Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-03-10 e-packet
AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM MARCH 10, 2004 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the Redevelopment Agency are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Chair RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Boardmember RICHARD BATTAGLIA Investment Officer MICHAEL A. WILSON Executive Director KARYL MATSUMOTO Chair JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember PEDRO GONZALEZ Boardmember SYLVIA M. PAYNE Clerk STEVEN T. MATTAS Counsel PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS }IEARING ASSISTANC[i [~QUIPMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR USE BY T}tE HEARING IMPAIRED Al' REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of February 25, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of March I0, 2004 Resolution authorizing the execution of a consultant services agreement with Seifel Consulting Inc. to initiate a redevelopment plan amendment and the fiscal merger of the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Areas, in the amount of $199,100 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Resolution authorizing the execution of an acquisition loan agreement with Mid- Peninsula Housing for the purchase of 950 Linden Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million CLOSED SESSION o Pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 480 North Canal Street; Agency Negotiator: Redevelopment Agency Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 2 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 10, 2004 Redevelopment Agency Board Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director Consulting Agreement to Initiate a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the Fiscal Merger of the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Areas RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board adopt a resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Agreement not to exceed $199,100.00 with Siefel Consulting Inc. to provide consulting services for the preparation and adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a Fiscal Merger. The Redevelopment Plan Amendment will include adding the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Area. In addition, the Fiscal Merger will include the merging of the tax increment collection caps and outstanding bonded indebtedness caps for the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Areas. BACKGROUND To assist municipalities in eliminating blight and achieving desired development and reconstruction in designated areas, the State of California has created a process that allows cities to adopt redevelopment project areas. Through the adoption of redevelopment areas, municipalities are able to undertake work to improve the commercial, industrial and residential base in a project area. The City of South San Francisco has adopted four such redevelopment areas. These are Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown/Central, and E1 Camino Corridor. From time to time the City identifies areas that may benefit from redevelopment. When the City elects to designate an area for redevelopment it undergoes a Redevelopment Plan Amendment process that formally adds the area to one of the existing redevelopment project areas. One recent example of a plan amendment is the addition of Willow Gardens and territory along the E1 Camino to the E1 Camino Corridor Project Area in 2000. In 2003 the City identified the Oyster Point Marina as an area that could benefit from redevelopment. The initial recommendation was to add the Oyster Point Marina to the Gateway project area. However, in light of the need to conduct an assessment of the Redevelopment Agency's pass-through agreements with the South San Francisco Unified School District (SSFUSD) and other taxing entities, Staff Report Subject: Consulting Agreement to initiate a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the fiscal merger of the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Projects Areas Page 2 it was decided that the Redevelopment Agency would conduct a thorough feasibility analysis of the four Project Areas to determine which area is better suited to undergo a plan amendment process. Working with Seifel Consulting, staff has completed the analysis of the project areas and recommends adding the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Project Area and fiscally merging the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Projects Areas. The fiscal merger would provide the Redevelopment Agency the flexibility to combine revenues and accelerate investment in the Project Areas. Additional recommendations identified as a result of the analysis are: · Removing debt incurrence deadlines in the Gateway and Shearwater Redevelopment Plans · Extending the limit for project activities and tax increment collection by one year for all four of the City's Project Areas · Combining tax-increment caps in the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Project into one combined cap for all three areas · Combining the caps on outstanding bonded in indebtedness into one cap for the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Project areas In preparation of adding the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Central Project Area and the fiscal merger, the City has completed several tasks to date. These include: · Performing a strategic evaluation of the Redevelopment Projects · Reviewing time and fiscal limits in Redevelopment Plans · Conducting a feasibility study of potential amendments to, and merger of redevelopment plans · Conducting an initial assessment of remaining blight in Project Areas, and · Reviewing existing contractual pass-through agreements with the taxing entities The Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger will give the Redevelopment Agency substantial benefits in terms of making improvements to the Project Areas and in managing the funding of these improvements. In the Oyster Point Marina, redevelopment will become a catalyst for the commercial and recreational development that wilt include a new regional convention center, a four star hotel, improved public access to the shoreline and a myriad recreational and commercial activities, and possibly a new ferry terminal. The proposed Amendment and Fiscal Merger will also trigger statutory payments to other taxing entities. However, the newly required statutory payments will not create a burden to the Agency or affect its ability to conduct other redevelopment activity because the total tax-increment to the Agency will increase proportionately over the years. Moreover such funding will provide additional assistance to other taxing entities such as the SSFUSD that the Agency would otherwise not be able to provide since the Agency cannot amend the existing pass-through agreements. Staff Report Subject: Consulting Agreement to initiate a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the fiscal merger of the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Projects Areas Page 3 CONCLUSION Completing the Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger will be a long and complex process that will not be completed until June 2005. Staff is recommending that the Redevelopment Agency enter into Agreement with Siefel Consulting Inc. to assist with the Plan Amendment and the Fiscal Merger. A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit A. In summary Seifel Consulting will provide redevelopment plan amendment and fiscal merger consulting services for the preparation and adoption of the Plan Amendments and the Fiscal Merger. Such services will include the following tasks: · Assess existing condition in the Oyster Point Marina · Document blight in the Oyster Point Marina · Document remaining blight in the three fiscal merger project areas · Prepare the Preliminary Report and Report to the City Council · Assist with developing the amended Redevelopment Program · Conduct the financial feasibility analysis · Consult with affected taxing entities · Prepare Report on Urbanization · Prepare maps · Prepare Implementation Plan · Under staff supervision, manage the completion of the steps in the adoption process for the Plan Amendment m~d Fiscal Merger In conjunction with the adoption of the resolution approving an Agreement with Siefel Consulting Inc., the City Council will be considering several other separate actions at the March 10, 2004 Redevelopment Agency meeting. These actions include adopting ordinances or resolutions to · Amend the time limitations with respect to the effectiveness of plan activities m~d the repayment of debt in the Gateway, E1 Camino, and Sheam'ater Plans · Amending the limitation for incurrence of debt in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan · Amending the limitation for incurrence of debt in the Shearwater Redevelopment Plan · Designating Oyster Point Marina as a survey area for redevelopment. By: ~,x Assistant Executive Director Approved: Michael A. Wilson Executive Director MAW:MVD:NF:AFSA AttaChment: Resolution Exhibit A - Consulting Agreement with Seifel Consulting, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT WITH SIEFEL CONSULTING INC. IN AN AMOUNT OF $199,100 TO PROVIDE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE PREPARATION AND ADOPTING OF A REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND A FISCAL MERGER WHEREAS, staff recommends that the Board authorizes an agreement with Siefel Consulting Inc. in an amount of $199,100 to provide consulting services for the preparation and adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a Fiscal Merger; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plan Amendment will include adding the Oyster Point Marina to the Downtown/Center Redevelopment Area; and WHEREAS, in addition, the Fiscal Merger will include the merging of the tax increment collection caps and outstanding bonded indebtedness caps for the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco that the Redevelopment Agency hereby authorizes an agreement with Siefel Consulting Inc. in the amount of $199,100 to provide consulting services for the preparation and adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Amendment and a Fiscal Merger. A copy of the Agreement is attached as Exhibit A. BE IT, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the __ day of 2004 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: S:\Current Reso's\3-10agree.siefel.rda.res.doc ATTEST: Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND SEIFEL CONSULTING, INC. THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency") and Siefel Consulting, Inc, ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of March 10, 2003 (the "Effective Date"). Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to Agency the services described in the Scope of Work attached as Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail. 1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end on June 30, 2005, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall complete the work described in Exhibit A prior to that date, unless the term of the Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect the Agency's right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8. 1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Consultant is engaged in the geographical area in which Consultant practices its profession. Consultant shall prepare all work products required by this Agreement in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession. 1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement, In the event that Agency, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant shall, immediately upon receiving notice from Agency of such desire of Agency, reassign such person or persons, 1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided in Section 1.1 above and to satisfy Consultant's obligations hereunder. Section 2. COMPENSATION. Agency hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed one hundred ninety-nine thousand one hundred dollars ($199,100), notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be contained in Consultant's proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, attached as Exhibit A, regarding the amount of compensation, the Agreement shall prevail. Agency shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from Agency to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 1 of 14 Agency in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by Agency, Consultant shall not bill Agency for duplicate services performed by more than one person. Consultant and Agency acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by Agency to Consultant under this Agreement is based upon Consultant's estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder, including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the parties further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. Agency therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement. [NOTE TO STAFF: THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ALTERED AS NECESSARY TO FIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PARTICULAR AGREEMENT.] 2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: · Serial identifications of progress bill.s; i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice, etc.; · The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; · A Task Summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the percentage of completion; · At Agency's option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each reimbursable expense; · The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by Consultant and each employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder, as well as a separate notice when the total number of hours of work by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant reaches or exceeds 800 hours, which shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete the work described in Exhibit A; · The Consultant's signature. 2.2 Monthly Payment. Agency shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. Agency shall have 30 days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements above to pay Consultant. 2.3 Final Payment. Agency shall pay the last 10% of the total sum due pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to Agency of a final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 2 of 14 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 Total Payment. Agency shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Agency shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. Agency shall make no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed change order or amendment. Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed the amounts shown on the following fee schedule: · President $185/hour · Managing Consultant:$145/hour · Senior Consultant: $125/hour · Consultant: $105/hour · Analyst: $95/hour · Research Assistant: $85/hour · Graphics/Support: $65/hour Reimbursable Expenses. Reimbursable expenses are specified below, and shall not exceed seven thousand nine hundred sixty-four dollars ($7,964). Expenses not listed below are not chargeable to Agency. Reimbursable expenses are included in the total amount of compensation provided under this Agreement that shall not be exceeded. · Telephone charges are computed at 2 percent of billed professional services. · Automobile mileage charges are at IRS mileage rates. · Photocopying/report reproduction charges are 10 cents per page, except for bulk reproduction of reports, which is charged on a direct reimbursable basis. · Delivery service charges are at cost. Payment of Taxes. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. Payment upon Termination. In the event that the Agency or Consultant terminates this Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the Agency shall compensate the Consultant for all outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and timesheets in order to verify costs incurred to that date. Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of authorization from the Contract Administrator. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 3 of 14 Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by this Agreement. Agency shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section, and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein. Agency shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Consultant's use while consulting with Agency employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of the Agency. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall be in the sole discretion of Agency. In no event shall Agency be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents, representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall provide Certificates of Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, indicating that Consultant has obtained or currently maintains insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under forms of insurance satisfactory, in all respects, to the Agency. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required herein for the subcontractor(s) and provided evidence thereof to Agency. Verification of the required insurance shall be submitted and made part of this Agreement prior to execution. 4.1 Workers' Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance for any and all persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers' Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per accident, in the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the discretion of the Contract Administrator. The insurer, if insurance is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights of subrogation against the Agency and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss arising from work performed under this Agreement. 4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance. 4.2.1 General rectuirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence, combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 4 of 14 contemplated by this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this Agreement, including the use of owned and non- owned automobiles. 4,2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability. Automobile coverage shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA 0001 (ed. 12/90) Code 8 and 9. No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage. 4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy: The insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not on a claims-made basis. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to Agency and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. 4.3 Professional Liability Insurance. 4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals' errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed $150,000 per claim. 4.3.2 Claims-made limitations, The following provisions shall apply if the professional liability coverage is written on a claims-made form: The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the date of the Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 5 of 14 4.4 Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so long as commercially available at reasonable rates. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of this Agreement, Consultant must provide extended reporting coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of the Agreement or the work. The Agency shall have the right to exercise, at the Consultant's sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the Agency prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement. All Policies Requirements. 4.4.1 AcceptabiliW of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII. 4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish Agency with complete certified copies of all policies, including complete certified copies of all endorsements. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. 4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Agency. In the event that any coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to Agency at Consultant's earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage. 4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. Agency and its officers, employees, and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant, including the insured's general supervision of Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to Agency or its officers, employees, or volunteers. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 6 of 14 4.5 4.4.5 A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is primary insurance with respect to the Agency and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Agency shall be called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain the approval of Agency for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to Agency, its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of them. 4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 4.4.7 Variation. The Agency may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the Agency's interests are otherwise fully protected. Remedies. In addition to any other remedies Agency may have if Consultant fails to provide or maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time herein required, Agency may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which are alternatives to other remedies Agency may have and are not the exclusive remedy for Consultant's breach: · Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such insurance from any sums due under the Agreement; Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment, until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or · Terminate this Agreement. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 7 of 14 Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the Agency, and hold harmless the Agency and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses, liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury, loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance, to the extent caused, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents, by acts for which they could be held strictly liable, or by the quality or character of their work. The foregoing obligation of Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Acceptance by Agency of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement, Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a material element of consideration. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for enrollment in PERS as an employee of Agency, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Agency for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be the responsibility of Agency. Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT. 6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of Agency, Agency shall have the right to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1,3; however, otherwise Agency shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other Agency, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by Agency, including but not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) as an employee of Agency and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by Agency for employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 8 of 14 6.2 Consultant No Agent. Except as Agency may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of Agency in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind Agency to any obligation whatsoever. Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. 7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. 7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all laws applicable to the performance of the work hereunder, 7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which Agency is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. 7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to Agency that Consultant and its employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to Agency that Consultant and its employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing, Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement valid Business Licenses from Agency. 7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the basis of a person's race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee, applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting, and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION. 8.1 Termination. Agency may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written notification to Consultant. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 9 of 14 Consultant may cancel this Agreement upon 30 days' written notice to Agency and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed to the effective date of termination; Agency, however, may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to Agency any or all documents, photographs, computer software, video and audio tapes, and other materials provided to Consultant or prepared by or for Consultant or the Agency in connection with this Agreement. 8.2 Extension. Agency may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein. Consultant understands and agrees that, if Agency grants such an extension, Agency shall have no obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, Agency shall have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses incurred during the extension period. 8.3 Amendments. The parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the parties. 8.4 Assi.clnment and Subcontracting. Agency and Consultant recognize and agree that this Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a determination of Consultant's unique personal competence, experience, and specialized personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to Agency for entering into this Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract Administrator. 8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions of this Agreement allocating liability between Agency and Consultant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms of this Agreement, Agency's remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement; 8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement; Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 10 of 14 Section 9. 9.1 9.2 9.3 Section 10 10,1 8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished by Consultant; or 8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the cost to complete the work described in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that Agency would have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS. Records Created as Part of Consultant's Performance. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records, files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered hereunder shall be the property of the Agency. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those documents to the Agency upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above, prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the Agency and are not necessarily suitable for any future or other use. Agency and Consultant agree that, until final approval by Agency, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both parties unless required by law. Consultant's Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged to the Agency under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement. Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit, and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the Agency. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds expended under this Agreement exceeds TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of Agency or as part of any audit of the Agency, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the Agreement. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. Attorneys' Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief to which that party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a separate action brought for that purpose. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 11 of 14 10.2 Venue. In the event that either party brings any action against the other under this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the First District of California. 10.3 SeverabiliW. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement. 10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term of this Agreement. 10.5 Successors and Assi.qns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. 10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. 10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within the corporate limits of Agency or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant in a "conflict of interest," as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at California Government Code Section 81000 et seq. Consultant shall not employ any Agency official in the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. No officer or employee of Agency shall have any financial interest in this Agreement that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090 et seq. Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12) months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the Agency. If Consultant was an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the Agency in the previous twelve months, Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement. Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code §1090 et. seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the Agency for any sums paid to the Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be disqualified from holding public office in the State of California. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 12 of 14 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials. Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Norma Fragoso, Redevelopment Manager ("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract Administrator or his or her designee. Notices. Any written notice to Consultant shall be sent to: Elizabeth Seifel Seifel Consulting, Inc. 1388 Sutter Street, Suite 520 San Francisco, CA 94109 Any written notice to Agency shall be sent to: Norma Fragoso, Redevelopment Manager City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 And City Clerk City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the following example. Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Agency and Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 13 of 14 10.13 Counterparts, This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement. The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT Michael A. Wilson, Executive Director Attest: Name: Elizabeth Seifel Title: President Sylvia Payne, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Steven T. Mattas, Legal Counsel 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. March 10, 2004 Page 14 of 14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is proposing to amend the Downtown/Central, Shearwater, and Gateway Redevelopment Plans to do the following: · Add the Marina Oyster Point Marina and Business Park area to the Downtown/Central Project Area. · Fiscally merge the Gateway, Shearwater and Downtown Project Areas. · Merge the tax increment collection caps and outstanding bonded indebtedness caps for each of these three Redevelopment Plans into one combined tax increment collection cap and one combined outstanding indebtedness cap for all three Redevelopment Projects. Overview of Responsibilities Seifel Consulting Inc. (Seifel Consulting), as the redevelopment consultant, shall work with staff to provide redevelopment plan amendment and fiscal merger consulting services to the Agency for the preparation and adoption of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. The amendment process will focus on assessing existing conditions in the Survey Area, recommending the area to be added to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area, documenting remaining blight in the three Project Areas and blighting conditions in the proposed Added Area, preparing the Preliminary Report and Report to the Council (to include the 2004 Implementation Plan), assisting with developing the amended Redevelopment Program, conducting the financial feasibility analysis, and consulting with taxing entities. Seifel Consulting, under staff supervision, shall manage the completion of the steps in the adoption process for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, except for the preparation of any environmental documentation that might be required. This Scope of Services contains the proposed work program for the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and is designed to facilitate the Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger process in accordance with the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). Seifel Consulting shall coordinate the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger process with Agency staff and the legal Counsel, Meyers Nave Riback Silver & Wilson (Meyers Nave). Time Frame Agency and Consultant intend to complete the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger in Spring 2005, with consideration scheduled by June 2005. Task Descriptions The Agency shall handle the administrative plan amendment processes such as meeting notices, staff reports, and preparation of public hearings and meetings, including the mailing of notices. Meyers Nave shall prepares the Redevelopment Plan Amendments, all required legal documents, and the legal notices and resolutions as required by the Agency. A separate consultant under direct contract with the Agency will prepare the environmental documentation. The following tasks describe the Consultant's role. Consulting Services Agreement between March 10, 2004 Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A Page 1 of 11 Task 1. Project Coordination and Management With the initiation of the contract, Seifel Consulting shall meet with the Agency and City staff and legal counsel to review the proposed work tasks and agree upon a process towards an efficient and cost effective work plan. This initial meeting shall include compiling a master list of relevant material, reviewing the proposed scope and timeline for completion of each task, establishing roles and responsibilities, determining how each work task can best be accomplished, and allocating roles and responsibilities among staff and consultant team members to assure the timely and efficient completion of each step. Consultant shall schedule the proposed preparation of documents and the public participation process. Consult shall provide the Agency with project management and staff support services as needed, up to a proposed budget, which may include, but are not limited to, the following services: · Assist staff with preparation and/or provide review of up to four (4) staff reports or other reports, · Coordinate or review Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger related documents prepared by Agency staff. · Provide other advice and assistance regarding the Plan Amendment and redevelopment activities as necessary. · Assist staff with collection of documents and data relevant to the Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Staff Meetings Consultant shall participate in regularly scheduled team coordination meetings and conference calls throughout the duration of the project with Agency staff. The purpose of these meetings will be to evaluate progress of the project work, obtain additional information such as reports from Agency staff and review work performed to date. Eight meetings will be held either in person, or conducted as conference calls when appropriate. The meetings will be billed to the relevant task. Task 2,. Consultations with Taxing Entities Consult shall assist in consultations with the affected taxing entities regarding the fiscal impact of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger on such entities. The eight taxing entities are San Mateo County, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo County Community College District, San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools, Bay Area Air Quality, San Mateo County Harbor, Colma Creek Flood Control, and the City of South San Francisco. Consultant shall attend up to four meetings with Agency staff and affected taxing entities. Consult shall prepare a summary of the pass through payments (both statutory and contractual) under the Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger. Task 3. Preliminary Report Consultant shall prepare the Preliminary Report, as required by the CRL 33344.5, in conjunction with the Agency. Meyers Nave shall review the report for adequacy. The Report will include the reasons for the Fiscal Merger and Plan Amendments. Consultant shall present the reasons for amending the Downtown/Central Project Area to add area; a description of existing conditions and remaining blight in the three Project Areas to be fiscally merged; a description of blighting conditions in the Added Area; an assessment of the financial feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger, including reasons for tax increment financing; and a description of the projects and activities proposed to alleviate blight. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 2 of 11 a. Documentation and Presentation of Blight Findings Consultant shall document physical and economic blight in accordance with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law. Consultant shall lead and manage the physical blight investigation and analysis. The Agency shall assist in investigation and analysis. Blighting Conditions in the Added Area Consultant and Meyers Nave shall assist with the determination of the Added Area boundary. Meyers Nave shall prepare the legal description and base map in accordance with State Board of Equalization guidelines for the Amended Project Area suitable for submission per the requirements of Section 33327. Consultant shall document physical and economic blight in accordance with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law. Consultant's analysis of physical blight shall concentrate on the physical blighting condition of factors preventing or hindering the economically viable use or capacity of buildings or lots. Consultant shall conduct a building conditions survey. Consultant's economic blight analysis will focus on the economic blighting condition of depreciated or stagnant property values or impaired investments, including but not limited to those properties containing hazardous wastes. Consultant shall assess the type and degree of blight in the proposed Added Area by conducting a field survey and reviewing documents provided by the Agency (plans, environmental impact reports, studies, etc.) for relevance to the documentation of blight. Consultant shall review available documents prepared by others (such as code compliance reports) for relevance. As appropriate, such documents shall be compiled for incorporation into the plan amendment documents. Documentation of Areas that are No Longer Blighted in Existing Project Areas Consultant shall work with Agency staff and legal counsel to reach a consensus on areas that are no longer blighted in the existing Project Areas, based upon a field survey. When a consensus is reached, Consultant shall map areas that are no longer blighted. Consultant shall identify areas in which blight has been substantially alleviated, but redevelopment assistance is required for effective redevelopment. Specifically, Consultant shall identify those portions of the three existing Project Areas in which blight has been successfully alleviated to the extent that the area does not have substantial and pervasive blight, but redevelopment assistance is required in order to achieve effective redevelopment. Documentation of Remaining Blight in Existing Project Areas Consultant shall document physical and economic blight as described below. Portions of the Project Areas that are no longer blighted are specifically excluded from the blight documentation. Consultant shall assess the type and degree of blight in the existing Project Areas and the proposed Added Area by conducting field surveys and will review documents provided by the Agency (plans, environmental impact reports, studies, etc.) for relevance to the documentation of blight. Consultant shall review available documents prepared by others (such as building inspection or code compliance reports) for relevance. As appropriate, such documents will be compiled for incorporation into the plan amendment documents. Consultant shall meet with Agency staff and others knowledgeable about existing conditions in the area. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 3 of 11 Field Survey and Analysis of Existing Conditions Using the blight definitions in existence at the time of the adoption of the Plans (with cross references where applicable to current CRL definitions), Consultant shall work closely with the staff and legal advisors to identify the presence or absence of blighting conditions in the Project Area by: · Analyzing information obtained from Agency and other sources to document physical and economic blight; · Performing field surveys of the physical and economic conditions of the existing Project Areas; and, · Meeting with staff to review findings and discuss local conditions, trends, concerns, improvement needs, and long-term planning objectives in the community. It is not anticipated that a Building Conditions Survey will be a necessary component of this work effort. Should it be determined one is necessary, Consultant shall prepare a separate scope and budget. Photographic Documentation of Physical and Economic Blight in Existing Project Areas and Added Area Consultant shall provide photographic documentation of physical and economic blight as appropriate throughout the existing Project Areas and the proposed Added Area, and a map of the general locations of the photographs. b. Report on Urbanization Consultant shall prepare a Report on Urbanization for the Added Area for inclusion in the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council Amendments and Fiscal Merger. c. Map Preparation The Agency will take responsibility for producing base maps and for ensuring that they reflect all existing amendments to the Redevelopment Plans and are consistent with the Redevelopment Plan legal descriptions for the Downtown/Central, Shearwater and Gateway Projects. This task will involve review of the legal descriptions and base maps by City Public Works and/or an outside engineering or other appropriate consultant. The Agency will provide base maps to Consultant in electronic GIS format. Consultant shall use the base maps provided by the Agency to prepare maps and exhibits used in documents leading to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Using the base maps supplied by the City/Agency, Consultant shall prepare the urbanization map, not more than 10 maps illustrating existing conditions, and a photographic documentation location map. Substantial revisions to maps, or maps in excess of those described above, would be included as additional services on a time and materials basis. d. Financial Analysis Consultant shall analyze the financial feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger by comparing projected tax increment revenues and the costs of redevelopment projects and activities. Building on previous financial analysis, Consultant shall: · Summarize the time and financial limits under the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. · Refine and create computer models to project potential net tax increment revenues available for projects and activities, including the 20 percent set-aside for affordable housing and the amount of Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 4 of 11 funds to be allocated to all affected taxing entities (pass-through payments). Consultant shall work with the Agency to determine assumptions for development buildout and other considerations. · Work closely with staff to refine assumptions, including development projections and increases in assessed value due to reassessment and inflation. · Analyze the use of tax increment revenues as the principal source of funding, compared to other potential financial sources and/or mechanisms available to the Agency to carry out the financing portion of the Amended Redevelopment Projects. · Evaluate the proposed method of financing redevelopment and its financial feasibility. Determine which of the activities can be funded given the projected tax increment revenue and other funding sources. e. Project Activities and Costs The Preliminary Report will demonstrate that the proposed project activities are directly related to the alleviation of blight a.s required by the CRL. Consultant shall work with Agency and City staff to review capital improvement programs and all relevant plans, studies, and reports. Consultant shall prepare a list of potential actions and projects to include in the Redevelopment Programs with guidance from the Agency. To the extent feasible, the City and Agency shall provide gross cost estimates and estimates of non- Agency funding sources, expressed in constant 2005 dollars. f. Report Organization Consultant shall prepare the Preliminary Report, as required by CRL, in conjunction with the Agency. The Agency's legal counsel will review the report for adequacy. Consultant shall use existing analyses to the extent possible as the background and framework for the Preliminary Report. The Preliminary Report will be organized as follows: I. Introduction Provides background information, legal requirements and summarizes the legally defensible reasons for selecting the Amended Project Area boundaries and fiscally merging the Downtown/Central, Gateway and Shearwater Projects. Provides an overview of the amendments as discussed in the Project Overview section, above, of this scope of services. II. Existin.q Conditions Documents urbanization and existing conditions contributing to blight in the proposed Added Area, based on blight definitions contained in CRL. Documents existing conditions in existing Project Areas. III. Redevelopment Proc:lrams Describes Redevelopment Programs' projects and activities to alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Areas and estimated costs. IV. Proposed Methods of Financin.q and Feasibility Analyzes potential financial resources and/or mechanisms available to the Agency; provides tax increment projections and evaluates tax increment as the principal project funding mechanism; assesses feasibility of the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger and; explains why blight cannot be eliminated without redevelopment assistance through the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 5 of 11 Task 4. Report to the City Council Consultant shall prepare the Report to the City Council on the Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger (Report to Council) in accordance with Section 33352 of Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). The Report will incorporate the updated Preliminary Report including additional chapters that provide an analysis of the Agency's initial plans for implementation of the Project and required procedural steps for the adoption of the Amended Redevelopment Plans taken by the Agency. a. Update Preliminary Report Analysis Consultant shall update findings and analysis contained in the Preliminary Report in response to new or additional information requested by the Meyers Nave, and/or the Agency. Such updates shall be made to contribute to a legally defensible, comprehensive, and accurate Report to Council. The areas most likely to be updated would include, but are not limited to, blight findings, development forecasts, proposed projects and activities, and tax increment projections. b. Implementation Plan The Agency shall prepare the 2004 Implementation Plan. Consultant shall prepare a supplement to the 2004 Implementation Plan to include the Plan Amendments Fiscal Merger. Consultant shall advise staff in order to ensure that the Implementation Plan meets current CRL requirements, including the requirements of AB 637. The Implementation Plan consists of non-housing and housing components: Non-Housinq Component Consultant shall advise Agency staff in preparing the following material required for adoption of the non- housing component of the Implementation Plan: · Summarize blighting conditions in the Project Areas and develop priorities to address these conditions. · Project available revenue for the remaining years of the five year plan, including tax increment funds, program income, federal and state funds, and other financial resources. · Based on the projected financial resources, refine the list of redevelopment activities to be accomplished over the five year period and describe how they will alleviate blight. Housin.q Component Consultant shall advise Agency staff in preparing the housing component (AB 315 Housing Production Plan) of the Implementation Plan which specifically describes how the goals, objectives, projects and expenditures will implement Iow and moderate income housing programs. The housing section of the plan must contain: · Estimates of deposits to the Housing Set-Aside Fund during the five year plan. · Estimates of the number of units to be assisted from these funds. · Estimates of the number of units to be constructed, rehabilitated, price-restricted, assisted, removed or destroyed by the Agency and others over the life of the Redevelopment Plans and the required ten year period. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 6 of 11 c, Additional CRL Documentation Requirements Agency staff shall summarize community meeting minutes, as maintained by the Agency under Section 33387, and Consultant shall incorporate the summaries into the Report to Council. The Section 33328 report for the Added Area, also known as the Auditor-Controller report, will be prepared by County officials per the requirements of the CRL. Consultant shall coordinate with the Agency and the County for its preparation. Consultant shall document that the Agency has followed the correct procedural process and performed all required components of the Report to Council, in accordance with CRI_ Section 33352. d. Report Organization The Report to Council shall contain: 1) the information included in the Preliminary Report, in addition to a map showing where remaining blighting conditions exist; 2) the five-year implementation plan; 3) an explanation of why blight cannot be eliminated without redevelopment; 4) a method or plan for relocation; 5) an analysis of the Amended Downtown/Central PreLiminary Plan; 6) a report and recommendations of the City Planning Commission; 7) a summary of public review; 8) a summary of environmental review; 9) a report of the County Fiscal Officer; 10) a summary of consultations with taxing entities; and 11) a neighborhood impact report. Task 5. Public Meeting Attendance Consultant shall advise staff in their development of a public outreach and community consultation program. Consultant shall prepare for and participate in up to four public meetings, including meetings of the Agency Board, City Council, Planning Commission, and community forums. Task 6. Legal and Environmental Documentation At the Agency's request, Consultant shall review the Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger related documents prepared by the Meyers Nave. Meyers Nave shall be responsible for preparing all of the legally required notices and documents, including the following: · Detailed Schedule of Actions identifying 1)legal and procedural steps, 2) action dates, 3) responsible entities, and 4) documents involved. Consultant shall prepare a summary schedule, based on the legal schedule. · Amended Redevelopment Plans and Other Legal Documents and all other legal documents, such as resolutions, notices and miscellaneous documents necessary to accomplish the steps identified on the Schedule of Actions as needed. Agency staff shall be responsible for all legally mandated mailings and notices. The Agency shall be the lead in creating the affected parties list that will include the business and property owners within the boundaries. Meyers Nave shall verify that all the affected parties are properly identified for notification. Consultant shall provide guidance as needed. The environmental documentation, as needed, shall be performed separately. The Agency shall be responsible for preparing all of the legally required notices and documents required for the environmental documentation process. Consultant shall provide input regarding their content based on data and analysis obtained during the Redevelopment Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger process. Consulting Services Agreement between March 10, 2004 Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A Page 7 of 11 Task 7: Additional Advisory Services In addition to the preparation of documents required in the process, Consultant shall provide Agency staff with advisory services on an as needed basis. Such services may include, but not be limited to: · Prepare special or supplemental fiscal/financial analyses not typically provided in the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council. · Prepare fiscal analysis for and attend additional meetings with affected taxing entities, public meetings and hearings for information presentation purposes. · Prepare responses to written comments received at the joint public hearing. · Prepare more than the number of draft documents described under Deliverables (see following Section B) or redraft documents after Agency staff and legal counsel have given their approval. · Train Agency staff. Deliverables Consultant shall provide two drafts and a final report for each of the following documents: · Preliminary Report · Reportto Council Specifically, Consultant shall provide three types of work products: · Administrative draft for circulation to Agency Counsel and staff · Final draft · Final The administrative draft and final draft shall be prepared for use by staff, redevelopment legal counsel and other interested parties. The administrative and final drafts will be provided electronically in portable document format (PDF). The final document will be provided electronically in portable document format (PDF). In addition, the final will be provided as one (t) unbound original for reproduction. Consultant shall prepare documents for 8 1/2 by 11 paper size and printed on one side. Preparation of more than one draft of the documents described above, or redrafting of documents after Agency staff and legal counsel approval of the final will be billed as additional services under separate contract. Consultant understands that Consultant will need to incorporate periodic reviews by staff and legal counsel. While incorporating staff and legal counsel review of the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council, Consultant reserves the right of final review of these documents. Seifel Consulting Inc. shall not be held responsible for documents that are altered subsequent to delivery of the final draft. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 8 of 11 Document Preparation Schedule The overall Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger schedule will be determined upon discussion with City staff and will incorporate due dates for drafts and final documents. Consultant's document preparation is dependent on timely responses to requests for information and meetings from City staff. Fifteen working days before a deliverable report is due, Consultant shall receive all information required for inclusion in the report in order to complete the draft report as scheduled. The Agency's Project Manager will need ten (10) working days between receipt of the administrative draft and final draft and the provision of comments to the Consultant. Consultant shall be allocated ten (10) working days between receipt of the comments on the administrative draft and provision of final draft and final draft to the Agency's Project Manager. As the deliverable reports (the Preliminary Report and the Report to Council) are legal documents, the administrative draft of each report shall be reviewed by Meyers Nave before Consultant releases the final draft or final report. Consultant shall send the administrative draft to Meyers Nave for comment, Meyers Nave shall provide comments to Consultant within ten working days before the final draft is completed. [~. Role of Agency Staff Consultant shall work closely with Agency staff, who shall assume the following responsibilities: · Timely provision of all available reports, documents, studies, plans, and other information relevant to the documentation of existing conditions and the expeditious conduct of the plan amendment process. · Provision of the best available zoning, land use, GIS maps and aerial photographs. · Delivery in timely manner of historical 5-year and current assessed values, retail sales tax, transient occupancy (hotel), and property tax information in support of economic blight documentation and the projection of future tax increment revenues. · Provision of available crime statistics. · Provision of other information as needed to document blight, such as infrastructure and public improvement deficiencies, traffic issues and documentation of the need for redevelopment from developers. · Coordination with staff team and various City departments on the provision of relevant data such as that described above. · Schedule and conduct staff team meetings with consultant, including kick-off meeting, regular team meetings, and conference calls. · Schedule and conduct meetings to ensure community participation in the redevelopment plan amendment process at a level consistent with the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The Consultant will rely on the Agency to identify and assemble stakeholders and facilitate meetings and workshops in the Project Area neighborhoods. Agency will also prepare a summary of meetings and consultations with the community for incorporation into the Report on the Redevelopment Plan. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 9 of 11 · Responsibility for mailing and notifications to property owners, business, and residents, including related mailing costs. · Revisions, if necessary due to boundary changes, of Agency prepared legal descriptions and related maps. · Identification and notification of all affected taxing agencies. · Preparation of summary of consultations with taxing agencies for incorporation into the Report to Council. · Timely response to inquiries from the Consultant. · Coordination of review and edits of deliverables with Agency staff and consolidation of edits into one document for delivery to Consultant. (~. Schedule of Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger The Plan Amendment and Fiscal Merger schedule is to be determined upon discussion with Agency staff. The Preliminary Report and Report to Council will be prepared at suitable dates to meet an anticipated adoption in June 2005. The table below is a proposed schedule for project completion, This schedule is dependent on timely responses of ail parties. Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 10 of 11 Spring to Fall 2004 Winter 2005 to Spring 2005 Schedule for South San Francisco Redevelopment Plan Amendments and Fiscal Merger Perform Eligibility Analysis and Plan Amendment Approach. (complete) Brief Council, Agency Board and Planning Commission regarding the Plan Amendment. (complete) Agency Board authorizes proceeding with formal Plan Amendment. Planning Commission approves Amended Preliminary Plan and Added Area boundaries. (complete) Agency Board accepts Amended Preliminary Plan for Downtown/Central. Consultations begin with affected taxing entities. Initial Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) notices distributed, Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Notice of Preparation comment period ends. County Controller completes FY 2004/05 base year assessed valuation report for Added Area Distribution of Draft Preliminary Report, Draft Amended Plans, and Draft EIR (if needed). Hearing on Draft EIR (if needed). Draft EIR comment period ends. Completion of Report to Council on Amended Plans and Fiscal Merger and Final EIR (if needed). Final EIR (if needed), Amended Plans and Report to Council on Amended Plans and Fiscal Merger distributed. Planning Commission makes formal recommendation to Council/Agency Board on EIR and Amended Plans. Community Workshop on Amended Plan. Joint Public Hearing on Amended Plan. Council/Agency Board make required CRL and CEQA findings. Council introduces ordinance to adopt Amended Plans and Fiscal Merger. Council conducts second reading and adopts Amended Plans and Fiscal Merger. File EIR Notice of Determination. Distribute CRL post-adoption documents. 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc. -Exhibit A March 10, 2004 Page 11 of 11 EXHIBIT B INSURANCE CERTIFICATES 207532_1 Consulting Services Agreement between Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco and Seifel Consulting, Inc--Exhibit B March 10, 2004 Page 1 of 1 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: Loan to Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition - 950 Linden Avenue Acquisition RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Agency Board adopt the attached Resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Acquisition Loan Agreement with Mid Peninsula Housing for the purchase of 950 Linden Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION: In the fall of 2003, Mid Peninsula Housing identified the property at 950 Linden Avenue as a potential site for new residential development. The site's proximity to downtown, schools, services, employment, and easy access to transportation lines, led Mid Peninsula to believe it would be ideal for residential development. It is one of the last remaining parcels in the downtown area that would provide an economy of scale for a proposed forty-five unit affordable housing development. Mid Peninsula has been in negotiations with the property owner for several months and has recently executed a purchase and sale agreement in the amount of $2.7 million for the property. Mid Peninsula proposes to develop the site as 45 units of attractive multi-family, two story apartments and town homes for families. The units would be affordable to households earning between 20% and 50% of median income, or between $20,000 and $45,000 per year. This p roj ect fulfills o ne o f t he City's key priorities o f providing housing t o a 11 sectors of the population, as required by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). In fact, this development combined with the new development at the county-owned site on Oak and Grand Avenues, and the inclusionary units that have received entitlements, will assist the Agency in meeting its ABAG obligation for production of very low and low income units by 2005. At this time, Mid Peninsula does not have site design concepts; they are simply requesting funds to acquire the site, thus securing it for development in 2005. Once the site is secured, Mid Peninsula will begin the predevelopment phase which will include environmental reviews, Staff Report Subject: Loan to Mid Peninsula - 950 Linden Avenue Page 2 site designs and construction drawings. Once preliminary designs are prepared, the project will be brought to the Agency for review and approval. Typically, projects that have been sponsored by the Agency involve land that has already been secured and the Agency selects a developer. This process is different in that the developer brought the project to the Agency; however, it is considered to be standard procedure for many housing developments to secure the site first. Mid Peninsula has applied for and received preliminary approval for $800,000 in San Mateo County HOME Consortium funding to acquire the site. Those funds are expected to leverage $400,000 in San Mateo County HOME Consortium funding that is currently available to the City and not yet designated for a specific project. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency will make a loan to Mid Peninsula in the amount of $1.5 million of its low and moderate income housing funds. The total loan amount of $1.9 million would be at three (3%) percent simple interest, over forty years, with loan payments made from the completed project's residual receipts, on a pro rated basis for the Redevelopment and HOME funds. An appraisal has been completed which concludes the fair market value of the property to be $2.7 million. A Phase I environmental report has been completed indicating that the site is free of toxics and a Phase II analysis will be completed prior to close of escrow. The purchase and sale agreement stipulates that close of escrow shall be April 15, 2004. Mid Peninsula anticipates that this development will cost a total of $14,500,000 to build, or $320,000 per unit, and they will secure State Tax Credits and Multi-Family Program funds for the construction. They have also proposed that the San Mateo County HOME Consortium provide another round of funding for construction in fiscal year 2005-06. These development costs are comparable to the proposed new development at the county-owned site and are considered to be reasonable by industry standards and Mid Peninsula has been very aggressive in leveraging funds from other sources for this project. CONCLUSION: The City Council's Housing Subcommittee reviewed this proposal at their meeting of February 10th and recommends to the Agency Board that the project be approved in concept and that a loan agreement be executed with Mid Peninsula to acquire the site, thus securing it for a future affordable housing development. The Subcommittee further recommends that preliminary design concepts be taken back to them for review and approval prior to going through the City's entitlement process and before final Agency Board design approval. Staff Report Subject: Loan to Mid Peninsula - 950 Linden Avenue Page 3 It is therefore recommended that the attached Resolution be adopted authorizing the Executive Director to execute an Acquisition Loan Agreement with Mid Peninsula in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million. Of that amount, $1.5 million is available in the Agency's current budget for land acquisition and $400,000 is currently available to be drawn from the County HOME Consortium. Assistant Executive Director Executive Director Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Acquisition Loan Agreement Parcel Map RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN ACQUISITION LOAN AGREEMENT WITH MID PENINSULA HOUSING FOR THE PURCHASE OF 950 LINDEN AVENUE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1.9 MILLION WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City authorize an Acquisition Loan Agreement with Mid Peninsula Housing for the Purchase of 950 Linden Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million; and WHEREAS, $1.5 million is available in the Agency's current budget for land acquisition and $400,000 is currently available to be drawn from the County HOME Consortium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes an Acquisition Loan Agreement with Mid Peninsula Housing for the Purchase of 950 Linden Avenue in an amount not to exceed $1.9 million. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the __ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S :\Current Reso'sk3-10acquisition.loan.midPeninsula.housing.res.doc AQUISITION LOAN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND MID-PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION March 2004 Exhibit "A" 000001 TABLE OF CONTENTS ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................... 2 1.1 "AGENCY". ............................................................................................................. 2 1.2 "BORROWER". ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3 "BUDGET". ............................................................................................................. 2 1.4 "DEVELOPMENT". ................................................................................................... 2 1.5 "ELIGIBLE COSTS". ................................................................................................. 2 1.6 "LOAN". ................................................................................................................. 2 1.7 "LOAN AGREEMENT". ............................................................................................ 2 1.8 "NOTE". .................................................................................................................. 2 1.9 "PROPERTY". .......................................................................................................... 2 ARTICLE 2. TERMS OF LOAN ................................................................................... 2 2.1 LOAN ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 AMOUNT OF LOAN .................................................................................................. 3 2.3 TERM OF LOAN ....................................................................................................... 3 2.4 USEOFFUNDS ........................................................................................................ 3 2.5 PREPAYMENT OF LOAN ........................................................................................... 3 ARTICLE 3. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES ........................................................................ 3 3.1 ACOUISITION ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 3 3..9 AGENCY OVERSIGHT .............................................................................................. 3 ARTICLE 4. LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND EARLY TERMINATION ................ 3 ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 4.1 EARLY TERMINATION OF LOAN AGREEMENT. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. ARTICLE 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE .......................................................... 4 5.1 INSURANCE COVERAGE .......................................................................................... 4 5.2 NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS ...................................... 5 5.3 INDEMNITY ............................................................................................................. 5 ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT ................................................................................................. 5 6.1 BORROWER'S EVENTS OF DEFAULT ....................................................................... 5 6.2 NOTICE OF BORROWER'S DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE .......................... 5 6.3 AGENCY'S REMEDIES ............................................................................................. 5 6.4 NOTICE OF AGENCY'S DEFAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE ............................... 6 6.5 BORROWER'S REMEDIES ........................................................................................ 6 ARTICLE 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS ....................................................................... 6 7.1 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ......................................................................................... 6 7.2 BORROWER'S RECORDS .......................................................................................... 6 7.3 NONDISCRIMINATION ............................................................................................. 6 7.4 POLITICAL ACTIVITY .............................................................................................. 7 7.5 TERM OF THIS LOAN AGREEMENT .......................................................................... 7 00000© 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 GOVERNING LAW ................................................................................................... 7 ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS .................................................................................. 7 TIME OF THE ESSENCE ............................................................................................ 7 CONSENTS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................... 7 NOTICES, DEMANDS AND COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................... 7 BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS .................................................................................. 7 RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES ..................................................................................... 8 ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION ............................................................................. 8 WAIVER .................................................................................................................. 8 INTEGRATION ......................................................................................................... 8 AMENDMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS ...................................................................... 8 SEVERABILITY ........................................................................................................ 8 0000O3 ACQUISITION LOAN AGREEMENT This Acquisition Loan Agreement ("Loan Agreement") is entered into this day of ,2004 by and between the REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a public body corporate and politic ("Agency"), and MID-PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation ("Borrower"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Agency wishes to promote the development of affordable family rental housing in the South San Francisco community and to provide a greater choice of housing opportunities for persons and families of low income; and WHEREAS, the Borrower proposes to acquire certain real property located at 950 Linden Avenue in South San Francisco herein by reference (the "Property") to develop approximately 43 units of rental housing affordable to low income households (the "Development"); and WHEREAS, the Borrower intends to acquire the Property with a combination of Agency and County funds; and WHEREAS, the borrower wishes to borrow from the Agency and the Agency wishes to loan to the Borrower funds to support the Borrower's acquisition of the "Property", which property shall only be used to develop affordable rental housing; and WHEREAS, the Agency intends to make the loan from tax increment revenue received by the Agency for the purpose of increasing and improving the supply of low and moderate income housing pursuant to Section 3334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual agreements, obligations, and representations, and in further consideration for the making of the Loan, the Borrower and the Agency hereby agree as follows: 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 0000O4 ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS The following terms have the meanings and content set forth in this section wherever used in this Loan Agreement, attached Exhibits, or documents incorporated into this Loan Agreement by reference. 1.1 "Agency" means the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, a public body corporate and politic, and its authorized representatives, officers, officials, directors, employees, and agents. 1.2 "Borrower" means the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a California nonprofit corporation, and its authorized representatives, assigns, transferees, or successors-in-interest thereto. 1.3 "Budget" means that budget for the acquisition activities for the Development attached as Exhibit A, incorporated herein by reference. 1.4 "Development" is the acquisition of the Property and the construction of approximately 43 units of rental housing affordable to low-income households. 1.5 "Eligible Costs" means all costs incurred by or paid by the Borrower in preparing purchase and sale documents, escrow instruction and other acquisition activities, as more specifically described in the Budget. 1.6 "Loan" means the loan of funds provided by the Agency to the Borrower pursuant to this Loan Agreement. 1.7 "Loan Agreement" means this loan agreement entered into between the Agency and the Borrower. 1.8 "Note" is that unsecured promissory note executed by the Borrower in favor of the Agency evidencing the Loan in an amount not to exceed One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000), a form of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 1.9 "Property" means that certain real property described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. ARTICLE 2. TERMS OF LOAN 2.1 Loan. The Agency agrees to provide a loan of funds to the Borrower under the terms and conditions of this Loan Agreement (the "Loan"). This Loan Agreement shall be recorded and serve as an encumbrance against the Property until such time as the Agreement has been fully performed or terminated in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition- Acquisition Loan 2.2 Amount of Loan. On and subject to the terms and conditions of this Loan Agreement, the Agency agrees to make and the Borrower agrees to accept a Loan in an amount not to exceed One Million Nine Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,900,000) evidenced by the Note. The Loan shall bear simple interest at the rate of three percent (3%) per annum on the principal amount outstanding from the date of Certificate of Occupancy for proposed housing development until paid, which interest shall be deferred and shall accrue for the term of the Loan. If no Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the proposed project, interest shall accrue from March 10, 2004. 2.3 Term of Loan. Subject to the provisions in Section 4.2 below, the principal of the Loan and all accrued interest thereon shall be due and payable on the earliest of (a) forty (40) years from the date of the Note or (b) an Event of Default by the Borrower which has not been cured as provided for in this Loan Agreement. 2.4 Use of Funds. Loan proceeds may be used only for the Land Acquisition and in the amount specified in the Budget, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Agency. Borrower must commence development of the site, including obtaining any governmental approvals within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement. Failure to commence development and subsequently complete construction of the proposed affordable housing project shall constitute a material default of this Agreement 2.5 Prepayment of Loan. No prepayment penalty will be charged to the borrower for payment prior to the end of the Loan term described herein, of all or any portion of the unpaid Loan principal and accrued interest. ARTICLE 3. SCOPE OF ACTIVITIES 3.1 Acquisition of Site. The Borrower shall close escrow and acquire title to the property within ninety days (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The Borrower shall conduct environmental assessments and complete all due diligence activities prior to accepting title to the Property. Agency shall have the fight to review and any all reports prepared for or on behalf of Borrower to ensure adequate collateral for the security of this Loan Agreement. 3.2 Agency Oversight. The Borrower shall meet either in person or on the telephone with the Agency on a periodic basis but not less than once every two weeks to discuss the progress of the acquisition activities for the Development. ARTICLE 4. LOAN DISBURSEMENT AND EARLY TERMINATION 4.1 Funds authorized under this Agreement shall be wired into an escrow account established by Borrower for the purpose of acquiring the site. 4.2 Early Termination of Loan Agreement. If either the Agency or the Borrower decides that the development of the Property is not feasible, then upon ten (10) 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan days advance written notice given to the other party, this Loan Agreement shall terminate and the Borrower shall assign to the Agency and the Agency shall assume from the Borrower all of the Borrower's rights and obligations, up to the amounts specified in the Budget, under any contracts and government approvals related to the acquisition activities contemplated herein. The Borrower shall provide the Agency with all products prepared for the Development pursuant to this Loan Agreement, subject to the permission of Borrower's consultant(s), if such permission is required. If Agency assume title to the Property free and clear of all encumbrances as a result of the termination of this Agreement, Agency shall forgive all principal and interest under the Loan and cancel the Note. The Borrower shall not be obligated to repay the Agency for any costs and expenses which may have been incurred by the Agency pursuant to this Loan Agreement, including but not limited to, any repayment under the Note. 4.3 Agency and Borrower anticipate that a subsequent agreement will be negotiated with the County of San Mateo and entered into on or before September 15, 2004. The subsequent agreement shall address repayment of funds loaned to Borrower and development of the property. Additionally, the subsequent agreement shall include provisions for the payment to Agency of the funds loaned under this Agreement. Borrower shall execute a Promissory Note ("Note") attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, in favor of the Agency, which shall incorporate the funds disbursed and allocated under this Loan Agreement. 4.4 This Loan Agreement and the obligations imposed herein shall be secured by a First Deed of Trust, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D, in the name of and on behalf of the Agency as beneficiary. Agency shall have a superior position on such Deed of Trust until the funds have been fully repaid or this Loan Agreement terminated in accordance with the provisions set forth herein. Agency may, in its sole and complete discretion, consent to subordinate its first position on the Deed of trust in a writing executed by its Executive Director ARTICLE 5. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 5.1 Insurance Coverage. The Borrower shall maintain in full force and effect during the term of the Loan, public liability insurance to protect against loss from liability for property damage or bodily injury, including death therefrom, suffered by any person or persons, resulting directly or indirectly from any acts of the Borrower. Such property damage and bodily injury insurance shall also provide for and protect the Agency against incurring any legal cost in defending claims for alleged loss. Such bodily injury and property damage insurance shall name the Agency as an additional insured and shall be in the following amounts: a general aggregate amount of not less than One Million dollars ($1,000,000.00); not less than five Hundred Thousand dollars ($500,000.00) of bodily injury and property damage insurance; provided, however, the limitation on the amount of insurance shall not limit the responsibility of the Borrower to indemnify the Agency or pay damages on account of injury to persons or property resulting from the Borrower's activities or the activities of Borrower's contractors or subcontractors. 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 000007 5.2 Non-Liability of Officers, Employees, and A~ents. No officer, employee, or agent of the Agency shall be held personally liable to the Borrower for any obligation created under the terms of this Loan Agreement except in the case of actual fraud or willful misconduct by such person. 5.3 Indemnity. Except for the negligence or willful misconduct of the Agency, the Borrower undertakes and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Agency from and against all suits and causes of action, claims, losses, demands and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorney fees and costs of litigation, damage or liability of any nature whatsoever, arising in any manner by reason of or incident to the performance of this Loan Agreement on the part of the Borrower or any contractor or subcontractor of the Borrower, whether or not contributed to by an act or omission of the Agency. ARTICLE 6. DEFAULT 6.1 Borrower's Events of Default. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute a "Borrower's Event of Default" under this Loan Agreement: A. Borrower fails to pay when due any sums payable under the Note or any advances made by the Agency under this Loan Agreement; and B. Borrower fails to obtain and maintain the insurance coverage required under this Loan Agreement. C. Borrower fails to obtain construction financing. D. Borrower fails to obtain entitlements to construct the proposed affordable housing project on the Property. E. Borrower fails to complete construction of the proposed project and/or obtain Certificates of Occupancy for all proposed affordable units. 6.2 Notice of Borrower's Default and Opportunity to Cure. The Agency shall give written notice to the Borrower of any Borrower's Event of Default by specifying: (a) the nature of the event or deficiency giving rise to the default, (b) the action required to cure the default, if an action to cure is possible, and (c) a date, which shall not be less than 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the notice or the date the notice was refused, by which such action to cure must be taken, or if a cure cannot be accomplished in thirty (30) days a reasonable time thereafter. 6.3 Agency's Remedies. Upon the happening of a Borrower's Event of Default and a failure to cure said default within the time specified in the notice from Agency, the Agency's obligation to disburse Loan proceeds shall terminate and the Agency may proceed with any or all of the following remedies in any order or combination the Agency may choose in its sole discretion: 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 000008 A. Terminate this Loan Agreement, in which event the entire unpaid principal amount of the Loan and all accrued interest shall immediately become due and payable at the option of the Agency and Agency shall take title to the Property pursuant to that certain Deed of Trust dated ,2004; B. Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity. 6.4 Notice of Agency's Default and Opportunity to Cure. The Borrower shall give written notice to the Agency of any Agency's Event of Default by specifying: (a) the nature of the event or deficiency giving rise to the default, (b) the action required to cure the default, if an action to cure is possible, and (c) a date, which shall not be less than 30 calendar days from the date of receipt of the notice or the date the notice was refused, by which such action to cure must be taken, or if a cure cannot be accomplished in thirty (30) days a reasonable time thereafter. 6.5 Borrower's Remedies. Upon the happening of an Agency's Event of Default and a failure to cure said default within the time specified in the notice from the Borrower, the Borrower may: A. Demand payment from the Agency of any sums due the Borrower; and/or B. Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity. ARTICLE 7. GENERAL PROVISIONS 7.1 Conflicts of Interest. No member, official or employee of the Agency shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in this Loan Agreement nor shall any such member, official or employee participate in any decision relating to the Loan Agreement which affects his or her personal interests or the interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which he or she is, directly or indirectly, interested. 7.2 Borrower's Records. The Borrower shall be accountable to the Agency for all funds disbursed to the Borrower pursuant to this Loan Agreement. The Borrower agrees to maintain records that accurately and fully show the date, amount, purpose, and payee of all expenditures drawn from Loan funds, and to keep all invoices, receipts, and other documents related to expenditures from said Loan funds for not less than three years after completion of the Development. 7.3 Nondiscrimination. The Borrower shall not discriminate or segregate in the development, construction, use, enjoyment, occupancy, conveyance, lease, sublease, or rental of any part of the Property on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, sexual preference, age, marital status, family status, source of income, physical or mental disability, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS- related conditions, or any other arbitrary basis. The Borrower shall otherwise comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws concerning discrimination in housing. 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 000009 7.4 Political Activity. None of the funds, materials, property or services contributed by the Agency or the Borrower under this Loan Agreement shall be used for any partisan political activity or the election or defeat of any candidate for public office. 7.5 Term of This Loan Agreement. This Loan Agreement shall commence on the date first set forth above and remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the Loan. 7.6 Governing Law. This Loan Agreement shall be interpreted under and be governed by the laws of the State of California. 7.7 Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event any legal or administrative action is commenced to enforce the terms of this Loan Agreement, the prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to recover all reasonable attorney fees and costs. 7.8 Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Loan Agreement. 7.9 Consents and Approvals. Any consent or approval of the Agency or the Borrower required under this Loan Agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. Any approval required under this Loan Agreement shall be in writing and executed by an authorized representative of the party granting such approval. 7.10 Notices, Demands and Communications. Notices required by this Loan Agreement shall be sufficiently given and shall not be deemed given unless dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the principal office of the Borrower and the Agency as follows: If to Agency: Redevelopment Agency of South San Francisco 400 Grand Ave. P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, Ca. 94083 Attn: City Clerk If to Borrower: Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition 658 Bair Island Road, Suite 300 Redwood City, CA 94063 Attn: Fran Wag,staff 7.11 Binding Upon Successors. All provisions of this Loan Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors-in-interest, transferees, and assigns of each of the parties; provided, however that this section does not waive the prohibition on assignment of this Loan Agreement by the Borrower without the Agency's consent. 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 000010 7.12 Relationship of Parties. The relationship of the Borrower and the Agency is and at all times shall remain solely that of a debtor and a creditor, and shall not be construed as a joint venture, equity venture, or partnership. The Agency neither undertakes nor assumes any responsibility or duty to the Borrower (except as provided for herein) or any third party with respect to the Development, the Property, or the Loan. Except as the Agency may specify in writing, the Borrower shall have no authority to act as an agent of the Agency or to bind the Agency to any obligation. 7.13 Assignment and Assumption. Other than to an affiliate of the Borrower or to a partnership of which an affiliate of the Borrower is the general partner, the Borrower shall not assign any of its interests under this Loan Agreement to any other party without the prior written consent of the Agency. Any unauthorized assignment shall be void ab initio. 7.14 Waiver. Any waiver by the Agency or the Borrower of any obligation in this Loan Agreement must be in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the Agency to take action on any breach or default of the Borrower or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Loan Agreement or under applicable law. Any extension of time granted to the Borrower to perform any obligation under the Loan Agreement or Note shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations. Consent by the Agency to any act or omission by the Borrower shall not be construed to be a consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the Agency's written consent to future waivers. 7.15 Integration. This Loan Agreement, including exhibits, contains the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous written and oral understandings. 7.16 Amendments and Modifications. Any amendments or modifications to this Loan Agreement must be in writing, and shall be effective only if executed by both the Borrower and the Agency. 7.17 Severabilitv. Every provision of this Loan Agreement is intended to be severable. If any provision of this Loan Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 0O0011 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Loan Agreement as of the date first above written. AGENCY: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BORROWER: MID-PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION By: Michael A. Wilson, Executive Director By: Approved as to form: By: Agency Counsel Attest: By: Agency Secretary 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition - Acquisition Loan 0 0 0 0 J_ 2 EXHIBIT B PROMISSORY NOTE $1,900,000.00 South San Francisco, California March ,2004 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a California nonprofit corporation, ("Borrower"), promises to pay to the order of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco ("Agency"), at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94083, or at such other place as may be designated in writing by the holder, the principal sum of $1,900,000.00, together with interest in arrears from the date hereof on the unpaid principal balance, at the rate of four percent (3%) per annum. 1. Principal shall be payable in equal annual installments based on residual receipts of housing development commencing on the first day of the fiscal year following the first year of stabilized operations of the Development or upon issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy as described in that certain Loan Agreement between Agency and Borrower dated March 10,, 2004 ("Loan Agreement") and continuing on the same day of each year thereafter until and including the year 2044. Payment of interest accrued shall be deferred until the date this Note matures, which shall be the 20th anniversary of the date of this Note ("Maturity Date") except as otherwise modified by the Loan Agreement. The remaining unpaid principal, together with any accrued interest, shall be due and payable in full on the Maturity Date, if not already paid. Provided, that any such payments shall be made only to the extent that funds are available from the net revenue generated by the Development referenced herein above, after payment of operating expenses and debt service on more senior obligations ("Residual Receipts"). 2. All payments under this Note shall be in lawful money of the United States. 3. In no event shall the interest and other charges in the nature of interest hereunder, if any, exceed the maximum amount of interest permitted by law. Any amount collected in excess of the maximum legal rate shall be applied to reduce the principal balance. 4. All payments under this Note shall be applied first to late fees and costs, if any, second to interest then due, if any, and the balance to principal. 5. The Borrower agrees to pay to the holder alt costs, expenses and reasonable attorney's fees incurred in the collection of sums due hereunder, whether through legal proceedings or otherwise, to the extent permitted by law. 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition- Acquisition Loan 0 0 0 0 1 3 6. This Note may be prepaid at any time, in whole or in part, without penalty or premium. 7. At the option of the holder, this entire Note shall become immediately due and payable, without demand or notice, upon the occurrence of any one of the following events: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) failure of the Borrower to pay any installment hereunder when due, which shall continue for 30 days, provided that Residual Receipts are available to pay said installment; Borrower's failure to obtain and maintain the insurance required in the Loan Agreement; insolvency or failure of Borrower or any guarantor to generally pay its debts as they become due; assignment for the benefit of creditors of, or appointment of a receiver or other officer for, all or any part of Borrower's or any guarantor's property; or adjudication of bankruptcy, or filing of a petition under any bankruptcy or debtor's relief law by or against Borrower or any guarantor. 8. The Borrower expressly waives presentment, demand, notice, protest, and all other demands and notices in connection with this Note. No renewal or extension of this Note, nor release of any collateral or party liable hereunder, will release the liability of Borrower. 9. Failure of the holder to exercise any right or option shall not constitute a waiver, nor shall it be a bar to the exercise of any right or option at any future time. 10. If any provision of this Note shall be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 11. This Note shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and recorded against the Property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Promissory Note is executed on the day and year first above written. BORROWER: MiD-PENINSULA HOUSING COALITION By: 3/5/04 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition- Acquisition Loan Note: Deed of Trust for 950 Linden Avenue will be distributed March 10, 2004 Redevelopment Agency meeting. 00001.5 0OO016 'EXHIBIT "$" SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, California 94083 Ml INICIPAI, SERVIC1,;S 131 IIIJDIN(; CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY ROOM 33 ARROYO DRIVE MARCH 10, 2004 7:05 P.M. 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, the 10"' day of March, 2004, at 7:05 p.m., in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Purpose of the meeting: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call o Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda Closed Session: a) Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.95, liability claims Claimant: James Palmer; Agency claimed against: City of South San Francisco b) Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, labor negotiations with the City Manager Adjoumment City/Clerk AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM MARCH 10, 2004 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. KARYL MATSUMOTO Mayor RAYMOND L. GREEN Vice Mayor JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman RICHARD A GARBARINO, SR. Councilman PEDRO GONZALEZ Councilman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk MICHAEL A. WILSON City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE TURN OFF CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS Proclamation - American Red Cross Month, March 2004 · Neighbors Helping Neighbors-Foster Care Program - Ed Ward and Gary Beasley, Human Services Agency · Summer Camp 2004 - Kelli Cullinan, Recreation and Community Services Supervisor AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports · Appointments to Council Subcommittees and Council representatives to Conference Center Authority CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of February 25, 2004 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of March 10, 2004 3. Motion to accept the FY 2002-03 Street Slurry Seal Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications 4. Motion to accept the Westborough Boulevard Resurfacing Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications 5. Resolution awarding engineering contract for the Oak Avenue Extension Project to CCS Planning & Engineering in the amount of $480,336 6. Resolution awarding construction contract to Mike Brown Electric Co. for the Opticom System Installation Project in the amount of $25,365 7. Resolution awarding construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Co. for the 2003-04 Street Dig-outs Program in the amount of $159,159.59 8. Acknowledgement of proclamations issued: Retirees Leo Tealdi, Mike Devan and Marge Vidak, 3/5/04 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Consideration of Transportation Expenditure Plan for the Continuation of Measure A 10. Resolution approving the project budget for the East of Highway 101 sewer improvements Wet Weather Program Phase 4, in the amount of $15,000,000, and awarding contract to Wilsey & Ham in the amount of $1,328,138 11. Resolution approving amendment to employment agreement with City Manager LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS 12. Amendments to Redevelopment Area Plans - waive reading and introduce ordinances: a) amending certain time limitations with respect to the effectiveness of plan activities and the repayment of debt in the Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown and E1 Camino Redevelopment Plans b) amending the limitation for incurrence of debt in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan c) amending the limitation for incurrence of debt in the Shearwater Redevelopment Plan 13. Resolution designating a survey area for amendment of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area (Oyster Point Marina) COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 10, 2004 AGENDA PAGE 3 Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM #3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 10, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works 2002 - 2003 STREET SLURRY SEAL PROJECT, ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0202, PROJECT NO. ST-02-5, BID NO. 2331 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the 2002 - 2003 Street Slurry Seal Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project involved the installation of asphalt concrete slurry seal and related pavement striping on the following streets: Item No Street Name Beginning End Treatment 1 Derry Way Gellert Blvd. Gellert Blvd. Slurry Seal 2 Devlin Way Gellert Blvd. Gellert Blvd. Slurry Seal 3 Tara Lane Oakmont Avenue Galway Place Slurry Seal 4 Duval Drive Arlington Drive Arlington Drive Slurry Seal 5 Lamonte Drive Newman Drive Keoncrest Drive Slurry Seal 6 Theresa Drive Romney Avenue Lacrosse Avenue Slurry Seal 7 Zita Drive Romney Avenue Lacrosse Avenue Slurry Seal 8 Delbrook Avenue Crestwood Drive Morningside Avenue Slurry Seal 9 Sequoia Avenue Baywood Avenue Miller Avenue Slurry Seal 10 Aspen Avenue Maple Avenue Cypress Avenue Slurry Seal 11 Pine Avenue Maple Avenue Airport Blvd. Slurry Seal 12 Lux Avenue Maple Avenue Spruce Avenue Slurry Seal 13 Grand Avenue Airport Boulevard Maple Avenue Slurry Seal 14 Grand Avenue Maple Avenue Spruce Avenue Slurry Seal 15 Hill Avenue Fairway Drive Southwood Drive Slurry Seal Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 2002 - 2003 Street Slurry Seal Project Project No. ST-02-5, Bid No. 2331 March 10, 2004 Page: 2 of 3 Item No Street Name Beginning End Treatment 16 Haven Avenue Fairway Drive End Slurry Seal 17 Bryce Avenue Haven Avenue End Slurry Seal 18 Lassen Street Ponderosa Road Bryce Avenue Slurry Seal 19 Wildwood Drive Rosewood Drive Briarwood Drive Slurry Seal 20 Springwood Drive Wildwood Drive Rockwood Drive Slurry Seal 21 Sherwood Drive Wildwood Drive Rockwood Drive Slurry Seal 22 Mosswood Drive Brentwood Drive End Slurry Seal 23 RavenwoodWay Rockwood Drive End Slurry Seal 24 Pine Terrace Lux Avenue Maple Avenue Slurry Seal After consultation with the Public Works Maintenance Division and the favorable bid received by the City, staff added the following streets to the contract: Item No Street Name Beginning End Treatment 25 Lux Avenue Spruce Avenue Cypress Avenue Slurry Seal 17 Wexford Avenue Shannon Drive Gellert Blvd. Slurry Seal 18 Huntington Avenue South Spruce Ave City Limits Slurry Seal The project has been inspected by City staff and completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period, which takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bond and retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. The following is the actual construction cost breakdown: Original Contract Add Change Orders for additional streets and additional striping Actual Construction Cost $ 94,133.21 $ 23,447.15 $117,580.36 Staff Report ro~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 2002 - 2003 Street Slurry Seal Project Project No. ST-02-5, Bid No. 2331 March 10, 2004 Page: 3 of 3 Total funding for this project is $131,384.00 and is reflected in the City of South San Francisco's Capital Improvement Program 2002-03 (CIP/51-13231-0202). Sufficient funds are available for this project. Director of Public Works "-Wlichael A. Wilsm( City Manager RD/JG/ed ' Staff _Report AGENDA ITEM #4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 10, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works WESTBOROUGH BOULEVARD RESURFACING PROJECT, FEDERAL PROJECT NO. STPL-5177(016) - ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0202, PROJECT NO. ST-03-2, BID NO. 2336 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, accept the Westborough Boulevard Resurfacing Project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This project constructed new asphalt pavement overlay, asphalt base failure repairs, new traffic loop detectors, and all new related striping on Westborough Boulevard (between Junipero Serra Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard). The project has been inspected by City staff and completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The project has a one-year warranty period that takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bond and retention at the end of the thirty-day lien period. The following is the actual construction cost breakdown: Original Contract - Add Change Orders for new root barriers, pavement grinding & off-hauls, & additional striping - Actual Construction Cost - $ 571,675.00 $ 13,492.71 $ 585,167.71 Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Westborough Boulevard Resurfacing Project March 10, 2004 Page: 2 of 2 The following is the cost breakdown of the project budget: STIP TEA-21 Grant Fund: TDA Article 3 Grant Fund Westborough Water & Sanitary District Gas Tax Fund $ 444,000.00 $ 16,250.00 $ 9,84O.OO $ 115,077.71 Total Available $ 585,167.71 After project acceptance, staff will invoice the State Local Assistance Office for the STIP TEA-21 grant fund in the amount of 444,000.00, the State TDA Article 3 grant fund in the amount of $16,250.00, and Westborough Water and Sanitary District in the amount of $9,840.00. Total funding for this project is $657,425.00 and is reflected in the City of South San Francisco's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Sufficient funds are available for this project. Director of Pul~li-~ Works ~,~l~li/chael A. Wils n~..._ City Manager ATTACHMENT: Location Map RD/JG/ed WEST~I]ROUCiH ~I]ULEVARI:I LDCATI[1N MAP i.i LFqCAT~UN StaffReport DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM #5 March 10, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works OAK AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT ENGINEERING FILE ST-02-6, PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0301 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution to award the engineering contract for the Oak Ave Extension Project to TY Lin International/CCS Planning & Engineering in the amount of $480,336.00. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Requests for proposals were sent out in early June 2003 to approximately ten engineering firms and seven firms responded with proposals by August 15, 2003. After reviewing all proposals and meeting with several of the design firms, TY Lin International/CCS Planning & Engineering was chosen as the best suited to undertake the design function for the Oak Avenue Extension Project. The primary task of this project is to extend Oak Avenue from Mission Road to E1 Camino Real. The project will also widen the existing Oak Avenue to the full right-of-way and provide median in the middle of the road to be landscaped and install a new traffic signal at Arroyo Drive/Camaritas Avenue. The developed Scope of Services includes Environmental Impact Report, geotechnical investigation, preparation of design drawings, technical specifications and construction cost estimate. FUNDING: The funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51- 13231-0301 ) in the amount of $780,000.00 in the Streets fund with a total project cost of $3,000,000. BY:joh~ ~ Director of Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Map RTIadJG/ed Appr°ved c~hael A~.. W~ilso~~ ~:~° City Manager RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR THE OAK AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT TO TY LIN INTERNATIONAL/CCS PLANNING & ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF $480,336 WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the engineering contract for the Oak Avenue Extension Project to the lowest responsible bidder, TY Lin International/CCS Planning & Engineering in the amount of $480,336; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the engineering contract for the Oak Avenue Extension Project to TY Lin International/CCS Planning & Engineering in the amount of $480,336. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\3-10oak.ave.extension.proj.res.doc .Y { Staff Report AGENDA ITEM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 10, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works OPTICOM SYSTEM INSTALLATION PROJECT ENGINEERING FILE TR-02-1, PROJECT NO. 51-13231-0208, BID NO. 2324 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract to Mike Brown Electric Co., in the amount of $25,365.00 for the Opticom System Installation Project. Mike Brown Electric Co., was given the opportunity to withdraw their bid, but decided to go ahead with the construction contract so their bond rating would not suffer and to maintain a good working relationship with the City of South San Francisco for future contracts. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: This project will provide Opticom (Emergency Vehicle Preempt) detector units at 15 intersections associated with the Gateway Assessment District. The new Opticom System will significantly improve response time for emergency vehicles in the affected area. A total of 3 bids for the project were received as follows: CONTRACTOR Mike Brown Electric Co. Cotati, CA Republic Electric Co. Novato, CA Columbia Electric Inc. San Leandro, CA Engineer' s Estimate Staff Report BID AMOUNT $25,365.0O $61,600.00 $69,375.O0 $60,000.00 #6 Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Opticom System Installation Project March 10, 2004 Page: 2 of 2 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Mike Brown Electric Co., and found them to be satisfactory. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Mike Brown Electric Co., in the amount of $25,365.00. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: City Previously Purchased Equipment (Detectors & Emitters)* Construction Contingencies (10%) Construction Inspection/Administration $59,739.93 $25,365.OO $ 2,54O.OO $ 4,ooo.00 Total $ 91,644.93 *Equipment was purchased under previous year CIP (2002-2003) Construction is expected to start the end of April 2004 and be completed by the end of June 2004. FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program (CIP/51-13231-0208) in the amount of $135,000.00. By: John~ Director Approved: , z~ fl' '~tVfic"fiael A~. Wilsdl~ City Manager ATTACHMENTS: RTH/TS/JG/ed Resolution Map RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALI:FORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE OPTICOM SYSTEM INSTALLATION PROJECT TO MIKE BROWN ELECTRIC COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,365 WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding the construction contract for the Opticom System Installation Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Mike Brown Electric Company in the amount of $25,365; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the Opticom System Installation Project to the lowest responsible bidder, Mike Brown Electric Company in the amount of $25,365. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the ~ day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\3-10opficom.system.install.proj.res.doc 6 E. Grand Ave, ~ Gatavmy Blvd. 7 Gateway Blvd. ~ Corporate Dr. 8 601 Gateway !llvd, 11 E. Grand Ave. ~ Dubuque Ave, 12 E. Grand Ave. ~ E. Grand Ave. 13 Airport Bird, ~ linden Ave. 14 Airport Blvd ~ ButJer Ave, 15 Airport Blvd. ~ San Mateo AveJProduce Ave // BY REVISION C;[TY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCTSC0 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 0PTTCON GATEWAY ASSESSMENT DTSTRTCT I DRAWN: KCM APP'D. SCALE: 1':1000' j APPROVED: DATE: 11/19/03 j CHECKED: Staff Report DATE: March 10, 2004 AGENDA ITEM #7 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John Gibbs, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program; Engineering File No. 51-13231-0403; Project No. ST-03-5; BID NO. 2341 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the construction contract for the 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program to the lowest responsive bidder, G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., in the amount of $159,159.59. It is further recommended that the City Council waive the bid requirement listing of the corporate personnel and reject the formal bid protest (see attached) by the second .lowest bidder, Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. Staff evaluated the issues on the protest letter and found that the lowest bid submitted by G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. was responsive and responsible. The list of corporate officers required on the submission of the bid proposal is a minor technicality and waived by staff. Staff also reviewed the bid proposal submitted by Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc., and found the absence of the required signature on the bid proposal, thereby, making the submitted bid unresponsive (see attached) This recommendation has been approved by the City Attorney. BACKGROUND: The program will repair the structural pavement failure and perform crack sealing operations on various City streets. The project's major items of work involve setting up traffic controls, the removal and replacement of severely damaged sections of asphalt concrete pavement, and the installation of the required crack filler to seal major cracks on the existing pavement. The Engineering Division advertised the subject project and opened 12 submitted bids on February 24, 2004. The following are the bid results: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT G. Bortolotto Co., Inc. San Carlos, CA $159,159.59 Staff Report To~ Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program March 10, 2004 Page: 2 of 3 CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. South San Francisco, CA. $186,250.00 MCK Services, Inc. Concord, CA $186,300.00 Union City Construction Fremont, CA. $186,537.50 W.L. Archibald Paving., Inc Redwood City, CA $189,330.00 Galedridge Construction, Inc. Alviso, CA $198,633.00 O'Grady Paving, Inc. Mountain View, CA. $215,035.00 No Fault Asphalt Mountain View, CA. $217,289.00 Granite Rock/Pavex Construction, Company Redwood City, CA. $249,750.00 Esquivel Grading & Paving San Francisco, CA $253,000.00 American Asphalt Hayward, CA $266,644.O0 J.A. Gonsalves & Son Construction, Inc. Napa, CA. $342,450.00 After the bid opening, staff received a formal fax letter from Interstate Grading & Paving Inc., protesting the bid submitted by the low bidder, G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., stating it was unresponsive, irresponsible, and in violation of the California Contract Code. Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council 2003 - 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program March 10, 2004 Page: 3 of 3 As stated above, Staff evaluated the issues on the protest letter and found that the lowest bid submitted by G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. was responsive and responsible. The list of corporate officers required on the submission of the bid proposal is a minor technicality and waived by staff. Staff also reviewed the bid proposal submitted by Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc., and found the absence of the required signature on the bid proposal, thereby, making the submitted bid unresponsive. G. Bortolotto & Co., has worked with the City of South San Francisco on previous projects and performed to the City's satisfaction. Staff has reviewed their qualifications and references and found them to be satisfactory. The time allotted for this project is 30 working days. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc., in the amount of $159,159.59. The following is a cost breakdown for the project budget: Construction Construction Contingency (10%) Administration/Inspection (5%) Total $ 159,159.59 $ 15,900.00 $ 7,5OO.00 $ 182,559.59 This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's 2003 - 2004 Capital Improvement Program (C~). Sufficient funds are available for this project in the amount of $184,000.00. John C Directc r of Public Works Approve t-t_/' ~' -1Vlfchael A. Wil~ City Manager ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Location maps Interstate Grading & Paving Inc. Protest Letter Unsigned Bid Proposal Page by Interstate Grading & Paving Inc. Signed Bid Proposal Page by G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. RD/JG/ed RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AgTARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE 2003-2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM TO THE G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $159,1,59.59 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council award the contract for the 2003- 2004 Streets Dig-outs Program to the lowest responsible bidder, G. Bortolotto & Company Inc., in the amount of $159,159.59; and WHEREAS, funding for this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby waives the bid requirement listing of the corporate personnel and rejects the formal bid protest by the second lowest bidder, Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. Staff evaluated the issues on the protest letter and found that the lowest bid submitted by G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. was responsive and responsible. The list of corporate officers required on the submission of the bid proposal is a minor technicality and can be waived. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards the construction contract for the 2003-2004 Streets Dig-outs Program to the lowest responsible bidder, G. Bortolotto & Company Inc., in the amount of $159,159.59. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: S :\Current Reso's~3-10dig-outs .program.res .doc City Clerk meeting held on the 2003 - 2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM ENGINEERING Fl]bE NO. 51-13231-0403 PROJECT NO. ST-03-5, BID NO. 2341. SPECIAL PROVISIONS Location The work is located in the City of South San Francisco. Locations of asphalt dig-outs project areas and crack sealing project areas are as follows: DIG-OUTS PROJECT AREAS Item Street Name Beginning End Treatment No 1 Newman Dr King Dr Alta Mesa Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 2 Alta Mesa Dr Newman Dr Intersection 6-inch AC Dig-outs 3 Sunnyside Dr Miller Ave (West) Forestview Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 4 Sunnyside Dr Holly Ave Forestview Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 5 Emerald Court Sunnyside Dr End 6-inch AC Dig-outs 6 Orange Ave. Grand Ave Miller Ave 6-inch AC Dig-outs 7 Orange Ave Park Way Miller Ave 6-inch AC Dig-outs 8 Brunswick Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 9 Savannah Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs l0 Kent Way Greenda~e Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs ll Kent Way Greendale Dr King Dr 6-inch AC Dig-outs 12 Baldwin Hills Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 13 Bassett Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 14 Gilbert Ct Greendale Dr End of Street. 6-inchAC Dig-outs 15 Stein Ct Greendale Dr King Dr 6-inchAC Dig-outs 16 Rowntree Way Radburn Dr. Gellert Blvd. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 17 Longford Dr Hickey BIvd Clay Ave. 6-inch AC Dig-outs 18 Clay Ave Juniperro Serra Blvd Longford Dr 6-tach AC Dig-outs 19 Clay Ave Longford Dr Clay Park (End) 6-inchAC Dig-outs 17 FEB.~4.~004 6:~SPM IMTERST~TE ~R~DIM~ P~VIM~ MO.?O~ INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING, INC. Cont. Lic. No, $68020 February 24, 2004 City of South San Francisco Engineering Division Attn: Mr. Raul DaCanay 315 Maple Avenue South San Francisco, CA, 94080 FAX: (650) 829-6689 RE: 2003-2004 Streets Dig.Outs Program, Project No. ST-03-5, Bid No. 2341 Sub: Formal protest of Iow bid received by The City of South San Francisco Dear Mr, DaCanay: We respectfully submit this Formal Bid Pretest as per California Contract Code, On 02/24/04, the City of South San Francisco received 12 bids for the 2003-2004 Streets Dig-Outs Program project. We are protesting the unresponsive, and possibly irresponsible bid of G, Bortolotto & Co,, Inc., for the following reasons; Unresponsive 1. Bid Schedule, Page 2, paragraph 2, as stated, "If a corporation, state the' legal name of the corporation and the names of the president, secretary, treasurer and manager thereof." The bid proposal submitted by G..Bortolotto & Co,, Inc. is deemed unresponsive through their failure to properly list and provide the names of officers other than the president as required in the project bid proposal. 2, Failure to do so is not a minor omission that can be overlooked or waived. This is a specific stated instruction listed in the bid form arid adherence to such instructions should be held highly by the City to maintain the integrity of their bid process on all contracts. Irresj~_onsible 1. G. Bortolotto & Co,, Inc, submitted a bid substantially lower, seventeen percent (17%), than any other bid amount. The closest bid to G, Bortolloto was submitted by our firm at an amount of $27,090.41 more, Coincidentally, three bids were submitted within $287.50 of each other, indicating as such the true value of the work as shown with industry standard pricing, Furthermore, the field average of bids submitted for this project is $220,864, or approximately $61,705.25 and 39% higher than G, Bertolotto's bid amount. 2, Discrepancies in bid amounts such as these cannot be overlooked. It can be said without reason that such a bid, substantially lower than the industry standard, could put the City at risk from the lack of performance by this contractor. 128 SOUTH MAPLE AVENUE ' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080-8S02 · (650) 952-733.3 · FAX (6.~0) 952-6851 FEB.~4.~004 6:~SPM IMTERSTRTE GRRDIMG PRVIMG M0.705 P.~?~ Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. February 24, 2004 Page 2 of 2 To summarize, Interstate Grading & Paving's bid was responsive and responsible, The G. Bortolloto & Co., Inc. bid should be rejected due to the serious unresponsiveness alone· Interstate Grading & Paving Inc,, should be deemed the lowest responsive and responsible bidder and therefore be awarded this project. Please feel frae to call if we can be of assistance and/or please call when you have made a decision. Very truly yours, INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. cc: G. Bortolotto & Col, Inc. A, Robed Rosin, Esq. FAX: (650) 595-0718 022404 protest PROPOSAL 2003 - 2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0403 PROJECT NO. ST-03-5 BID NO. 2341 BID SCHEDULE Furnish and install asphalt overlay complete, in place, in accordance with the plan and special provisions at the locations of work shown on the plan. Bid Item 1 Item Description Traffic Control & Posting 6-inch AC Dig-outs/Base 2 Repairs 3 Crack Sealing Unit Estimated Bid Unit Price Bid Total .Quantity LS 1 } 0O, O '- '-' · , o, OO0,'- TN 2,050 LS 1 Total Bid (Bid Items I - 3) CONTRACT TOTAL IN WORDS: O,n? Wu ~rx_cec~ ¢_~ ~i~ 4-N,~ x,%c~ ~rA NOTE: The Bidder's contract tot~ price will be used for bid comparison purposes. Awed will be made upon the lowest contract tot~ price. If Bidder is an individual, so state.~f a firm or pa~nership, state the firm's name and provide the names of all individual pa~ners composing the firm. If a corporation, state the legal name of the co¢oration ~d the names of the president, secret~, treasurer and manager thereo~ Typed or Printed Name & Signature: ~. ~i cBO~ ~&ri~[ ~ Vces~&~ Bidder's Name (Company): '1~~0¢ ¢C~[~ ~ ~-O~Q~_ ~Q. Business Address: Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of Contractors. License .No.' Expiration Date: I\"'~{)'(_DM ~r Check (attacli) in the amount of: t I-')° PROPOSAL 2003 - 2004 STREETS DIG-OUTS PROGRAM ENGINEERING FILE NO. 51-13231-0403 PROJECT NO. ST-03-5 BI]) NO. 2341 BID SCHEDULE Furnish and install asphalt overlay complete, in place, in accordance with the plan and special provisions at the locations of work shown on the plan. Bid Item Description Unit Estimated Bid Unit Price Bid Total Item Quantity 1 Traffic Control & Posting kS 1 I 2 6-inchRepairsAC Dig-outs/Base TN 2,050 '-1")/o~.q''~-° J ~'. ~00 ~'"' 3 Crack Sealing LS 1 lO, OOl .o__J I (~ 00l-°~ Total Bid (Bid Items 1- 3) CONTRACT TOTAL IN WORDS: 0/,.)~ 14t),k$~)(-'Gbr "~£ tk3 il',Je -'~ NOTE: The Bidder's contract total price will be used for bid comparison purposes. /Award will be made upon the lowest contract total price. If Bidder is an individual, so state.¢If a firm or partnership, state the firm's name and provide the names of all individual partners composing the firm. If a corporation, state the legal name of the corporation and the names of the president, secretary, treasurer and manager thereof. Typed or Printed Name & Signature: eoherr aorrol otto, v~-~.~d~,,r~"(~tL-aT~~~ Bidder's Name (Company): Business Address: Telephone Number: i650) 595-2591 G. Bortolotto & Co., Inc. 580 Bragato Road San Carlos, Ca. 94070-6227 FaxNo.: (650) 595-0718 Licensed in accordance with an act providing for the registration of Contractors. License No.' 397341 A Expiration Date: January 31, 2005 Bid Bond or Check (attach) in the amount of: "Bidder ' s Bond" G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, li NC. 580 BRAGATO ROAD SAN CARLOS, CALIFORNIA 94070-6227 (650) 595-2591 - Fax (650) 595-0718 State License #397341 A March 3, 2004 City of So. San Francisco 315 Maple Avemue So. San Francisco, Ca, 94~.80 Atten: Mr. John Gibb Director of Public Worl~ 2002 - 2004 Streets Dig-Outs program Engineering File No. 51-13231-0403 Project No. ST-03-5 Bid No. 234I This latter is to confirm the Officers of G. Bortolotto & Co., ]nc. Robert Bortolotto - Presid.ent/Treasurer Gary Bortolotto - Vice Preside~t/gecretary Incorporated September 25, 1979 Licemse # 397341A Exp. Date Jan. 31, 2005 Many Thanks. Shirley I~. Joseph// Office Manager ~ Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM #9 Date: TO: From: Subject: March 10, 2004 Honorable Mayor and City Council Barry M. Nagel, Assistant City Manager DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR TI-IE CONTINUATION OF MEASURE A RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, provide the C/CAG representative direction regarding the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the continuation of Measure A. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 1988, a sales tax measure (Measure A - 0.5%) was developed and approved by 62 percent of the voters. The City supported the Measure in 1988. Measure A will expire on December 31, 2008. Given the importance of the Measure A funding for Countywide and local transportation, it is important that the sales tax be reauthorized. The Measure A allocation to the City is a key source of funding for maintaining the local streets and roads. The Transportation Authority (TA), as the managing authority for the sales tax, has initiated the continuation of Measure A. There was a call for projects to include in the reauthorization of Measure A in June 2003. A Measure A Technical Advisory Committee consisting of all the Planning Directors and Public Works Directors was created to review the projects and provide technical input on the Measure. This group primarily focused on highways and local streets and roads. Our staff participated in this development process. A special group, consisting of transit professionals was created to review and comment on the transit component of the Measure. After numerous meetings, the technical staff has completed a Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan. This is the collective staff recommendation for the continuation of Measure A. C/CAG and TA staff reviewed the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan in detail with the City Manager and key staff members. The current proposal is for a 20 year term for the Measure. However, depending on the polling it may be increased to 25 or 30 years. Measure A continuation requires a 2/3 vote to pass. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that there must be a broad constituency in order for Measure A continuation to pass. In order to accomplish this, the Measure includes a broad range of projects. While some of the projects may not be that important to some, one must recognize that there is a constituency for which that project is important. Therefore, To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sub: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the continuation of Measure A Dated: March 10, 2004 Page 2 one must look at the Measure from a big picture. If Measure A continuation is reasonable and generally addresses the local issues, it is important to support it. Measure A Continuation Proposal: Measure A continuation is projected to raise $1.2B in current year dollars. An overview of the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan is as follows. Current TAC Funding Program Category Measure A Recommendation (SM) Transit 26% 30% 360 Highways 29% 30% 360 Local Transportation 20% 20% 240 Grade Separations 23% 15 % 180 Pedestrian/Bikes 0 3% 36 TSM/TDM 0.7% 1% 12 Administration up to 1% up to 1% 12 Measure A Benefit: Benefits of Measure A to the City of South San Francisco include: · Provides $18,357,600 in funding for local transportation services/maintenance with total local discretion · Provides funding for local shuttle services · Allows projects identified in the future to be considered for Measure A funding · Funds significant Highway projects to address the major congested areas · Funds significant improvements to Caltrain · Provides local matching funds for state and federal grants Measure A Technical Advisory Committee: A Measure A Technical Advisory Committee, consisting of all the Planning Directors and Public Works Directors, was created to review the projects and provide technical input on the Measure. This group met five times and recommends approval of the Draft Expenditure Plan as presented. To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Sub: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the continuation of Measure A Dated: March 10, 2004 Page 3 Conclusion: This item will be agendized for action at the C/CAG Board Meeting on Thursday, March 11, 2004. Staff is recommending that the City Council provide the C/CAG representative direction regarding the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the continuation of Measure A. · Nagel ( Assistant City Manhge. Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Attachment: Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN San Mateo County Transportation Authority Staff Recommendation February 5, 2004 Transportation Authority DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Summary 2 II. Goals and Objectives 5 III. Expenditure Plan Summary 7 IV. Project Descriptions 10 V. Governing Board/Organization Structure 17 VI. Implementation Guidelines 18 I. SUMMARY Measure A: Effective and Essential The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax, has provided the county with a resource to meet its multi-faceted transportation challenges during the past 16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales-tax funds. Because the measure ends in 2008, its extension is at the heart of the county's ability to continue meeting its growing transportation needs. Growth in employment during the 1990s has placed an added burden on the Highway 101 Bayshore Corridor. Significant progress has been achieved in the corridor through investments in Caltrain and Highway 101 improvements, however, the task is not yet complete. As the economy rebounds and continues to grow, we need to maintain our infrastructure to accommodate the accompanying traffic congestion in commute corridors and on local streets and roads. Continuing traffic growth also has underscored the importance of additional safety measures, particularly grade separations along the Caltrain rail line and dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local transit service, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities,, has become increasingly important in communities throughout the county. The extension of Measure A will provide San Mateo County the resources to continue shaping the transportation program to best meet the needs of the county residents. In nearly 20 years since the drafting of the current Expenditure Plan, the county has seen the emergence of a new set of challenges which must be met if the quality of life in the county is to be preserved. Developing the Next Expenditure Plan The draft Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A began with a blank sheet of paper and was assembled through a process which embraced the many and varied constituencies that make up San Mateo County. The ll-month process included melding technical evaluations with the feedback from the public and elected officials from across the county. The TA provided an important forum for public input into the plan by sponsoring focus groups, three public workshops and hosting more than 30 outreaches to civic organizations, service groups and neighborhood associations. Through this public process, the TA gained perspectives of residents representing both the general public and groups with special needs. The opinions and suggestions heard at these public outreaches were evaluated by professional staff from the TA, cities and local agencies who worked together to recommend a program which addresses both current and anticipated congestion needs. While all projects were considered for the draft Expenditure Plan, every project was not included because the total cost of suggested projects was more than $3.5 billion, while the projected income of an extended Measure A is $1.2 billion. The draft Expenditure Plan reflects three specific projects recommended in public workshops: the Highway 1 bicycle and pedestrian trail from Montara to Half Moon Bay; the Route 35/I-280 pedestrian/bike overcrossing; and the Highway 101/Woodside interchange project. When creating the draft Expenditure Plan, the TA focused on building a balanced plan reflecting the wants and needs of the public combined with the recommendations of engineers and the support of elected officials. Plan Objectives Through the multi-party process in developing the draft Expenditure Plan, a clear set of objectives has emerged. Target key, congested corridors for highway and transit improvements. · Continue to improve connections with regional transportation facilities. · Enhance safety in all aspects of the transportation system. · Meet local mobility needs, especially those of people with mobility impairments. These broad themes have been translated into a balanced plan which provides for the multi-faceted needs of San Mateo County. Specific programs and projects have emerged as components in a countywide strategy. 3 Draft Expenditure Plan Program Categories The draft Expenditure Plan provides for investment in six program categories. Each program category receives a percentage share of sales tax revenues, currently estimated at $1.2 billion (in 2004 dollars) over a 20-year period. Program Category Percent Share 20-Year Revenue 1. Transit 30% $360 Million 2. Highways 30% $360 Million 3. Local Share 20% $240Million 4. Grade Separations 15% $180 Milhon 5. Pedestrian/Bicycle 3% $36 Million 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1% $12 Million Up to one percent of the revenues is allocated for TA administration costs. Further detail on the specific program within each category is provided in the Expenditure Plan Summary and Project Description sections of this plan. Oversight and Administration The implementation of the Expenditure Plan will be the continuing responsibility of the current San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The TA is composed of seven elected officials representing the cities in the county, the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Transit District. The TA will be responsible for developing and updating a strategic plan to guide allocation decisions. The TA will develop the initial strategic plan by December 31, 2005 and prepare and update it at least every five years during the term of the measure. The Citizens Advisory Committee established under the original Measure A will continue to advise the TA. The TA also will work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) on the programming of grant funding for Expenditure Plan programs and projects. 4 II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The programs and projects contained in the draft Expenditure Plan are essential to meeting the mobility requirements of San Mateo County. Four broad goals for the plan are supported by 15 more specific objectives, many of which are reflective of public feedback heard in workshops and outreaches. Taken together these Goals and Objectives are the strategy through which San Mateo County can shape its transportation future. Goal 1. Reduce Commute Corridor Congestion go Improve mass transit serving the county through investments in Caltrain, BART, ferries and local bus and shuttle services. Bo Construct key highway projects which remove bottlenecks in specific congested commute corridors as indicated by engineers and confirmed by public opinion. Co Provide funding for supplemental countywide highway projects determined to be critical for congestion reduction. Implement information technologies to optimize the operational capacity of the transportation system. Provide incentives for employers to continue and expand their financial support for commute alternatives. Goal 2. Make Regional Connections go Improve Caltrain's Baby Bullet service as an alternative to driving on Highway 101 along the Peninsula. Provide San Mateo County's station and route improvements for the Dumbarton rail line connection with Alameda County Evaluate the feasibility of extending BART in the Bayshore Corridor to provide access to employment concentrations east of Highway 101. Do Support San Mateo County's participation in the Water Transit Authority's program for ferry service on San Francisco Bay 5 Goal 3. Enhance Safety A. Continue to construct roadway under and overcrossings (grade separations) along the Caltrain rail line in San Mateo County. B. Provide dedicated paths for bicyclists and pedestrians, separated from street and road traffic. C. Maintain local streets, roads and other transportation facilities in a state of good repair. Goal 4. Meet Local Mobility Needs A. Provide adequate paratransit service for people with mobility impairments through the Redi-Wheels service administered by SamTrans. B. Improve local bus and shuttle services to provide a viable option to the private automobile for local trips, and to meet the needs of transit dependents. C. Provide an assured source of funding to cities for local street and road maintenance and to meet the unique transportation needs of each community. 6 III. EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY The draft Expenditure Plan contains six transportation program categories providing a balanced approach to meeting the mobility needs of San Mateo County. This summary lists the six program categories along with the major projects within each category. The Measure A sales tax funding along with other expected funding is listed, and the estimated cost is in 2004 dollars. 1. Transit Measure A Other Total Funding Funding Cost A. Improve Caltrain service through a $192M $200M $392M combination of capital and operational investments. B. Provide local bus and shuttle services to $48M $48M $96M meet local mobility needs and access to regional transit services. C. Meet the special mobility needs of county $48M $182M $230M residents through the Redi-Wheels service. D. Provide passenger terminal facilities for $24M $6M $30M the Water Transit Authority service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. E. Conduct a feasibility study for the further extension of BART in San Mateo County. $24M -- $24M F. Provide station facilities and $24M $300M $324M enhancements for the Dumbarton rail corridor through East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City. Transit Total $360M $736M $1096M 2. Highways A. Funding for projects in key congested corridors throughout the county. Measure A Other Total Funding Funding Cost $260M $260M $520M B. Funding for additional projects outside the key corridors. $100M -- $100M Highway Total $360M $260M $620M 3. Local Share Annually, 20 percent of the total revenue generated will be allocated to the 20 cities and the county for the improvement of local transportation, including streets and roads. $240M $374M $614M 4. Grade Separations Construction of underpasses and overpasses at key road crossings of the Caltrain rail line. $180M $100M $280M 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle A. Funding for specific projects of countywide significance. $36M $20M $56M 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs Ao Annually, I percent of the total sales tax revenue will be allocated to fund traffic management projects and creative congestion relief programs. $12M $12M $24M Total $1,188 M $1,502M $2,690M 8 Although the draft Expenditure Plan contains projects with inter-county implications, the support of adjacent counties, as outlined in Section 13105(i) of the Government Code, is not recommended because Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties all have approved Transportation Expenditure Plans, which have been coordinated with San Mateo County. 9 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS 1. Transit Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Caltrain Improvements $392 million. Sales tax contribution of $192 million, Federal $100 million and State $100 million. SamTrans Continue the current program to rebuild and upgrade Caltrain. Funding would be provided for San Mateo County's share of the capital cost of the three-county system. Improvements may include conversion of the line from diesel to electric operation. Existing stations may be upgraded along with additional parking. Up to one- half of the available funding may be utilized to support operations. Operating funding shall not be substitute for existing subsidies from other sources. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Local Bus and Shuttle Service $96 million. Sales tax contribution of $48 million. Other public and private $48 million. SamTrans This project sponsored by SamTrans with significant public input would provide matching funding for the operation of local bus and shuttle services. The sales tax funding is to be matched on a dollar- for-dollar basis by other funding, public and/or private. Shuttle priority will be given to services which include a portion of the funding from businesses, employers and other private sector sources. Priority shall also be given to local services which connect with Caltrain, BART and future Ferry Terminals. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Redi-Wheels Service $230 million. Sales tax contribution of $48 million. Other funding of $182 million from existing sources and fare revenues. SamTrans Operating funds of approximately $2.4 million per year to support the increasing need for Redi-Wheels service for the growing population of people with mobility impairments. lo Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: 2. Highways Ferry Terminals for San Mateo Count~ $30 million. Sales tax contribution $24 million. Other funding provided by the local sponsor. San Mateo Harbor District (South San Francisco) and the Port of Redwood City Funding would be provided for terminal facilities to be constructed in South San Francisco and Redwood City. BART Extension Feasibility Evaluation and Local Share of Capital Improvements $24 million, provided from sales tax contribution SamTrans Funding would be provided for the evaluation of extending BART in San Mateo County to serve the Bayshore Corridor and the employment concentrations east of Highway 101. In close cooperation with the local communities, the study shall examine and evaluate the opportunities for transit-oriented development. The study shall also estimate the cost of a BART extension and assess the availability of funding for such costs. Subsequent to the study the sponsors shall determine if further development of the extension is feasible and the appropriate next steps. Funding not required for the evaluation study may be utilized to support capital needs of the existing San Mateo County BART service or may be transferred to other transit improvements upon the recommendation of the project sponsor. Dumbarton Rail Corridor $324 million. Sale tax contribution $24 million. $300 million from bridge tolls and existing sales tax funding in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. SamTrans Funding provided for station facilities and corridor improvements in the communities of Redwood City, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto. Highways is divided into two categories: funding for projects in key congested "hot-spot" areas as designated by city, county and TA engineers and confirmed by public input; and supplemental funding for additional projects outside of the hot-spots. The supplemental category provides funding flexibility to account for changing needs during the 20-year course of the renewed Measure A. 11 Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Highway 280 North Improvements $143 million. Sales tax contribution $71.5 million. STIP $71.5 million. Caltrans, Daly City 1) Reconstruct 1-280/Route 1 Interchange; 2) Construct Auxiliary Lanes from 1-380 to Hickey Blvd. Coastside Highway Improvements $48 million. Sales tax contribution $24 million. State Transportation Improvement Program $24 million. Pacifica, Caltrans 1) Route 92 safety improvements from Pilarcitos Creek to Half Moon Bay; 2) Route 1/San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement; 3) Route 1/Manor Drive overcrossing improvement and widening. Highway 92 Bayside Improvements $100 million. Sales tax contribution $50 million. STIP $50 million. City of San Mateo, Caltrans Auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements between 1-280 and the San Mateo Hayward Bridge. Highway 101 Mid-County Improvements $98 million. Sales tax contribution $49 million. STIP $49 million. Caltrans, .Burlingame, San Mateo 1) Reconstruction of the Highway 101-Broadway Interchange; 2) Reconstruct Highway 101/Peninsula Avenue Interchange; 3) Operational improvements on Highway 101 from Hillsdale to Route 92. Project: Cost: Sponsor: Description: Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Highway 101 South Improvements $134 million. Sales tax contribution $77 million. STIP $77 million. Caltrans 1) Reconstruct the Highway 101/Woodside Road Interchange; 2) Dumbarton Bridge to Highway 101 and Bayfront Expressway connector improvements. County-wide Supplemental Program Sales tax contribution $100 million. Caltrans, Cities and San Mateo County This project provides funding for highway projects in addition to those identified in the hot-spot corridors. Project selection and funding will be determined by the TA Strategic Plan. The TA will 12 create a strategic plan to guide programming of the sales tax. Potential highway projects for ftmding from the Supplemental Program include at least the following: Route 35 (I-280 -Sneath Lane) widening Highway 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Route 92 (State Route 35 - 1-280) truck climbing lane Willow Road adaptive signal control system Highway 101 (Sierra Point Parkway - SF/SM County Line) auxiliary lanes Brisbane- Geneva Avenue extension Daly City- John Daly Blvd./I-280 overcrossing (north side) widening Daly City - 1-280/Route l(northbound) Interchange State Route 84 (Woodside Road to Marsh Road) extension Route 1 in HMB area (Miramontes Road to Capistrano Rd.) improvements Highway 101 Candlestick Point Interchange Highway 101 (Sierra Point Parkway - San Bruno Avenue) auxiliary lanes San Bruno- 1-280fl-380 local access Brisbane- Sierra Point Pkwy Interchange replacement and Lagoon Way extension Foster City- Triton Drive widening Menlo Park- Sand Hill Road signal coordination Redwood City- Woodside Road Widening (Highway 101 to E1 Camino Real) $ 40,000,OO0 77,300,000 58,000,000 2,080,000 3,400,000 62,510,000 9,000,000 36,000,000 57,000,000 34,800,000 47,700,000 26,300,000 13,500,000 30,040,000 710,000 2,O8O,OO0 11,000,000 Total Estimated Cost $511,420,000 3. Local Share Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Local Transportation Needs $614 million. Sales tax contribution $240 million. Local and State sources $374 million. Cities and County of San Mateo Funding for this project category is to be used for the improvement of local transportation including streets and roads. Cities may use funding to: maintain local streets and roads by paving streets and sidewalks and repairing potholes; promote and/or operate alternative modes of transportation which may include funding shuttles or sponsoring carpool, bicycling and pedestrian programs,; and to develop and implement traffic operations and safety projects including signal coordination, bike/pedestrian safety projects, 13 eliminating hazardous conditions or acquiring right-of-way. The annual distribution shall be based 50% on population and 50% on road miles. Funds allocated in this category may not be used to substitute for property tax funds or other revenue sources utilized to fund existing transportation programs. Estimated receipts by City are shown below: Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo South San Francisco Woodside County of San Mateo AllocationPercentage O.01886 0.03543 0.00818 0.04206 0.00299 0.10413 0.03215 0.03364 0.01596 0.03000 0.04851 0.02917 0.05174 0.01488 0.09612 0.05034 0.04271 0.11797 0.07649 0.01683 0.13184 Estimated Funding ~526,400 8,50 200 1,963,200 1~09~400 71Z600 2~991,200 Z716,000 8,073,600 3,830,400 Z20~000 11,64Z400 Z00,800 1Z41Z6O0 3,571,2o0 2~o68,800 12,081,600 10,250,400 28,31Z800 1~35Z6OO ~o39,2o0 31,641,6o0 County Total 1.00000 $240,000,000 14 4. Grade Separations Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Caltrain Grade Separations $280 million. Sales tax contribution $180 million. STIP $100 million. SamTrans, San Mateo County and local cities Provides funding for the construction of overpasses and underpasses of the Caltrain rail line. The eligible locations are listed below. Funds will not be adequate to separate all grade crossings in San Mateo County. The TA, in conjunction with the sponsors, will devise the best plan for grade separations throughout the county and determine the priorities based upon the California Public Utilities Commission formula and the desire of the city involved. PROPOSED GRADE SEPARATIONS City South San Francisco San Bruno San Bruno San Bruno San Bruno Millbrae Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame Burlingame San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Street Linden Avenue Scott Street San Bruno Avenue San Mateo Avenue Angus Avenue Center Street Broadway Oak Grove Avenue North Lane South Lane Howard Avenue Bayswater Avenue Peninsula Avenue Villa Terrace Bellevue Avenue Ist Avenue 2"a Avenue City San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Redwood City Atherton Atherton Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Menlo Park Street 3ra Avenue 4~h Avenue 5th Avenue 9th Avenue 25th Avenue Whipple Avenue Brewster Ave. Broadway Maple Street Main Street Chestnut Street Fair Oaks Lane Watkins Avenue Encinal Avenue Glenwood Ave. Oak Grove Ave. Ravenswood UPGRADE EXISTING SEPARATIONS San Mateo San Mateo Poplar Avenue Santa Inez Avenue San Mateo San Mateo Mt. Diablo Ave. Tilton Avenue 15 Pedestrian and Bicycle Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Dedicated Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities $56 million. Sales tax contribution $36 million. State grant programs $36 million. Cities and County of San Mateo This project category provides funding for the construction of dedicated facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. Eligible projects include paths, trails and bridges over roads and freeways. The TA Strategic Plan will program funding for projects based on its evaluation of proposed projects benefits. The programming for projects shall be updated at least every five years. Examples of possible projects include: Higway 1 pedestrian/bike trail from Montara to Half Moon Bay Route 35/I-280 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Millbrae Avenue/Highway 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Hillcrest Blvd./Highway 101 ped./bike overcrossing to Bay Trail Highway 101 near Hillsdale pedestrian/bike overcrossing Ralston Avenue/Highway 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Willow Road/BayfrontExpressway pedestrian/bike tunnel upgrade Willow Road/Higway 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving Project: Cost: Sponsors: Description: Alternative Congestion Relief Programs $24 million. Sales tax contribution $12 million. $12 milhon from local sources. Cities and San Mateo County Annually, 1% of the total sales tax will be allocated to encourage efficient use of the transportation network through ride sharing, flexible work hours and other commute alternatives. Funding may also be utilized for information systems which facilitate more efficient use of available highway and transit capacities. 16 GOVERNING BOARD/ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE The Transportation Expenditure Plan recommends: A. That the voters authorize the County Transportation Authority to continue administerin§ the funds. The make up of the Authority shall be as follows: Two members of ~e County Board of Supervisors Four representatives selected by the Council of Mayors (one representative from each Judicial Division and one at-large representative). One member of SamTrans (elected city official) selected by SamTrans prior to Council of Mayors selections. All representatives shall be elected officials. B. That the County Transportation Authority be authorized to con~act its administrative duties to the existing county government~ MTC, or other qualified agency. C. That fl~e Citizens Advisory Committee shall continue to advise the county Transportation Aufl~ority on the administration of the Transportation Expenditure Plan. The membership of this commi~ee will reflect a broad spectrum of interests and geographic areas of the County. 17 VI. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES go The duration of the tax will be 20 years from the initial year of collection, which will begin Jan. 1, 2009. The tax therefore will terminate/expire on Dec. 31, 2029. The Transportation Authority shall prepare a strategic plan which details how the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be implemented, including programmed funds for specific projects prior to the sales tax taking effect. The Plan shall be updated at least every five years during the term of the Measure. Bo Transit shall be number one priority in the Expenditure Plan. All other projects will be number two in priority. It should be recognized that the ability to fully fund all projects in the Plan is contingent upon a variety of factors, such as ultimate availability of federal state and other local matching funds and specific project approval procedures. Although each of the projects contained in this Plan is deemed at this time to be essential in the event one or more of them cannot be fully funded or is found by the administering body to be unfeasible for any reason, the funding allocation earmarked for any such project may be reallocated by the administering body only to one or more of the projects contained in the Plan in the priority herein before specified. Do Environmental reporting, review and approval procedures as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act, and/or the California Environmental Quality Act, and other applicable laws will be carried out as a prerequisite to the implementation of any project. Eo Any amendment to this Transportation Expenditure Plan prepared by the Transportation Authority which adds or deletes a project, or is of major significance, shall be submitted for approval in the same manner as this Plan was approved pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Public Utilities Code Section 131050) of the Bay Area County Traffic and Transportation Funding Act, as provided for in Section 131304 of said enactment. 18 The Transportation Authority is authorized to bond for the purposes of building transportation projects. The bond shall be for the amount of the project or for a specified group of projects only and will be paid with the proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax. 19 StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #10 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: March 10, 2004 The Honorable Mayor and City Council John Gibbs, Director of Public Works EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT WET WEATHER PROGRAM - PHASE 4 PROJECT NO. 71-13235-0352 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution: · Approving the project budget for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program in the amount of $15,000,000. Awarding the preparation of contract documents to Wilsey Ham in the negotiated amount of $1,328,138 for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program (see attached letter from Wilsey Ham). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Project consists of improvements to the wastewater collection system and pump stations to control sewer system overflows. This project is Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program that is required to comply with the Cease and Desist Order 97-104 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance is required by November 1, 2007. The following project improvements will mitigate existing system capacity deficiencies and will provide additional capacity to service anticipated future flows based on the approved general plan. The improvements include pipe upgrades, structural upgrades, upgrading the electrical service and new force mains under Colma Creek to the Water Quality Control Plant. · Upgrading Pump Station #1 · Upgrading Pump Station #2 · Upgrading Pump Station #4 Staff Report To~ Re: D ate: The Honorable Mayor and City Council East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Project Wet Weather Program - Phase 4 March 10, 2004 Page: 2 of 3 Upgrading Pump Station #6 Upgrading Pump Station #7 Upgrading Pump Station gl0 New Parallel Force Main Pump Station #2 New Parallel Force Main Pump Station #4 New Parallel Force Main Pump Station #8 Replacing with New Harbor Way Subtrunk Replacing with New East Grand Trunk Replacing with New DNA Way Subtrunk Replacing with New Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacing with New Allerton Subtrunk Replacing with New Littlefield North Subtrunk Replacing with New Littlefield South Subtrunk Replacing with Executive Subtrunk RFP- RESPONSES FOR THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: A total of 4 proposals were received in response to the City's request for preparation of contract documents from the following firms: En~ineerin~ Firms Carollo Engineers Walnut Creek, CA Wilsey Ham Foster City, CA URS Corporation San Francisco, CA Nolte Associates San Jose, CA Staff Report To: Re: Date: The Honorable Mayor and City Council East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Project Wet Weather Program - Phase 4 March 10, 2004 Page: 3 of 3 Staff has reviewed the qualifications and references of Wilsey Ham. An interview has taken place to ensure complete understanding of the project scope. Staff recommends that the preparation of contract documents be awarded to Wilsey Ham, in the amount of $1,328,138. The following is a breakdown of the project budget: Design & Engineering Construction Contingencies (15%) (Underground work) Construction Management Construction Administration (Staff, permits, agency monitoring, financial analysis) Total $ 1,328,138 $10,750,000 $ 1,612,500 $ 1,075,000 $ 234,362 $15,000,000 Construction is to start in September 2004 and be completed by November 2006. FUNDING: This project is included in the City of South San Francisco's Capital Improvement Program (CIP/71-13235-0352) in the amount of $15,000,000. The City has received an approved fund/ng commitment of $45,000,000 from the State Water Resources Control Board for the entire Wet Weather Program (Phase I through 5). Future users in the East of 101 area are assessed an impact fee of $3.19/gallon per day and assist in repayment of their share of project costs (see attached 10/23/02 Staff Report). Bartle Wells Associates, the City's financial consultants, has incorporated the project costs in the sewer rate analysis. By: John Gib~s ~" ATTDiAr;~ fNPTUsb., li c3°c iili on BB/RB/JG/ed Approved: Michael A. Wilson City Manager Calculation Sewer Facility Dev. Impact Fee February 23, 2004 Negotiated Letter from Wilsey Ham October 23, 2002 Staff Report RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIl., CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECT BUDGET FOR THE EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 4 OF THE WET WEATHER PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,000,000 AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO WILSEY HAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,328,138 FOR THE EAST OF HIGHWAY 101 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 4 OF THE WET WEATHER PROGRAM WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the project budget for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program in the amount of $15,000,000 and award of a contract to Wilsey Ham in the amount of $1,328,138 for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program; and WHEREAS, this project is included in the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council approves the project budget for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program in the amount of $15,000,000 and awards a contract to Wilsey Ham in the amount of $1,328,138 for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Improvements Phase 4 of the Wet Weather Program. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the day of ,2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk S:\Current Reso's\3-10Eofl01.sewer.improvement.res.doc I i i I Table 4 City of South San Francisco East of flighway 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee Sewer Facility Impact Fee I I I ! ! ! ! Cost of CF Facilities Allocable to Future Users (1) East of 101 Master Plan Consultant Costs (2) East of 101 Master Plan Staff Costs (2) CEQA Review Allocable to Future Users (2) Total Less Future Portion of Development Specific Projects (3) Total" Capacity Provided - mgd (4) Cost of Capacity, S/gallon per day $15,470,000 275,000 150,000 600,000 16,495,000 4,066,000 12,429,000 3.9 $3.19 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (150 gpd) $478 1 - From Table 1. 2 - As provided by City. 3 - From Table 2. 4 - From Table 3. This establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development flows paying the fee. Using a flow based charge ensures that each development project pays its fair share of total facility costs. This charge would be paid by development in the East of 101 area, and is in addition to the City's existing sewer connection fees for treatment and disposal. Adjusting Impact Fees Tl~e impact fee should be adjusted regularly to prevent the charges from falling behind the costs of constructing new facilities. Several methods can be used to adjust the charge, including: 10 February 23, 2004 John Gibbs Director of Public Works City of South San Francisco 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Reference: Proposal for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Project Dear John: As requested, Wilsey Ham has re-evaluated our proposed fee for the East of Highway 101 Sewer Project as submitted in our proposal to you dated May 16, 2003. The total project fee in that proposal was $1,646,359. Based on our review of the scope and assumptions and re-estimation of the fees, we are able to propose a reduction in the total fees for the project of approximately $330,000. In addition, as a result of my meeting with Ramesh Bhagat and Bijan Beigi on February 1Th, we have also added the preparation of 10 easement descriptions to the scope of work and fees. The new resulting fee from these revisions is $1,328,138. The reduction in fee is comprised of the following elements: · Less conservative scope and labor-hour estimates for survey, design, preparation of plans, specifications and estimates and construction services for Wilsey Ham and our sub- consultants. · A further reduction in the markup on sub-consultants from 7% to 4%. C9(/ilsey Ham's May 16 proposal included a reduction in our standard markup from 15% to 7%. The remaining 4% is to cover costs for insurance and other overhead associated with sub-consultant contracts.) This proposal is based on reaffirming the following major elements in our May 16, 2003 proposal which include: · There will be no more than four plan sets used for bidding. · We will use our 2004 Charge Rate Fee Schedule for the projects beginning in 2004. · Project submittals will be made according to our proposal for the four project design phases which include: 1) Existing Conditions Analysis/Basis of Design Report, 2) 50% Design, 3) 90% Design, and 4) Final Submittal Package. · The costs to design each individual project may vary but the Grand Total not-to-exceed fee will not be exceeded without the City's prior authorization. · All design and construction durations will be completed before the end of 2006. February 23, 2004 John Gibbs Page 2 The following information is being transmitted to you with this letter: · Revised scope of work that includes the preparation of easement descripfons. · Revised summary of project survey and design costs. Revised Section 4 from our original proposal that reflects the reduction in sub-consultant markup. · Revised Section 6 from our original proposal that also reflects the reduced sub-consultant markup. · Revised design and construction schedule for the various projects. If you have any questions about the foregoing, please do not hesitate to call me at (650) 286-8415. We appreciate this opportunity to work with the City and look forward to beginning work as soon as requested. Very truly yours, WILSEY HAM Jeffrey M. Peterson, PE Principal RCE ~¢41,385 StaffReport DATE: October 23, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John Gibbs, Public Works Director SUBJECT: EAST OF 101 SEWER MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT RESOLUTIONS TO: 1) CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; AND 2) APPROVE THE EAST OF 101 SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN AND ESTABLISH THE EAST OF 101 AREA SEWER FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE BACKGROUND: The City of South San Francisco has been spectacularly successful in transforming the East of 101 area from a declining industrial area into a world-renowned biochemical and pharmaceutical R&D and manufacturing center. The City has recognized that this success has brought with it a need to assure adequate infrastructure so that that the growing companies in the biotechnology industry can remain competitive. The City's sewer system in the East of 101 area has been identified as older and in need of replacement. This includes older pump stations and underground sewer lines. Several major employers in the East of 101 area have expressed a desire to expand current facilities, consistent with General Plan policies and buildout expectations, but have not been able to do so because of the inadequate sewer service in this area of the city. In 1999, the City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan. The General Plan indicated that an adequate and properly maintained wastewater system is an important part of the City's environmental and public health protection responsibilities, and an essential infrastructure component for any urban area. The General Plan also noted that varying de~ees of maintenance and upgrading would be necessary to accommodate new development. The General Plan policies include: Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Public Works Director East of 101 Sewer Master Plan October 23, 2002 Page 2 Policy 5.3-I-4. Ensure coordinated capital improvements with respect to the extent and timing of growth. Policy 5.3-1-5. Ensure that future residents and businesses equitably share costs associated with providing wastewater service to new development in South San Francisco. Policy 5.3-I-6. Monitor industrial discharges to ensure that wastewater quality continues to meet various federal, State, and regional standards; treatment costs should remain affordable. Policy 5.3-1-7. Encourage new projects in East of 101 area that are likely to generate large quantities of wastewater to lower treatment needs through recycling, pre- treatment, or other means necessary. General Plan Implementation and Project Description In addition to completing the expansion to the Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) last year, the Public Works Department has been developing the South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program to upgrade older sewer lines in the East of 101 area. The Sewer Improvement Program is intended to fulfill two objectives: 1) To remediate existing infiltration and inflow (VI) that has been occurring within the City's sewer distribution system that results in inefficiencies in the operation of the Water Quality Control Plant. When rainwater infiltrates older sewer pipes, the flow temporarily exceeds the treatment capacity of the Plant. As a part of this program, improvements are being proposed for the WQCP to allow for construction of a wet weather holding pond to store treated effluent on a short-term basis until it can be discharged through the outfall. 2) To upgrade or replace smaller, aging sewer pipes, sewer pump stations and other sewer infrastructure components. Many pipes and infrastructure components are insufficient to meet the demands of future development. Project Location The Sewer Improvement Program is sited in the eastern portion of South San Francisco, east of US 101, described in the South San Francisco General Plan as the East of 101 area. The South San Francisco General Plan identifies four Planning Sub-Areas that will be affected by the project, including Oyster Point, Gateway, East of 101, and South Airport. (see Attachment 1: Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Public Works Director East of 101 Sewer Master Plan October 23, 2002 Page 3 Location Map). DISCUSSION: East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan The East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan, prepared by Carollo Engineering, includes improvements to the City's sewer system within and immediately adjacent to the East of 101 area. The purpose of this effort is to replace older, leaking facilities with modern sanitary sewer lines and related improvements to protect public health, safety and welfare. The Master Plan identifies projects required to upgrade existing capacity and those projects that are required to serve new development in the East of 101 area. The recommended improvements to service future development are based on flow projections created by the engineers using a 2020 planning horizon and based on specific industry projections and calculated flows. Per the Master Plan, industry wastewater flow projections were provided by several firms in the East of 101 area, in response to a survey distributed by City staff. Future development will occur in the East of 101 area, as a result of both new development projects on currently vacant sites and conversion from existing industrial/warehouse uses to Office and Office/Research and Development uses. The Carollo Plan identifies a $21.36 million capital improvement program. Projects are listed on Table 1 and are numbered 1 through 20 in the attached City of South San Francisco, East of JO1 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee," prepared for the City by Bartle Wells Associates. The East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee In conjunction with preparation of the Sewer Master Plan, the City prepared the "City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee," report to comply with State requirements under AB 1600. According to State's Government Code, the City must document a reasonable relationship between new development and an impact fee for funding new development's fair share of sewer facility improvements in the East of 101 area. In general, the fee may not exceed the cost of the facilities needed to accommodate the development paying the fee, and fee revenues can only be used to fund construction of the identified improvements. The Government Code also specifies accounting and reporting requirements for the use of fee revenues. The Impact Fee Report documents that the East of 101 sewer facilities will be financed via a California State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund loan. Current users will pay for their share of improvements through sewer rate increases introduced to the Council in June of 2002. Future users will pay for their share of improvements through this impact fee. Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Public Works Director East of 101 Sewer Master Plan October 23, 2002 Page 4 At the August 21, 2002 City Council Public Hearing, Public Works staff introduced the cost recovery and impact fee concept to the City Council. The East of 101 Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee Report recommends a method of recovering the costs allocable to future users. The Impact Fee is based on the expected development in the East of 101 area, the projected need for additional sewer collection system capacity to serve the new development, the improvements that must be constructed to provide the required capacity and the costs of the improvements as analyzed in the East of Highway 101 Sewer System Master Plan. The recommended fee is $3.19 per gallon per day of anticipated wastewater flow. Project costs and capacity shares are now used to determine the impact fee as shown in the Table 4 from the Impact Fee report. The report indicates that future development' s share of the costs of master plan facilities, plan preparation and environmental review total $16.4 million. Costs allocated to specific developments from Table 2 at $4.1 million are subtracted from this leaving a balance of $12.4 million. The impact fee is then obtained by dividing this $12.4 million cost of new capacity by the 3.9 mgd of capacity added. The recommended sewer collection system impact fee is thus calculated as $3.19 per gallon per day of capacity required. This is equivalent to $478 for the flow (150 gpd) from a single family dwelling unit. New development projects will be required to pay the Sewer Facility Impact fee at the time a building permit is obtained for the proposed project. The fee will be determined by the projected capacity needs based on the proposed use and the square footage of development. California Environmental Oualitv Act ("CEOA") Review An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to analyze the proposed South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program and to assure compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The document includes an assessment of potential environmental impacts as set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines and recommends a number of mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less- than-significant levels. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is attached to the staff report. In accordance with CEQA, the IS/MND was made available for public comment for thirty days starting on July 19, 2002 and ending August 19, 2002. The City received comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, C/CAG (San Mateo County Association of Governments/Airport Land Use Commission), State Office of Planning and Research, State Water Resources Control Board, San Francisco Airport and the Federal Aviation Administration. The comments from the responsible public agencies and interested parties and the City's responses have been incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration as the "Response to Comments to the Initial Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Public Works Director East of 101 Sewer Master Plan October 23, 2002 Page 5 Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration" and attached to this staff report. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will not have a significant effect on the environment. The text to the following mitigation measure has been modified to reflect comments from the responsible agencies during the comment period: Mitigation Measure 2: a) Prior to commencement of the Colma Creek bank stabilization portion of the project, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Construction Management Plan to ensure that any impacts to wetlands and special-status plant and animal species are minimized to the fullest extent possible. The Plan shall include fencing of sensitive areas not part of the project, limitations on work below the spring high tide elevation, and use of erosion control techniques to minimize erosion into the Creek. b) Prior to commencement of any tunneling under Colma Creek, a preconstruction survey shall be completed by a qualified biologist to ensure no sensitive plant or animal species or habitats will be disturbed by tunnel construction activities. If deemed necessary by the biologist, a Construction Management Plan shall be prepared for this portion of the project that shall include, but not be limited to, placement of construction fencing, restrictions on times of construction, restrictions on placement of trench spoils, restrictions on construction sta~ing areas and similar features that would ensure any biological resources impacts would be less-than- significant. Necessary permits shall also be obtained from appropriate regulatory agencies. The addition of subparagraph (b) in Mitigation Measure 2 merely clarifies the scope of preconstruction review required for the Colma Creek project. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared which summarizes the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, establishes time frames for completion of each, and identifies the responsible agency or individual for completion of each mitigation measure. Staff Report To: From: Subject: Date: Honorable Mayor and City Council Public Works Director East of 101 Sewer Master Plan October 23, 2002 Page CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying the M/tigated Negative Declaration for the South San Francisco Sewer Improvement Program, with mitigation measures and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt a resolution approving the East of 101 Area Sewer System Master Plan and establishing an East of 101 Area Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee. Publid Works Director Approved: Michael A'~ Wilson City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Location Map Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, with attachments Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution Approving the East of Highway 101 Area Sewer System Master Plan and establishing an East of 101 Area Sewer Facility Development Impact Fee, with attachments KJ/JG AGENDA ITEM iii1 ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 11. Resolution approving amendment to employment agreement with City Manager Resolution will be distributed at meeting. StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #12a DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Amending Time Limitations With Respect To The Effectiveness of Plan Activities, and Repayment of Debt in the Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown/Central, and E1 Camino Redevelopment Plans. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Amending Time Limitations with respect to the Effectiveness of Plan Activities, and Repayment of Debt in the Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown Central, and El Camino Redevelopment Plans. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION: The City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council"), originally approved and adopted Redevelopment Plans for the (i) Gateway Redevelopment Proj e'ct ("Gateway") on June 17, 1981, by Ordinance No. 867-81, (ii) U.S. Steel Plant Site Project (U.S. Steel/Shearwater") on January 8, 1986 by Ordinance No. 996-86, (iii) Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project ("Downtown") on July 12, 1989 by Ordinance No. 1056-89, and (iv) the E1 Camino Corridor Area Project ("El Camino") on July 14,1993 by Ordinance No. 1132-93 (collectively the "Redevelopment Plans"). All of the Redevelopment Plans have previously amended time limitations for the effectiveness of plan activities, incurrence of debt, and time limit for tax increment receipt. In 1994, legislative action allowed redevelopment agencies to amend time limits, for plans adopted prior to December 31, 1993, in order to be consistent with redevelopment law. Taking advantage of this opportunity the City Council amended its Redevelopment Plans accordingly. The Downtown/Central Plan was amended on November 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1152-94 to extend time limits for project activities, debt incurrence, and tax increment collection; the Gateway Plan was amended on November 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1149-94; and the Shearwater Plan was amended on November 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1151-94. The E1 Camino Plan was amended on November 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1150-94 to extend time limits for project activities, debt incurrence, and tax increment collection. The E1 Camino Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Time Limitations in Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown and E1 Camino Redevelopment Plans Page 2 Redevelopment Plan was further amended on June 28, 2000 by Ordinance No. 1270-2000 to add territory to the E1 Camino Redevelopment Area ("El Camino Added Area") The Redevelopment Plans, as amended from time to time, contain certain time limitations on the effectiveness of redevelopment activities and the Agency's ability to receive tax increment revenue to repay Agency indebtedness incurred to carry out redevelopment activities. Effective September 1, 2003, SB 1045 added Section 33681.9 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which the Agency is required to make a payment during the 2003-04 fiscal year for deposit in the County of San Mateo Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). SB 1045 amends Section 33333.2 of the Health and Safety Code to provide that when a redevelopment agency is required to make a payment pursuant to Section 33681.9, the legislative body may, by adoption of an ordinance, amend a redevelopment plan to extend by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit for repayment of agency indebtedness with tax increment funds. SB 1045 further amends Section 33333.2 of the Health and Safety Code to provide that in adopting an ordinance pursuant to the foregoing authority, neither the legislative body nor the redevelopment agency is required to follow the procedural requirements ordinarily required for the amendment of redevelopment plans. This provides redevelopment agencies with the option of extending the time limit for plan activities by one year in order to recapture funds lost to ERAF shifts required by the legislative action. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Ordinance amending the time limits in each of the four Redevelopment Plans, to extend by one year the ability to undertake project activities, to receive property taxes and to repay indebtedness, as follows: The time limit on the effectiveness of the Gateway Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as June 17, 2022 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to June 17, 2032. The time limit on the effectiveness of the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as January 8, 2027 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to January 8, 2037. The time limit on the effectiveness of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as July 12, 2030 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to July 12, 2040. Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Time Limitations in Gateway, Shearwater, Downtown and E1 Camino Redevelopment Plans Page 3 The time limit on the effectiveness of the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as July 14, 2034 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to July 14, 2044; except with regard to the E1 Camino Added Area for which the effectiveness of the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as June 28,2031 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to June 28, 2046. The Redevelopment Plans are otherwise continued in full force and effect except as amended by this Ordinance. This amendment does not trigger additional statutory pass through payments to the taxing entities nor does it change their existing agreements. Assistant City Manager MichaelhawV,Tilson' City Manager Attachment: Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. __ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AMENDING CERTAIN TIME LIMITATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PLAN ACTIVITIES AND THE REPAYMENT OF DEBT IN THE GATEWAY, SHEARWATER, DOWNTOWN AND EL CAMINO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council"), originally approved and adopted Redevelopment Plans for the (i) Gateway Redevelopment Project ("Gateway") on June 17, 1981, by Ordinance No. 867-81, (ii) U.S. Steel Plant Site Project ("U.S. Steel/Shearwater") on January 8, 1986 by Ordinance No. 996-86, (iii) Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project ("Downtown") on July 12, 1989 by Ordinance No. 1056-89, and (iv) the E1 Camino Corridor Area Project ("El Camino") on July 14, 1993 by Ordinance No. 1132-93 (collectively the "Redevelopment Plans"); and WHEREAS, the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan was amended on June 28, 2000 by Ordinance No. 1270-2000 to add territory to the E1 Camino redevelopment area ("El Camino Added Area"); and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Plans, as amended from time to time, contain certain time limitations on the effectiveness of redevelopment activities and the Agency's ability to receive tax increment revenue to repay Agency indebtedness incurred to carry out redevelopment activities; and WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, California (the "Agency"), has been designated as the official redevelopment agency in the City of South San Francisco t o carry out t he functions a nd requirements o f t he Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Redevelopment Plans; and WHEREAS, effective September 1, 2003, SB 1045 added Section 33681.9 to the Health and Safety Code, pursuant to which the Agency is required to make a payment during the 2003- 04 fiscal year for deposit in the County of San Mateo Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund; and WHEREAS, SB 1045 amends Section 33333.2 of the Health and Safety Code to provide that when a redevelopment agency is required to make a payment pursuant to Section 33681.9, the legislative body may, by adoption of an ordinance, amend a redevelopment plan to extend by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit for repayment of agency indebtedness with tax increment funds; and WHEREAS, SB 1045 further amends Section 33333.2 of the Health and Safety Code to provide that in adopting an ordinance pursuant to the foregoing authority, neither the legislative body nor the redevelopment agency is required to follow the procedural requirements ordinarily required for the amendment of redevelopment plans; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The time limit on the effectiveness of the Gateway Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as June 17, 2022 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to June 17, 2032. Section 2. The time limit on the effectiveness of the U.S. Steel/Shearwater Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as January 8, 2027 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to January 8, 2037. Section 3. The time limit on the effectiveness of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as July 12, 2030 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to July 12, 2040. Section 4. The time limit on the effectiveness of the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as July 14, 2034 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to July 14, 2044; except with regard to the E1 Camino Added Area for which the effectiveness of the E1 Camino Redevelopment Plan shall be amended to read as June 28, 2031 and the time limit on the receipt of property taxes and repayment of indebtedness shall be extended one year to June 28, 2046. Section 5. The Redevelopment Plans are otherwise continued in full force and effect except as amended by this Ordinance. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency. Section 7. Severabilit¥ If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 8. Publication and Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2004 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this day of 2004. Mawr S:\Current Ord's\1045-Ordinance RDA Amendments2.doc Staff Xeport GEND/I ITEM #12b DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Manager FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Amending the Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Amending the Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Gateway Redevelopment Plan. BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION: The South San Francisco Community Gateway Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) was adopted by City Council in Ordinance No. 867-81, dated June 17, 1981. The Plan was subsequently amended to extend time limitations for project activities, incurrence o fdebt, and tax revenue collection on November 9, 1994, by Ordinance No. 1151-94. The Project Area consists of 176.2 acres of predominantly urbanized areas within the City of South San Francisco. The site consists of two distinct geographical sub-areas. The first sub-area, comprising 67.4 acres of land, is devoted to public transportation uses, with 23 acres of railroad uses and over 43 acres of streets and highways. The second sub-area, totaling 108.8 acres, is comprised of two privately owned parcels: the vacant Bethlehem Steel plant property (99.4 acres) and the Edward Wire Rope Factory property (9.4 acres). A map of the Gateway Project Area is attached as Exhibit "B" of this report. The Project Area has several time and fiscal limitations pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, as follows: Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Adopted Time Limit for Incurring Debt Time Limit for Project Activities June 17, 1981 January 1, 2004 June 17, 2021 Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in Gateway Project Area Page 2 Time Limit for Tax Increment Receipt Fiscal Limit for Tax Increment Collection Bond Limit Total TI Collected to 2003-04 June 17,2031 $80,000,000 $40,000,OOO $44,667,OOO It is evident that the time limit for incurring debt in the Gateway has expired. The Gateway Project Area may carry out redevelopment activities until June 17, 2021; however, it would be required to do so without the ability to incur debt if the time limit is not extended. Recently enacted legislation allows for the removal of the time limit for incurring debt in redevelopment project areas adopted prior to 1994. The City Council can remove the time limit simply by adopting an ordinance. The adoption of such an ordinance would allow the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to continue its revitalization efforts in the Project Area by ensuring that the Agency can incur debt and enter into agreements such as development disposition agreements (DDAs) that would require the long term pledge of tax increment after 2003. SB 211 was enacted in 2001 to ensure that redevelopment agencies would have the ability to continue to collect tax increment and undertake redevelopment activities beyond the 2004 deadline for incurring debt. The outside time limit for incurring debt under AB 1290 for plans adopted prior to 1994 was the later of 20 years after the Redevelopment Plan's adoption or January 1, 2004. Under AB 1290, the time limit on debt incurrence could be extended for 10 years, but only if an agency undertook a plan amendment and made findings of significant remaining blight that could not be removed without incurring additional debt after the deadline. Under SB 211, the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness may be repealed for all pre- 1994 project areas. The removal can be implemented by simply enacting an ordinance. If such an ordinance is adopted, an agency does not have to comply with the extensive CRL-required amendment procedures specified in Section 33333.6(e) (2) for major redevelopment plan amendments. If an SB 211 authorized ordinance is adopted, an agency will be required to pay statutory pass through payments to all affected taxing entities that do not currently have contractual fiscal agreements. Pursuant to AB 1290, pass through payments are calculated based on a statutorily mandated formula for plans adopted or amended after 1993. CONCLUSION: Adopting the SB 211 authorized ordinance is essential to the Agency's ability to effectively continue its revitalization efforts. According to the Agency' s legal counsel, if the ordinance is not adopted, the Agency will no longer be able to enter into additional loans, advances or indebtedness including tax allocation bond debt, disposition and development agreements (DDAs), and long term debt obligations supported by tax increment revenues in the Gateway Project Area after December 31, Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in Gateway Project Area Page 3 2003. According to CRL Section 33333.4 (a) (2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency will have reached its: time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to finance in whole, or in part, the redevelopment project. No loans, advances, or indebtedness to be repaid from the allocation of taxes shall be established or incurred by the agency beyond the time limitation, except as necessary to comply with subdivision (a) of Section 33333.8. Thus, the existing time limits for incurring debt will impair the Agency's ability to undertake revitalization activities in the Gateway Project Area. The Agency will be required to pay statutory pass through payments to all affected taxing entities that do not currently have contractual fiscal agreements. All eight entities in Gateway would receive statutory pass through payments, including: San Mateo County, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo Community College District, San Mateo Superintendent of Schools, Bay Area Quality Management, San Mateo County Harbor, and Colma Creek Flood Control. The City of South San Francisco may also elect to receive a pass through payment. Statutory pass through payments would begin in FY 2004-05. Although new statutory payments are triggered with the repeal of the time limit for incurring debt, the Agency will benefit from increased activity and tax increment that would not otherwise be possible without t he repeal o f t he time limit. It is recommended that City Council adopt the Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Gateway Project Area. Marty Van Duyn Assistant City Manager City Manager Attachments: Exhibit "A" Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt Exhibit "B" Gateway Map ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ELIMINATING THE TIME LIMIT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOANS, ADVANCES, AND INDEBTEDNESS WITH RESPECT TO THE GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council"), originally approved and adopted a redevelopment plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Gateway Redevelopment Project ("Gateway") on June 17, 1981, by Ordinance No. 867-81 which Redevelopment Plan permitted the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, California (the "Agency") to establish loans, advances and indebtedness for the life of the plan; and WHEREAS, in 1993 the State Legislature adopted AB 1290 which required that redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 be amended to establish a time limit for the establishment of loans, advances and indebtedness of the later of 20 years from the date the plan became effective or January 1, 2004 and pursuant to which the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan to provide that the Agency could no longer incur loans, advances and indebtedness after January 1, 2004; 'and WHEREAS, in 2001 the State Legislature adopted SB 211 which permits a redevelopment plan to be amended, on or after January 1, 2002, to eliminate the time limit on the establishment of loans, advances and indebtedness as described in California Health & Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B); and WHEREAS, when a redevelopment plan is amended pursuant to Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B), a redevelopment agency shall pay each affected taxing entity either (i) the amount required to be paid by an agreement between the agency and an affected taxing entity entered into prior to January 1, 1994 or (ii) the statutorily prescribed pass-through payments contained in Section 33607.5 (b), (c), (d), and (e) beginning with the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness was to expire; and WHEREAS, in adopting the amendment discussed herein, Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B) provides that neither the City Council nor the Agency is required to follow the procedural requirements ordinarily required for the amendment of redevelopment plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, in consultation with the Agency, that eliminating the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness will assist in accomplishing the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibit "A" NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The time limit of January 1, 2004 for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness under the Redevelopment Plan is hereby eliminated pursuant to Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B)(3) of the California Health & Safety Code. Section 2. The Redevelopment Plan is otherwise continued in full force and effect except as amended by this Ordinance. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency. Section 4. Severabilit¥ If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 5. Publication and Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2004 by the following vote: AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of 2004. Mayor S : \Cur r e nt Or d' s \Ga t e wa y time limit for incurring debt. ord. DOC Fignre IV-1 Gateway Redevelopment Project Area Map fAY 101) . ZONI,,IG MAP Ct&TEWAY SP'EC~IO P~ AN Exhibit "B" StaffReport AGENDA ITEM #12c DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Manager FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Redevelopment Agency Ordinance Amending the Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Shearwater Redevelopment Plan RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance Amending the Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Shearwater Redevelopment Plan. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: The Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) consists of 174.5 acres of predominantly urbanized land within the City of South San Francisco. The Project Area is comprised of three adjoining parcels that lie generally north of Oyster Point Boulevard, east of the Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway (US Route 101), and south and west of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The Gateway Redevelopment Project Area lies immediately south of this Project Area. The Shearwater Project Area was adopted by the City Council on January 8, 1986 by Ordinance No. 996-86. The Redevelopment Plan calls for the development of commercial uses, construction of the Oyster Point Boulevard interchange, and improvement of Oyster Point Boulevard. The infrastructure improvements are largely complete. The Plan was amended to extend time limitations for plan activities, incurrence of debt, and tax revenue collection on November 9, 1994 by Ordinance No. 1151-94. The Project Area has several time and fiscal limitations pursuant to California Redevelopment Law, as follows: Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in Shearwater Project Area Page 2 Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area Adopted Time Limit for Incurring Debt Time Limit for Project Activities Time Limit for Tax Increment Receipt Fiscal Limit for Tax Increment Collection Bond Limit Total TI Collected to 2003-04 January 8, 1986 January 8, 2006 January 8, 2026 January 8, 2036 $168,000,000 $52,650,000 $ 8,253,772 It is evident that the time limit for incurring debt in the Shearwater Project Area will soon expire. The Shearwater Project Area may carry out redevelopment activities until January 8, 2026; however, it would be required to do so without the ability to incur debt if the time limit is not extended. Recently enacted legislation allows for the removal of the time limit for incurring debt in redevelopment project areas adopted prior to 1994. The City Council can remove the time limit simply by adopting an ordinance. The adoption of such an ordinance would allow the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency to continue its revitalization efforts in the Project Area by ensuring that the Agency can incur debt and enter into agreements such as development disposition agreements (DDAs) that would require the long term pledge of tax increment after 2003. SB 211 was enacted in 2001 to ensure that redevelopment agencies would have the ability to continue to collect tax increment and undertake redevelopment activities beyond the 2004 deadline for incurring debt. The outside time limit for incurring debt under AB 1290 for plans adopted prior to 1994 was the later of 20 years after the Redevelopment Plan's adoption or January 1, 2004. Under AB 1290, the time limit on debt incurrence could be extended for 1(~ years, but only if an agency undertook a plan amendment and made findings of significant remaining blight that could not be removed without incurring additional debt after the deadline. Under SB 211, the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness may be repealed for all pre- 1994 project areas. The removal can be implemented by simply enacting an ordinance. If such an ordinance is adopted, an agency does not have to comply with the extensive CRL-required amendment procedures specified in Section 33333.6(e) (2) for major redevelopment plan amendments. Staff Report Subject: Page 3 Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in Shearwater Project Area If an SB 211 authorized ordinance is adopted, an agency will be required to pay statutory pass through payments to all affected taxing entities that do not currently have contractual fiscal agreements. Pursuant to AB 1290, pass through payments are calculated based on a statutorily mandated formula for plans adopted or amended after 1993. CONCLUSION: Adopting the SB 211 authorized ordinance is essential to the Agency's ability to effectively continue its revitalization efforts. According to the Agency's legal counsel, if the ordinance is not adopted, the Agency would not be able to enter into additional loans, advances or indebtedness including tax allocation bond debt, disposition and development agreements (DDAs), and long term debt obligations supported by tax increment revenues in the Shearwater Project Area after January 8, 2006. According to CRL Section 33333.4 (a) (2) of the California Community Redevelopment Law, the Agency will have reached its: time limit on the establishing of loans, advances, and indebtedness to finance in whole, or in part, the redevelopment project. No loans, advances, or indebtedness to be repaid from the allocation of taxes shall be established or incurred by the agency beyond the time limitation, except as necessary to comply with subdivision (a) of Section 33333.8. Thus, the existing time limits for incurring debt will impair the Agency's ability to undertake revitalization activities in the Shearwater Project Area. The Agency will be required to pay statutory pass through payments to all affected taxing entities that do not currently have contractual fiscal agreements. Five of the eight taxing entities in Shearwater would receive statutory pass through payments; San Mateo Superintendent of Schools, Bay Area Quality Management, San Mateo County Harbor, Colma Creek Flood Control, and the City of South San Francisco. San Mateo County, South San Francisco Unified School District and San Mateo Community College District have existing contractual pass through agreements. Statutory pass through payments would begin in FY 2006-07. Although new statutory payments are triggered with the repeal of the time limit for incurring debt, the Agency will benefit from increased activity and tax increment that would not otherwise be possible without the repeal of the time limit. Staff Report Subject: Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in Shearwater Project Area Page 4 It is recommended that City Council adopt the Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt in the Shearwater Project Area. Assistant City Manager Michael A.'7"Wi'lson City Manager Attachments: Exhibit "A" Ordinance Amending Limitation for Incurrence of Debt Exhibit "B" Shearwater Map ORDINANCE NO. __ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ELIMINATING THE TIME LIMIT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOANS, ADVANCES, AND INDEBTEDNESS WITH RESPECT TO THE U.S. STEEL/SHEARWATER REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco (the "City Council"), originally approved and adopted a redevelopment plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the U.S. Steel Plant Site Project ("U.S. Steel/Shearwater") on January 8, 1986 by Ordinance No. 996-86 which Redevelopment Plan permitted the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco, California (the "Agency") to establish loans, advances and indebtedness for the life of the plan; and WHEREAS, in 1993 the State Legislature adopted AB 1290 which required that redevelopment plans adopted prior to January 1, 1994 be amended to establish a time limit for the establishment of loans, advances and indebtedness of the later of 20 years from the date the plan became effective or January 1, 2004 and pursuant to which the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan to provide that the Agency could no longer incur loans, advances and indebtedness after January 8, 2006; and WHEREAS, in 2001 the State Legislature adopted SB 211 which permits a redevelopment plan to be amended, on or after January 1, 2002, to eliminate the time limit on the establishment of loans, advances and indebtedness as described in California Health & Safety Code Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B); and WHEREAS, when a redevelopment plan is amended pursuant to Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B), a redevelopment agency shall pay each affected taxing entity either (i) the amount required to be paid by an agreement between the agency and an affected taxing entity entered into prior to January 1, 1994 or (ii) the statutorily prescribed pass-through payments contained in Section 33607.5 (b), (c), (d), and (e) beginning with the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness was to expire; and WHEREAS, in adopting the amendment discussed herein, Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B) provides that neither the City Council nor the Agency is required to follow the procedural requirements ordinarily required for the amendment of redevelopment plans; and 'WHEREAS, the City Council has determined, in consultation with the Agency, that eliminating the time limit for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness will assist in accomplishing the goals and obi ectives of the Redevelopment Plan. Exhibi,t "A" NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The time limit of January 8, 2006 for establishing loans, advances and indebtedness under the Redevelopment Plan is hereby eliminated pursuant to Section 33333.6(e)(2)(B)(3) of the California Health & Safety Code. Section 2. The Redevelopment Plan is otherwise continued in full force and effect except as amended by this Ordinance. Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency. Section 4. Severabilit¥ If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 5. Publication and Effective Date This Ordinance shall be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it, in the San Mateo Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South San Francisco, as required by law, and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held the __ day of ,2004. Adopted as an Ordinance of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting of the City Council held the day of, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk As Mayor of the City of South San Francisco, I do hereby approve the foregoing Ordinance this __ day of 2004. Mayor S: \Cur r ent Or d' t i me 1 i mi t f o r deb t 1. or d. DOC s \ She a r wa t er incurring Figure V-1 Shearwater Redevelopment Project Area Map Figure V-1 Shearwater Redevelopment'Pro. ject Area Map REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP SOUTH SAN' FRANCISCO tLS, SI'EEI~ PLANT SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PLANNED Ct3MMERCI,At. LAND US PROJECT BOUNDARY' Exhibit "B" Staff Xeport AGENDA ITEM #13 DATE: March 10, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Survey RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Designating a Survey Area for the amendment of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area. BACKGROUND/DISCUS SION: The City of South San Francisco's Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area (Project Area) located in the geographic heart of the City, contributes more to the City's identity than any other district. The Project Area is comprised of several non contiguous areas consisting of 550 acres of predominantly urbanized areas within the City. The 550 acres have been subdivided into about 450 separate parcels with industrial, commercial, residential and public uses. As a result of the historical industrial subdivision system, there are numerous large parcels in the Project Area. The area is in transition from a core of heavy industry, formed primarily of large manufacturing plants, to an area with a diversity of modern industry, new technology, and a wide range of housing types. At the time of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Plan adoption, the following distribution of land use was found in the area: 33 percent industrial; 28 percent commercial; 13 percent residential; with the remaining 26 percent in street and freeway right-of-way, vacant and public/institutional uses. The Project Area encompasses the City's traditional Downtown which is the historic center of its commercial, cultural and civic life. Its merchants, small businesses, conference center, hotels, and office developments serve local and growing regional markets. The area also contains a majority of the City's industrial users, warehouses, and a host of service-based, manufacturing, sales and distribution operations, and emerging high technology finns. Staff Report Subject: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Survey Page 2 The Project Area was adopted by the City Council in Ordinance No. !056-89, dated July 12, 1989. The time limit for incurring debt is July 12, 2009; and the time limit for project activities is July 12, 2029. The South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency is responsible for implementation of the Project Area Redevelopment Plan. A map of the Project Area is attached as Exhibit "A" to this staff report. The Redevelopment Agency undertakes four basic programs in the Project Area to alleviate blighting conditions and attain its stated goals and objectives: Public Infrastructure Public Facilities Economic Development Improvement, construction and reconstruction of major public systems such as streets and roads, parking lots, water, sewage, and storm drainage systems. Rehabilitation, installation, acquisition and improvement of parks, playgrounds, libraries, and other public buildings and structures. Activities and programs designed to strengthen existing commercial enterprises and shopping areas, and to attract new businesses and shoppers; preserving the area's existing employment base and creating new local job opportunities. Property Acquisition Purchase, improve and clean up of property to promote and prepare sites to support South San Francisco's redevelopment efforts. Eliminate blight through reconstruction and assembly of parcels into more developable sites for more desirable uses. The Agency's goals and objectives include promoting Downtown's vitality and economic well being, and its presence as the City's civic center. The Redevelopment Plan encourages development of Downtown as a mixed-use activity center with a variety of retail, business and personal services, government and professional offices, civic and visitor-oriented uses, and a variety of residential types and densities. One of the major goals of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Plan is to encourage multiple s tops b y visitors a nd m ore frequent visits t o t he Downtown by enhancing linkages between Downtown and transit centers, and increasing street connectivity with the surrounding neighborhoods. These efforts are designed to expand the retail component o fthe Downtown and create a pedestrian environment while maintaining the historic character of the area. Staff Report Subject: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Survey Page 3 The Redevelopment Agency has proposed adding territory, which would benefit from redevelopment but is currently outside the Project Area, to the existing Project Area. It is proposed that the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Plan be amended to include the addition of the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park area, comprising approximately 57 acres in size. The area is underutilized and exhibits blighting conditions. Redevelopment would help alleviate blight by remediating the area to safe environmental standards, clean up the land fill, and provide resources to revitalize and redevelop the area. The former solid waste disposal site located near the eastern end of Oyster Point Boulevard is owned by the City and a cost of $1.6 million has been estimated for remediation of the soils in the closure plan mandated by state order. Without redevelopment it is unlikely that the market would undertake the clean up and site preparation required for future development. The Marina is a boat-launching site and includes boat storage areas. The southern part of the site offers some open space and a windsurfing boat-launch ramp; the northern part includes the berths. A pier at the eastern edge of the Marina juts out into the Bay. A few buildings exist in the interior of the site, the largest of which is the Marine Center. A single story clubhouse is located east of the Marine Center. Oyster Point Village and Marina Inn are located northeast of Oyster Point/Marina boulevards. Redevelopment would be a catalyst for commercial and recreational development of the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park. The proposed added territory, located on San Francisco Bay, would facilitate the development of a new regional convention center and four star hotel, creating an increasingly popular environment for marine, recreation and commercial activity. In collaboration with the Harbor District, the Agency would help realize the full potential of the Marina including new water transit and related services enhancing shoreline access for both passengers and non- passengers, bringing a greater number of people closer to the water. The San Francisco Water Transit Authority proposes Oyster Point Marina for the location of a potential new ferry terminal. The proposed ferry terminal would connect with the planned Bay Trail, allowing a direct biking and walking connection along the shoreline. AMENDMENT PROCESS: The first step in amending a redevelopment project area is for the City Council to adopt a resolution designating a survey area. The purpose of the survey area is to designate that area of the City that will be studied to determine whether the redevelopment project as amended is feasible. The boundaries of the amended project area must be within the survey area as designated by the City Council. In April of 2003, City Council designated the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park as the territory to be considered for addition to a redevelopment area and directed staff to undertake a preliminary analysis to determine t he feasibility o f amending the Gateway Project Area to incorporate the Marina. Working with Seifel Consulting, staff completed the feasibility analysis during the winter of 2003 Staff Report Subject: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Survey Page 4 and is recommending that the Marina be incorporated into the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area not the Gateway Project Area. It is believed that adding the Marina to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area creates a more unified planning area and compliments proposed improvements to the Oyster Point Marina Business Park, the proposed location for a new hotel, convention center and future ferry terminal. Thus creating a nexus between the existing convention center, hotels and restaurants located in the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area with existing and proposed new development at the Marina. Based on recommendations from the initial feasibility analysis presented to City Council on January 2 l, 2004, City Council has directed staff to amend the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area to include the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park. The boundaries of the area proposed to be designated as the Survey Area include the entirety of the Oyster Point Marina and Business Park. The Resolution Designating a Survey Area is a necessary first step in the amendment process. Over the next year, the Council as both the legislative body for the City and the Redevelopment Agency will be periodically requested to address various aspects of the amendment process to add territory to the Downtown/Central Project Area. The next steps reside with the Planning Commission, which must formally establish the boundaries of the proposed Amended Project Area. In addition, the Commission adopts the Preliminary Plan which is a general discussion of the conditions affecting property in the Project Area and how this property will benefit from redevelopment. The attached, Exhibit "B" indicates the location of the Oyster Point Marina and Exhibit "C" provides a complete map of the Marina, which will be the designated survey area. CONCLUSION: Seifel Consulting, as lead consultant, will work with staff to provide fiscal and planning consulting services to the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency for the preparation and adoption of an Amended Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Project Area. The amendment process will focus on making a preliminary determination of the blighting conditions within the survey area, the feasible land uses, the market demand for such uses, and financial feasibility of funding redevelopment projects and activities within the Survey Area. The lead consultant will prepare all documents including Preliminary Report and Report to the Council on the Proposed Plan Amendment. Seifel Consulting, under staff supervision, will direct the completion of all steps in the adoption process for the Plan Amendment except for the preparation of any enviromnental documents that will be required. Environmental services will be under separate contract. A request for proposals has previouslybeen issued and will be updated to include City Council's direction with regard to the full scope of the proposed Plan Amendment. It is anticipated that an agreement for environmental consulting services will be placed on the City Council's agenda in April, 2004. Staff Report Subject: Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Survey Page 5 It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution designating a Survey Area for the amendment of the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area. Assistant City Manager Michael 3L--~ilson City Manager Attachments: Resolution Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Including (Exhibit "A") Downtown/Central Redevelopment Area Map Location of Oyster Point Marina Park Map of Oyster Point Marina and Business Park RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL crrY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A SURVEY AREA FOR THE DOWNTOWN/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of South San Francisco, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Health and Safety Code Section 33310, to designate a survey area for the purpose of determining if adding territory to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area is feasible. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, that the City Council does hereby find as follows: That all the property described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby designated a survey area and requires study to determine if amending the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area is feasible; and That such designation and study is necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of the Community Redevelopment Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco finds and determines: That the survey area described in Exhibit A hereto supersedes the previous survey area designated by Resolution Number 37-2003 adopted the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on April 23, 2003; and That the Planning Commission is directed to cooperate with the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco by selecting a project area and preparing a preliminary plan for purposes of redevelopment. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a special meeting held on the 14 day of January 2004 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk EXHIBIT A SURVEY AREA Figure II-1 Dowtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area Map i ; ~ Subarea~ Figure II- 1 '. Downtown]Central Redevelopment Project Area Map Exhibit "B" ,/ ~ Son / ~':' Fran¢i$oo 0 2000 4000 Scale in Feet Reference: K~elnfmder lg98 Exhibit '"Ca Area Map with Marina identified a.~ ,~.rvev Area Exhibit "D"' Oyster Point Marina Park Map