HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-30 e-packet@601Wednesday, November 30, 2016
6:01 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
Special City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
November 30, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting on
Wednesday, November 30, 2016, at 6:01 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Services
Building, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
STUDY SESSION
Oyster Point Study Session. (Mike Futrell, City Manager and Marian Lee, Assistant
City Manager)
1.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Report regarding a motion to accept the Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue Traffic
Signal and Pedestrian Improvements Project with total construction cost of $430,107
as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. (Lawrence Henriquez,
Associate Civil Engineer)
2.
Report regarding a resolution rejecting the only bid for the HVAC Improvements at
Main Library & Magnolia Center Projects and authorize staff to rebid the project.
(Robert Hahn, Senior Civil Engineer)
3.
Resolution rejecting all bids for the HVAC Improvements at the Main Library &
Magnolia Center project.
3a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program
Supplemental Agreement No. 078 with the State of California for the Systematic
Safety Analysis Report Program in the amount of $99,000. (Sam Bautista, Principal
Engineer)
4.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program Supplemental
Agreement No. 078 with the State of California for the Systematic Safety Analysis
Report Program in the amount of $99,000.
4a.
Report regarding a resolution modifying Appendix 1A of the City Council Handbook
pertaining to the Annual Reorganization of the City Council. (Krista Martinelli, City
Clerk and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
5.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/2/2016
November 30, 2016Special City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Resolution modifying Appendix 1A of the City Council Handbook pertaining to the
Annual Reorganization of the City Council.
5a.
Adjournment.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/2/2016
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-668,Version:1
Oyster Point Study Session.(Mike Futrell, City Manager and Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council review the information in this staff report.This is an information
item only. There are no actions for consideration at this time. Guidance on next steps is being requested.
BACKGROUND
As a result of the change in developer from Oyster Point Ventures,LLC to now Oyster Point Development
(OPD),LLC and with OPD’s desires to break ground next year with Phase I,a City Council study session
regarding the private/public 80+acre development program at Oyster Point was held in August 2016.At the
meeting,staff and legal counsel presented detailed information regarding the commitments of the City of South
San Francisco (City),Successor Agency (Agency),San Mateo County Harbor District (District)and the
developer as outlined in the following agreements:
·Disposition and Development Agreement (2011)
·Development Agreement (2011)
·Harbor District Agreement (2011)
·Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement (2013)
In that meeting,staff committed to coming back to City Council to discuss the City’s relationship with the
District as well as the City’s vision for its properties, which is the focus of this study session.
DISCUSSION
This staff report and presentation to be made at the City Council meeting (see Attachment 1)will focus on the
following key topics:
·Overview of phased program
·City and District relationship
·Visioning for city-owned land
·Recommended next steps
Overview of Phased Program
The development at Oyster Point has four phases and is summarized below.Note that a “C”after a phase refers
to activities involving the City and/or Successor Agency, while “D” after a phase refers to the Developer.
·Phase IC:Streets and utilities,improvements to clay cap over landfill,reconfigured parking areas,open
space recreation areas,beach/park areas,Bay Trail and Palm Promenade,and rough grading of the
future “Hotel Site”.(Developer is responsible for construction of these improvements,but Successor
Agency and Developer share costs.)
·Phase ID:Repair and remediate landfill on property and constructing a minimum of 508,000 square feet
of R&D/Office building. (Developer is responsible for construction and all costs.)
·Phase IIC:New pump station,repair clay cap,improve parking areas and landscaping on BCDC
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-668,Version:1
·Phase IIC:New pump station,repair clay cap,improve parking areas and landscaping on BCDC
property.(Successor Agency is responsible for construction and cost.Developer contribution towards
pump station.)
·Phase IID -IVD:R&D/Office buildings,with an approved development of approximately 1.74 million
additional square feet,streets/utilities,and landscaping.(Developer is responsible for construction and
costs.)
City and District Relationship
In September,2015,a study session was held with City Council to review the existing Joint Powers Agreement
(JPA)with the District in light of the San Mateo County Grand Jury report titled What is the Price of
Disfunction?The San Mateo County Harbor District Report and the subsequent recommendation by LAFCo
that the District be dissolved.At that study session staff was directed to not pursue dissolution of the District,
but instead to engage with the District to determine if a better working relationship could be achieved and if a
revision to the JPA more clearly setting forth expectations and responsibilities was possible.
Since the study session in 2015,City staff has worked with District staff directly,the City-District Liaison
Committee has met,and a more effective partnership has been forged.The arrival of OPD,LLC and their drive
to redevelop a large part of Oyster Point has created an urgency to examine the long-range relationship between
the City and the District,and to modify or alternatively to terminate,the JPA.Strategic guidance is sought from
the City Council on the future relationship with the District and how,if at all,the JPA should be revised to
reflect a new vision for operation of Oyster Point Marina and Park (OPM).
History/Joint Powers Agreement
The City entered into a JPA with the District in 1977.Under the JPA,the District is responsible for
“management,maintenance and operation”of OPM in return for keeping the revenues from the marina,
including boat/berth rentals and any lease revenue from renting land to concessionaires.See attachments 2,3,
and 4 for a copy of the JPA and the three subsequent amendments.
The term of the JPA expires in November,2026.Under the terms of the JPA,if the District is dissolved prior to
the expiration,the obligation to operate the marina and park would revert to the City.The JPA also specifies
that if the JPA is terminated by mutual consent of the parties,the District employees will be retained by the
City for a year, and their current salaries and benefits maintained for that one year.
Impact of OPD, LLC
In 2011,the City and the District executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)setting forth how the two
public bodies would operate should the Oyster Point Ventures,LLC agreement move forward to reality.See
Attachment 5.The MOU states that upon conveyance of any property to the developer,the JPA is
automatically amended to remove that property from the JPA.As to the property owned by the City after
transfer of parcels to the developer the agreement specifically provided “The remaining terms of the JPA will
remain in full force and effect, unless amended pursuant to the terms of the JPA.”
In other words,the District still has the responsibility for “management,maintenance and operation”of the
remaining portion of OPM regardless of any improvements made under the current agreement with the
developer,until the JPA terminates in November,2026.The MOU,however,contemplated a future revision to
the JPA, providing:
“For twenty-four (24)month following the Effective Date of this Agreement,City and Agency will
consult with District regarding potentially extending the term of the JPA,and potentially amending the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-668,Version:1
consult with District regarding potentially extending the term of the JPA,and potentially amending the
JPA to address the respective roles of the City and the District in operating the Marina Property;
addition to or replacement of existing infrastructure;removal of outdated JPA provisions;the City’s and
District’s respective obligations regarding providing services to the Marina Property,including police,
fire and landscaping;potential alternative energy projects at the Oyster Point Marina and/or potential
revenue sharing from commercial properties to fund additional capital improvements.This provision
does not obligate any Party to agree to any terms that may be discussed.”
The discussions anticipated above did not occur during the initial time period in part due to actions related to
the dissolution of redevelopment and also because the development did not proceed.The discussions remain,
however, important in terms of the future operations of OPM.
Oyster Point Marina and Park
In Fiscal Year 2016-2017 (FY16-17),the District anticipates enterprise revenue from OPM of $1,646,237,
while anticipating expenses directly associated with OPM of $2,310,976,yielding an expected loss of $664,739
at OPM.The District budget also allocates to OPM an additional administrative cost allocation of $449,417 as
its portion of the overhead costs of operating the District.These shortfalls are covered by a portion of the
annual property tax received by the District.
The District has historically appropriated limited funds toward its capital improvement program (CIP).
However,the District FY16-17 CIP budget and five-year forecast show a marked increase in spending at both
the OPM and Pillar Point Marina. Below shows the historical, current and future CIP funding at OPM:
·FY 2014-2015: $ 25,000
·FY 2015-2016: $ 115,000
·FY 2016-2017: $ 643,000
·FY 2017-2018: $2,100,000*
·FY 2018-2019: $1,905,000*
·FY 2019-2020: $ 985,000*
·FY 2020-2021: $ 55,000*
Forecasted amounts (noted with *) is based on the recently adopted District CIP.
Recently,as one of the follow up actions from the City Council’s study session in September,2015,staff
obtained a marina consultant (Anchor QEA)to analyze the physical condition of the OPM and provide
recommendations for improvements.The assessment is not yet complete,but the following are some
preliminary findings:
·The regional marina market is strong;
·The OPM is in a prime location and is able to well meet market needs;
·There have been improvements to the dock, but more repair is needed;
·The slip sizes should change to accommodate the larger boats;
·Regular dredging will be essential to maximizing dock usage;
·There appears to be opportunity to increase marina utilization and slip fees and increase revenues.
Based on these initial findings,staff recommends working closely with District staff to prepare a long-term
phased CIP and a funding/financing plan that benefits both the City and the District.The improvements will
need to be phased over time that utilizes projected revenues,property tax and need.Based on understanding the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-668,Version:1
operations of other marinas, it appears to be reasonable to strive for a revenue generating operations.
Potential Future Relationship between City and District
The current JPA expires in November 2026.Absent action to the contrary,the City will become the de facto
operator of the OPM in 2026.Action now to revise and/or terminate early the JPA is advisable given the
development activity by OPD,LLC,and the potential for the District to begin winding down operations and
capital improvements in advance of the termination date.
The underlying question before City Council is should the District continue to operate the OPM,should the
City operate the OPM,or should the City partner with another entity to operate the OPM?As envisioned by the
2011 MOU,staff recommends exploring revisions to the existing JPA,forging a new partnership with the
District under a more comprehensive JPA providing clearer guidance for future operations,maintenance and
governance at OPM.Staff does not recommend the City assume the function of operating the OPM.The City
has no experience with marina operations or staff available to take on this role,and the expense of internally
growing the capabilities required to operate a relatively small marina is not advisable.Partnering with an
existing marina operator could achieve some economy of scale and brings staff with marina experience.
Staff recommends the new JPA should cover only marina operations,along with some limited land-side
operations necessary to support the marina,effectively cancelling the JPA for all other land-side operations and
returning operation,maintenance and full control of the land-side to the City.It could also include a longer
effective term commensurate with the scale of the capital improvements needed to improve the OPM.With a
longer-term commitment,the District may be more likely to invest in long-term improvements,allowing for a
reasonable return on those investments.
A new JPA is possible with mutual consent from the Harbor District Board and the City Council.While
conceptually a new JPA seems beneficial to all parties,much detail work remains before a more confident
recommendation is possible.Staff recommends City Council charge the City-Harbor District Liaison
Committee to work with staff from both agencies to explore whether a new JPA is advisable and,if so,to
develop draft terms for consideration by both agencies.
City Council Guidance
Staff will benefit from hearing City Council’s discussion on future operations at OPM,and specifically requests
direction and guidance on the following staff recommendations:
1.Modify the current JPA to limit the District’s management and control to the marina and limited
landside facilities needed to support the marina;
2.Modify the current JPA to more clearly define City and District responsibilities,and extend the term of
the JPA to allow for future capital improvements at the marina; and
3.Charging the City-Harbor District Liaison Committee to work with staff to further analyze a possible
future relationship and, if advisable, draft a new JPA for consideration by both agencies.
Visioning for City-Owned Land
When the Oyster Point development project was originally entitled in 2011,it envisioned the possibilities of
pairing private office and R&D development with significant improvements on City land.Such improvements
included:
·Public open space;
·Hotel development;
·Extended bay trail improvements;
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-668,Version:1
·Office/Commercial development for the District; and
·Sufficient parking.
These improvements would build on the existing amenities provided by the ferry terminal and related
improvements, public restrooms to be upgraded, the yacht club, fishing pier and outdoor recreational areas.
The approved Precise Plan for the Oyster Point development provides a detailed vision for the private corporate
campus,but only provides a framework for the more public uses that would be located on City land as outlined
above.With the forthcoming start of construction for the Phase 1 campus,it is an opportune time to more fully
develop the City’s vision for the types of uses and users we would like to see make use of this improved space.
As part of the presentation to City Council,SWA,a landscape design consultant will discuss ideas for how the
various land uses can be programmed and solicit input from City Council and the public.SWA will focus on
open space,hotel,marina and retail/commercial/office land uses.The discussion will be guided by the
following goals:
·Sustainable design;
·A strong pedestrian network with interesting outdoor places;
·Integrated public and private spaces;
·Economically viable commercial uses; and
·Creating a more desirable and usable public realm.
City Council Guidance
Staff will benefit from hearing City Council’s discussion on the proposed programming ideas as described,and
specifically requests direction and guidance on the following staff recommendations:
·Issue hotel RFQ (requesting consideration of a convention center); and
·Master Plan city-owned land informed by retail market study,wind study,structured/surface parking
study, marina improvement plan and funding/financing plan.
It will be critical to advance the city visioning effort in partnership with OPV, LLC and the District.
FUNDING
There is no funding impact associated with this information item.Current City expenses associated with this
development are being funded by the Developer through reimbursement agreements.Staff will be back to City
Council to request budget authorization for City expenses.
CONCLUSION
Another study session with City Council concerning this development is anticipated to occur in early 2017.
Staff will keep City Council fully updated in the interim before the next study session through written memos
as needed.
Attachments:
1.Power Point Presentation regarding Oyster Point Development
2.Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the San Mateo County Harbor District and the City of South
San Francisco (1977)
3.JPA 1979 and 1985 Amendments
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-668,Version:1
4.JPA 2005 Amendment
5.Oyster Point Marina SSF MOU 2011
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
Oyster Point Development
Program Update
City Council Study Session
November 30, 2016
Context
August 31, 2016 Study Session
Disposition and Development Agreement (2011)
Successor Agency & Oyster Point Development & City
Development Agreement (2011)
City & Oyster Point Development
Harbor District Agreement (2011)
City & Successor Agency & San Mateo County Harbor District
Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement (2013)
Successor Agency & Bank of New York
Oyster Point Multi-Phased Development
Gateway to Oyster Point
Crescent Public Realm
Crescent Beach Front Plaza
City and District Relationship
Discussion Items
History / Joint Powers Agreement
Impact of OPD, LLC
Oyster Point Marina and Park
Potential Future Relationship between City and District
•Modify JPA: Limit District Management to Marina
•Modify JPA: Extend term of the JPA
•Activate City-Harbor District Liaison Committee to
draft new JPA
City Council Guidance
Visioning for City-Owned Land
DA/DDA Approved Land Uses City Land
Urban Design Guiding Principles
Sustainable design
A strong pedestrian network with interesting outdoor
places
Integrated public and private spaces
Economically viable commercial uses
Creating a more desirable and usable public realm
SWA Presentation
Programming ideas for key land uses
-Open Space
-Hotel
-Retail/Commercial/Office
-Marina
Conceptual plan for city-owned land
City Council Guidance
•Issue Hotel RFQ
-Convention center consideration
•Program Land Uses
•Supplemental Studies
-Retail Market Study
-Wind Study
-Structured / Surface Parking Study
-Marina Improvement Plan
-Funding / Financing Plan
What will the character of the place be...
& who will it serve?
existing site conditions
west parcel views
x
xx
Marin
a
v
i
e
w
Ci
t
y
v
i
e
w
Bay v
i
e
w
open
space
east parcel views
hotel(s)
M
a
r
i
n
a
v
i
e
w
Cit
y
v
i
e
w
Bay vi
e
w
Airport viewx
water
recreation
conceptual plan for city-owned land
open
space
marina
office/
commercial
services office r&d1d
natural waterfront
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
r
e
c
r
e
a
tio
n
retail retail
urban waterfront promenadeurban waterfront
hotel(s)
bay trail
bay trail
bay trail
p
re
t
a
i
l
*
2c
open space
hotel(s)
bay trail + promenade
marina services *40K sQ ft office/ commercial (potential) phase 2c
waterfront retail
parKing improvements
phase 2c (city)
phase 1c (city)
shared parKing
fe
r
r
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
retail
ferry connection
open space - precedents
open space: guthrie green
scale comparison
Location
Tulsa Oklahoma
Size
Approximately 2.7 acres (one city
block) and adjacent streetscape
Landscape Architect
SWA
Architect
Kinslow, Keith & Todd, Inc.
Program
Lawn Amphitheater
Outdoor Stage
cafe Pavilion
Exercise classes
Public Markets
Interactive fountains
open space precedent: guthrie green
open space precedent: hunters point parK
scale comparison
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Size
Approximately 6 acres
Landscape Architect
SWA/Balsley
Architect
WEISS/MANFREDI
Program
Lawn Amphitheater
Outdoor Stage
cafe Pavilion
Dog Park
Playground
Flexible Field
Urban Beach
Ferry Terminal
open space precedent: hunters point parK
west parcel grading adjusted
phase 1c: hotel - precedents
Location
Half Moon Bay Harbor
280 capistrano Road
Half Moon Bay, california 94019
Architect
Jacobsen & Associates
Program
cocktail Lounge
Retail 50,000 sf
Spa
Gym 2,000 sf
Pool
Restaurant 250 seats
conference 8,000 sf
Rooms/ villas 106
hotel precedent: oceano hotel
hotel precedent: oceano hotel
hotel precedent: omni san diego Location
675 L St,
San Diego,
cA 92101
Size
Approximately
Architect
Hornberger + Worstell Architects
Program
Lobby and public areas 3,102 sf
Restaurant
Meeting facilities 20,000 sf
Guest rooms 511
Ballroom 9,750 sf
Residential 186,000 sf
Sundeck & Spa
Parking 180 cars
Gym
Project toatl 558,000 sf
Floors 21 hotel
11 residential
hotel precedent: omni san diego
phase 1c& 2c: waterfront retail precedents
precedent : jacK london sQ oaKland, ca
Location
Oakland, cA
Program
•Ferry Terminal
•Full Service Marina
• 16 + Restaurants
• Farmers Market
• Bowling center
• Kayak Rentals
• 145 room Hotel
• Fitness center
• cinema
• USS Potomac Tours
• Outdoor movies
• Office Space
• concerts
retail precedent: jacK london sQuare
jacK london sQ waterfront hotel
145 rooms
ssf hotel si
t
e
jacK london sQ scale comparison
retail precedent : belgrade waterfront belgrade, serbia
Location
Belgrade, Serbia
Program
•Over 6,000 residential units
• 24 commercial office clusters
• 12,000 office workers
• St. Regis Belgrade – 125 guest rooms
• W Belgrade – 120 guest rooms
• 1.8 km long
• Playground
• Waterfront trail
• Parks
• Pop up retail
retail precedent: belgrade waterfront
retail precedent : long beach shoreline
Location
Long Beach, cA
Program
• 161-slip marina
(boats 35-70’ long)
• 13+ Restaurants
• Segway Tours
• Boat Rentals
12+ Shops
retail precedent: long beach shoreline
marina precedents
marina precedent : schoonmaKer point marina, sausalito
Location
Sausalito, cA
Program
• 161-slip marina
(boats 35-70’ long)
• Side ties for yachts up to 220’
• Floating dock system
• Dry boat storage & launching
• commercial & light industrial
rental space (43,000 sf)
• Tenants include restaurant,
graphic arts, software, fine
arts, marine-related, health
care, sports
• Recreational beach
• Restrooms
• harbor master office
• Rowing center
• Showers
marina precedent : schoonmaKer point marina, sausalito
marina precedent : pillar point harbor, half moon bay
Location
Half Moon Bay, cA
Program
• Protected Harbor
• 369 berth marina
• Search and Rescue Operation
• Retail fish sales
• Fuel dock, guest dock
• Fishing pier
• RV Lot
• Sportfishing
• Whale watching
• Launch ramp-Six lane
• •Pump-out facilities
• Restrooms, showers
marina precedent : pillar point HARBOR, HALF MOON BAY
water
recreation
conceptual plan for city-owned land
open
space
marina
office/
commercial
services office r&d1d
natural waterfront
w
a
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
r
e
c
r
e
a
tio
n
retail retail
urban waterfront promenadeurban waterfront
hotel(s)
bay trail
bay trail
bay trail
p
re
t
a
i
l
*
2c
open space
hotel(s)
bay trail + promenade
marina services *40K sQ ft office/ commercial (potential) phase 2c
waterfront retail
parKing improvements
phase 2c (city)
phase 1c (city)
shared parKing
fe
r
r
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
retail
ferry connection
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-839,Version:1
Report regarding a motion to accept the Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue Traffic Signal and Pedestrian
Improvements Project with total construction cost of $430,107 as complete in accordance with the plans and
specifications.(Lawrence Henriquez, Associate Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council,by motion,accept the Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue
Traffic Signal and Pedestrian Improvements Project (Project No.tr1203)with total construction cost of
$430,107 as completed in accordance with the plans and specifications.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On October 24,2012 the City of South San Francisco was awarded a Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP)grant for $307,375.On January 9,2012,the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute the Program Supplemental Agreement No.018-N with the State of California to begin the
preliminary engineering of the Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue Traffic Signal and Intersection
Improvement Project (“Project”).The Project installed a new traffic signal light system,constructed new ADA
compliant concrete curb ramps, replaced concrete curb and gutter, and installed new pavement markings.
The project was awarded to Mike Brown Electric Co.on August 26,2015 and construction was completed in
August 2016. The total construction cost is summarized as follows:
Projected Actual
Mike Brown Electric, Inc. Contract $390,011 $390,011
Contingency (10%)$ 39,011 $ 34,318
Administrative (5%)$ 18,656 $ 5,778
Total Construction Budget $447,678 $430,107
The construction contingency budget was used for storm drain realignment,additional increase in bid item
quantities and traffic signal light appurtenances such as push-button upgrades,traffic controller unit,and
controller software.
FUNDING
Funding for this project was included in the City of South San Francisco’s 2014-2015 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP/tr1203),which is partially federally-funded.Sufficient funds were available in the project budget
to cover all costs.
CONCLUSION
Staff has inspected the project and was completed per the plans and specifications.Staff recommends
acceptance of the project as complete.Upon acceptance,a notice of completion will be filed with the County of
San Mateo Recorder’s Office.At the end of the 30 day lien period,the retention funds will be released to the
contractor after it provides the City with a one-year guaranty bond.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-839,Version:1
Attachment: Photo of Grand Avenue and Magnolia Avenue
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
ATTACHMENT 1
INTERSECTION OF GRAND AVENUE & MAGNOLIA AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-896,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution rejecting the only bid for the HVAC Improvements at Main Library &Magnolia
Center Projects and authorize staff to rebid the project.(Robert Hahn, Senior Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution rejecting the only bid for the HVAC Improvements
at Main Library & Magnolia Center (Project No. pf1604/1605) and authorize staff to rebid the project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The HVAC Replacement Improvements at Main Library &Magnolia Center is the second phase of HVAC
upgrades at these two facilities.In 2014,a new skid mounted boiler,cooling tower equipment,and five (5)new
heat pumps were installed at the Magnolia Center.This year’s project will replace the last four (4)inefficient
heat pumps remaining in the attic area of the building.Similarly in 2014,a new boiler and variable frequency
drive (VFD)for the main pump motor were installed in the Main Library.This year’s project will replace the
air handling unit in the basement and the condensing unit near the back entrance to the Main Library.
Staff advertised a Notice Inviting Bids for the project on September 9,2016 and September 16,2016.Staff also
advertised the request for bids on the e-Bidboard website,which reaches more than 200 contractor and plan
rooms.On September 22,2016,a mandatory pre-bid meeting was held at the City buildings with eleven (11)
contractors in attendance.On September 29,2016,staff received one (1)bid in response for $183,716 from
City Mechanical,Inc.of Hercules,California.Staff called four (4)of the contractors who attended the
mandatory pre-bid meeting asking why they did not provide a bid.Currently,the contractors are too busy to
provide sufficient manpower to the project and they felt they could not deliver the project on time,which was
the main reason they did not bid.
The receipt of only one (1)bid calls into question the competitiveness of the bid.Furthermore,the bids were
significantly higher (more than 50%)than the engineer’s estimate of $120,000.The Public Contract Code
Section 20166 gives cities the discretion to reject all bids.It is staff’s recommendation to reject all bids and
rebid the project in early 2017 when the construction activity is anticipated to slow down,increasing the chance
of obtaining more bids within the engineer’s estimate.
FUNDING
This project is funded by the General Fund and is included in the City of South San Francisco’s 2016-2017
Capital Improvement Program (CIP/pf1602)with sufficient funds allocated to cover the project cost.Funding
for pf1604/1605 has been merged into project pf1602.
CONCLUSION
Rejection of the bid will allow staff to pursue other cost effective means,such as rebidding,to complete the
HVAC Improvements at Main Library & Magnolia Center Project.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 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 #:16-897,Version:1
Resolution rejecting all bids for the HVAC Improvements at the Main Library & Magnolia Center project.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)issued a Notice Inviting Bids for the HVAC
Improvements at Main Library and Magnolia Center (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on September 29, 2016, the City received one (1) bid in response; and
WHEREAS,the one bid received of $183,716 was significantly higher (more than 50%)than the engineer’s
estimate of $120,000; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20166,a public entity retains the discretion to reject all
bids it receives on a given project; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends rejecting all bids for the Project and offering it for rebid at a later date.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby rejects all bids for the HVAC Improvements at Main Library and Magnolia Center Project and
directs staff to rebid the project at a later date.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/2/2016Page 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 #:16-898,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program Supplemental Agreement No.
078 with the State of California for the Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program in the amount of $99,000.
(Sam Bautista, Principal Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program Supplemental
Agreement No.078 with the State of California for the Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program in the
amount of $99,000.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The administration of state and federally funded local transportation projects is carried out by the benefiting
agencies through the Caltrans Local Assistance Program.The City of South San Francisco has a program
master agreement in place that gives general authority as an administering agency,but administration of
individual projects requires entering into project-specific supplemental agreements.
The City of South San Francisco has received a grant in the amount of $99,000 to participate in a Systematic
Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP).The SSARP will analyze the Spruce Avenue,West Orange Avenue,
Hillside Avenue and Chestnut Avenue corridors for vehicular,bicycling,and pedestrian safety.Systemic
analysis is a proactive safety approach that focuses on evaluating an entire roadway network,which evaluates
crash history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics,rather than looking at high-
collision concentration locations.Systemic analysis acknowledges that crashes alone are not always sufficient
to prioritize countermeasures across a system.This is particularly true for many local streets where crash
densities tend to be low and there are few high crash locations,and in urban areas where vehicles interact with
vulnerable road users (pedestrians,bicyclists,and motorcycles).The goal of the SSARP is to help local
agencies identify safety projects to submit for Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP)funding
consideration.
Program Supplement Agreement No.078 authorizes state funding in the amount of $99,000 to conduct the
SSARP.The estimated total cost is $110,000.The City agrees to provide matching funds in the amount of at
least $11,000, which is approximately 10 percent of the estimated total cost.
FUNDING
The matching funds for this agreement are included in the City of South San Francisco’s FY 2016-2017 Capital
Improvement Program. There is no impact on the General Fund.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the attached resolution will authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with the State of
California on behalf of the City.The agreement will allow the City to obtain state funds for reimbursement in
the amount of $99,000 for the SSARP under the Program Supplemental Agreement No. 078.
Attachment:Program Supplemental Agreement No. 078
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:16-898,Version:1
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:16-899,Version:1
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Program Supplemental Agreement No.078 with the State
of California for the Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program in the amount of $99,000.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)has received a grant in the amount of $99,000 to
participate in a Systematic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)under Program Supplement Agreement
No. N0078-REV0 through the State of California Department of Transportation; and
WHERAS,the estimated total cost of the SSARP is $110,000 and the City agrees to provide matching funds in
the amount of at least $11,000, which is approximately 10 percent of the estimated total cost; and
WHEREAS,the program supplemental agreement must be executed with the State of California Department of
Transportation before any such federal funds can be obtained; and
WHEREAS,the SSARP will analyze Spruce Avenue,West Orange Avenue,Hillside Avenue and Chestnut
Avenue corridors for vehicular, bicycling and pedestrian safety; and
WHEREAS,the City wishes to delegate authorization to execute the agreements and any amendments with the
California Department of Transportation to the City Manager.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves Program Supplemental Agreement No.078 between the City and the California
Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Manager
is hereby authorized to execute Program Supplemental Agreement No.078 on behalf of the City Council of the
City of South San Francisco, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/2/2016Page 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 #:16-784,Version:1
Report regarding a resolution modifying Appendix 1A of the City Council Handbook pertaining to the Annual
Reorganization of the City Council.(Krista Martinelli, City Clerk and Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution modifying Appendix 1A of the City Council
Handbook pertaining to the Annual Reorganization of the City Council.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At a Special Meeting on November 2,2016,the City Council discussed and directed revisions to Appendix 1A
of the City Council Handbook impacting the Annual Reorganization of the City Council.The revisions set forth
in Attachment 1 to the proposed resolution,outline the Mayoral Rotation,set a budget for elected officials’
outlay of funds for the event and the procedures for recognizing the outgoing Mayor and/or council members.
CONCLUSION
Upon review of the revisions to Appendix 1A set forth in Attachment 1 to the proposed resolution,it is
recommended that City Council adopt the proposed resolution that would modify Appendix 1A of the City
Council Handbook pertaining to the Annual Reorganization of the City Council.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/23/2016Page 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 #:16-785,Version:1
Resolution modifying Appendix 1A of the City Council Handbook pertaining to the Annual Reorganization of
the City Council.
WHEREAS,the City Council directed the City Clerk and City Attorney to amend Appendix 1A of the City
Council Handbook modifying the procedures pertinent to the Annual Reorganization of the City Council; and
WHEREAS,the revisions to Appendix 1A set forth in Exhibit A to this resolution were arrived pursuant to
review and discussion of Appendix 1A at a Special Meeting of the City Council that took place on November 2,
2016.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
establishes that the attached modifications to Appendix 1A of the City Council Handbook are hereby adopted.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/2/2016Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
APPENDIX 1A
Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor/Council Reorganization
As set forth in the City Council Handbook, the Vice Mayor is usually selected as the Mayor. The
City Council believes the community benefits by ensuring the positions of Mayor and Vice Mayor
are held at various times by all council members. The City Council also believes the experience as a
council member will assist those who ultimately serve as Mayor or Vice Mayor. To that end, the
following process is hereby adopted for the future selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor. This process
will remain in effect until modified by a subsequent City Council.
Commencing at the end of the present Mayor’s term, the Vice Mayor will becomeMayor and the
most senior council member who has not within the previous three (3) years served as Mayor orVice
Mayor, will serve as Vice Mayor. This process for selection will also apply in subsequent years,
provided that a council member will first become eligible for service as Mayor or Vice Mayor once
he or she has served for two (2) years as a council member. In the event new council members are
elected in the same year, the ranking of the newly elected council members amongst themselves will
be inthe order of the highest number of votes received to the lowest number.If any council member
declines a nomination during a year when they would have been eligible to be appointed as Mayor or
Vice Mayor, the next eligible councilmember in sequence shallbe nominatedfor that position. The
councilmember that declined the nomination will then move to the bottom of the rotational order as
if they had just completed serving a year as Mayor.
Under this procedure and assuming Council Members Garbarino and Mullin are re-elected in the
next election, the following rotation will occurBased on Councilmember Addiego’sappointment
as Mayor on December 7, 2015, and assuming all current councilmembers are re-elected, the
succession according to the current policy would be as follows:
Year Mayor Vice-Mayor
2015-2016 Addiego Gupta
2016-2017 Gupta Normandy
2017-2018 Normandy Matsumoto
2018-2019 Matsumoto Garbarino
2019-2020 Garbarino Addiego
2020-2021 Addiego Gupta
Installation and Reorganization Meeting
The City CouncilInstallation and Reorganization Meeting willbe held at the Municipal Services
Building. Councilmembers shall contribute to the cost of light snacks/deserts and refreshments
for the reception following the Installation and Reorganization Meeting.Each council member’s
contribution shall not exceed $250. During any year in whichthe City Treasurer and City Clerk
are up for election, the City Clerk and City Treasurer shall each contribute up to $250forthe
cost of light snacks/desertsand refreshments for the reception followingthe Installation and
Reorganization Meeting.The incoming Mayor may choose to separately pay for additional
snacks and refreshments beyond those normally providedevery year.
Recognition of Outgoing Mayor and/or Council Members
The Installation and Reorganization Meeting will also include recognition of the outgoing Mayor
and any outgoing council member(s). As part of the recognition, the City mayprovide the
APPENDIX 1A
outgoing Mayor and any outgoing council member(s) with a nominal gift recognizing their
service to the City.
2718800.1