRISBANE
664
N.
18 April 2022 -38-
By:____________________________
E. Before abating any condition which is declared to be a public nuisance in this Section, the City Manager, in addition to posting of notice or notices as provided by Subsection (D) of this Section, may mail, or cause to be mailed, to the person or persons who are designated on the last equalized assessment roll of the county of San Mateo, as owner or owners of the parcel of land on which such nuisance exists, at their address or addresses as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, a written notice or notices which shall be substantially in the same form shown in Subsection (D) above.
F. The owner or owners of any private parcel of land within or upon which a public nuisance, as described in this Section, exists, have a duty to abate such nuisance at his, her or their own cost and expense by removing any hazard and completing any planned permitted grading within the time prescribed in the notice which is posted upon such property, or if notice is given by mail within the time prescribed in the mailed notice. If such owner or owners fail to abate such nuisance within said time, and if, in addition, they fail to show cause to the satisfaction of the City Manager why said nuisance should not be abated, then in that event the City may abate said nuisance or cause same to be abated.
G. In order to abate said nuisance, the City may cause the removal of said nuisance and complete the planned permitted work, or perform such other work as may be necessary or appropriate to abate the nuisance or may cause a licensed contractor to abate the nuisance in such manner for reasonable rates not in excess of prevailing rates for similar work within the City.
H. In the event the City Manager finds that any public nuisance, above described in this Section, within or upon any parcel of land is so serious and presents such an immediate menace or danger to the public health, safety and welfare that such nuisance should be immediately abated without first posting or mailing notices, as above provided, and without first giving the owner or owners of said parcel further time to abate the same, then in that event the City Manager may immediately abate said nuisance or cause the same to be abated in the manner provided in subsection (G) of this Section without first posting or mailing any notices and without giving the owner or owners of the parcel further time to abate the same. However, the City Manager, if he or she abates such nuisance, shall prepare and file in his or her office a written report describing the location, nature and extent of the public nuisance and setting forth the reasons why he or she had to abate it immediately, as aforesaid, and he or she shall cause a copy of said report to be mailed within ten (10) days from and after completion of such abatement, to the owner or owners of the parcel within or upon which nuisance existed, as such owner or owners are shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county of San Mateo, at their addresses as shown on said roll.
I. The City Manager shall keep a record of the cost and expense incurred by him or her in abating or causing to be abated, pursuant to this Section, each public nuisance within or upon each separate parcel of land. To said costs and expenses, the City Manager shall add an amount for overhead and administration and incidental expenses and shall submit them to the City Council for confirmation of an itemized written report showing all costs and expenses incurred by the City in abating each public nuisance. 665
N.
18 April 2022 -39-
J. A copy of City Manager's report to the City Council shall be posted for at least ten (10) days prior to its submission to the City Council at the usual place where City notices are posted, together with a notice of the time and place when and where it will be submitted to the City Council for a hearing. The notice shall state a time and place when and where property owners may appear and object to any matter contained in the report.
K. At the time fixed for receiving and considering the report, the City Council shall hear it with any objections of the property owners liable to be assessed for the abatement. It may modify the report if it is deemed necessary. If the City Council finds the report to be acceptable, it shall confirm the report by resolution.
L. After confirmation of the report, a certified copy of the same shall be filed with the County of San Mateo. The description of the parcels reported shall be those used for the same parcels on the county's assessor's map books for the current year.
M. The cost of abatement within or upon each parcel of land, as confirmed, constitutes a special assessment against that parcel, and upon such confirmation it is a lien on the parcel. Laws relating to the levy, collection and enforcement of county taxes apply to such special assessment taxes. The appropriate county official shall enter each assessment on the county tax roll opposite the parcel of land. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. If delinquent, the amount is subject to the same penalties and procedures of foreclosure and sale provided for ordinary municipal taxes.
N. As an alternate method, the county tax collector, in his or her discretion, may collect the assessments without reference to the general taxes by issuing separate bills and receipts for the assessments.
O. The City Finance Director may receive the amount due on the abatement cost and issue receipts at any time after confirmation of the report and until July 1st of the calendar year in which the report is confirmed. If the cost is paid in full, no report shall be filed with the County of San Mateo to levy a special assessment for such cost.
P. The City Council may order refunded all or part of a special assessment paid pursuant to this Section if it finds that all or part of the special assessment has been erroneously levied. A special assessment or part shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed on or before March 1st next following the date the tax became due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who paid the tax, or his or her duly authorized representative.
§15.01.590 Release of security
Security deposited with the City for faithful performance of the grading, revegetation (if applicable), and erosion control work, and to finance necessary remedial work shall be released according to the following schedule:
A. Securities held against the successful completion of the work shown on the site map, grading plan and the interim plan, shall be released to the permittee at the 666
N.
18 April 2022 -40-
termination of the permit, or the satisfactory completion of the grading operations, provided no action against such security is filed prior to that date; B. Securities held against the successful completion of the work shown on the final plan shall be released to the permittee either one (1) year after termination of the permit or when the final plan is approved as completed, or when the City Planning Department approves a final revegetation monitoring report, whichever is later, provided no action against such security has been filed prior to that date. §15.01.600 Cumulative enforcement procedures
The procedures for enforcement of a permit, as set forth in this Chapter, are cumulative and not exclusive.
667
N.
18 April 2022 -41-
FIGURE 1
668
N.
18 April 2022 -42-
FIGURE 2
NOTES:
PA means permit area boundary and/or property line; 1. MFD means manufactured surface.
Setbacks shall also comply with applicable zoning 2. regulations.
Table A applies to manufactured slopes and 2:1 or 3. steeper natural slopes.
Setbacks from natural slopes flatter than 2:1 shall meet the approval of the City Engineer.
"b" may be reduced to 5′ minimum if an approved 4. drainage device is used; roof gutters and downspouts may be required.
669
N.
18 April 2022 -43-
"b" may be reduced to less than 5′ if no drainage is 5. carried on this side and if roof gutters are included.
If the slope between "a" and "b" levels is replaced 6. by a retaining wall, "a" may be reduced to zero and "b" remains as shown in Table A. The height of the retaining wall shall be controlled by zoning regulations.
"b" is measured from the face of the structure to the 7. top of the slope. "d" is measured from the lower outside edge of the 8. footing along a horizontal line to the face of the slope. Under special circumstances "d" may be reduced or recommended in the approved soil report and approved by the City Engineer.
The use of retaining walls to reduce setbacks (Fig. 9. B) must be approved by the City Engineer.
"f" may be reduced if the slope is composed of sound 10. rock that is not likely to produce detritus and is recommended by the soil engineer or engineering geologist and approved by the City Engineer.
"a" and "e" shall be 2′ when PA coincides with 11. Arterial or local street right-ofway and when improved sidewalk is adjacent to right-of-way. "e" shall be increased as necessary for interceptor 12. drains. 670
N.
18 April 2022 -44-
SECTION 2 Section 17.32.220 in Chapter 17.32 of the Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
§17.32.220 Grading permit; when review by Planning Commission is required.
Grading permits to be issued by the Director of Public Works/City Engineer under Chapter 15.01 of this Code shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission, at a noticed public hearing, as provided in Section 15.01.110.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption.
Coleen Mackin, Mayor
Attest:
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Brisbane in a regular meeting on ______, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
Ingrid Padilla, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Thomas R. McMorrow, City Attorney
671
N.
File Attachments for Item:
O. Receive Mid-Year Budget Report and Consider Adoption of Resolution Amending the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and Making Appropriations for the Amount Budgeted 672
O.
Mid-Year Budget Report and Adoption of Resolution 2022-__
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: 5/19/2022
From: Carolina Yuen, Finance Director
Subject: Mid-Year Budget Report and Adoption of Resolution 2022-__ Community Goal/Result
Fiscal Stability
Purpose
Provide funding for current approved programs and services and set funding aside for longterm liabilities.
Recommendation
City Council adopt resolution 2022-__ to amend the FY 2021/22 Budget Background
On June 4, 2020, City Council adopted the FY 2021/22 budget. The budget projected General Fund Revenues at $20,212,958 including Transfers In. General Fund Expenditures were projected at $23,366,310 including Transfers Out. The beginning fund balance was estimated at $6,029,774 and ending fund balance of $3,696,868
Our actual General Fund non-committed Balance as of July 1, 2021, was $2,932,079, representing $3,097,695 less than anticipated.
Discussion
Revenues: Attached is a summary showing the FY 2020/21 budget compared to actuals as well as the 2021/22 adopted budget compared to the midyear re-projection. Staff is anticipating approximately $1,422,817 in additional revenues for the 2022 fiscal year. There were a few areas where revenues exceeded expectations including Property Taxes. A few revenue items fell short of expectations including Transient Occupancy Fees. We are requesting budget adjustments to revenue in the net amount of $431,000.
Property Tax – Staff did not project any growth in Property Tax due to the uncertainty of COVID. However, the City received an unexpected increase in its secured property tax of 8.8%, or $242,000. The City received about $598,000 more from the former RDA area than anticipated as well. This increase is a direct result of the construction that has been taking place on Sierra Point. Staff anticipates that some additional new revenue will be generated as the Life Science campus projects are completed. 673
O.
Mid-Year Budget Report and Adoption of Resolution 2022-__
Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) – Although Staff reduced the amount of TOT for the FY2022 budget, the actual taxes is expected to come in under budget by approximately $409,000. Although we are seeing this income increasing over the year, the hotel industry has not fully rebounded from the impact of COVID.
Expenses: Staff is anticipating approximately $380,193 in net savings in expenses for the 2022 fiscal year. There were a few departments that fell below budgeted targets. We are requesting budget adjustments to expenses in the net amount of $279,000.
Central Services – During FY22, the City entered an agreement to lease 25 Park Place.
The deposit and lease payments will total $208,000 which was not included in the budget. Other related expenses including utilities can be absorbed by savings in other areas within Central Services.
Fire Department – The department is coming in over budget by approximately $71,000, primarily in Communications due to the unexpected costs related to the installation of the Station Alert project.
Although all of the other departments have slight variations in their budgets, the net impact was a reduction in expenditures. Net savings were primarily due to programs reconvening later than scheduled due to COVID and staffing vacancies.
Recommended Transfer to Pension Trust – Staff decided to take advantage of the CalPERS Unfunded Liability payment discount program and made a lump-sum payment at the beginning of the fiscal year. By making one payment instead of monthly throughout the year, the approximate savings was $64,000 and staff therefore recommends to transfer the savings to the Pension Trust.
Fund Balance and summary
Ending Fund Balance for FY 2021/22 is anticipated to be higher than originally projected and will be approximately $16,185,795. Based on fund commitments and the Reserve Policy adopted by Council to set money aside for recessions, unanticipated events and annual fluctuations in the budget, the City will have $1,954,701 in available reserves. Staff recommends rolling over these funds to be considered for use in FY22/23. Due to the current rising price environment and expected increase in anticipated costs for the City, coupled with Transient Occupancy Tax still not in a full rebound, and our Sales Tax line is not expected to grow significantly in FY 22/23 due to the recent departure of several large sales tax producers, our speed of recovery is unknown.
674
O.
Mid-Year Budget Report and Adoption of Resolution 2022-__
Other notable events:
Purchase of property – The City purchased property located at 70 Old County Road (also known as the Bank of America property) for the amount of $4,250,000. The purchase was paid in full by the City, but was later financed by Bank of the West to reimburse the City. Therefore, there is little impact to the current fiscal year. The first loan payment is scheduled for September 2022.
Tenant Improvements to 25 Park Place – As part of the lease agreement for 25 Park Place, the City is expecting to make tenant improvements over the coming year. The costs are not expected to increase in the coming year.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) – The federal government enacted a federal stimulus bill known as ARPA to aid state and local jurisdiction for economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. The City received $558,701, the first of two payments in FY22. However, these funds are not part of the General Fund and therefore not accounted for in this budget.
Fiscal Impact
The City is expected to experience overall net savings of $1,350,343 for compared to the FY22 budget. Any savings will be rolled over to be considered for the FY23 budget and be used to pay for the level of services requested by the Council.
Measure of Success
The City is able to meet the goals and policies adopted by the City Council.
Attachments
1. Overview of General Fund 2020/21 – 2021/22
2. Resolution 2022-____
Carolina Yuen ___________________________________
Carolina Yuen, Finance Director Clay Holstine, City Manager 675
O.
FY20/21 FY21/22
Budgeted Revenue 21,547,710 20,212,958
Budgeted Expenses 22,786,694 23,366,310
Anticipated Surplus (Use of Fund Balance) (1,238,984) (3,153,352) Actual / Anticipated Revenues 27,593,043 21,635,775
Actual / Anticipated Expenses 22,493,466 22,986,117
Actual / Reprojected Surplus (Use of Fund Balance) 5,099,577 (1,350,343) Beginning Fund Balance 12,436,561 17,536,138
Ending Fund Balance 17,536,138 16,185,795
Reserve Policy:
Recession Reserve 2,500,000 2,500,000
Unanticipated Events 3,500,000 3,500,000
Annual Fluctuation (5% Revenues/5% Expenses) 2,504,325 2,231,095 Total Required Reserve 8,504,325 8,231,095
Fund Balance Above Required Balance 9,031,813 7,954,701 Additional Restrictions on Fund Balance 6,099,734 6,000,000 Available Fund Balance 2,932,079 1,954,701
General Fund
Attachment 1
676
O.
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BRISBANE
AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021-22 AND MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AMOUNT BUDGETED WHEREAS, a proposed annual budget for the City of Brisbane for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2021, and ending June 30, 2022, was adopted by City Council on June 4, 2020; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed changes to the budget for Fiscal Year 2021/22 on May 19, 2022, attached to the Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, that the amended budget, as submitted, is adopted as the annual budget for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2021, and thereby appropriates the amounts budgeted.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 19th day of May 2022 _____________________
Coleen Mackin,
Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-____ was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the Brisbane City Council on May 19, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
_____________________
Ingrid Padilla
City Clerk
Attachment 2
677
O.
Attachment A
City of Brisbane
Mid-Year General Fund Budget Review
Fiscal Year 2021/2022
FY21/22 Approved Budgeted Revenue $20,212,958
Total Revenue Budget Adjustments 431,000
Secured Property Tax - $242,000
Property Tax from Successor Agency - $598,000
Transient Occupancy Tax – ($409,000)
Total Other Variances 991,817
Total Anticipated Revenues $21,635,775
FY21/22 Approved Budgeted Expenses $23,366,310
Total Expense Budget Adjustments 279,000
Central Services - $208,000
Fire Department - $71,000
Total Other Savings (659,193)
Total Anticipated Expenses $22,986,117
678
O.
File Attachments for Item:
Q. Updating the County-Wide and Subcommittee Assignments 679
Q.
Updated 5/13/2022
2022
CITY OF BRISBANE - CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
The following is a list of Commissions, Subcommittees, Boards, Councils and Associations for which the Council selects a representative(s).
County/Other JPA Assignments Representative/Alternate Mtg Sched.
1. Association of Bay Area Governments Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem Annually/April http://www.abag.ca.gov/
2. League of California Cities Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem Conferences http://www.cacities.org
3. Airport Land Use Committee Terry O’Connell, Rep. 4th Thurs/mo http://ccag.ca.gov/committees/ Madison Davis, Alt 4-6 pm
4. San Mateo County Emergency Terry O’Connell 3rd Thurs/mo/Quart Services Council 5:30 pm
http://hsd.smcsheriff.com/
5. City/County Association of Governments Karen Cunningham, Rep 2nd Thurs/mo http://ccag.ca.gov/committees/board-of-directors/ Cliff Lentz, Alt. 6:30-9:30pm
6. Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance Cliff Lentz 3rd Thurs/bi-month http://commute.org/ Karen Cunningham, Alt 8 – 9:30 am
7. County Library JPA Karen Cunningham 2nd Mon/bi-month Liaison with Friends of Brisbane Library Cliff Lentz, Alt 8:15 am http://www.smcl.org/en/node/11
8. SMC Pre-Hospital EMS Group Karen Cunningham 3rd Wed Jan/May/Sept Board of Directors (JPA-ALS Paramedic) Terry O’Connell, Alt 6 pm
9. Airport Community Roundtable Terry O’Connell 1st Wed/mo http://sforoundtable.org Madison Davis, Alt 7 pm
10. North County Fire Authority Board Madison Davis Once a year of Directors/Fire Services (JPA Board) Terry O’Connell in June/July
11. Brisbane Baylands Madison Davis As Needed
Community Advisory Group (BBCAG) Terry O’Connell 7-9 pm
12. Peninsula Clean Energy JPA Coleen Mackin 4th Thurs/mo (SM County) Clay Holstine, Alt 7-9 pm
www.peninsulacleanenergy.com
13. Brisbane Emergency Services Council Coleen Mackin, Rep (Mayor & SMC Emergency Services Council Rep) Terry O’Connell
14. Bay Area Water Supply Conservation Agency Sepi Richardson 3rd Thurs/mo (BAWSCA City Representative) (Term expires 6/30/23) 7pm 680
Q.
Updated 5/13/2022
15. Caltrain Modernization Local Policy Maker Group Terry O’Connell 4th Thursday at www.caltrain.com/calmod Cliff Lentz, Alt 6pm
(assigned at Council Mtg of 9/7/17)
16. HEART of SMC’s Membership Agency Cliff Lentz Annually (May) Committee (MAC) Coleen Mackin (alt)
City Council Subcommittees Representative/Alternate
17. Infrastructure, Utilities, & Franchise Coleen Mackin (Water & Sewer, rates & plans, Franchise agreements, Cliff Lentz Other Infrastructure plans, Storm drains, streets,
City Facilities - buildings, marina, etc.)
18. School/City Subcommittee 2x2 Madison Davis
Coleen Mackin
19. Education Ad hoc Subcommittee Meeting Madison Davis (created 1/17/19) Coleen Mackin
20. Fiscal & Administrative Policies Terry O’Connell
(Review of Fiscal policies, such as OPEB, Karen Cunningham Fund Balances Policies, unfunded liabilities.)
21. Affordable Housing Cliff Lentz
Madison Davis
22. Public Information/Technology Coleen Mackin
(Website, Newsletter, Broadcasting, security) Karen Cunningham
23. Economic Development Karen Cunningham
Cliff Lentz
24. Baylands Terry O’Connell
(All things Baylands, BSP - UPC application and is Karen Cunningham various studies, i.e., financial, survey, sustainability, + 1 PC (Sayasane), + 1 CSSC (Cabrera) HSR, Soil Processing, Recology) + 1 OSEC (Dykes) + 1 Art (Davis/Salmon) Possible Youth and/or At-Large position/s
25. Sierra Point Parkway Design Guidelines Terry O’Connell Cliff Lentz + Mitch
26. Sierra Point Parkway Park Terry O’Connell
(For parks and open space projects at SPP) Cliff Lentz
(created 1/7/21) + 1 P&R , + 1 OSEC Member,
+ 1 Complete Streets
27. History Subcommittee Coleen Mackin
Madison Davis
28. Airport Noise Subcommittee Terry O’Connell
Madison Davis
681
Q.
Updated 5/13/2022
29. Crocker Park Noise Ad hoc Cliff Lentz
(created 10/26/17) Coleen Mackin
30. Planning Issues Coleen Mackin
Karen Cunningham
31. Cannabis Issues Madison Davis
(created 1/17/19) Terry O’Connell
32. Public Art Advisory Committee & Madison Davis
Public Art Selection Committee Karen Cunningham
+ 2 P&R, + 1 Business owner
+ 1 Artist, + 1 Community member
33. Beautification Subcommittee Karen Cunningham
(created 9/5/19) Coleen Mackin
+ 1 P&R , + 1 OSEC Member,
+ 1 Complete Streets
34. Transportation Demand Management Policy Cliff Lentz (created Sept 2021) Karen Cunningham
35. Community Garden Madison Davis
(created Nov 2021) Karen Cunningham
36. City Manager Contract Ad hoc Subcommittee Karen Cunningham (created Feb 2022) Cliff Lentz
37. LUNAFEST Co-Sponsorship with Lions Club Madison Davis & Terry O’Connell (dissolved 4/21/22; now Lions Club event) Lions: Sharon Boggs & Deb Horen + 3 P&R (Greenlee, Kern & Seawell)
Council Liaisons Representative/Alternate
** Meet with two representatives from each Commission for Liaison meetings: involves discussion around the Commission’s achievements, goals and their upcoming workplan.
38. Liaison to Parks & Recreation Commission Madison Davis Karen Cunningham
39. Liaison to Open Space & Ecology Committee Karen Cunningham Terry O’Connell
40. Liaison to Planning Commission Cliff Lentz
Coleen Mackin
41. Liaison to Complete Streets Safety Committee Karen Cunningham Coleen Mackin
42. Liaison to Equity Plus Inclusion Committee (EPIC) and Madison Davis Inclusion, Diversity Equity & Accountability (IDEA) Cliff Lentz (created 1/7/21)
682
Q.