The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-06-24 e-packet@6:30Wednesday, June 24, 2020 6:30 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda June 24, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-25-20 AND N-29-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino and essential City staff will participate via Teleconference. Members of the public may submit their comments on any agenda item or public comment via email or City Council hotline. PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY TELECONFERENCE. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY: Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27 Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 24, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda. Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 24th. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up. Emails received before the meeting start time will be emailed to the City Council, posted on the City’s website and will become part of the public record for that meeting. The email and phone line below will be monitored during the meeting. If a comment is received after the set time or during the meeting but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting. The Clerk will make every effort to read emails received but cannot guarantee such emails will be read during the meeting, subject to the Mayor’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record. Email: [email protected] Public comments can be made on items not on the agenda, or must clearly identify the Agenda Item Number in the SUBJECT Line of the email. The length of an email comment shall commensurate to the three minutes customarily allowed per individual comment, approximately 300 words total. City Council Hotline: (650) 829-4670 Please limit your voicemail to comply with the 3-minute time limitation for public comment. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 June 24, 2020Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report regarding a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 1. Resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. 1a. Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco, California for the Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements Project (No. st1601) in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00 and authorizing a total construction budget of $908,970.00. (Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer) 2. Resolution awarding a construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco, California for the Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements Project (No. st1601) in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00, authorizing and authorizing a total construction budget of $908,970.00. 2a. Adjournment. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/16/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-409 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs.(Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION As the City Council is aware,the Parks and Recreation Department offers licensed Before and After School Programs at four school campuses,Spruce Elementary School,Monte Verde Elementary School,Buri Buri Elementary School,and Ponderosa Elementary School,and two After School Education and Safety Grant (ASES) funded programs at Los Cerritos Elementary School and Martin Elementary School. In the adopted Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating Budget,the City Council authorized the expansion of the Before and After School Program at Ponderosa Elementary School in order to accommodate an additional 40 children and meet the growing need for high-quality childcare services at this location.By doing so,the City is capable of serving a total of 160 children at this site - an increase from 120. The expansion was contingent upon the ability to provide an additional physical space for this program to take place.The South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)identified a portable in good condition located on another SSFUSD property for the program to use.The District assisted the City by coordinating the relocation of the portable,and the installation of new flooring,painting,plumbing,and electrical hook-ups. Fortunately, this work was completed prior to the 2019-20 school year. The District has agreed to share 50%of the costs associated with these improvements.As such,the City’s share for this work is $14,232.37, which may be charged against Childcare Impact Fees. FISCAL IMPACT In 2001,the City of South San Francisco implemented a Childcare Impact Fee under the Mitigation Fee Act to financially support the growing need for public and private childcare.At that time,City staff performed a nexus study,required by the Mitigation Fee Act,which established the legal basis for the imposition of the fee on new developments,and established a reasonable relationship and nexus between the fee's use,amount,and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The Childcare Impact Fee Ordinance (Chapter 20.310 of the City’s Municipal Code)stipulates that funding may be used for the following applications: •Building new childcare facilities; •Expanding existing childcare facilities; City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-409 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:1. •Establishing new family childcare homes and expanding spaces at existing family childcare homes; •Creating new childcare facilities through the South San Francisco Unified School District; and •Creating new childcare spaces within the City Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Given that this project expands an existing childcare program and serves additional children by providing additional spaces,the use of the Childcare Impact Fee for expenditures related to portable relocation and installation are eligible expenses.Therefore,all $14,232.37 may be funded by the Childcare Impact Fee with no impact to the City’s General Fund.While the work was completed in Summer 2019,the invoice from SSFUSD is now pending payment.The Childcare Impact Fee fund currently has an ample balance of over $5.5 million. Since no prior appropriations have been made that allow for the use of Childcare Impact Fees to fund this expenditure, City Council action to approve this appropriation is required. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This project supports Strategic Plan Priority #2:Quality of Life.This project helps the City work toward this goal by providing high-quality childcare and educational support for children in South San Francisco. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ From:mimi c To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:6/24 SP CC agenda Date:Friday, June 19, 2020 6:08:54 PM I have a question regarding the amount of money $14,232. to fund the relocation and installation of child care at Ponderosa elementary, why so little? I don't think that amount of money is enough but instead the city is willing to pay $908,970 for construction on Linden? What type of construction are we talking about? why is the city keep using our tax money for constructions projects? just like using our tax money for a new construction of a police building although the current building is in good shape. Why not use some of this money for education, we are in need of after care programs,. Has anyone know how bad is the classroom for after school hours at Martin elementary school located at 35 School street? Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 06/24/2020 Item #1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-410 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:1a. Resolution authorizing the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department offers licensed Before and After School Programs at four school campuses,Spruce Elementary School,Monte Verde Elementary School,Buri Buri Elementary School, and Ponderosa Elementary School,and two After School Education and Safety Grant (ASES)funded programs at Los Cerritos Elementary School and Martin Elementary School; and WHEREAS,in the adopted Fiscal Year 2019-20 Operating Budget,the City Council authorized the expansion of the Before and After School Program at Ponderosa Elementary School in order to accommodate an additional 40 children and meet the growing need for high-quality childcare services at this location; and WHEREAS,the expansion was contingent upon the ability to provide an additional physical space for this program to take place; and WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD)identified a portable in good condition located on another SSFUSD property for the program to use; and WHEREAS, the City’s share for relocation of the portable is $14,232.37; and WHEREAS,given that this project expands an existing childcare program and serves additional children by providing additional spaces,the use of the Childcare Impact Fee for expenditures related to portable relocation and installation are eligible expenses pursuant to Chapter 20.310 of the City’s Municipal Code. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the appropriation of $14,232.37 in Childcare Impact Fees to fund the relocation and installation of a portable classroom at Ponderosa Elementary School for City-operated Before and After School Programs. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-396 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco,California for the Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements Project (No.st1601)in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00 and authorizing a total construction budget of $908,970.00.(Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco,California for the Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements Project (No.st1601)in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00 and authorizing a total construction budget of $908,970.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The purpose of this project is to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists along the Linden Avenue corridor, helping to mitigate conflicts with motor vehicles and encourage economic development.This will be accomplished by increasing driver awareness along the corridor by installing traffic calming treatments such as curb extensions/bulb-outs,advanced stop bars at stop-controlled approaches,high reflectivity thermoplastic crosswalks,adding state approved “green”color “sharrows”,and signage to increase awareness of the mixed- use bicycle and vehicle lanes.These features will also enhance pedestrian access to transit stops and promote bicycle usage along the Linden Avenue corridor.The Linden Avenue Phase 1 Traffic Calming Improvements Project is the culmination of two separate City projects along this corridor,as described below and shown on Attachment 1 (Project Location Map).The projects are designed as one comprehensive project,but will be constructed in two phases. City Project st1601 Linden Avenue Phase 1 Traffic Calming Improvements includes work at two intersections, starting just south of Pine Avenue to just north of Aspen Avenue.This project was awarded a City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)Transportation Development Act (TDA)grant.City Project st1602 Linden Avenue Phase 2 and Spruce Avenue Traffic Calming Improvements includes work at three intersections, starting just south of Miller to just north of California,and along Spruce Avenue between Maple Avenue and Tamarack Lane which was also awarded a grant but will not be part of this Phase 1 construction project. Previous advertisement of the Phase 2 project in July/August of 2019 provided bid proposals that exceeded the funding available which forced staff to forgo awarding a construction contract.Since then,staff has been working with the designer to reduce the scope of work on the two projects without compromising the grant funding requirements.The reduction in scope included removing bulb-outs on the side streets,and only having a bulb-out on the Linden portion of the intersections.This included reducing the size of the storm drain biofiltration (bioswale)areas and switching from a bi-directional curb ramp at each corner to standard single curb ramps.In doing so,estimated construction costs were reduced to meet the available funding budgets for both projects. City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2020Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-396 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. In order to implement the pedestrian traffic safety and traffic calming features at the intersections along Linden Avenue on these two City projects,parking spaces will be reduced by at most seven (7)vehicle spaces located along Linden Avenue, or on the side streets as shown on Attachment 2 (Parking Reduction Exhibit). Staff advertised a notice inviting bids for the project on February 19,2020 and again on February 26,2020.On February 27,2020,staff issued Addendum No.01 to replace the proposal index page,clarifying forms to be submitted with the proposal and by the successful low bidder.On March 3,2020,staff issued Addendum No. 02 to replace the bid schedule for the base bid;to modify the special conditions and technical specifications to account for services to be provided by PG&E and Calwater during construction;to add a utility potholing bid item;and to reduce the allotted working days (WD’s)from 120 to 50 WD’s so as to complete the construction work within the C/CAG TDA grant allotted time for submitting a full reimbursement request.On March 5, 2020,staff issued Addendum No.03 to replace the irrigation drawings that relocated the irrigation controller and water service point of connection. On March 11,2020,staff received six (6)bid responses.The lowest responsible bidder was Burch Construction Company of San Francisco,California.Staff has verified the low bidder’s current contractor’s license with the California State Licensing Board and found it to be in good standing. Public Works contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder whose bid is responsive to the solicitation (Public Contract Code §20166).To provide a fair and transparent bidding environment,the Bidding Documents clearly stated that the Contract will be awarded based on the lowest Total Base Bid. The following is a summary of all “Written” and “Figure” Total Base Bids received: Total Base Bid Burch Construction Company of San Francisco, CA $ 605,980.00 (lowest) Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. of So. San Francisco, CA $ 697,373.00 RK Engineering, Inc. of San Francisco, CA $ 735,608.00 Sposeto Engineering of Livermore, CA $ 748,898.30 CF Contracting of San Francisco, CA $ 820,000.00 Golden Bay Construction, Inc. of Hayward, CA $ 839,918.00 Total Project Engineer’s Estimate:$ 695,376.96 The Project available budget is $1,577,045.27 including TDA grant,and City matching funds using Measure A funds will be allocated during the 2020-2021 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan,scheduled to be approved on June 24,2020.This level of funding is sufficient to support the base bid costs for the construction contract, plus the construction contingency allowance and estimated construction management allowance. The project budget: Construction Contract $ 605,980.00 Construction Contingency Allowance (25%)$ 151,495.00 Construction Management & Administration Allowance (~25%)$ 151,495.00 Total Project Budget $ 908,970.00 The construction contingency allowance will be used for any additional costs related to design changes during City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2020Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-396 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:2. The construction contingency allowance will be used for any additional costs related to design changes during the construction operations.The construction contingency is set at 25%to provide staff flexibility to include additional enhancements along Linden Avenue.The construction management and administration allowance will cover staff costs.There are no Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)requirements since no federal funds are being utilized on the project. FISCAL IMPACT The Phase 1 of the Linden Avenue Traffic Calming improvements project anticipates having sufficient funds based on the proposed City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal Year 2020-21 Capital Improvement Program (Project No.ST1601).Excess City funds from Measure A may be reallocated to support other City Capital Improvement Program projects for road and traffic improvements and rehabilitation. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan outcome of improved Quality of Life by maintaining and improving infrastructure to serve the public. CONCLUSION Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco, California, for the Linden Avenue Phase 1 Traffic Calming Improvements Project which will address the need to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists along the Linden Avenue corridor and help mitigate conflicts between pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles and encourage economic development. Attachments: 1.Project Location Map 2.Parking Reduction Exhibit 3.ST1601 Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 6/19/2020Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ LINDEN AVEPINE AVEASPEN AVEATTACHMENT 1 LINDEN AVEPINE AVE ATTACHMENT 2 South San Francisco Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements June 24, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 AGENDA Proposed Improvements Project Budget Awarding Guidelines Contractor Bid Results Table Construction Schedule 2 Proposed Improvements High Visibility Ladder Crosswalks ADA Curb Ramps 3 Proposed Improvements Bulb-Out Curb Ramps 4 Biofiltration Area Reduced Width High Visibility Crosswalk Linden Corridor Linden Avenue After Installation of Traffic Calming Improvements 5 Project Budget 6 TDA Grant $400,000 General Fund $428,970.00 SMC TA Measure A $80,000.00 Grant Funding Governmental Funding PROJECT BUDGET $908,970.00 Qualifications VS Low Bid 7 Design – Engineering Consultant Selection Consultant is procured through a qualifications based selection Construction – Contractor Selection Contracts are awarded to the lowest Responsive Responsible bidder Contractor Total Base Bids 8 Engineer's Estimate 1 Burch Construction Company, San Francisco CA 2 Interstate Grading & Paving South San Francisco CA 3 RK Engineering Inc. San Francisco CA 4 Sposeto Engineering Inc. Livermore CA 5 CF Contracting, Inc. San Francisco CA 6 Golden Bay Construction Hayward CA TOTAL BASE BID Project award to lowest Total Base Bid $695,376.96 $605,980.00 $697,373.00 $735,608.00 $748,898.30 $820,000.00 $839,918.00 Construction Schedule 9 Construction Duration – 50 Working Days Early Start: July 2020 Early Completion: October 2020 10 Questions? Summary of voicemail comments for City Council Special Meeting of June 24, 2020. The following comments have been submitted via telephone: Name Subject Comment Summary or full comment if brief Alessandria Carmona Public Comments- Item #2 Would like the comment be read aloud at the meeting. Opposes the construction project on Linden because it will cause traffic jams. Please use the $1M for Chestnut, El Camino, Westborough and Hillside Blvd where it is needed. The proposal is a waste of money and resources and unnecessary. Daniel Jimenez Public Comments- Item #2 Would like the comment to be read aloud at the meeting. Opposes the Linden Intersect Traffic Plan on Linden and doesn’t see any traffic problems at Linden. The project will cause traffic jams on Linden and will not be safe for bicyclists. The funds should be used for school lunches, books and computers because they do not have the proper funding. Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 06/24/2020 Item #2 From:Daniel Perez To:All at City Clerk"s Office; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Item #2 Special Mtg 6/24/20 - Linden Avenue Date:Saturday, June 20, 2020 9:59:33 PM Honorable Mayor and City Council members: I respectfully request my comments be read out loud at 6/24/20 meeting. I urge City Council not approve the proposed Linden Ave intersection road changes. To commence, although it is described as a Traffic Reduction plan, it is very short of a reduction plan. How would narrower streets help traffic move more swiftly? Quite contrary, it would cause traffic jams with more pollutants in air. Furthermore, how can proposed changes encourage citizens to find more sustainable ways to commute to work, visit libraries, parks, promote fitness, etc.? We as bicyclists currently face many existing hazards and this particular one is unnecessary, given the fact that existing intersections function properly. Furthermore, I am against spending of $908,970 when there are URGENT community needs. This plan is a mere Cosmetic Mismanagement of Funds, rather than an urgent traffic hazardous plan for bicyclists and pedestrians, and even our Earth. Instead of promoting getting vehicles off the roads, it only encourages us to not use alternative modes by the creation of a hazardous road. I understand the need for handicap access, which currently exist at these intersections. What I do not understand are the tripping hazards such as those at Orange Ave (Baden and Commercial Aves). The proposed plan on Linden would be worse and not logical. In closing, I urge our citizen elected City Council to represent the better needs of our Old Town, bicycling, sustainability communities and Mother Earth in not approving this plan. I trust community needs take precedence over City organizational wants. On another note, I find important items such as these being placed on Special Meetings rather than Regular Meetings as disrespectful, especially to Old Town, which historically has been ignored and not respected. I find it highly offensive. Thank you. From:Patea, Marie To:Luz Jimenez; All Council; [email protected]; Futrell, Mike; San Mateo Daily Journal-A; All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:RE: Agenda Item #2, Special Meeting 6/24/20 Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 1:37:23 PM Dear Ms. Jimenez, Thank you for taking the time to send this email. Both City Council and our City Clerk have received your message. In kindness, MP Marie E. Patea Executive Assistant to the City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 829-6666 -----Original Message----- From: Luz Jimenez Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 1:31 PM To: All Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Futrell, Mike <[email protected]>; San Mateo Daily Journal-A <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #2, Special Meeting 6/24/20 Please read out loud at Special Meeting 6/24/20. Honorable Mayor and City Council: Proposed Linden Avenue "calming" plan is a misuse of Measure A, C/CAG and City funds for a total of $1 million dollars! Taxpayers approved Measure A funds for traffic relief. Linden is not problematic or hazardous at these intersections. Our two major thoroughfares, Westborough/Chestnut and Hillside and ECR are a justification for use of these funds. Also, placing this item on a Special Agenda is unjustified and appalling. What is so urgent to a non-existing problem? I am highly offended when Old Town continues to be disrespected by the urgency the City is putting on this proposal by quickly going through systematic process without proper due process. There is no reason mentioned by City other than “traffic calming.” What is traffic calming? It is more of a traffic congestion plan by slowing traffic (more pollution) and not being inviting for bicyclists. It will promote congregating and it will cause traffic jams that do not currently exist on Linden. The City Council were elected to represent best interest of every citizen and to encourage input. Old Town has always been ignored instead of appreciative of its “old town” roots. Old Town has historical value which has now been destroyed and continues to be disrespected. Our voice is not important, respected nor valued. I invite every City Council member and City Manager to walk the streets of Old Town. Why do we not ever see anyone from City Hall walk around, but then make ill decisions? Not one City Council member lives in Old Town. Would either one of you allow a high rise building with NO setbacks to be built next to your long generational home that has taken your natural sunlight away? Do to others as you would do for yourself. Miller Ave btwn Linden and Cypress is a precursor to what SSF will become because of lack of attention by City. Graffiti, cyclone fenced junk yard, boarded up empty buildings, weeds shoulder level, etc. If you would not live in such conditions, what makes Council think it is ok for us? We pay same taxes. What happened to equality and inclusivity? Respect does not costs anything and goes a long way. Thank you. <https://cmo.smcgov.org/census-2020-san-mateo-county/> From:daniela guevara To:All at City Clerk"s Office; [email protected] Subject:Item 2 for Wed, June 24th Date:Monday, June 22, 2020 3:37:55 PM I am writing regarding proposed plan on Linden Ave. I am urging City Council to turn down this proposal. Measure A funds being proposed on Linden Ave in SSF. As taxpayers, we approved Measure A to be used for traffic relief. There are traffic jams on Chestnut, Westborough and El Camino Real. Before pandemic, there was bumper to bumper traffic on Hillside which I am sure will pick up again. Who approved these funds to be used for area that poses no current danger to motorists or pedestrians and which there are no traffic jams? The only dangerous intersection on Linden is at Lux, which isn't being addressed. Makes no sense. This will only do opposite effect of creating a traffic jam that doesn't currently exist. I did not approve Measure A funds for this calming project as SSF calls it. There is also mention of C/CAG transportation funds and city of SSF funds for this project. I am proposing please for these funds to be used elsewhere where there is an urgent need. The community can really use transportation funds at problematic areas and city funds for recreational and youth programs. I urge you all to not approve and consider the imminent needs of community. Thank you. From:Daniel Perez To:Sandy Wong Cc:[email protected]; [email protected]; Mima Guilles; [email protected]; [email protected]; OOS sustainability; Hermes Monzon; Kaki Cheung; Pedro Gonzales; All at City Clerk"s Office; All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Fw: URGENT: Agenda Item #2, SSF Special Meeting Wednesday, June 24 - Linden Ave Intersections - REQUEST FOR BICYCLISTS/PEDESTRIAN/COMMUNITY ADVOCACY Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2020 2:10:08 PM Hi Ms. Wong, I am following up on email from yesterday. Thank you. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Daniel Perez To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Mima Guilles <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Carole Groom <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Davina Hurt <[email protected]>; Sandy Wong <[email protected]> Cc: Everything South City <[email protected]> ; OOS_sustainability <[email protected]>; ; Mikaela Hiatt <[email protected]>; Kaki Cheung <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020, 02:06:40 PM PDT Subject: Re: URGENT: Agenda Item #2, SSF Special Meeting Wednesday, June 24 - Linden Ave Intersections - REQUEST FOR BICYCLISTS/PEDESTRIAN/COMMUNITY ADVOCACY Ms. Wong, Thank you for your response. I would like to receive copies or to be able to view application proposals submitted by City of SSF for this project. How would I go about this? The City of SSF does not go into details on reason or urgency of this project. I am trying to understand the urgency by being proposed at a Special Meeting. There definitely exists traffic congestion and hazards at our major thoroughfares of Westborough/Chesnut/El Camino Real and Hillside Boulevard, as well as Airport Blvd. We approved Measure A funds for traffic relief and assuming C/CAG has guidelines and promotes vehicles off roads and bicycle safety. How does community become aware of C/CAG meetings and proposals from individual cities for community input?Although I am not suggesting this is done behind doors, but it would be nice for community to be able to provide input. Another question at the moment, since it is urgent by the Special Meeting this Wednesday, what is reason C/CAG approved this proposal? Thank you! On Monday, June 22, 2020, 01:54:44 PM PDT, Sandy Wong <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Mr. Perez, Thank you for your message. C/CAG received the project proposal from the City of SSF in response to a call for projects under the Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA Article 3) program. TDA Article 3 fund is provided to San Mateo County from MTC and is administered by C/CAG. Said fund is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects, and has specific guidelines and requirements. Through the competitive call for projects process C/CAG issued, the City of SSF and other city project sponsors submitted specific project applications. All submitted project applications are reviewed and evaluated by the C/CAG BPAC Committee. High scored projects were forwarded to the C/CAG Board for review and approval for TDA Article 3 funding. We appreciate your input, but would encourage you to work with SSF staff on this matter. Regards, Sandy Wong Executive Director of C/CAG From: Daniel Perez Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 12:38 AM To: [email protected]; Sandy Wong <[email protected]>; Mima Guilles <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Carole Groom <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Everything South City <[email protected]>; ; OOS_sustainability <[email protected]>; OOS_sustainability <[email protected]>; Subject: URGENT: Agenda Item #2, SSF Special Meeting Wednesday, June 24 - Linden Ave Intersections - REQUEST FOR BICYCLISTS/PEDESTRIAN/COMMUNITY ADVOCACY CAUTION: This email originated from outside of San Mateo County. Unless you recognize the sender's email address and know the content is safe, do not click links, open attachments or reply. Chair Chuang, Vice Chair Hurt, and Executive Director Wong: SMC County Transportation Authority Board of Directors: e I hope this email finds you all well and healthy. I write in regards to proposed SSF City Council item this Wednesday, June 24, Special Agenda Item #2. There was little notice to community as this proposal has been Furthermore, how can proposed change encourage citizens to find more sustainable ways to commute to work, visit libraries, parks, promote fitness, etc.? We as bicyclists are already facing many existing dangerous situations and this particular one is one that is so unnecessary, given the fact that intersections function properly as they are. Even though I am personally against spending of $908,970 unnecessarily (see no need and $1 m is better spent on urgent community needs), I am equally concerned for bicyclists and pedestrian safety and our Earth. It does not promote getting vehicles off the roads and what is best for our Earth. I kindly request and urge for advocacy in contacting our SSF City Council in providing comments to email below and typing Agenda Item #2 6/24/20 Special Meeting on Subject Line. I also invite Friends of Old Town and Change SSF to spread word and invite community input. These protruding sidewalks (i.e. Chestnut and Baden etc. are a tripping hazard and makes it very dangerous for not only pedestrians, but bicyclists as well.) The City Council is introducing this item as Traffic Calming; however, it is very short of calming traffic. I also find these types of Agenda Items being introduced in Special Meetings opposed to regular City Council meetings insulting, wherein it provides little to no time for citizens and neighborhoods become aware or time for commenting. Email:[email protected] Subject: Item #2, Special Meeting Agenda 6/24/20 https://everythingsouthcity.com/2020/06/downtown-parking-reduction- traffic-calming-special-meeting-wed-june-24th/ Thank you!! From:O Perez To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Agenda Item 2, Special Meeting 6/24/20 Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2020 11:28:23 PM Honorable Mayor Garbarino, Vice Mayor Addiego and City Council members. I kindly request my comments be read out loud and be made public. I recently became aware of a Special Meeting proposal that puzzles me on its urgency and importance so as to be considered at a Special meeting rather than at a Regular meeting. Speaking about urgency, at a cost of $1 million dollars, there currently exists an urgency at Chestnut, El Camino and Westborough áreas as well as Hillside Boulevard. I noticed Measure A funds and C/CAG funds are budgeted in this plan, however, these funds should be intended for traffic relief and for areas that pose dangerous situations for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists whom are doing good by seeking sustainable modes of transportation. The design will only create a hazardous situation for all. The allocation of $429,000 of general funds are better suited for what are true urgent community needs, such as youth and recreational centers, and daycare centers throughout SSF. There is also an urgent need to clean up Old Town by power washing streets, return of Mad Vac to clean alleys, and daily street sweepers on Linden. I strongly oppose this proposal for reasons above and also for its “calming” purpose as there is no traffic to be calmed. Quite contrary, it will cause a backup which will lead to additional air pollution. I trust my concerns will be taken into consideration in regards to this project and that these funds be used instead for urgent and current community needs. I also request that only items of true urgency or emergency be placed as Special meeting items in the future so as to allow sufficient and proper community input. Thank you . From:Evan Klein To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Agenda #2, Special Meeting, Wecnesday 6/24 Comments Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2020 12:27:38 PM Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a resident of South San Francisco and have lived on Springwood Way since 2000. I oppose the bulb out curb ramps as part of the Linden Avenue traffic calming improvements. Removing a right turn at an intersection means that ALL traffic must stop when pedestrians are crossing in the direction of traffic. It also means that bicycles must merge into the traffic lane. I believe both consequences will create traffic jams and cause more problems than benefits. Since there are so many new residential units downtown, there is a high likelihood of more pedestrian traffic. I urge you to either (1) drop this portion of the work from the plan, or (2) table this portion of the work until after the COVID crisis to see the real effect of increased pedestrian traffic. Sincerely, Evan Klein From:Daniel Perez To:Avila, Cindy; All at City Clerk"s Office; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc:Dan P Subject:Re: Item #2 Special Mtg 6/24/20 - Linden Avenue Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2020 4:44:19 PM Please add comment to today's meeting: In response to Mr. Kim's letter. I would like to see hazardous intersection at Lux/Linden take precedence over proposed improvement plan. Stop sign at Lux is not planned until 2021. This intersection poses a danger to bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists every day. Thank you! On Monday, June 22, 2020, 02:00:25 PM PDT, Avila, Cindy <[email protected]> wrote: Good afternoon, Thank you for contacting the City of South San Francisco and submitting your public comment, it will be included for the June 24th Special City Council meeting. Sincerely, Cindy Cindy Avila Assistant City Clerk City of South San Francisco | City Clerk’s Office 400 Grand Avenue | South San Francisco, CA 94080 -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Perez Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2020 9:59 PM To: All at City Clerk's Office <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Pedro Gonzales Everything South City <[email protected]> Subject: Item #2 Special Mtg 6/24/20 - Linden Avenue Honorable Mayor and City Council members: I respectfully request my comments be read out loud at 6/24/20 meeting. I urge City Council not approve the proposed Linden Ave intersection road changes. To commence, although it is described as a Traffic Reduction plan, it is very short of a reduction plan. How would narrower streets help traffic move more swiftly? Quite contrary, it would cause traffic jams with more pollutants in air. Furthermore, how can proposed changes encourage citizens to find more sustainable ways to commute to work, visit libraries, parks, promote fitness, etc.? We as bicyclists currently face many existing hazards and this particular one is unnecessary, given the fact that existing intersections function properly. Furthermore, I am against spending of $908,970 when there are URGENT community needs. This plan is a mere Cosmetic Mismanagement of Funds, rather than an urgent traffic hazardous plan for bicyclists and pedestrians, and even our Earth. Instead of promoting getting vehicles off the roads, it only encourages us to not use alternative modes by the creation of a hazardous road. I understand the need for handicap access, which currently exist at these intersections. What I do not understand are the tripping hazards such as those at Orange Ave (Baden and Commercial Aves). The proposed plan on Linden would be worse and not logical. In closing, I urge our citizen elected City Council to represent the better needs of our Old Town, bicycling, sustainability communities and Mother Earth in not approving this plan. I trust community needs take precedence over City organizational wants. On another note, I find important items such as these being placed on Special Meetings rather than Regular Meetings as disrespectful, especially to Old Town, which historically has been ignored and not respected. I find it highly offensive. Thank you. <https://cmo.smcgov.org/census-2020-san-mateo-county/ > From:Luz Jimenez To:Patea, Marie; All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:Re: Agenda Item #2, Special Meeting 6/24/20 Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2020 5:26:13 PM Please include comment below as well at tonight's meeting. Where was community meeting and with whom was community meeting on Feb 18th, referenced by Director of Public Works Eunejune Kim regarding this topic? He eludes to agreement by community, although residents had no idea nor did we receive proper notification. Priority should be on Stop sign needed at Lux/Linden where we all face dangers. Thank you. On Monday, June 22, 2020, 01:37:26 PM PDT, Patea, Marie <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Ms. Jimenez, Thank you for taking the time to send this email. Both City Council and our City Clerk have received your message. In kindness, MP Marie E. Patea Executive Assistant to the City Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 829-6666 -----Original Message----- From: Luz Jimenez Sent: Monday, June 22, 2020 1:31 PM To: All Council <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Futrell, Mike <[email protected]>; San Mateo Daily Journal-A <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item #2, Special Meeting 6/24/20 Please read out loud at Special Meeting 6/24/20. Honorable Mayor and City Council: Proposed Linden Avenue "calming" plan is a misuse of Measure A, C/CAG and City funds for a total of $1 million dollars! Taxpayers approved Measure A funds for traffic relief. Linden is not problematic or hazardous at these intersections. Our two major thoroughfares, Westborough/Chestnut and Hillside and ECR are a justification for use of these funds. Also, placing this item on a Special Agenda is unjustified and appalling. What is so urgent to a non- existing problem? I am highly offended when Old Town continues to be disrespected by the urgency the City is putting on this proposal by quickly going through systematic process without proper due process. There is no reason mentioned by City other than “traffic calming.” What is traffic calming? It is more of a traffic congestion plan by slowing traffic (more pollution) and not being inviting for bicyclists. It will promote congregating and it will cause traffic jams that do not currently exist on Linden. The City Council were elected to represent best interest of every citizen and to encourage input. Old Town has always been ignored instead of appreciative of its “old town” roots. Old Town has historical value which has now been destroyed and continues to be disrespected. Our voice is not important, respected nor valued. I invite every City Council member and City Manager to walk the streets of Old Town. Why do we not ever see anyone from City Hall walk around, but then make ill decisions? Not one City Council member lives in Old Town. Would either one of you allow a high rise building with NO setbacks to be built next to your long generational home that has taken your natural sunlight away? Do to others as you would do for yourself. Miller Ave btwn Linden and Cypress is a precursor to what SSF will become because of lack of attention by City. Graffiti, cyclone fenced junk yard, boarded up empty buildings, weeds shoulder level, etc. If you would not live in such conditions, what makes Council think it is ok for us? We pay same taxes. What happened to equality and inclusivity? Respect does not costs anything and goes a long way. Thank you. <https://cmo.smcgov.org/census-2020-san-mateo-county/ > City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-397 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:2a. Resolution awarding a construction contract to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco,California for the Linden Avenue Phase I Traffic Calming Improvements Project (No.st1601)in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00, authorizing and authorizing a total construction budget of $908,970.00. WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)has developed two projects (ST1601 and ST1602)to provide traffic calming and promote economic development along the Linden Avenue Business Corridor; and WHEREAS,this Linden Avenue Phase 1 Traffic Calming Improvements Project is the first phase of the two City projects, ST1601 and ST1602; and WHEREAS,City Project ST1601 with limits from just South of Pine Avenue to just North of Aspen Avenue will provide traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures at the two intersections; and WHEREAS,City Project ST1602 with limits from just South of Miller Avenue to just North of California Avenue will provide similar traffic calming and pedestrian safety measures at the three intersections but is not included in this contract; and WHEREAS,City Project ST1601 complies with the scope of work as described in the C/CAG TDA grant proposal that was awarded to the City in September of 2015; and WHEREAS,Staff advertised a notice inviting bids for the project on February 19,2020 and again on February 26, 2020; and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020, staff received six (6) bids in response; and WHEREAS,the contract is to be awarded based on the lowest responsive Total Base Bid received for ST1601, Bid No. 2639; and WHEREAS, the lowest responsible bidder was Burch Construction Company of San Francisco, California; and WHEREAS,the City Council authorized a project budget of $605,980.00,with additional $151,495.00 contingency,with a Construction Management and Administration Allowance of $151,495.00,totaling a project budget of $908,970.00; and WHEREAS,Staff has verified Burch Construction Company current contractor’s license with the California State Licensing Board and found it to be in good standing; and WHEREAS,this contract will cover this one project that is in the City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal YearCity of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2020Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-397 Agenda Date:6/24/2020 Version:1 Item #:2a. WHEREAS,this contract will cover this one project that is in the City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal Year 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program (Project No.ST1601)with sufficient funds allocated to cover the project cost. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a construction contract,a draft of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein,for the Linden Avenue Phase 1 Traffic Calming Improvements Project to Burch Construction Company of San Francisco,California,in an amount not to exceed $605,980.00 conditioned on Burch Construction Company timely execution of the Project contract and submission of all required documents,including but not limited to,certificates of insurance and endorsement,in accordance with the Project documents. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council authorizes a total Project construction budget of $908,970.00 and authorizes the City Manager to utilize unspent amount of the total Project,if necessary,towards additional construction contingency budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the construction contract in substantially the same form as Exhibit A,and any other related documents on behalf of the City upon timely submission by Burch Construction Company of the signed contract and all other documents,subject to approval by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to take any other related actions consistent with the intention of the resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 7/15/2020Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Page A-1 of A-9 FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ____, day of ______, _____, between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter called “CITY”, and BURCH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc., hereinafter called “CONTRACTOR”1. W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided and execution of this contract. WHEREAS, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvements hereinafter described. WHEREAS, on ____________, notice duly given, the City Council (“Council”) of said City awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to the Contractor, which Contractor said Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for said improvements. WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements pursuant to the terms, definitions, and conditions set forth in the General Provisions and other Contract Documents. IT IS AGREED as follows: 1.Scope of Work. Contractor shall perform the Work described briefly as follows: The Work consists of the furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services necessary for the construction of the LINDEN AVENUE PHASE 1, TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT – TDA, PROJECT NO. ST1601; BID NO. 26XX; in accordance with the Contract Documents. Also included are any such other items or details not mentioned above that are required by the Contract Documents, which are to be constructed or furnished and installed as shown on the plans, as specified herein and as directed by the Engineer. The aforementioned improvements are further described in the "Contract Documents" hereinafter referred to. 2.The Contract Documents. The complete Contract consists of the following documents: (A)Notice Inviting Bids (B)Part I – Submitted Proposal (as accepted) (C)This Agreement, including Contractor’s Payment Bond, Faithful Performance Bond and Guaranty Bond. 1.1The term "Contractor" as used herein is employed without distinction as to either number or gender and shall include whenever the context shall permit all agents, representatives, employees, servants, subcontractors and business or social invitees. EXHIBIT A Page A-2 of A-9 (D) Part II – General Conditions (E) Part III – Special Provisions: Special Conditions and Technical Specifications, including State Standard Specifications dated 2015, sections 10-99, as revised in Revised Standard Specifications (RSS) dated 04/20/2019 (F) Part IV – Project Plans, approved 02/18/2020 (G) Administrative subsections of the State Standard Specifications dated 2015, as specifically referenced in contract Parts I-IV and as revised in RSS dated 04/20/2019 All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the contract documents. All of the above-named documents are intended to cooperate, so that any work called for in one and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. The documents comprising the complete contract will hereinafter be referred to as “the Contract Documents.” 3. Equipment - Performance of Work. Contractor shall furnish all tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and materials necessary to perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner the Work of general construction as called for, and for the manner designated in, and in strict conformity with, the plans and specifications for said Work entitled: LINDEN AVENUE PHASE 1 TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - TDA PROJECT NO. ST1601; BID NO. 2639 The equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and materials shall be furnished and said Work performed and completed as required in said plans and specifications under the direction and supervision and subject to the approval of the Engineer of said City or the Engineer’s designated assistant. 4. Contract Price. City shall pay, and Contractor shall accept, in full payment for the Work agreed to be done the sum of SIX-HUNDRED FIVE-THROUSAND NINE-HUNDRED EIGHTY DOLLARS ($605,980.00). Said price is determined by the lump sum price contained in Contractor's bid proposal (“Bid”). The lump sum price and unit prices are set forth in the completed Bid forms attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth herein verbatim. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's bid and the specifications herein, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in installments as hereinafter provided. 5. Rights of City to Increase Working Days. If such Work is not completed within the time specified, the Engineer shall have the right to increase the number of working days in the amount it may determine will best serve the interest of the City. If it desires to increase said number of working days, it shall have the further right to charge to Contractor and deduct from the final payment for the Work the actual cost of engineering, inspection, superintendence, and other overhead expenses which are directly chargeable to Contractor and which accrue during the period of such extension, except that the cost of the final service and preparation of the final estimates shall not be included in such charges, provided, however, that no extension of time for the completion of such Work shall be allowed unless at least twenty (20) calendar days prior to the time herein fixed for the completion thereof or the time fixed by the Page A-3 of A-9 Engineer for such completion as extended, Contractor shall have filed application for extension thereof, in writing with the Engineer. 6. Option of City to Terminate Agreement in Event of Failure to Complete Work. If at any time in the opinion of the Engineer, the Contractor has refused or failed to prosecute the Work or any severable part thereof, with such diligence as will insure its work, or any completion within the time specified, or any extensions thereof, or shall have failed to complete said work within such time, or if Contractor should be adjudged a bankrupt, or if Contractor should make a general assignment for the benefit of Contractor's creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of Contractor's insolvency, or if Contractor, or any Subcontractor, should violate any of the provisions of this Agreement, the Engineer may give written notice to Contractor, and Contractor's sureties of its intention to terminate this Agreement, such notice to contain the reasons for such intention to terminate this Agreement, and unless within five calendar (5) days after the serving of such notice, such violation shall cease and satisfactory arrangements for the correction thereof be made, this Agreement may, at the option of City, upon expiration of said time, cease and terminate. Any excess of cost arising therefrom over and above the contract price will be charged against the Contractor and the Contractor’s sureties who will be liable therefore. In the event of such termination, all money due the Contractor or retained under the terms of this contract shall be forfeited to the City; but such forfeiture will not release the Contractor or the Contractor’s sureties from liability or failure to fulfill the contract. The Contractor and the Contractor’s sureties will be credited with the amount of money so forfeited toward any excess of cost over and above the contract price, arising from the suspension termination of the operations of the contract and the completion of the Work by the City as above provided, and the Contractor will be so credited with any surplus remaining after all just claims for such completion have been paid. In the determination of the question whether there has been any such noncompliance with the contract as to warrant the suspension termination or annulment thereof, the decision of the Engineer shall be binding on all parties to the contract. 7. Termination of Contract for Convenience. The City also reserves the right to terminate the contract at any time upon a determination by the Engineer in the Engineer's sole discretion that termination of the contract is in the best interest of the City. If the City elects to terminate the contract for convenience, the termination of the contract and the total compensation payable to the Contractor shall be governed by the following: (A) The City will issue the Contractor a written notice signed by the Engineer, specifying that the contract is terminated. Upon receipt of said written notice, the Contractor will be relieved of further responsibility for damage to the Work (excluding materials) as specified in Section VII-17, "Contractor's Responsibility for the Work," of the General Conditions and, except as otherwise directed in writing by the Engineer, the Contractor shall: (1) Stop all work under the contract except that specifically directed to be completed prior to acceptance. (2) Perform work the Engineer deems necessary to secure the project for termination. (3) Remove equipment and plant from the site of the Work. (4) Take such action as is necessary to protect materials from damage. Page A-4 of A-9 (5) Notify all subcontractors and suppliers that the contract is being terminated and that their contracts or orders are not to be further performed unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Engineer. (6) Provide the Engineer with an inventory list of all materials previously produced, purchased or ordered from suppliers for use in the Work and not yet used in the Work, including its storage location, and such other information as the Engineer may request. (7) Dispose of materials not yet used in the Work as directed by the Engineer. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to provide the City with good title to all materials purchased by the City hereunder, including materials for which partial payment has been made as provided in Section IX-2, “Progress Payments,” of the General Conditions and with bills of sale or other documents of title for such materials. (8) Subject to the prior written approval of the Engineer, settle all outstanding liabilities and all claims arising out of subcontracts or orders for materials terminated hereunder. To the extent directed by the Engineer, the Contractor shall assign to the City all the right, title, and interest of the Contractor under subcontracts or orders for materials terminated hereunder. (9) Furnish the Engineer with the documentation required to be furnished by the Contractor under the provisions of the contract, including, on projects as to which Federal and State funds are involved, all documentation required under the Federal and State requirements included in the contract. (10) Take such other actions as the Engineer may direct. (B) Acceptance of the contract as hereinafter specified shall not relieve the Contractor of responsibility for damage to materials. The Contractor shall continue to be responsible for damage to materials after issuance of the Notice of Termination, except as follows: (1) The Contractor’s responsibility for damage to materials for which partial payment has been made as provided in Section IX-2, “Progress Payments,” of the General Conditions and for materials furnished by the City for use in the Work and unused shall terminate when the Engineer certifies that such materials have been stored in the manner and at the locations the Engineer has directed. (2) The Contractor’s responsibility for damage to materials purchased by the City subsequent to the issuance of the notice that the contract is to be terminated shall terminate when title and delivery of such materials has been taken by the City. (3) When the Engineer determines that the Contractor has completed the Work under the contract directed to be completed prior to termination and such other work as may have been ordered to secure the project for termination, the Contractor will recommend that the Engineer formally accept the contract to the extent performed, and immediately upon and after such acceptance by the Engineer, the Contractor will not be required to perform any further Work thereon and shall be relieved of the Contractor's contractual responsibilities for injury to persons or property which occurs after the formal acceptance of the project by the Engineer. (C) Termination of the contract shall not relieve the surety of its obligation for any just claims arising out of the work performed. Page A-5 of A-9 (D) The total compensation to be paid to the Contractor shall be determined by the Engineer on the basis of the following: (1) The reasonable cost to the Contractor, without profit, for all work performed under the contract, including mobilization, demobilization and work done to secure the project for termination. In determining the reasonable cost, deductions will be made for the cost of materials to be retained by the Contractor, amounts realized by the sale of materials, and for other appropriate credits against the cost of the work. When, in the opinion of the Engineer, the cost of a contract item of work is excessively high due to costs incurred to remedy or replace defective or rejected work, the reasonable cost to be allowed will be the estimated reasonable cost of performing such work in compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and the excessive actual cost shall be disallowed. (2) A reasonable allowance for profit on the cost of the work performed as determined under Subsection (1), provided the Contractor establishes to the satisfaction of the Engineer that it is reasonably probable that the Contractor would have made a profit had the contract been completed and provided further, that the profit allowed shall in no event exceed four (4) percent of said cost. (3) The reasonable cost to the Contractor of handling material returned to the vendor, delivered to the City, or otherwise disposed of as directed by the Engineer. (4) A reasonable allowance for the Contractor’s administrative costs in determining the amount payable due to termination of the contract. (5) A reasonable credit to the City for defective or incomplete work not corrected. All records of the Contractor and subcontractors necessary to determine compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Section 5 shall be open to inspection or audit by representatives of the City at all times after issuance of the Notice of Termination and for a period of three (3) years, thereafter, and such records shall be retained for that period. After acceptance of the Work by the Engineer, the Engineer may make payments on the basis of interim estimates pending issuance of the Final Estimate in accordance with Section IX-7, “Final Payment,” of the General Conditions when, in the Engineer's opinion, the amount thus paid, together with all amounts previously paid or allowed, will not result in total compensation in excess of that to which the Contractor will be entitled. All payments, including payment upon the Final Estimate shall be subject to deduction for prior payments and amounts, if any, to be kept or retained under the provisions of the contract. If this contract is terminated by the City for cause, and it is later determined that the proper basis for a termination for cause did not exist, the termination shall be deemed to have been a termination for convenience and governed by the terms of this contract dealing with such termination. If the contract is terminated by the City for cause or convenience, such termination shall neither act as a waiver by the City of its right to require the Contractor to correct defects in the Work performed by the Contractor nor void any warranties applicable to the Work performed under the contract. The provisions of this Section 5 shall be included in all subcontracts. Page A-6 of A-9 In the event of conflict between the termination provisions of this Section 8 and any other provision or the contract, this Section 5 shall prevail. 8. Performance by Sureties. In the event of any termination as herein before provided, City shall immediately give written notice thereof to Contractor and Contractor's sureties and the sureties shall have the right to take over and perform the Agreement, provided, however, that if the sureties, within five (5) working days after giving them said notice of termination, do not give the City written notice of their intention to take over the performance of the Agreement and do not commence performance thereof within five (5) working days after notice to the City of such election, City may take over the Work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or by any other method it may deem advisable, for the account, and at the expense, of Contractor, and the sureties shall be liable to City for any excess cost or damages occasioned City thereby; and, in such event, City may, without liability for so doing, take possession of and utilize in completing the Work such materials, appliances, plant, and other property belonging to Contractor as may be on the site of the Work and necessary therefore. Should Contractor contract in an individual capacity, the surety bond shall contain the following provision: “Should Contractor contract in the Contractor’s individual capacity, the death of the Contractor shall not relieve the surety of its obligations.” 9. Hold-Harmless Agreement and Contractor's Insurance. Contractor agrees to, and shall, hold City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees harmless from any liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from Contractor's or any of Subcontractor's operations under this Agreement, whether such operations be by Contractor or by any Subcontractor or Subcontractors, or by any one or more persons directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, Contractor or any Subcontractor or Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to, and shall, defend City and its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damages caused, or alleged to have been caused, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations, provided as follows: (A) The City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Contractor which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Contractor, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter described in Paragraph 15, “Insurance” hereof. (B) That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by Contractor shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations of Contractor or any Subcontractor, regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 10. Insurance. The Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement the following policies of insurance: (A) Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance providing full statutory coverage. In signing this Agreement, the Contractor makes the following certification, required by Section 1861 of the California Labor Code: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Page A-7 of A-9 I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract". (B) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance. Public Liability Insurance (includes premises, elevator - if applicable, products, completed operations, personal injury and contractual): (1) Bodily Injury Liability: $ 500,000 each person $1,000,000 each occurrence (2) Property Damage Liability [includes XCU (explosion, collapse, and underground damage); water damage and broad form property damage or third party liability]: $ 500,000 per occurrence (C) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance (includes owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles): (1) Bodily Injury Liability: $ 500,000 per person $1,000,000 each occurrence (2) Property Damage Liability: $ 500,000 each occurrence (D) It is agreed that the insurance required by Subsections B and C, in an aggregate amount of not less than ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000), shall be extended to include as additional insured the City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, with respect to operations performed by the Contractor, as described herein. Evidence of this insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney as to form, amount, and carrier. The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such insurance shall not be reduced or cancelled except upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to City. In addition, the following endorsement shall be made on said policy of insurance: "The following are named as additional insured on the above policies: The City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees." "Notwithstanding any other provision in this policy, the insurance afforded hereunder to the City of South San Francisco shall be primary as to any other insurance or re-insurance covering or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other insurance or reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until and unless the approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is exhausted." The above requirements that the City be named as additional insured, that the insurance shall be primary to any other, and that the insurance not be cancelled without notice, shall be provided in the form of an endorsement signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company providing coverage, who shall declare his or her authority to sign on behalf of the insurer. Page A-8 of A-9 11. Proof of Carriage of Insurance. Contractor shall furnish City through the Engineer, concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required and that each carrier shall give City at least thirty (30) calendar days prior notice of the cancellation or change of any policy during the effective period of this contract. Further, if the Contractor’s insurance policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self- insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liability. Additionally, the certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self-insured retention and also must disclose the deductible. 12. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative, and in addition to and not in limitation of, any other rights or remedies available to City. 13. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows: City Clerk City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, California 94080 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Notices required to be given sureties of Contractor shall be addressed as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ Notices required to be given to the Escrow Agent of Contractor, if any, shall be addressed as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ 14. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes each other gender, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of nine (9) pages (being pages A-1 through A-9), each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of said Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named, on the day and year first hereinabove written. Page A-9 of A-9 ATTEST: CITY: City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation _______________________________ By: _____________________________ City Clerk Mike Futrell, City Manager CONTRACTOR:_______________________ __________________________________ ATTEST: By:_______________________________ (If Contractor is an individual, so state. _____________________________ If Contractor is a Corporation, a corporate seal or signatures of the President or Vice President and the Secretary Treasurer are required). ATTACHMENT A ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of South San Francisco whose address is 400 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083, hereinafter referred to as "City," and BURCH CONSTUCTION COMPANY, whose address is 180 MENDELL STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124, hereinafter called “Contractor” and ______________________________________________________________,whose address is ___________________________________________________________, hereinafter called “Escrow Agent.” For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California, Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the Owner and Contractor for __________________ in the amount of _______________dollars ($_____) dated ___________ (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Alternately, on written request of the Contractor, the Owner shall make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent. When the Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent shall notify the Owner within 10 working days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at the time of the substitution shall be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor. Securities shall be held in the name of _______________, and shall designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner. 2. The Owner shall make progress payments to the Contractor for those funds which otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above. 3. When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent, the Escrow Agent shall hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until the time that the escrow created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the parties shall be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly. 4. Contractor shall be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses and payment terms shall be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent. 5. The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow and all interest earned on that interest shall be for the sole account of Contractor and shall be subject to withdrawal by Contractor at any time and from time to time without notice to the Owner. 6. Contractor shall have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from the Owner to the Escrow Agent that Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be withdrawn by Contractor. 7. The Owner shall have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default by the Contractor. Upon seven day’s written notice to the Escrow Agent from the Owner of the default, the Escrow Agent shall immediately convert the securities to cash and shall distribute the cash as instructed by the Owner. 8. Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent shall release to Contractor all securities and interest on deposit less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow shall be closed immediately upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payments of fees and charges. 9. Escrow Agent shall rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the Contractor pursuant to Sections (5) to (8), inclusive, of this Agreement, and the Owner and Contractor shall hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent’s release and disbursement of the securities and interest as set forth above. 10. The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of Contractor in connection with the foregoing, and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows: On behalf of Owner: On behalf of Contractor: __________________________________ __________________________________ Title Title __________________________________ __________________________________ Name Name __________________________________ __________________________________ Signature Signature __________________________________ __________________________________ Address Address On behalf of Escrow Agent: __________________________________ Title __________________________________ Name __________________________________ Signature __________________________________ Address At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor shall deliver to the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their proper officers on the date first set forth above. Owner: Contractor: __________________________________ __________________________________ Title Title __________________________________ __________________________________ Name Name __________________________________ __________________________________ Signature Signature Approved as to form: Attest: _____________________________________ __________________________________ City Attorney Date City Clerk