HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-08-08 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, August 8, 2018
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers
33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
August 8, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council
business, we proceed as follows:
The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00
p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California.
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.
LIZA NORMANDY, Mayor
KARYL MATSUMOTO, Mayor Pro Tempore
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, Councilman
MARK ADDIEGO, Councilman
PRADEEP GUPTA, Councilman
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
KRISTA MARTINELLI, City Clerk
MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager
JASON ROSENBERG, City Attorney
PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS
HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
In accordance with California Government Code Section 54957.5, any writing or document that is a public
record, relates to an open session agenda item, and is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a regular
meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If,
however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the
document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this
agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018
August 8, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of certificates of achievement to South San Francisco Police Department
Officers Corey Galindo and Marc Nuti on medaling at the Police Olympics in Chula
Vista, CA, and Clark County, NV, respectively. (Liza Normandy, Mayor)
1.
Presentation regarding update on the City of South San Francisco’s South Airport
Bridge Replacement Project. (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works)
2.
Report on current City policies regarding local immigration practices. (Mike Futrell,
City Manager)
3.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
PUBLIC HEARING
A report regarding introduction of an ordinance establishing the Mission Road
Underground Utility District. (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works / Kathleen
Phalen, Consultant)
4.
Ordinance establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District (CIP Project
st1904).
4a.
Report regarding introduction of an ordinance amending South San Francisco
Municipal Code adding Chapter 8.69 to establish an affordable housing commercial
linkage fee for new commercial development in the City. (Deanna Talavera,
Management Analyst II)
5.
Ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code adding Chapter 8.69 to
establish an affordable housing commercial linkage fee for new commercial
development in the City.
5a.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018
August 8, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution authorizing the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to establish
and set an effective date for an affordable housing commercial linkage fee for new
commercial development in the City pursuant to South San Francisco Municipal Code
Chapter 8.69.
5b.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report on consideration of a joint City Council and South San Francisco Unified
School District School Board meeting and potential topics for discussion. (Mike
Futrell, City Manager)
6.
Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to I & A Contractors,
Inc. of Redwood City, California for the City Hall Roof Replacement Project (Project
No. pf1804) in an amount not to exceed $206,690 and authorizing a total construction
budget of $258,410. (Matt Ruble, Sr. Civil Engineer)
7.
Resolution awarding a construction contract to I & A Contractors, Inc. of Redwood
City, California for the City Hall Roof Replacement Project (Project No. pf1804) in
an amount not to exceed $206,690 and authorizing a total construction budget of
$258,410.
7a.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of June 13, 2018, June 20, 2018, July
11, 2018 and July 25, 2018.
8.
Motion confirming payment registers for August 8, 2018. (Richard Lee, Director of
Finance)
9.
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the Sign Hill
Generator Replacement project (CIP Project No. pf1506) as complete in accordance
with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $491,239.72). (Richard Cho,
Principal Engineer, and Peter Vorametsanti, Swinerton)
10.
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the Citywide
Gap Closure - Haskins Sidewalk (Project No. st1402) as complete in accordance with
plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $200,324). (Richard Cho, Principal
Engineer)
11.
Report regarding consideration of the League of California Cities Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet for the 2018 Annual Conference in Long Beach, California on
September 12-14, 2018. (Mike Futrell, City Manager)
12.
Report regarding a resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain
Project (Project No. sd1701). (Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil Engineer)
13.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018
August 8, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project (Project
No. sd1701).
13a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $300 donation to the
Parks and Recreation Department from Bimbo Bakeries USA, in addition to a $5,000
donation previously approved under Resolution No. 88-2018, for a total of $5,300, to
purchase new equipment and supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial
Pool. (Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation Department)
14.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $300 donation to the Parks and Recreation
Department from Bimbo Bakeries USA, in addition to a $5,000 donation previously
approved under Resolution No. 88-2018, for a total of $5,300, to purchase new
equipment and supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool.
14a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the San Mateo County Building Department
Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and cities within San
Mateo County. (Phil Perry, Chief Building Official)
15.
Resolution approving the San Mateo County Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and cities within San Mateo
County.
15a.
Report regarding a resolution amending the Human Resources Department’s Position
Budget in the Fiscal Year 2018-19 Adopted Operating Budget for the City of South
San Francisco. (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
16.
Resolution approving an amendment to the Human Resources Department’s Position
Budget in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Adopted Operating Budget for the City of
South San Francisco.
16a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in grant funding
from the Woodlawn Foundation to support Project Read’s Learning Wheels Family
Literacy Program and approving Budget Amendment 19.010. (Valerie Sommer,
Library Director)
17.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in grant funding from the Woodlawn
Foundation to support Project Read’s Learning Wheels Family Literacy Program and
approving Budget Amendment 19.010.
17a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $9,483 in donations to
support the Library’s Summer Learning Challenge and the Community Learning
Center, and approving Budget Amendment 19.009. (Valerie Sommer, Library
Director)
18.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $9,483 in donations to support the Library’s
Summer Learning Challenge and the Community Learning Center, and approving
Budget Amendment 19.090.
18a.
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018
August 8, 2018City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement between the
City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District for
the continuing use and maintenance of the expansion of the West Orange Library
Parking Lot. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
19.
Resolution approving an agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the
South San Francisco Unified School District for the continuing use and maintenance of
the expansion of the West Orange Library Parking Lot.
19a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing submission of a comment letter on behalf of
the City of South San Francisco to the California Bureau of Cannabis Control
regarding the proposed regulations. (Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney)
20.
Resolution authorizing submission of a comment letter on behalf of the City of South
San Francisco to the California Bureau of Cannabis Control regarding the proposed
regulations.
20a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the grant of utility easements on City of South
San Francisco property, APN 012-338-160, for the South San Francisco Station
Improvements Project (st1603) to Pacific Gas & Electric’s for gas and electrical lines,
and to California Water Service’s for water line, and authorizing the City Manager to
execute an easement deed to grant the easements. (Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil
Engineer)
21.
Resolution approving the grant of utility easements on City of South San Francisco
property, APN 012-338-160, for the South San Francisco Station Improvements
Project (st1603) to Pacific Gas & Electric’s for gas and electrical lines, and to
California Water Service’s for water line, and authorizing the City Manager to execute
an easement deed to grant the easements.
21a.
Report regarding an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of
Administration, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the City of
South San Francisco to increase Classic Safety member contributions to pension (Leah
Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
22.
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco authorizing an
amendment to the contract between the City of South San Francisco and the Board of
Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
22a.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-658 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:1.
Presentation of certificates of achievement to South San Francisco Police Department Officers Corey Galindo
and Marc Nuti on medaling at the Police Olympics in Chula Vista, CA, and Clark County, NV, respectively. (
Liza Normandy, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Certificate of Recognition
Corey Galindo
South San Francisco Mayor Liza Normandy and the City Council
do hereby congratulate Officer Corey Galindo
of the South San Francisco Police Department
for competing in the Police Olympics and capturing Gold Medals in
the 100 Meter Run, 200 Meter Run, Long Jump, and High Jump.
Presented on this 8th day of August, 2018, by the City Council of South San Francisco.
Liza Normandy, Mayor
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor Pro Tempore Mark Addiego, Councilmember
Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Pradeep Gupta, Councilmember
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Certificate of Recognition
Marc Nuti
South San Francisco Mayor Liza Normandy and the City Council
do hereby congratulate Officer Marc Nuti
of the South San Francisco Police Department
for competing in the Police Olympics and capturing
a Bronze Medal, scoring 94 out of 100, in the
“Trapshooting, Individual, 16 Yard Singles” category.
Presented on this 8th day of August, 2018, by the City Council of South San Francisco.
Liza Normandy, Mayor
Karyl Matsumoto, Mayor Pro Tempore Mark Addiego, Councilmember
Richard Garbarino, Councilmember Pradeep Gupta, Councilmember
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-733 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:2.
Presentation regarding update on the City of South San Francisco’s South Airport Bridge Replacement Project.
(Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/8/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-748 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report on current City policies regarding local immigration practices.(Mike Futrell, City Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-82 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
A report regarding introduction of an ordinance establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District.
(Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works / Kathleen Phalen, Consultant)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and,if finding it to be in the public
interest,introduce an ordinance and waive reading establishing an underground utility district along
Mission Road.It is further recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute all
agreements and make all acknowledgements needed to initiate the undergrounding project upon the
district establishment.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Summary
On June 13,2018,the City Council opened a public hearing on a proposal to establish the Mission Road
Underground Utility District (District)and continued the hearing to the July 25,2018,meeting.Subsequently,
the hearing was continued to the August 8,2018 regular meeting.Upon holding a public hearing to receive
public comment and then finding that undergrounding overhead utilities along Mission Road will be in the
public interest, the City Council may introduce an ordinance to establish the Mission Road District.
Background
In accordance with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)Rule 20A,PG&E annually allocates
$202,656 (varies slightly by year)of work credits to the City to cover PG&E’s costs for undergrounding its
overhead utilities.The City has a current balance of $6,780,977 and can borrow five years’worth of future
allocations,giving the City access to about $7,794,257 in PG&E credits.Under CPUC Rule 32,the
telecommunications companies do not issue credits,but must pay their share of costs for qualified Rule 20A
projects.
In 2016,the City established the Spruce District at an estimated commitment of $5,365,000 of its Rule 20A
work credits.In 2017,the City established the Antoinette District at an estimated commitment of another
$2,325,000 of credits.The City directed PG&E to give the Antoinette District priority over the Spruce District
to keep its schedule coordinated with the Community and Civic Center Campus project.This fall,the Spruce
District should exit the queue and be ready to start design.
On May 9,2018,the City Council held a community meeting and study session concerning a proposal to
establish a third District along Mission Road.A second community meeting was held on this subject on June 7,
2018.On June 13,2018,the City Council opened a public hearing,but then continued it to July 25,2018 to
allow the subject to be presented on July 2,2018 at the Sunshine Gardens Neighborhood Meeting.Staff sent
notice to property owners within the proposed district thirty days before the June 13,2018 public hearing date,
as required by City ordinance,and also sent a courtesy notice of the July 25th continued hearing date.At the
council meeting of July 25th,this item was continued to August 8th to incorporate ordinance modifications
required by the California Public Utilities Commission.
The proposed District is approximately 2,500 feet long,including partial side streets to allow utility risings andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-82 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
The proposed District is approximately 2,500 feet long,including partial side streets to allow utility risings and
runs along Mission Road from Grand Avenue to the southern BART Station entrance where it connects with
previously undergrounded utilities (see attachment 1).
Discussion
When the City establishes an underground utility district (UUD),it sets boundaries of an area where existing
overhead utilities must be moved underground and no new overhead utilities may be installed (Attachment 1).
When the district complies with CPUC Rules 20A and 32,the Utility Companies (PG&E,AT&T,Wave
Broadband and Comcast)are responsible for most of the undergrounding costs.These costs include installing
new underground property service laterals and converting the power service panels typically mounted on the
outside of buildings.
To be eligible for Rule 20A funding,the City Council must find that forming a utility undergrounding district is
in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons:
a.Undergrounding avoids or eliminates an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities;
b.The street right-of-way is extensively used by the general public and carries a heavy volume of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
c.The street right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area,public recreation area,or an area of
unusual scenic interest to the general public; and/or
d.The street or road or right-of-way is an arterial street or major collector.
Mission Road qualifies because is an arterial street carrying a heavy volume of traffic to the BART station and
is adjacent to the Centennial Trail, a public recreation area.
The estimated commitment of PG&E Rule 20A work credits for the proposed Mission Road UUD is
$5,129,000.The City’s total commitment of work credits for Spruce,Antoinette,and Mission UUDs would be
$12,819,000.Because this exceeds the City’s available credits by a little more than $5 million,the City would
need to postpone work on one or more of the districts until it acquires additional credits,either through annual
accrual or by purchasing from other local agencies.Postponing work on the Spruce UUD would allow work to
proceed on the Antoinette and Mission UUDs at an estimated credit cost of about $7.5 million,an amount
within the City’s currently available Rule 20A credit balance.It is important to stress that all estimated costs
quoted in this report are highly conceptual and subject to substantial change as no final design work on the
three districts has been completed.
South San Francisco Municipal Code §13.16.020 authorizes the City Council to hold public hearings to
ascertain whether public necessity,health,safety,or welfare requires removal of overhead utilities and the
underground installation of those facilities.Staff notified all affected property owners thirty days prior to the
June 13,2018,public hearing and sent courtesy notices of the Council’s continuation of the hearing to July 25,
2018,and to August 8,2018.If,after closing the public hearing,the City Council finds establishing a District to
be in the general public interest,it may adopt an ordinance establishing the District boundaries.This ordinance
must require removal of all overhead electric and communications facilities,retrofit of all properties to receive
underground services within the District,authorize PG&E to discontinue overhead service,and fix a time
within which such work must be done.Rule 20A(3)allows the City Council to direct PG&E to use City credits
to pay for up to 100 feet of property underground electric service laterals and up to $1,500 per service for
electric panel conversions per affected property within the District.Staff recommends this use of credits rather
than requiring individual property owners to bear this cost.
Staff representatives have consulted with,and walked the extent of proposed Mission Road District with,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-82 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
Staff representatives have consulted with,and walked the extent of proposed Mission Road District with,
representatives of PG&E,AT&T,Wave Broadband and Comcast to evaluate its suitability,estimate costs,and
form up the proposed boundaries.Staff has communicated to the Utilities that the City intends to be the “lead
agent”,also known as “trenching agent”,responsible for designing the trench profile and composite joint trench
drawings and for managing trenching,installation of substructures,pavement restoration,and such other trench
-related work.
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute all agreements and forms
needed to initiate the design and construction work upon establishment of the District, including the following:
a.Electric Form 79-1127 “Agreement to Perform Tariff Scheduled Related Work,Rule 20A General
Conditions,”commonly known as the General Conditions Agreement (Attachment 2).This foundation
agreement directs PG&E to use the City’s Rule 20A work credits to underground its distribution lines
and service laterals,remove the utilities poles,and restore the site.Upon receipt,PG&E will direct the
Telecommunications Utilities to participate in the project in accordance with CPUC Rule 32.
b.Electric Form 79-1113 “Agreement to Perform Tariff Schedule Related Work Rule 20A Electric Panel
Service Conversion.”This directs PG&E to manage the electric service panel conversions and pay for
the work from the City’s allocated work credits.The City cannot use Rule 20A work credits to fund the
panel conversion cost unless it directs PG&E to do the work by this agreement.
c.Letter of Streetlight Agreement.This agreement informs PG&E that the City will purchase and install
new streetlights to replace those mounted on utility poles and will include the streetlight power in the
joint trench.
d.Rule 20A Wheelchair Access Consideration.This acknowledgement,required by Rule 20A (1)(a),states
that the City finds wheelchair access to be in the public interest and the City considered such access in
defining the District boundaries.
PG&E developed General Conditions Agreement for CPUC approval in 2010.From 2011 through 2018 PG&E
worked with local agencies and the CPUC to revise the terms of the agreement.On July 5,2018,the CPUC did
approve the revised General Conditions Agreement.Among other changes,the new agreement requires the
following language which has been added to the City’s ordinance to establish the Mission Road Underground
Utility District:
The City hereby agrees, requires, and/or acknowledges:
a.That all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities in the district shall be
removed;
b.That each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with
PG&E’s rules for underground service, all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to
receive service from the underground facilities of PG&E as soon as it is available; and
c.PG&E and the telecommunications utilities are authorized to discontinue overhead electric service upon
completion of the underground distribution system.
Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to direct PG&E to substitute Mission
Road for Spruce Avenue in the PG&E queue to improve schedule coordination with the other infrastructure
improvements along this corridor.This would expedite the Mission Road District schedule by nine months such
that the Utilities should be ready to start design of their facilities in fall 2018.Further,staff recommends the
City Council authorize the City Manager to make any minor revisions to the District Boundary Map that may
be needed to resolve unforeseen conflicts arising during design and construction of the District.
It is recommended that City engage a design engineer this summer to begin layout of the joint trench location to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-82 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4.
It is recommended that City engage a design engineer this summer to begin layout of the joint trench location to
assist the Utilities in their designs.The City’s designer will finish the design effort by incorporating the
individual Utilities’designs into the Joint Trench composite such the project should be ready to bid in winter
2019.Construction of the underground facilities and service connections is then expected to take another full
year (winter 2020).
The project is categorically exempt from California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)requirements in
accordance with 14 CCR 15302(d),which exempts conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system
facilities to underground including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the
surface is restored to the condition existing prior to the undergrounding.
FUNDING
Funding for this project is programmed into the FY2018-19 CIP.The total project costs are conceptually
estimated at $7,600,000.The City may request reimbursement of an estimated $6,700,000 of this cost from the
Utilities. All quoted costs are highly conceptual and should be expected to change as the project is designed.
CONCLUSION
After holding the public hearing, if the City finds utility undergrounding to be in the public interest, it may
waive the reading and introduce the attached ordinance to initiate establishment of the Mission Road
Underground Utility District. The City Council may then adopt this ordinance at its next regular meeting.
Attachment:
1.Mission Road Underground Utility District Map
2.CPUC Resolution E-4919 “Modification to PG&E Form 79-1127”
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
DRAFT
212434922 1
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Agenda ID #16377
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4919
April 26, 2018
RESOLUTION
Resolution E-4919. Approves Pacific Gas & Electric’s revised
“Agreement to Perform Tariff Schedule Related Work, Rule 20A
General Conditions,” for use on Rule 20A Undergrounding projects.
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
This Resolution approves Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E)
revisions to its General Conditions Agreement and allows
PG&E to replace the current General Conditions Agreement
with the revised version for use for Rule 20A projects.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:
There is no impact on safety.
ESTIMATED COST:
There is no impact on cost.
By Advice Letter 5166-E filed on October 24, 2017.
__________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This Resolution approves Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) proposed changes to its
General Conditions Agreement (GCA) and allows PG&E to adopt its revised
Sample Form 79-1127 for use in Electric Tariff Rule 20A Undergrounding
(“Rule 20A” or “Undergrounding”) projects. After working collaboratively with
the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the League of California
Cities (LOCC), and interested local cities and counties, PG&E is now filing
revisions to its GCA to further clarify roles and responsibilities with cities on
Rule 20A projects, and to improve project cost certainty and timing. Approval of
the revised GCA will enable several cities and counties (Governmental Bodies or
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
2
Entities) to move forward on Rule 20A projects which they had elected to delay
until approval of a new GCA.
BACKGROUND
The Commission approved Advice Letter 3767-E on December 31, 2010, which
established Form 79-1127.
The Commission’s approval of PG&E’s Advice Letter (AL) 3767-E on
December 31, 2010 introduced PG&E’s current GCA, which clarified the roles
and responsibilities of the Governmental Entities and PG&E for completing
Rule 20A projects.
From 2011 to 2017, PG&E negotiated with cities and counties to improve Form
79-1127 at the behest of these Governmental Entities.
Cities and counties requested that PG&E improve upon its initial GCA in order
to add further clarity and streamline the undergrounding process. Since 2011,
PG&E has collaborated with the CSAC, the LOCC, and other interested entities
and determined the new terms that are the subject of the revised GCA.
PG&E filed AL 4948-E on October 31, 2016 to submit the revised General
Conditions Agreement but subsequently withdrew it.
PG&E filed Advice Letter 4948-E on October 31, 2016 seeking Commission
approval of its revised Form 79-1127. The CSAC filed a letter in support of
PG&E’s new terms on November 21, 2016. The City of San Jose filed a protest on
that same day citing several items that the city opposed. Upon receiving this
protest, PG&E withdrew its Advice Letter claiming that there was no longer an
agreement regarding the modifications to the GCA and that PG&E would need
to determine how to proceed.
The Commission issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (R.17-05-010) on
May 19, 2017 to consider changes to Rule 20A Undergrounding in California.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
3
The Commission instituted R.17-05-010 (the Undergrounding Proceeding) in
May 2017 to consider changes to the Rule 20A program. A sample of these issues
includes the surplus of unused Rule 20A work credits, informal undergrounding
work credit trading among government bodies, an audit of utility practices in
Rule 20 A, and an examination of the project criteria. The timing of this OIR was
not related to the withdrawal of PG&E Advice Letter 4948-E.
PG&E filed Advice Letter 5166-E on October 24, 2017 requesting Commission
approval of its revised General Conditions Agreement.
After further working with the CSAC, the LOCC, and interested local cities and
counties, PG&E is now filing revisions to Form 79-1127 (Revised Form 79-1127).
The revisions to the GCA in AL 5166-E further clarify the roles and
responsibilities with cities on Rule 20A projects, and they are intended to
improve project cost certainty and project timing. Approval of the revised GCA
will enable several cities and counties to move forward on Rule 20A projects for
which they had elected to wait for approval of these new terms before moving
forward.
PG&E stated that the filing of this Advice Letter is not intended to prejudge any
issues or outcomes in the recently opened Rule 20 OIR. PG&E further states that
any resulting subsequent changes from the Rule 20 OIR could result in changes
and further modifications to Form 79-1127.
The summary of proposed changes detailed in AL 5166-E are listed below:
Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements: The current Form 79-1127
does not require Governmental Bodies to account for ADA requirements
when determining boundaries of the Rule 20A project. Under the revised
Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies will acknowledge wheelchair access
and consider it as a basis for defining the boundaries of the Rule 20A
project.
Maps: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies are required to
provide PG&E with base maps for the Rule 20A project. After feedback
from Governmental Bodies of having difficulties in providing the base
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
4
map causing project delays, Governmental Bodies are no longer required
to provide PG&E with base maps for the Rule 20A project under the
revised Form 79-1127. PG&E now assumes this responsibility and the
revised requirement is that Governmental Bodies will provide PG&E with
the project boundary map and available drawings of known Governmental
Body-owned facilities and road improvements.
Easements: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies are
required to secure all rights of way and easements to the satisfaction of
PG&E. After feedback from Governmental Bodies that projects are delayed
due to the current process of obtaining easements, the responsibilities to
secure easements for Rule 20A projects have been changed under the
revised Form 79-1127 so that they are now shared between the
Governmental Body and PG&E.
Paving and Restoration Costs: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental
Bodies are required to pay for all paving and restoration costs beyond the
standard excavation and restoration cost necessary for the Rule 20A
project. In the revised Form 79-1127, the paving and restoration costs that
go beyond what is necessary for the Rule 20A project are a now shared
responsibility with joint trench participants.1
Paving Moratorium: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies
are required to waive paving moratorium requirements or pay for the
additional costs needed. In the revised Form 79-1127, Governmental
Bodies are no longer required to waive their paving moratorium period in
order for PG&E to perform its conversion work. The Governmental Body
will now work with PG&E to schedule undergrounding projects prior to
1 Underground electrical facilities are typically installed in common, joint trenches.
Other trench participants in a joint trench would include telephone and cable providers
who have their facilities in the same trench space as electrical utilities.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
5
municipal paving projects or after the municipal paving moratorium
period.
Streetlights: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies are
required pay for streetlights according to a Street Light Agreement and
remove streetlights attached to utility poles and located within the
underground district. Due to the complexity of streetlight conversions, the
revised Form 79-1127 now gives Governmental Bodies more flexibility to
determine how they want to address streetlights impacted within the
project scope prior to the start of the project design and PG&E is required
to disclose project impacts to the existing streetlight system.
Permit Conditions, Fees, and Cost Details: In the current Form 79-1127,
Governmental Bodies are required to waive all fees and permit costs. After
feedback from the Governmental Bodies that the costs should not be
waived, the requirement is revised to allow Governmental Bodies to share
all fees and permitting costs with joint trench participants.
Construction Yards: In the current Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies
are required to provide acceptable construction yard for materials and
equipment storage. In the revised Form 79-1127, Governmental Bodies are
allowed to share the costs of providing acceptable construction yard for
materials and equipment storage with joint trench participants.
Contaminated Soils and Cultural Resources: In the current Form 79-1127,
the Governmental Bodies own and manage all contaminated soils and
cultural resource findings and Rule 20A funds cannot be used for
environmental remediation costs. After much discussion with
Governmental Bodies, the revised requirement does not change the
responsibility of the Governmental Body to own and manage all
contaminated soil and cultural resource findings, but further clarifies the
process when contamination and cultural resources are encountered.
Under the revised Form 79-1127, PG&E allows cities and counties to use
Rule 20A funds to obtain core samples to aid cities in identifying potential
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
6
contaminated soil and cultural resource issues and to design a project that
avoids these issues.
Electric Service Panel Conversions: In the current Form 79-1127, the
electric service panel conversion responsibility was solely under the PG&E
responsibility section creating confusion. The revised Form 79-1127
clarifies that Governmental Bodies may elect to be the lead in the
conversion of electric service panels and clarifies the payment and
reimbursement process.
Subsurface Equipment: The current Form 79-1127, does not specify a
process to deal with subsurface equipment. In the revised From 79-1127,
Governmental Bodies may request PG&E to install subsurface equipment
(i.e. underground transformers) and if PG&E agrees, then the Rule 20A
allocation funds may be used for the capital costs and installation. The
Governmental Bodies will be required to pay the one-time maintenance
charge associated with maintaining the subsurface equipment.
These changes are widely supported by cities and counties across California and
representative organizations such as the California Association of Counties and
the League of California Cities. However, two proposed changes were protested
by the Cities of San Jose and Cupertino (“Protestors”). These changes were
contaminated soils and cultural resources, and subsurface equipment. The two
items are described in more detail below.
Contaminated Soils and Cultural Resources
Under the current GCA, the cities and counties own and manage all
contaminated soil and cultural resource findings. This means that the cities are
responsible for all remediation costs associated with contaminated soils and
cultural resources. The revised GCA does not change this responsibility.
However, the revised GCA allows the Governmental Entities to use Rule 20A
work credits to fund core sampling so they can design their projects to
potentially avoid contaminated soils and cultural resources. In addition, the
revised GCA clarifies that in the event where contamination or cultural resources
are encountered, PG&E will suspend work in the affected area until all
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
7
remediation measures required by law are completed by the Governmental Body
or other responsible party.
Subsurface Equipment
The current GCA does not allow the cities and counties to use their Rule 20A
work credits to pay for the capital costs, installation or maintenance costs for
subsurface equipment. The revised GCA clarifies that cities and counties may
request PG&E to install subsurface equipment in an underground vault (rather
than using a pad-mounted facility). If PG&E agrees, then the Governmental Body
may use Rule 20A credits to pay for the subsurface equipment capital and
installation costs. However, the Governmental Body would be required to pay a
one-time maintenance fee under the revised GCA.
NOTICE
Notice of AL 5166-E was made by publication in the Commission’s Daily
Calendar. PG&E states that a copy of AL 5166-E was distributed in accordance
with Section 4.3 of G.O. 96-B.
PROTESTS AND LETTERS OF SUPPORT
The Cities of San Jose and Cupertino submitted identical, timely protests to
Advice Letter 5166-E on November 9, 2017. PG&E filed a reply to the Cities’
protests on November 20, 2017. Letters of support for AL 5166-E and the
proposed GCA were received from various Governmental Entities in late 2017.
These include: the counties of Contra Costa (December 5), Humboldt
(December 12), Mendocino (December 5), Marin (November 13), Orange
(December 6), Tuolumne (December 6), and Stanislaus (December 4), the cities of
Watsonville and Redwood City (both November 13), and the CSAC (October 25).
The CSAC is a non-profit organization representing the interests of California’s
58 counties. In their letter of support, CSAC expressed appreciation for PG&E’s
collaborative efforts with their organization and city and county representatives
over the course of 7 years. CSAC states:
“The revised form represents a carefully negotiated compromise that not
only provides greater clarity to the roles and responsibilities for Rule 20A
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
8
projects, but also facilitates project execution and helps reduce the overall
timeline for project completion. Moreover, CSAC fully expects that the
revised General Conditions and the additional certainty they provide will
lead to the immediate implementation of Rule 20A-funded projects and a
reduction in the current work credit backlog.”
The Cities protested Advice Letter 5166-E primarily because they oppose the
proposed terms for the contaminated soils and cultural resources, and for the
subsurface equipment. The Protestors argue five main points: (1) the
Commission’s lack of jurisdiction over charter cities; (2) PG&E’s failure to
properly serve AL 3767-E, which sought Commission approval for the original
GCA; (3) the terms for contaminated soils and cultural resources; (4) the new
terms for subsurface transformers; and (5) treatment of Advice Letter 5166-E in
light of the Undergrounding OIR.
(1) First Claim: the Commission lacks of jurisdiction over charter cities
San Jose and Cupertino argue that because they are charter law cities, the
Commission does not have the legal authority to compel them to pursue
undergrounding projects and be bound by the revised GCA.
PG&E’s Response to First Claim
In PG&E’s Reply to the Protests it explains that while the Commission may not
have direct authority over charter cities, the California Constitution vests the
Commission with exclusive power and authority to all matters germane to the
regulation of public utilities. This includes the policies, practices and rules
governing the Rule 20A program.
(2) Second Claim: PG&E failed to properly serve AL 3767-E
Protestors claim that PG&E violated GO 96-B § 3.2(1) by failing to properly serve
AL 3767-E in 2010 to the Protestors and others cities, which led the Protestors to
protest of AL 4948-E and AL 5166-E. They argue that § 3.2(1) requires the utilities
to serve Advice Letters to “all parties to the Contract or other deviation.” Since
PG&E did not properly serve AL 3767-E, Protestors argue that they never had
the opportunity to protest these terms before they came into effect.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
9
PG&E’s Response to Second Claim
PG&E argues that this claim is irrelevant and moot in the context of this Advice
Letter filing 5166-E since the Cities did not take action until nearly 6 years after
AL 3767 was filed.
(3) Third Claim: the terms for contaminated soils and cultural resources expose
cities to unlimited liability and financial exposure
The Protestors are opposed to the terms for contaminated soils and cultural
resources. The Protestors believe that PG&E is the owner of the Rule 20A projects
and for that reason the Protestors should not be exposed to unlimited liability
and financial exposure from contaminated soil or cultural resource findings. The
Protestors argue that PG&E is the owner because Rule 20A projects are funded
primarily by the ratepayers for their own benefit, and because PG&E is not the
Cities’ contractor.
PG&E’s Response to Third Claim
PG&E argues that the Protestors misunderstand who has ownership of the
project. Cities initiate Rule 20A projects, not PG&E or its ratepayers. PG&E
would not undertake work on a proposed project if it were not for a request from
a municipality. Therefore, PG&E should not be responsible for contaminated soil
and cultural resource issues.
Additionally, PG&E argues that the Commission has already approved these
terms in the current Form 79-1127 and the revised version at issue in this
Resolution does not change these terms. In the revised GCA, PG&E allows cities
and counties to use their work credits to pay for core sampling, so cities and
counties can be better informed regarding contamination as they decide whether
to move forward with projects. Since the cities and counties would have the best
knowledge of contaminated areas, PG&E finds it to be reasonable for cities and
counties to pay for the remediation when cities and counties know a project will
likely encounter cultural resources or soil contamination.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
10
(4) Fourth Claim: the one-time maintenance charge for subsurface equipment
should be paid for with Rule 20A funds
Protestors contend that even though PG&E agreed to allow use of Rule 20A work
credits to pay for the undergrounding of transformers in the revised GCA, PG&E
is simply using the one-time maintenance charge to shift the costs back onto the
Cities.
PG&E’s Response to Fourth Claim
PG&E’s responds that underground transformers are not standard installations
for undergrounding, but rather special facilities that are subject to Electric Tariff
Rule 2. PG&E explains that since the cities and counties initiate the request to
have subsurface equipment installed for a project, they are required to pay for
the installation and maintenance costs according to Electric Tariff Rule 2. PG&E
also explains that these new terms for subsurface equipment represent a
compromise as PG&E would otherwise not allow Rule 20A funds to be used
towards the installation. Furthermore, PG&E asserts that the Rule 20A program
is a capital program and Rule 20A funds are intended as capital funds that
cannot be used towards the expense cost in maintenance of underground
transformers.
(5) Fifth Claim: Advice Letter 5166-E’s request is unreasonable in light of the
Undergrounding OIR R.17-05-010.
Protestors argue that according to GO 96B § 7.4.2(5-6), it is unreasonable to
impose costs for contaminated soils and cultural resources, and the
undergrounding of transformers because these issues are to be considered in a
formal Rulemaking, R.17-05-010. The OIR’s § 5.2.4 has a list of Initial Scoping
Questions, including Item 23 which asks if the Commission should consider the
use of Rule 20 A funds towards “conversion-related work” such as “subsurface
transformers and hazardous waste cleanup.”
PG&E’s Response to Fifth Claim
PG&E states that it does not object to these issues being in scope of the OIR.
PG&E explains that in the context of the OIR, Advice Letter 5166-E does not
prejudge the outcome of the OIR. PG&E furthermore recognizes that the
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
11
Commission very well could require PG&E to revise its GCA terms again to
reflect the Commission’s determinations in the OIR.
The Commission addresses the Protestors’ claims and PG&E’s replies in the
“Discussion” section below.
DISCUSSION
AL 5166-E is approved based on the following considerations:
The revised Form 79-1127 has widespread support across PG&E’s service
territory as a means of improving project cost certainty and timing. It will also
help reduce unused Rule 20A work credit surpluses.
From years of extensive consultation with cities and counties, PG&E and its
Governmental partners arrived at the revised GCA. The revised GCA represents
a step forward as it clarifies the roles and responsibilities for the Governmental
Entities and PG&E, making it easier for projects to get completed and reduce the
cities’ and counties’ growing balances of unused work credits. The revised GCA
is supported by a wide range of parties and protested by only two cities. Several
cities believe the revised GCA terms are important enough that they have elected
to wait to move forward on undergrounding projects until the GCA is approved.
Of the various proposed changes, the change to the maps has been lauded as one
of the most valuable of these to the Governmental Entities. Under the revised
GCA, PG&E assumes responsibility for base mapping and allows the
Governmental Entities to use their Rule 20A work credits to pay PG&E to
provide the maps instead. According to PG&E, entities such as the cities of
Watsonville and Redwood City, and CSAC, find this change to be a critical step
towards facilitating project completion as many cities and counties simply do not
have the resources to provide base mapping to PG&E on their own.
In addition the following sections describe the Commission’s response to the
Protestors’ claims, described above.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
12
The Commission’s Discussion of San Jose’s and Cupertino’s Protests
The Commission Does Not Compel Cities to Participate in Rule 20A. The
Program is Voluntary for Cities.
The Commission does not have the legal authority to compel charter cities to
pursue undergrounding projects and be bound by the revised GCA. However,
the Rule 20A program is voluntary. The Protestors are not compelled to work
with PG&E on Rule 20A projects. If Protestors decide to pursue Rule 20A
projects, they may do so according to the rules that the Commission approves.
AL 3767-E is Not Relevant to the Issue at Stake in Advice Letter 5166-E
The question of whether or not PG&E previously violated GO 96-B in a separate
Advice Letter filing is outside the scope of this Resolution. The Protestors were
served the revised Form 79-1127 and have been active participants in Energy
Division's consideration of the merits of PG&E's proposal.
The Cities and Counties can use Core Sample Data to Avoid Contaminated Soil
and Cultural Resource Issues
In the Rule 20A program, cities and counties are voluntarily initiating projects.
Therefore, it is unreasonable that ratepayers would be expected to fund cities’
remediation efforts when the cities and counties could choose to underground
facilities in other, uncontaminated locations or cancel a project. To aid cities’
ability to identify contaminated soils and cultural resources the new GCA will
allow them to use Rule 20 A credits to analyze core samples. This will help cities
avoid more expensive sites. The cities and counties freely choose the sites, and
would know best whether or not remediation will be necessary to move projects
forward from knowledge of their jurisdiction and from core sample data.
The One-Time Maintenance Charge for Subsurface Equipment Represents a
Reasonable Compromise to PG&E’s Partner Cities and Counties
Compared to the status quo of not using Rule 20A funds to pay for subsurface
equipment, the new GCA represents a compromise in PG&E’s service territory.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
13
In San Diego Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison service territories,
Governmental Entities are, at present, not given the option to put transformers
underground and must install their transformers as pad mounts. PG&E has
proposed to allow cities and counties the option to use work credits to pay for
subsurface equipment if the cities and counties agree to pay a one-time
maintenance cost. This is a reasonable compromise over the status quo and gives
Governmental Bodies more options.
Advice Letter 5166-E’s Request is Not Unreasonable in Light of the
Undergrounding OIR
This Resolution may be superseded by R.17-05-010 (the Undergrounding
Proceeding) and this Resolution is not binding on that Proceeding. Approving
this AL now provides many cities a more favorable GCA for them to move
forward on delayed projects. Though the PG&E Rule 20A Program changes
introduced here may ultimately be resolved in R.17-05-010.
For the reasons stated above AL 5166-E is approved.
COMMENTS
Public Utilities Code section 311(g)(1) provides that this resolution must be
served on all parties and subject to at least 30 days public review and comment
prior to a vote of the Commission. Accordingly, this draft resolution was mailed
to all parties for comment, and was placed on the Commission's agenda to be
voted on no sooner than 30 days after mailing.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
1. The Commission approved Advice Letter 3767-E on December 31, 2010,
which established Form 79-1127, the Rule 20A General Conditions
Agreement. Form 79-1127 clarified the roles and responsibilities of the
Governmental Entities and PG&E for completing Rule 20A projects.
2. From 2011 to 2017, PG&E negotiated with cities and counties to improve
Form 79-1127 at the behest of these Governmental Entities.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
14
3. PG&E filed Advice Letter 4948-E in October 2016 seeking approval of the
revised GCA, but withdrew following the City of San Jose’s protest.
4. In May 19, 2017, the Commission opened an Order Instituting Rulemaking
(R.17-05-010) for considering changes to the Rule 20A program. The timing of
this OIR was not related to the withdrawal of PG&E Advice Letter 4948-E.
5. PG&E filed Advice Letter 5166-E on October 24, 2017 requesting Commission
approval of its revised General Conditions Agreement.
6. PG&E's revisions to the GCA incorporate compromises made after 7 years of
collaborative work with cities and counties.
7. The intent of the GCA is to further clarify roles and responsibilities with
Governmental Entities on Rule 20A projects, and to improve project cost
certainty and timing.
8. Some Governmental Entities put their Rule 20 A projects on hold for several
years to wait for Commission approval of the new GCA.
9. PG&E stated that the filing of Advice Letter 5166-E is not intended to
prejudge any issues or outcomes in the recently opened Rule 20 OIR. PG&E
further stated that any resulting subse quent changes from the Rule 20 OIR
could result in changes and further modifications to Form 79-1127.
10. The cities of San Jose and Cupertino filed protests to Advice Letter 4948-E on
November 9, 2017.
11. PG&E filed a reply to the Cities’ protests on November 20, 2017.
12. Letters of support for Advice Letter 5166-E and the proposed GCA were filed
by: the counties of Contra Costa (December 5), Humboldt (December 12),
Mendocino (December 5), Marin (November 13), Orange (December 6),
Tuolumne (December 6), and Stanislaus (December 4); the cities of
Watsonville and Redwood City (both November 13); and the California State
Association of Counties (October 25).
13. Many cities and counties are under-resourced, and unable to provide base
mapping for Rule 20A projects without significant cost, making it difficult to
complete projects. Shifting base mapping responsibility to PG&E would
facilitate increased levels of project completion.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
15
14. The Rule 20A program is voluntary and the Commission does not compel
charter cites to pursue undergrounding projects.
15. The question of whether or not PG&E previously violated GO 96-B through
its service of Advice Letter 3736-E is outside the scope of this Resolution.
16. Ratepayers should not be expected to fund cities’ remediation efforts when
Governmental Bodies could use knowledge of their jurisdiction and core
sample data to choose to underground other, uncontaminated locations or
cancel a project.
17. PG&E’s agreement to pay for the installation and capital costs of subsurface
equipment and requirement for Governmental Bodies to pay a one-time
maintenance cost is a reasonable compromise over the status quo.
18. This Resolution may be superseded by R.17-05-010 (the Undergrounding
Proceeding) and this Resolution is not binding on the Proceeding.
19. The PG&E Rule 20A Program changes introduced here may be further
addressed in the Rule 20 OIR (R.17-05-010)
20. Approval of the revised GCA will enable several Governmental Bodies to
move forward on Rule 20A projects which they had elected to delay until
approval of a new GCA.
Resolution E-4919 DRAFT April 26, 2018
PG&E AL 5166-E/ JF6
16
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. PG&E’s revised Form 79-1127 is adopted and replaces PG&E’s current
Form 79-1127. PG&E Advice Letter 5166-E is approved.
2. Within 7 days of this Resolution’s effective date PG&E shall file a tier 1
supplemental compliance Advice Letter incorporating the revisions to
Form 79-1127.
This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted
at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held
on April 26, 2018; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
_____________________
ALICE STEBBINS
Executive Director
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-83 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
Ordinance establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District (CIP Project st1904).
WHEREAS,the California Public Utility Commission (“CPUC”)has authorized electric and
telecommunication utilities to convert overhead utility lines and facilities to underground,pursuant to Electric
Rule 20 and Telecommunication Rule 32; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to certain criteria,CPUC rules allow participating cities and counties to adopt legislation
establishing underground utility districts within which existing overhead electric distribution and
telecommunication distribution and service facilities will be converted to underground facilities; and
WHEREAS,CPUC Resolution E-4919 requires that the City enter into standard agreements with Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG&E)including Electric Form 79-1127 “Agreement to Perform Tariff Scheduled Related Work,Rule
20A General Conditions”,commonly known as the General Conditions Agreement,to direct PG&E to use the
City’s Rule 20A work credits to underground its distribution lines and service laterals,remove the utilities
poles, and restore the site.
WHEREAS,the General Conditions Agreement requires that the City provide this duly-adopted ordinance
creating the underground district in the area in which both the existing and new facilities are and will be
located, require, among other things:
1.That all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities in such district shall be
removed:
2.The each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with
PG&E’s rules for underground service,all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to
receive service from the underground facilities of PG&E as soon as it is available; and
3.Authorizing PG&E to discontinue its overhead electric service upon completion of the underground
distribution system.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City’)Municipal Code Chapter 13.16 authorizes the City
Council,after holding a public hearing,to designate districts within which all existing overhead poles,overhead
wires and overhead equipment associated with the distribution of electric power,telecommunication services,
and cable television, will be removed and replaced with underground wires and facilities; and
WHEREAS,the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Capital Improvement Program project st1904 calls for
converting the overhead utility lines and facilities on Mission Road to underground; and
WHEREAS,to effect this undergrounding,the City desires to establish a Mission Road Underground Utility
District,extending approximately 2,500 feet (including short side street runs)along Mission Road from Grand
Avenue to the southern BART Station entrance,as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS,upon finding that undergrounding the overhead utilities along Mission Road is in the public
interest,the City may establish an underground utility district containing all of the parcels within the district,asCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-83 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
interest,the City may establish an underground utility district containing all of the parcels within the district,as
identified on the Exhibit A district boundary map,thereby allowing the City to expend a portion of its
accumulated Rule 20A work credits to fund the utility conversion; and
WHEREAS,the City has accumulated $6,780,977 of PG&E Rule 20A work credits as of May 2018,and may
borrow up to five years of future credit allocations,yielding $7,794,257 in work credits that may be used for
qualified underground utility conversion projects pursuant to CPUC Rule 20A, and
WHEREAS,in 2016,the City established the Spruce Avenue Underground Utility District and committed an
estimated $5,365,000 of Rule 20A work credits to complete the undergrounding conversion; and
WHEREAS,in 2017,the City established the Spruce Avenue Underground Utility District and committed an
estimated $2,325,000 of Rule 20A work credits to complete the undergrounding conversion; and
WHEREAS,PG&E’s cost in work credits for the Mission Road Underground Utility District is estimated at
$5,129,000; and
WHEREAS,because the cost in PG&E credits for the Spruce,Antoinette,and Mission Underground Utility
Districts would exceed the City’s work credit balance,the City requests that PG&E give the Antoinette and
Mission Underground Utility Districts priority for design and construction while the City acquires additional
credits to complete the Spruce Underground Utility District.
WHEREAS,the total cost of the Mission Road Underground Utility District to be shared by PG&E,AT&T,
Wave Broadband,and the City is estimated at $7,600,000,of which an estimated $6,700,000 is reimbursable to
the City; and,
WHEREAS,the City and the affected utilities have consulted and agreed that each utility shall complete the
engineering design of its respective portion of the Mission Road Underground Utility District project; and
WHEREAS,the City and the affected utilities have consulted and agreed that the City shall be designated the
“lead agent”also known as “trenching agent,”responsible for preparing the trench profile and composite joint
trench drawings,and managing trenching,installation of substructures,pavement restoration,and such other
trench-related work; and
WHEREAS,the City and the affected utilities have agreed to a work schedule which meets their respective
capabilities and have further agreed to waive any administrative fees,costs,or special street restoration
requirements for the purposes of this project; and
WHEREAS,the City notified all affected property owners within the proposed Mission Road Underground
Utility District and invited same to attend a public hearing to discuss formation of the proposed district; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has received the staff report recommending that the area identified in Exhibit A
should be designated as an underground utility district within which all existing overhead poles,overhead
wires,and overhead equipment associated with the distribution of electric power,telecommunication services,
and cable television should be removed and replaced with underground wires and facilities; and
WHEREAS,a public hearing was duly opened on June 13,2018,and continued to July 25,2018,and then
subsequently continued to the regular meeting of August 8,2018,in the Council Chambers of the City of South
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-83 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
subsequently continued to the regular meeting of August 8,2018,in the Council Chambers of the City of South
San Francisco,at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard,and the City Council
did consider any and all objections or protests that were raised by the owners of property within the proposed
district, pertaining to designating this area an underground utility district; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that,pursuant to Section 13.16.020 of the South San Francisco
Municipal Code,the public necessity,health,safety,and welfare requires the removal of overhead wires and
overhead structures along Mission Road, with underground re-installation of said wires and facilities; and
WHEREAS,the City has consulted with the affected utilities and such utilities have agreed that the proposed
underground conversion district,designated the Mission Road Underground Utility District,as described in
Exhibit A,primarily runs along and arterial street and adjoins civic area and public recreation areas,thereby
qualifying to be designated a Rule 20A District in accordance with CPUC rules; and
WHEREAS,after establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District,the City will need to enter into
standard agreements with PG&E and complete other standard forms and documentation,including,but not
limited to,the “Agreement to Perform Tariff Scheduled Related Work,Rule 20A -General Conditions,”the
“Agreement to Perform Tariff Schedule Related Work,Rule 20A -Electric Panel Service Conversion,”the
“Letter of Streetlight Agreement,” and the “Rule 20A Wheelchair Access Consideration,” and
WHEREAS,upon the recommendation of staff,the City Council has determined that the proposed Mission
Road Underground Utility District is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.Findings
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco (“City”)finds that the public interest requires the removal
of all existing utility poles,(excepting those poles supporting streetlights and traffic signals),overhead utility
wires,and associated overhead structures,and the installation of underground wires and facilities for supplying
electric power,communication,or similar associated services within the areas as shown in Exhibit A,attached
hereto, along Mission Road, with such area being designated as the Mission Road Underground Utility District.
SECTION 2.Establishment of Underground District
Based on the findings contained in this Ordinance, the City hereby establishes the Mission Road
Underground Utility District, within the areas as shown in Exhibit A, attached to this Ordinance, and orders the
removal of all existing utility poles, (excepting those poles supporting streetlights and traffic signals), overhead
utility wires, and associated overhead structures, and the installation of underground wires and facilities for
supplying electric power, communication, or similar associated services. Such work must be completed within
a reasonable time, following completion of design documents, as determined by the City Engineer.
SECTION 3.General Conditions Agreement Requirements
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-83 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
In accordance with the PG&E Form 79-1127 conditions,upon establishing the Mission Road Underground
Utilities District, the City hereby agrees, requires, and/or acknowledges:
A.That all existing overhead communication and electric distribution facilities in the district shall be
removed;
B.That each property served from such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with
PG&E’s rules for underground service,all electrical facility changes on the premises necessary to
receive service from the underground facilities of PG&E as soon as it is available; and
C.PG&E and the telecommunications utilities are authorized to discontinue overhead electric service upon
completion of the underground distribution system.
D.Wheelchair access is in the public interest and has been considered as a basis for defining the District
boundaries.
SECTION 4.Authorization to Execute Agreements and to Make Minor Revisions to the Mission Road
Underground Utility District Boundary Map
Upon establishment of the District,the City Council authorizes the City Manager to complete,execute,and
transmit on behalf of the City all agreements,acknowledgements,and forms necessarily to complete the
Mission Road Underground Utility District project,subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney,to make
minor revisions to the District Boundary Map to resolve unforeseen conflicts,and to provide PG&E direction
concerning the priority of the City’s Districts.
SECTION 5.Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or
unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances,shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end,
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase
hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 6.Publication and Effective Date
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared
by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to
be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified
copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)
publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance
along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-83 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:4a.
along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
Report regarding introduction of an ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code adding
Chapter 8.69 to establish an affordable housing commercial linkage fee for new commercial development
in the City.(Deanna Talavera, Management Analyst II)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:(1)hold a public hearing,introduce an ordinance establishing a
Commercial Linkage Fee,and waive further reading;and (2)adopt a Resolution establishing the fee
amount and list of uses and exemptions for payment of the fee.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City of South San Francisco (“City”)has a strong and ongoing commitment to affordable housing.During
the Redevelopment Agency era,the City subsidized and participated in the construction of over 900 affordable
housing units.However,the loss of Redevelopment Agency funds and reduction in other state or federal
funding has created a resource gap for the development of new affordable housing.Coupled with a boom in the
economy, availability of affordable housing has become a critical regional concern.
On May 7,2018,the Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and Planning Commission
(“Committee”)held a study session on various policies to increase production of affordable housing in South
San Francisco,including requiring inclusionary affordable housing in rental developments and enacting a
commercial linkage fee.The Committee directed staff to move forward with a commercial linkage fee,
beginning with updating the fee study analysis and then drafting an ordinance for consideration based on the
fee study.
On July 19,2018,staff presented to the Planning Commission the proposed draft fees and uses to which the
commercial linkage fee would apply,as well as deductions and exemptions.A recommendation was not
required by the Planning Commission,as the proposed ordinance does not amend the zoning ordinance.
Feedback included increasing the fee for hotels and office/R&D in relation to neighboring cities,while
recognizing that the City currently has additional development fees like the childcare impact fee that other
cities do not impose. (See Attachment 3 for Commercial Linkage Fee Comparisons).
Regional Housing Needs Allocation
In considering what might constitute a sufficient level of resources for affordable housing,it is important to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
In considering what might constitute a sufficient level of resources for affordable housing,it is important to
consider the City’s affordable housing goals.In late 2015,the City Council accepted specific housing
production goals for the 2015-2023 planning period when it approved its most recent Housing Element.This
State-approved document addresses how the City will meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).
South San Francisco’s RHNA share for the 2015-2023 planning period is 1,864 units.
The City issued 368 building permits for new residential units in 2017,bringing the City’s total housing
production during the planning period to 515 units out of the 1,864 required.There has been an upward trend in
permit issuance, which is promising; however, there is still progress to be made at lower income categories.
Ultimately,achieving meaningful progress toward meeting the City’s RHNA share at all income levels will
require utilizing more than just one housing program.A combination of strategies will be particularly important
for producing housing affordable to the community’s lowest earners -those in the very low-income category.
The implementation of a commercial linkage fee will allow the City to leverage affordable housing funding to
assist with the construction of new units,housing rehabilitation programs,and other affordable housing
programs.
Available Funds
The City has two housing funds described below:
Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)
The City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Fund 205)was created to hold funds received as a result of
developer agreements and from the City’s existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.If developers were unable
to incorporate affordable units into their housing developments,the City in limited cases,accepted in-lieu fees
(e.g.Terrabay).In other cases,the City required a housing fee in addition to the affordable units (e.g.Oak
Farms).These funds can only be used for the development of new affordable housing for households earning
less than 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). The current balance of Fund 205 is $650,000.
Housing Fund (Fund 241)
Upon becoming the housing successor to the former Redevelopment Agency (RDA)in February 2011,all
former RDA housing assets were transferred to the City.As part of that transfer of housing assets,the City
established the Housing Fund (Fund 241).Revenues from rental housing properties,RDA funded loan
repayments,and interest are deposited into Fund 241.The Fund can be used to develop housing or for any other
purposes that advances the creation or preservation of affordable units,including new construction,
rehabilitation,first time homebuyer loans,and staffing,as long as the uses are consistent with RDA law and
Dissolution law.Currently,these funds are being used for housing related expenses,including staffing,
maintenance,and other incidental expenses.The use of these funds is governed by Senate Bill 341 and is
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
limited to households earning less than 80 percent of AMI. The current balance of Fund 241 is $647,470.
DISCUSSION
Commercial linkage fees are a type of impact fee assessed on the construction or conversion of commercial
buildings to mitigate the increased demand created for affordable housing.New commercial development
creates new jobs and attracting new workers to the City.Workers employed and providing services to this new
commercial development need housing,and many of them work in jobs that pay wages too low to afford
market rate housing.New commercial development creates a need for housing for new,lower income workers,
but does not directly contribute to addressing this need.
Based on a nexus study that examines the relationship between affordable housing and new development,a fee
is established that requires developers of new commercial development to contribute to a dedicated fund to
offset the demand for affordable housing in the City.
Nexus Study
California Law allows the City to levy impact fees on new development,provided that there is a rational and
proportional link between the fee,and the impact the fee addresses.The way this link is drawn is through a
Nexus Study,which examines the reasonableness of the relationship between the proposed fee and the
development of new commercial space with additional workers employed,as well as the relationship between
the resulting need for affordable housing and the development of such commercial buildings.The amount of the
impact fee and the need for affordable housing must be reasonably related to the burden created by the
commercial development in accordance with Government Code Section 66001.Additionally,the proposed fees
must not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing affordable housing,pursuant to Government Code
Section 66005(a).
In 2015,a Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study was prepared for South San Francisco as part of a unique,
multi-jurisdictional nexus study.The nexus study explored the impact of new development on the need for
affordable housing in jurisdictions throughout San Mateo County.(See Attachment 1 for the Nexus Study).
While the nexus study informs a jurisdiction about the maximum amount they can legally charge as an impact
fee,the maximum fee level may not be appropriate given local market conditions,existing fee levels in the
region,or the jurisdiction’s current fee structure.Lower proposed fee amounts have the benefit of being more
supportable during all market cycles,and not only during the current environment with relatively high rents and
sales prices.
Accordingly,a feasibility study was prepared in addition to the Nexus Study,and updated in July 2018,to
assess what level of fee could be absorbed by the market for different development types,given current
commercial rent levels.Strategic Economics prepared the updated feasibility study to evaluate the feasibility of
a commercial linkage fee in South San Francisco. (See Attachment 2 for the Feasibility Study)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 3 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
Fee Levels
The fee recommendations in this report are carefully designed to ensure that development remains feasible.
Research from other jurisdictions shows that imposing new housing impact fees does not tend to slow the pace
of development,and that developers typically adjust to the fees by ultimately incorporating the expected fees
into the price they are willing to pay for developable land.
A number of other jurisdictions are working to adopt,or have already adopted,commercial linkage fees.The
proposed South San Francisco impact fees are comparable to the impact fees under consideration or already
adopted by these jurisdictions,including San Bruno,Redwood City,San Mateo,Burlingame,and a number of
other local jurisdictions.Attachment 3 shows the City’s recommended fee levels as compared to other
jurisdictions.Staff has reviewed other cities’commercial linkage fee programs in the peninsula and found that
most cities design their fee programs to be responsive to their policy objectives,market conditions,and other
issues specific to their city.The fees recommended for South San Francisco are in line,and in some cases,
lower than its neighbors.A fee that is in line with,or slightly below those in neighboring cities,will assist the
City in its efforts to attract new businesses, while ensuring that our affordable housing goals are met.
Office (office,medical office,and R&D),retail (restaurant,retail,and services),and hotel (hotel,resorts,and
other lodging)uses were all considered in the Nexus Study.A maximum nexus-based fee of $192 per square
foot for office,$230 per square foot for retail,and $130 per square foot hotel was calculated.Below are the
maximum justified fees that could be charged and the recommended impact fees that could be sustained by new
commercial development to generate affordable housing funds.
Development Type Maximum Justified Fee Recommended Linkage Fee
Hotel/Resort/Other Lodging $130 per sq. ft.$5 per sq. ft.
Retail/Restaurants/Services $230 per sq. ft.$2.50 per sq. ft.
Office/Medical Office/R&D $192 per sq. ft.$15 per sq. ft.
An annual adjustment for inflation,according to the change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban
Consumers (CPI-U), is also proposed.
The recommended linkage fees are based on the feasibility analysis’evaluation of how possible increases to the
linkage fee could adversely impact the development pipeline and impede the City’s ability to produce
affordable housing.The yield on cost (YOC)results can be compared to an investor’s expectations of return for
each type of development.Office/R&D projects with a YOC of above 6.50%and hotel projects with a YOC
above 8.25%were considered feasible,while retail projects were considered feasible with a YOC higher than
7.5%.(See Figure 8 of Attachment 2 for Commercial Linkage Fee Update).The recommended linkage fees lie
within targeted YOC to ensure the commercial linkage fees do not reduce development in the City.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 4 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
Applicability
The proposed fee would apply only to those office,retail,and hotel uses listed above,specifically:hotel,resort,
and other lodging; retail, restaurants, and services; and office, medical office, and research and development.
Effective Date
Staff proposes that the commercial linkage fee take effect on projects for which applications have been deemed
complete on or after January 1, 2019.
Exemptions
Staff proposes targeted waivers and exemptions to accommodate projects where the fee may have unintended
negative consequences or to align with policy priorities of the City.Staff recommends that the proposed fee
does not apply to any of the following:
·Retail in the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan area.
·Public projects or projects undertaken on City property.
·Any structure proposed to repair or replace a building that was damaged or destroyed by fire or other
disaster,so long as the square footage and use of the building remains the same,and construction of the
replacement building begins within one year of the damage or destruction.
·Upon approval by City Council,desirable public uses,such as community facilities and quasi-public
uses like childcare centers, churches, and schools may also be exempted.
·Nonresidential development projects for which applications have been deemed complete prior to
January 1, 2019.
Deductions or Credits
Staff also proposes targeted deductions or credits to ensure that the fee aligns with the City’s policy priorities.
The proposed fee would be subject to a deduction or fee credit in the following scenarios:
·Change of use
When a development project changes from a lower-fee use like retail to a higher-fee use like office,the
fee is calculated on the net change based on the pre-existing use and corresponding fee requirements of
the new use.
·Land dedication
Upon approval by City Council,an applicant would be able to dedicate land in South San Francisco for
the purpose of building affordable housing and deduct the land value from the project’s total
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 5 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
commercial linkage fee obligation.
·Contribution to an affordable housing project
Upon approval by City Council,an applicant would be able to contribute an amount equal to their fee to
an entitled affordable housing project in South San Francisco.
·Prevailing wage
Upon approval by City Council,an applicant would be able to receive a fee credit up to 25%of their
total commercial linkage fee obligation for constructing the project utilizing prevailing wage.If granted,
the credit would be provided upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Use of Collected Fees
The fees generated through the commercial linkage fee would be spent on housing programs and projects
serving extremely-,very low-,low-,and moderate-income households.These programs and projects may
include purchasing land,construction funding for new units,rental subsidies,housing rehabilitation programs,
extension of expiring affordability covenants,and other affordable housing programs and projects.The City
Council may adopt guidelines prioritizing how the funds may be spent.
The fee must also meet Mitigation Fee Act reporting requirements,which require annual updates on collection
and expenditure of fees,as well as identification of projects for funding,pursuant to Government Code Section
66006.Every five years,specific findings must be made regarding unspent fees with estimates for future
funding commitments under Government Code Section 66001(d).
Proposed Ordinance and Resolution
Based on direction from the Committee and feedback from the Planning Commission,staff has prepared an
ordinance establishing the commercial linkage fee program,based on the proposal described above,which does
the following:
·Defines types of commercial development that the Nexus Study shows have an impact on the need for
affordable housing;
·Establishes a commercial linkage fee program and imposes fees on development that will be subject to
the fee, with the amount of the fees to be set by resolution of the City Council;
·Provides a mechanism for developers whose projects qualify to apply for deductions or credits to the fee
with Council approval; and
·Directs that the proceeds of the new fee be placed into a special fund earmarked for later use for the
provision of preserving and creating affordable housing.
As noted,the ordinance provides that the amount of the commercial linkage fee be set by resolution.Staff has
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 6 of 7
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-715 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5.
As noted,the ordinance provides that the amount of the commercial linkage fee be set by resolution.Staff has
prepared and presents to the City Council a Resolution that accomplishes the following:
·Provides the rates of the fee to be imposed on each type of development subject to the ordinance and
establishes the methodology for calculating the fee on the basis of the square footage of the
development;
·Provides for a review of the fee from time to time by the City Council; and
·Establishes that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the
impacts of the commercial development described in the Nexus Study for which the corresponding fee
is charged.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on projects the City anticipates receiving development applications for in the coming year,staff
estimates that the linkage fee could generate $5 to $15 million over the next two years.However,these amounts
could vary widely depending on the timing of particular applications,use of alternative housing plans,and
economic cycles.Staff recommends revisiting the fee in three years to assess outcomes and potentially modify
the fee.There would be staff costs associated with collecting and administering the fee.Staff recommends that
an initial deposit of $5,000 be required for developers pursuing a credit or deduction of the fee to pay for staff
time during the Council consideration process.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council:(1)hold a public hearing,waive the first reading,and introduce an
ordinance establishing a Commercial Linkage Fee and (2)adopt a resolution establishing the fee amount and
list of uses and exemptions for payment of the fee.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: South San Francisco Commercial Linkage Fee Nexus Study
Attachment 2: Strategic Economics Memorandum: Commercial Linkage Fee Update
Attachment 3: Neighboring Cities: Commercial Linkage Fee Comparisons
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 7 of 7
powered by Legistar™
Draft Report
Commercial Linkage Fee
Nexus Study
July 2015
prepared for:
City of South San Francisco
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.
VWA
Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 4
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Report Organization ......................................................................................................................... 4
Linkage Fee recommendations ........................................................................................................ 4
Nexus Analysis Results .................................................................................................................... 5
Policy Considerations ....................................................................................................................... 8
II. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY ...................................................................... 10
The Nexus Concept ....................................................................................................................... 10
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 10
III. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS ...................................................... 13
Nexus Analysis Steps .................................................................................................................... 13
IV. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP ................................................................................. 46
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 46
Estimating Affordable Rents and Sales Prices .............................................................................. 47
Estimating Housing Development Costs ........................................................................................ 54
Calculating the Housing Affordability Gap ..................................................................................... 59
V. MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES ........................................................................................... 62
Maximum Fee Calculation ............................................................................................................. 62
Summary of Conservative Assumptions ........................................................................................ 63
VI. FEASIBILITY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................... 64
Prototypes and Fee Levels ............................................................................................................ 64
Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 65
Key Inputs ...................................................................................................................................... 65
Results ........................................................................................................................................... 70
Policy Considerations ..................................................................................................................... 74
VII. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................. 80
Glossary of terms ........................................................................................................................... 80
Definition of Acronyms ................................................................................................................... 83
List of Figures
Figure I-1. Recommended Linkage Fees by Commercial Prototype ............................................................ 5
Figure I-2. Commercial Prototypes ............................................................................................................... 6
Figure I-3. Calculation of Worker Household Income by Prototype .............................................................. 7
Figure I-4. Affordable Housing Gap .............................................................................................................. 7
Figure I-5. Maximum Linkage Fees by Prototype ......................................................................................... 8
Figure III-1. Description of Commercial Prototypes .................................................................................... 14
Figure III-2. Employment Density Data and Sources .................................................................................. 16
Figure III-3. Employment Density by Prototype .......................................................................................... 17
Figure III-4. Number of Worker Households by Prototype .......................................................................... 17
Figure III-5. Definition of Industries for Hotel Prototype .............................................................................. 17
Figure III-6. Definition of Industries for Retail/ Restaurants/ Services Prototype ........................................ 18
Figure III-7. Definition of Industries for Office/ R&D/ Medical Office Prototype .......................................... 19
Figure III-8. Average Annual Wage by Prototype ....................................................................................... 20
Figure III-9. Occupational Mix and Average Wages for Hotel Industry ....................................................... 21
Figure III-10. Occupational Mix and Average Wages for Retail/ Restaurants/ Services ............................ 30
Figure III-11. Occupational Mix and Average Wages for Office/ R&D/ Medical Office ............................... 36
Figure III-12. Household Income Categories .............................................................................................. 44
Figure III-13. Number of Worker Households by Income Category ............................................................ 45
Figure IV-1. Calculation of Affordable Rents in San Mateo County by Household Size, 2014 .................. 50
Figure IV-2. Calculation of Affordable Rents in San Mateo County by Unit Type, 2014 ............................ 51
Figure IV-3. Calculation of Affordable Sales Prices in San Mateo County by Household Size, 2014 ........ 52
Figure IV-4. Calculation of Affordable Sales Prices in San Mateo County by Unit Type, 2014 .................. 53
Figure IV-5. Affordable Housing Project Pro Forma Data ........................................................................... 55
Figure IV-6. Sales of Vacant Lands in San Mateo County, 2014 ............................................................... 56
Figure IV-7. Recent Condominium Sales in San Mateo County (2008-2012) ............................................ 57
Figure IV-8. Estimate of Development Costs of Hypothetical Condominium Project ................................. 57
Figure IV-9. Rental Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs ............................................................... 58
Figure IV-10. For-Sale Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs ......................................................... 58
Figure IV-11. Housing Affordability Gap Calculation for Rental Housing ................................................... 60
Figure IV-12. Housing Affordability Gap Calculation for For-Sale Condominium Housing ......................... 61
Figure IV-13. Average Housing Affordability Gap by Income Group .......................................................... 61
Figure V-1. Maximum Commercial Linkage Fees ....................................................................................... 62
Figure VI-1. Description of Commercial Prototypes .................................................................................... 64
Figure VI-2. Linkage Fee Scenarios by Prototype ...................................................................................... 65
Figure VI-3. Pro Forma Revenue Inputs by Prototype ................................................................................ 67
Figure VI-4. Direct and Indirect Cost Inputs ................................................................................................ 68
Figure VI-5. Recent Commercial Vacant Land Transactions in San Mateo County ................................... 69
Figure VI-6. Feasibility Thresholds for Return on Cost ............................................................................... 70
Figure VI-7. Pro Forma Analysis Results .................................................................................................... 73
Figure VI-8. Existing City Fees on Commercial Development by Prototype .............................................. 74
Figure VI-9. Comparison to Linkage Fees in Neighboring Cities ................................................................ 75
Figure VI-10. Existing Linkage Fees in Bay Area Cities ............................................................................. 76
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-4-
INTRODUCTION
This report is part of the 21 Elements multi-city nexus study, a collaborative effort to mitigate the impacts
of new development on the demand for affordable housing in San Mateo County. In February 2014, 21
cities and the county partnered to hire Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. to
develop nexus studies for commercial linkage fees and residential impact fees.1 The project was initiated
by 21 Elements, a countywide collaboration among all the cities in San Mateo County on housing issues.
Some jurisdictions elected to conduct both fee studies, while others did not. The preparation of these fee
studies may result in the adoption of new impact fees on either residential, commercial or both types of
developments. This draft report describes the methodology, data sources, and analytical steps required for
the nexus analysis.
BACKGROUND
South San Francisco is considering adopting a new commercial linkage fee on commercial development.
The purpose of the linkage fee would be to mitigate the impacts of an increase in affordable housing
demand from new worker households associated with new commercial development. When a city or
county adopts impact fees on new development, it must establish a reasonable relationship or connection
between the development project and the fee that is charged. Studies undertaken to demonstrate this
connection are called nexus studies. This linkage fee nexus study quantifies the connection between the
development of commercial hotel, retail/restaurants/services, and office/R&D/medical office projects and
the demand for affordable housing units. The funds raised by the linkage fees are deposited into a housing
fund specifically reserved for use by a local jurisdiction to increase the supply of affordable housing for
the workforce. Linkage fees are one of several funding sources that jurisdictions can use to help meet the
affordable housing needs of new workers.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This executive summary provides an overview of the commercial linkage fee nexus analysis
methodology, results, and recommendations. The subsequent chapters of the report contain more detailed
information regarding the methodology, data sources and analysis. The report is organized into six
sections. Following this executive summary, Section II provides an introduction to the purpose of the
study, and an overview of the methodology. Section III presents each of the steps of the commercial
linkage fee analysis in detail. Section IV covers the housing affordability gap analysis. Section V presents
the maximum fee calculation based on the nexus analysis and affordability gap results. The final section,
Section VI, discusses financial feasibility and other policy considerations that jurisdictions typically
weigh before implementing a nexus fee.
LINKAGE FEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The maximum justified linkage fees are $127 per square foot for hotel, $227 per square foot for retail/
restaurants/ services, and $185 per square foot for office/ R&D/ medical office. Based on the findings of
the financial feasibility analysis, a comparison of fees in neighboring jurisdictions, and other policy
considerations, it is recommended that South San Francisco adopt new commercial linkage fees of $5 per
1 Participating jurisdictions include: 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 County, San Mateo City, San Mateo County, South San Francisco, and Woodside.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-5-
square foot for hotel, $5 per square foot for office/ R&D/ medical office, and $5 per square foot for
retail/restaurants/services. The maximum and recommended fee levels are shown in Figure I-1.
Figure I-1. Recommended Linkage Fees by Commercial Prototype
Prototype
Maximum
Justified Fee
Recommended
Linkage Fee
Hotel $127 $5
Retail/ Restaurants / Services $227 $5
Office/ Medical Office/ R&D $185 $5
Source: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
NEXUS ANALYSIS RESULTS
The principal findings of the nexus analysis are presented below. More detail on each step can be found in
other sections of this report.
Prototypes
The first step in this nexus analysis is to establish prototypes of typical commercial development in South
San Francisco. These typical developments are called prototypes. This study examined the jobs-housing
linkage for three commercial development prototypes:
1. Hotel - includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and other lodging.
2. Retail/ Restaurants/ Services - includes a range of buildings, including retail stores, restaurants,
and personal care spaces accommodating businesses like nail salons and drycleaners.
3. Office/ R&D/ Medical Office - includes a range of office and research and development (R&D)
uses, including traditional office buildings, medical offices, and specialized spaces for highly
advanced manufacturing and research.
The definition of the commercial prototypes was informed by a review of recently completed and
proposed development projects in San Mateo County, as well as discussions with City staff. The
prototype information is summarized in Figure I-2.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-6-
Figure I-2. Commercial Prototypes
Hotel
Retail/
Restaurants/
Services
Office/R&D/
Medical
Office
Prototype Description
Gross Building Area (GBA) 100,000 100,000 100,000
Podium Parking Area 11,970 30,000 63,000
Gross Building Area including Podium Parking (SF) 111,970 130,000 163,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) N/A 0.95 0.9
Net Leasable Sq. Ft. (NSF) N/A 95,000 90,000
Hotel Rooms 133
Parking Spaces 160 400 300
Podium Parking 40 100 210
Surface Parking 120 300 90
Floor Area Ratio (b) 1.1 0.5 2.0
Land Area (Acres) 2.3 6.0 1.9
Land Area (SF) 101,791 260,000 81,500
Notes:
(a) Refers to ratio of gross building area to net leasable area. An efficiency ratio of 0.9 means that 90% of the gross building
area is leasable.
(b) The floor-area-ratio (FAR) is often used as a measure of density. In this analysis, it is calculated as the gross building area
(including podium parking) divided by the total land area.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
Employment Density
The next step is to determine how many employees will work in each of the three prototypes. While these
numbers will vary from building to building, there are sources of information that help researchers define
employment “densities.” The employment density measures the number of employees who work in a
given amount of space. For each building prototype, an average employment density was defined based
on a review of national survey data for existing commercial buildings and a review of recently completed
linkage fee nexus studies in the Bay Area. The densities selected were at the lower end of each range. By
using slightly lower employment estimates, the conclusions from this study are more conservative. The
study uses a slightly lower number of future employees in calculating affordable housing needs.
Worker Household Incomes
Using these prototypes, the nexus analysis estimates the wages of future workers based on industry and
occupation data. After the average wage of workers is calculated, the next step is to compute the average
household income of worker households. Assuming that there are multiple wage-earners per household,
the household income of worker households is estimated. Each worker-household is then classified into
area median income (AMI) categories to determine the number of households that would require
affordable housing. Figure I-3 summarizes the estimated worker-household incomes for each prototype.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-7-
Figure I-3. Calculation of Worker Household Income by Prototype
Prototype
Number of
Employee
Households
Hotel
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 16.0
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 30.5
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 4.7
Above Moderate (>=120%) 6.5
Total 57.8
Retail, Restaurants and Personal Services
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 68.0
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 13.8
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 1.7
Above Moderate (>=120%) 3.2
Total 86.7
Office, R&D and Medical Office Land Use
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 14.6
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 53.4
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 9.0
Above Moderate (>=120%) 96.5
Total 173.4
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Affordability Gap
Many of the new worker households will be unable to afford market-rate housing. In order to measure this
shortfall, this study has calculated the housing affordability gap, shown in Figure I-4. The housing
affordability gap measures the difference between what very low, low, and moderate income households
can afford to pay for housing and the cost of building new, modest rental and for-sale housing units.
Figure I-4. Affordable Housing Gap
Income Level Rental Gap Ownership Gap
Average
Affordability Gap
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $280,783 N/A $280,783
Low Income (70% - 80% AMI) (a) $240,477 N/A $240,477
Moderate Income (90% - 110% AMI) (b) $187,066 $164,049 $175,558
Notes:
(a) Low income households are defined at 70 percent of AMI for renters and 80 percent of AMI for owners.
(b) Moderate income households are defined at 90 percent of AMI for renters and 110 percent AMI for owners.
Acronyms: AMI: Area median income.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Maximum Nexus-Based Fee
The totals presented in the above Figure I-4 present the shortfall between housing costs and what new
worker households can afford to pay for housing. To estimate the maximum impact fee, the next step is to
calculate the aggregate affordable housing gap for each building prototype and then divide that amount by
the number of square feet in the commercial building prototype it represents. The resulting number is the
maximum fee needed to mitigate affordable housing impacts. The maximum nexus-based fee per
prototype is summarized in Figure I-5.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-8-
Figure I-5. Maximum Linkage Fees by Prototype
Prototype Square Footage
Maximum Fee
per SF
Hotel 100,000 $127
Retail, Restaurants and Personal Services 100,000 $227
Office, R&D and Medical Office Land Use 100,000 $185
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
There are a number of policy considerations that should be taken into account when South San Francisco
considers whether to adopt commercial linkage fees on new non-residential development. These may
include factors such as the likely impact of the proposed fee levels on the financial feasibility of new
development, the competitiveness of the City in attracting commercial development relative to
neighboring jurisdictions, the potential increase to the City’s existing fees on development, and the role of
the new linkage fee in meeting the City’s overall affordable housing goals.
Financial Feasibility – In order to provide South San Francisco with guidance on how proposed fees
could influence development, the consultant team conducted a financial feasibility analysis that tested the
impact of several fee options on developer profit for all the commercial prototypes. The fees were tested
at four calculated levels. The analysis showed that establishing a fee at the maximum fee would have a
negative impact on development feasibility for all prototypes. For all three prototypes, the lowest fee
scenario of $5 per square foot increases total development costs by approximately one percent. This
modest fee level could be financially feasible in the short term, with modest changes in market conditions,
such as a small increase in rental rates, or if a different prototype design were used and/or development
occurred in an area of the City with lower fees. Development feasibility is just one of several factors to
consider in making a decision regarding a potential nexus fee.
Comparison to Existing City Fees – South San Francisco does not have a commercial linkage fee in
place. The City’s other existing development fees for the commercial range from $20.13 per square foot
for the hotel prototype, to $55.16 per square foot for the retail/ restaurants/ services prototype.2 The
maximum fee scenario would increase the City’s fees on new development by 400 to almost 900 percent,
depending on the prototype.
Comparison to Neighboring Jurisdictions – It is difficult to show an accurate comparison of fees at this
time because most cities in San Mateo County are participating in this project to consider adopting new
fees or updating existing fees and therefore current fee levels may not accurately reflect future fee levels.
If South San Francisco were to adopt the maximum linkage fee levels for each prototype, the City’s fees
would be considerably higher than those currently in place in other San Mateo County and Santa Clara
County cities. However, adopting the recommended fee scenarios would place South San Francisco at a
somewhat comparable fee level to several neighboring jurisdictions for the hotel and retail prototypes.
For the hotel and retail prototypes, adopting a fee at $5 per square foot would be somewhat
comparable to Menlo Park’s current fee of $8 and Sunnyvale’s proposed fee of $7.50.
2 The fee estimates presented represent the best approximations available from the City of South San Francisco and
assume the development occurs on the East side of Highway 101.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-9-
For the office prototype, adopting a fee at $5 per square foot would place South San Francisco’s
fee at a lower level than Menlo Park’s current fee of $15 and Sunnyvale’s fee of $15.
It is important to note that Menlo Park (as well as various other cities in San Mateo County) are currently
considering updates to their existing commercial linkage fees.
Role of Fee in South San Francisco’s Overall Housing Strategy – Affordable housing in South San
Francisco is funded through the use of a variety of sources, including funding provided by San Mateo
County, as well as direct and indirect financing provided by the state and federal government. South San
Francisco currently has an inclusionary housing program in place that includes an in-lieu fee. Commercial
linkage fee revenues (and residential impact fee revenues, if adopted) would augment existing affordable
housing funds. It should be noted that revenues from a commercial linkage fee need to be spent on
housing that benefits the workforce since the funds stem from affordable housing impacts related to new
employment.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-10-
A commercial linkage fee is an impact fee that is charged on new, commercial development to address the
affordable housing demand from new workers. South San Francisco does not currently have a commercial
linkage fee in place. The purpose of this study is to provide the necessary nexus analysis for commercial
linkage fees in the event that South San Francisco decides to adopt them in the future. The funds raised by
the linkage fees are deposited into a housing fund specifically reserved for use by a local jurisdiction to
increase the supply of affordable housing for the workforce. Linkage fees are one of several funding
sources that jurisdictions can use to help meet the affordable housing needs of new workers. For more
than thirty years, California cities and counties have imposed commercial linkage fees on new, non-
residential developments.
THE NEXUS CONCEPT
In order to adopt a commercial linkage fee, a nexus study is required to determine the reasonable
relationship between the fee's use and the impact of the development project on which the fee is imposed.
This commercial linkage fee nexus study establishes and quantifies the linkages or “nexus” between new
commercial development and the need for additional housing affordable to new workers. Some of the new
workers will have household incomes that qualify them for income-restricted affordable housing. This
study quantifies the demand for very low income, low income, and moderate income housing that is
created by new development of commercial buildings.
METHODOLOGY
When a city or county adopts a development impact fee, it must establish a reasonable relationship
between the development project and the fee being charged. Studies undertaken to demonstrate this
connection are called nexus studies. Nexus studies for school impact fees, traffic mitigation fees, and
parks are common. For commercial linkage fees, a methodology exists that establishes a connection
between the development of commercial space and the need to expand the supply of affordable housing.
This study is based on this established methodology.
The purpose of a commercial linkage fee nexus analysis is to quantify the increase in demand for
affordable housing that accompanies new non-residential development. There will be a net gain in
employment when new commercial space is built. The ability of new workers to pay for housing costs is
linked to their occupations (and hence salaries). Given anticipated incomes, there may be an affordability
"gap" between what worker households can afford to pay (to rent or to buy) and the actual costs of new
housing.
A nexus analysis calculates the relationship between new commercial development and household
incomes of employees and then determines the employees' need for affordable housing. These steps
provide the rationale for calculating the maximum justified commercial linkage fee that could be levied
on non-residential development. These steps are presented in more detail below, and the subsequent
sections of this report present the results of each of these steps.
Step 1. Define the commercial prototypes that represent new commercial development in San
Mateo County.
The prototypes are defined based on recently completed and proposed development projects in San Mateo
County. The purpose of defining prototypes is to estimate future employment linked to the new
commercial space. Three prototypes were selected and include Hotels (133 rooms or 100,000 SF), Retail/
Restaurants/ Services (100,000 SF), and Office/ R&D/ Medical Office (100,000 SF). The prototype
II. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-11-
definitions include information on gross and leasable area, number of rooms (for hotel only), parking, and
floor-area-ratio.
Step 2. Estimate the number of workers that will work in the new commercial space.
Based on a national survey data on employment density for commercial land uses, as well as recently
completed linkage fee nexus studies in the Bay Area, the estimated employment density in hotels is
approximately 0.75 workers per room (average room size of 750 SF), one worker per 667 SF for retail/
restaurants/ services, and one worker per 333 SF for office/ R&D/ medical office. By dividing the
prototype developments by employment density figures, the number of workers for each prototype is
estimated.
Step 3. Estimate the number of new households represented by these new workers.
Since there are multiple wage earners in a household, the number of new workers will be higher than the
number of new households moving into South San Francisco. Therefore, it is necessary to go from
projected growth in the number of workers to household growth. This adjustment is based on the average
number of wage-earners per worker household for South San Francisco (1.73) according to the U.S.
Census Bureau American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2010-2012.
Step 4. Estimate wages of new workers.
The first step in calculating employee wages is to establish a list of the industries that can be associated
with each prototype. Using industry data from QCEW, industries (defined by NAICS Codes) were
identified that are associated with each prototype, or land use. The next step is to identify all the
occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). The national BLS occupational matrix is then calibrated to match the county’s
employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of
employment by industry within San Mateo County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated
using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Redwood City-San Mateo Metro
Division from the California Employment Development Department.
Step 5. Estimate household income of worker households.
Worker wage estimates from the previous step are then converted to household incomes. This step
assumes that the income of the second wage-earner is similar to the wage of the first wage-earner.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2010-2012, there
are 1.73 wage-earners per worker household in South San Francisco. Individual worker wages are
multiplied by 1.73 to represent household incomes.
Step 6. Calculate the number of households that would be eligible for affordable housing divided
into three categories: very low, low, and moderate income.
The average household size in South San Francisco is estimated to be 3.0, based on the US Census,
American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2008-2012. Thus, the income groups are defined for a
household size of three persons based on the income categories established by California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for San Mateo County. Households with above-moderate
income are removed to determine the number that would require below market rate affordable housing.
Step 7. Estimate the affordability gap of new households requiring affordable housing.
The affordability gap represents the difference between what households can afford to pay for housing
and the development cost of a modest housing unit. For very low and low income households, a rental
housing gap is used. For moderate income households, the housing affordability gap is calculated
separately for renter and owner households, and then the two gaps are combined to derive an average
affordability gap for moderate income households.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-12-
Step 8. Estimate the total housing affordability gap of new households requiring affordable
housing.
The total number of very low, low, and moderate income new worker households for the each land use
prototype is multiplied by the corresponding affordable housing gap figure.
Step 9. Calculate maximum commercial linkage fees for each prototype.
The total affordability gap is then divided by 100,000 SF, the size of each commercial prototype to
generate a maximum fee per square foot.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-13-
This section discusses each step of the commercial linkage analysis calculations and the maximum nexus-
based fees. The analysis presented in this section should be interpreted within the context of the previous
sections establishing the overall methodology for this study.
NEXUS ANALYSIS STEPS
Using the methodology described in Section II, the following describes each of the steps to calculate the
linkage fees in more detail.
Commercial Prototypes
This study examined the jobs-housing linkage for three commercial development prototypes, which are
described below.
1. Hotel – This building prototype includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and
other lodging.
2. Retail/ Restaurants/ Services – This building prototype includes a broad range of buildings,
including retail stores, restaurants, and personal care spaces accommodating businesses like nail
salons and drycleaners.
3. Office/ R&D/ Medical Office – This category includes a wide range of office and R&D users,
including traditional office buildings, open floor-plan offices, medical offices, and specialized
spaces for highly advanced manufacturing and research commonly found in San Mateo County.
The prototypes defined above represent the types of new commercial buildings recently constructed or
proposed in San Mateo County. Each prototype was assumed to be 100,000 square feet in size. The
building size is not prescriptive; it is only averaged to illustrate the overall numbers of workers and
households associated with new development projects. Many linkage fee nexus studies use the 100,000
square foot number because it can easily be converted into per-square-foot calculations. The
per-square-foot linkage fee can be applied to a project of any size. For example, the small ground-floor
retail component in a mixed-use building would be charged the same per-square-foot retail linkage fee as
a large “big-box” project.
Figure III-1 below describes the building characteristics of each prototype, including factors like floor-
area-ratios (FARs) and parking ratios, which were established based on a review of recent commercial
development projects in the county.
III. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-14-
Figure III-1. Description of Commercial Prototypes
Hotel
Retail/
Restaurants/
Services
Office/R&D/
Medical
Office
Prototype Description
Gross Building Area (GBA) 100,000 100,000 100,000
Podium Parking Area 11,970 30,000 63,000
Gross Building Area including Podium Parking (SF) 111,970 130,000 163,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) N/A 0.95 0.9
Net Leasable Sq. Ft. (NSF) N/A 95,000 90,000
Hotel Rooms 133
Parking Spaces 160 400 300
Podium Parking 40 100 210
Surface Parking 120 300 90
Floor Area Ratio (b) 1.1 0.5 2.0
Land Area (Acres) 2.3 6.0 1.9
Land Area (SF) 101,791 260,000 81,500
Notes:
(a) Refers to ratio of gross building area to net leasable area. An efficiency ratio of 0.9 means that 90% of the gross building
area is leasable.
(b) The floor-area-ratio (FAR) is often used as a measure of density. In this analysis, it is calculated as the gross building area
(including podium parking) divided by the total land area.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
Average Employment Density and Number of Workers
For each building prototype, an average employment density was defined based on a review of national
survey data for existing commercial buildings and a review of recently completed linkage fee nexus
studies in the Bay Area. The densities selected were at the lower end of each range. While there is some
anecdotal evidence that Silicon Valley technology firms occupy office space at higher densities than those
selected in this study, these lower employment estimates are based on published data sources and surveys
in order to ensure that the calculated nexus fees are more conservative. Furthermore, the
office/R&D/medical office prototype includes a range of building types in addition to technology office
space, including R&D buildings and medical offices, which typically have a large amount of building
space dedicated to labs and clinics, thereby attaining low overall employment densities. Figure III-2
summarizes the building density data that formed the basis for establishing average employment density
for each prototype.
Figure III-3 describes the density for each prototype, measured by the average number of square feet per
worker for each prototype. This factor is multiplied by the size of the building (100,000 square feet) to
calculate the total number of workers in each commercial prototype. The density factors represent the
average density for the prototypes; individual projects and buildings may actually be more or less dense.
The hotel prototype is assumed to be the lowest density followed by retail/ restaurant/ services and office/
R&D/ medical office. The density assumption generates the total number of direct workers occupying the
commercial space in each prototype.
Hotel – The hotel employment density assumption is 1,000 square feet per worker (or 0.75
workers per room). This density is at the mid-range of the densities shown in Figure III-2, and
consistent with the Vallen and Vallen estimate for limited service mid-scale hotels, which are in
between full-service “luxury” properties and economy properties. Given that many of the
recently constructed and proposed hotel projects in San Mateo County are limited service mid-
scale hotels, this density is aligned with market trends. For a 100,000-square-foot hotel (roughly
equivalent to 133 rooms), this density assumption results in a total number of 100 workers.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-15-
Retail/ Restaurants/ Services – The average density for retail/ restaurants/ services is estimated at
667 square feet of space per worker. This figure represents a lower density than the figures used
in many other commercial linkage fee studies in the Bay Area, but a higher density than national
data sources. Using this density, the number of workers in a 100,000 square foot prototype is
estimated at 150.
Office/ R&D/ Medical Office – The average density assumption for office/R&D/medical office is
estimated at 333 square feet per worker. This density estimate is slightly lower than some recent
linkage fee nexus studies, but higher than the national Energy Information Administration survey.
The resulting number of total workers in this prototype is estimated at 300.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-16-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
2
.
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
D
en
s
i
t
y
D
a
t
a
a
n
d
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
Em
p
l
o
y
e
e
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
F
i
g
u
r
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
Ho
t
e
l
1.
5
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
p
e
r
f
u
l
l
-
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
l
u
x
u
r
y
)
h
o
t
e
l
r
o
o
m
V
a
l
l
e
n
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
e
n
,
"
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
:
T
h
e
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
"
C
h
e
c
k
-
I
n
,
C
h
e
c
k-
O
u
t
,
2
0
1
2
0.
5
t
o
1
.
0
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
p
e
r
r
o
o
m
f
o
r
"
i
n
-
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
"
ho
t
e
l
s
V
a
l
l
e
n
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
e
n
,
"
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
:
T
h
e
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
"
Ch
e
c
k
-
I
n
,
C
h
e
c
k
-
O
u
t
,
2
0
1
2
As
f
e
w
a
s
0
.
2
5
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
p
e
r
r
o
o
m
f
o
r
"
b
u
d
g
e
t
"
ho
t
e
l
s
V
a
l
l
e
n
a
n
d
V
a
l
l
e
n
,
"
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
1
:
T
h
e
T
r
a
d
i
t
i
on
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
"
Ch
e
c
k
-
I
n
,
C
h
e
c
k
-
O
u
t
,
2
0
1
2
2,
0
7
4
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
En
e
r
g
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
0
3
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
,
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
n
e
2
0
0
6
72
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
A
.
C
.
N
e
l
s
o
n
,
"
R
e
s
h
a
p
i
n
g
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
li
t
a
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
"
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
E
I
A
s
u
r
v
e
y
)
45
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
J
o
b
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
ud
y
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
a
p
a
,
C
A
,
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
,
2
0
1
1
2,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
ee
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
:
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
A
,
K
M
A
,
2
0
1
2
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
52
8
-
1
,
2
4
6
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
i
n
r
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
d
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
En
e
r
g
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
0
3
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
,
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
n
e
2
0
0
6
60
5
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
A
.
C
.
N
e
l
s
o
n
,
"
R
e
s
h
a
p
i
n
g
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
,
"
2
0
1
3
30
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
N
e
e
d
s
S
t
u
d
y
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
2
0
0
6
35
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
J
o
b
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
ud
y
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
a
p
a
,
C
A
,
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
,
2
0
1
1
38
4
.
6
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
ee
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
:
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
A
,
K
M
A
,
2
0
1
2
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
18
5
-
3
4
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
N
o
rm
M
i
l
l
e
r
,
"
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
e
S
p
a
c
e
p
e
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
:
Im
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
F
u
t
u
r
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
S
p
a
c
e
D
e
m
a
n
d
,
" 2012
30
6
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
w
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
,
2
0
1
2
43
4
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
En
e
r
g
y
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
0
3
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
E
n
e
r
g
y
C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
,
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
Ju
n
e
2
0
0
6
30
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
A
.
C
.
N
e
l
s
o
n
,
"
R
e
s
h
a
p
i
n
g
M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
,
"
2
0
1
3
25
0
-
3
5
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
H
o
u
s
in
g
N
e
e
d
s
S
t
u
d
y
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
2
0
0
6
30
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
J
o
b
s
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
D
r
a
f
t
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
ud
y
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
N
a
p
a
,
C
A
,
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
I
n
c
.
,
2
0
1
1
31
2
.
5
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
w
o
r
k
e
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
ee
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
:
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
V
i
e
w
,
C
A
,
K
M
A
,
2
0
1
2
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-17-
Figure III-3. Employment Density by Prototype
Commercial Prototype
Prototype Size
(SF) Average Density
Number of
Workers in
Prototype
Hotel 100,000 SF
133 rooms
1,000 SF per worker
0.75 workers per room 100 workers
Retail/ Restaurant/
Personal Services 100,000 SF 667 square feet per
worker 150 workers
Office/ R&D/ Medical Office 100,000 SF 333 square feet per
worker 300 workers
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Number of Worker Households
Based on the total number of workers directly employed in the prototypes, the total number of worker
households is estimated. The number of worker households is calculated by dividing the number of
workers by the average number of wage-earners per household in South San Francisco. Based on data
from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2010-2012, there is an average of
1.73 workers per household in South San Francisco. The calculation of total new worker households is
demonstrated in Figure III-4 below. The number of worker households associated with the prototypes is
58 for hotels, 87 for retail/ restaurants/ services; and 173 for office/R&D/medical office.
Figure III-4. Number of Worker Households by Prototype
Commercial Prototype
Number of New
Workers
Workers Per
Household
Number of New
Worker
Households
Office/R&D/Medical Office 300 1.73 173
Retail/Restaurant/Personal
Services 150 1.73 87
Hotel 100 1.73 58
Sources: US Census, American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2010-2012; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Strategic
Economics, 2015.
Calculate Worker Wages and Household Income
The first step in calculating employee wages is to establish a list of the industries that can be associated
with each prototype. Using industry data from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),
industries (defined by NAICS Codes) were identified that are associated with each prototype, or land use.
Figure III-5 below describes the industries that are associated with the hotel, retail/ restaurants/ services
and office/ R&D/ medical office prototypes. The hotel category shown in Figure III-5 has only one
industry attached to it, while the other land uses are associated with a larger number of industries. The
industries associated with the retail/ restaurants/ services prototype are defined in Figure III-6. The
office/R&D/ medical office industries are shown in Figure III-7.
Figure III-5. Definition of Industries for Hotel Prototype
NAICS Code Description Percent Total Workers in Prototype
721 Accommodation 100%
Total 100%
Note: Unlike other prototypes, the hotel prototype only includes one NAICS industry category.
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2013.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-18-
Figure III-6. Definition of Industries for Retail/ Restaurants/ Services Prototype
NAICS
Code Description Percent Total
Workers in Prototype
7225 Restaurants 34.1%
4451 Grocery stores 9.8%
4529 Other general merchandise stores 4.9%
8111 Automotive repair and maintenance 4.0%
4411 Automobile dealers 3.9%
4521 Department stores 3.6%
4441 Building material and supplies dealers 3.5%
8129 Other personal services 3.2%
4481 Clothing stores 3.1%
4461 Health and personal care stores 3.0%
8121 Personal care services 2.3%
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 2.3%
8123 Dry-cleaning and laundry services 2.1%
4511 Sporting goods and musical instrument stores 1.8%
4431 Electronics and appliance stores 1.7%
4471 Gasoline stations 1.6%
4532 Office supplies, stationery, and gift stores 1.4%
4541 Electronic shopping and mail-order houses 1.2%
4421 Furniture stores 1.1%
4452 Specialty food stores 1.1%
4413 Auto parts, accessories, and tire stores 1.0%
4539 Other miscellaneous store retailers 1.0%
5322 Consumer goods rental 0.9%
4422 Home furnishings stores 0.7%
8122 Death care services 0.7%
5615 Travel arrangement and reservation services 0.5%
4237 Hardware and plumbing merchant wholesalers 0.5%
4512 Book, periodical, and music stores 0.4%
4482 Shoe stores 0.4%
4453 Beer, wine, and liquor stores 0.4%
7224 Drinking places, alcoholic beverages 0.4%
8113 Commercial machinery repair and maintenance 0.4%
4483 Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores 0.4%
4533 Used merchandise stores 0.4%
4231 Motor vehicle and parts merchant wholesalers 0.4%
4233 Lumber and const. supply merchant wholesalers 0.3%
5324 Machinery and equipment rental and leasing 0.3%
4442 Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores 0.3%
8114 Household goods repair and maintenance 0.3%
4531 Florists 0.2%
5323 General rental centers 0.2%
4543 Direct selling establishments 0.2%
8112 Electronic equipment repair and maintenance 0.1%
4412 Other motor vehicle dealers 0.1%
4542 Vending machine operators 0.0%
Total 100%
Sources: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2013; Vernazza Wolfe
Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-19-
Figure III-7. Definition of Industries for Office/ R&D/ Medical Office Prototype
NAICS
Code Description Percent Total
Workers in Prototype
5415 Computer systems design and related services 12.0%
5417 Scientific research and development services 10.1%
5112 Software publishers 8.7%
5613 Employment services 6.3%
5416 Management and technical consulting services 4.6%
5191 Other information services 4.6%
5617 Services to buildings and dwellings 4.4%
523 Securities, commodity contracts, investments 3.9%
5511 Management of companies and enterprises 2.9%
6211 Offices of physicians 2.8%
6214 Outpatient care centers 2.7%
7223 Special food services 2.5%
5616 Investigation and security services 2.4%
6212 Offices of dentists 2.1%
5411 Legal services 2.1%
3341 Computer and peripheral equipment mfg. 2.1%
5222 Non-depository credit intermediation 2.0%
5412 Accounting and bookkeeping services 1.8%
5221 Depository credit intermediation 1.8%
5242 Insurance agencies and brokerages 1.7%
5182 Data processing, hosting and related services 1.6%
5413 Architectural and engineering services 1.5%
3345 Electronic instrument manufacturing 1.4%
5611 Office administrative services 1.2%
5313 Activities related to real estate 1.2%
517 Telecommunications 1.2%
5311 Lessors of real estate 1.0%
5419 Other professional and technical services 0.9%
5121 Motion picture and video industries 0.9%
5111 Newspaper, book, and directory publishers 0.8%
3344 Semiconductor and electronic component mfg. 0.8%
6213 Offices of other health practitioners 0.8%
5418 Advertising, pr, and related services 0.7%
3391 Medical equipment and supplies manufacturing 0.7%
6215 Medical and diagnostic laboratories 0.7%
5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 0.5%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.5%
5619 Other support services 0.4%
515 Broadcasting, except internet 0.4%
5614 Business support services 0.4%
5223 Activities related to credit intermediation 0.3%
3353 Electrical equipment manufacturing 0.2%
5414 Specialized design services 0.2%
3342 Communications equipment manufacturing 0.1%
5331 Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets 0.0%
5612 Facilities support services 0.0%
5122 Sound recording industries 0.0%
5259 Other investment pools and funds 0.0%
Total 100%
Sources: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2013; Vernazza Wolfe
Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-20-
The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data
provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). National level data on occupations are the best
available; state level industry-occupation data exist but do not include all relevant industries. The national
BLS occupational matrix is then calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the
national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within San Mateo
County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by
occupation in the San Francisco-Redwood City-San Mateo Metro Division (the smallest geographic level
at which wage data are available) from the California Employment Development Department.
Figure III-8 below summarizes the results of these calculations, computing the average weighted wages3
for each prototype. As shown, the Average wage is lowest for workers of retail/ restaurants/ services,
since the occupations in these industries tend to have the lowest wages. Hotel workers have a slightly
higher Average wage than retail/restaurant/service workers. Office/R&D/medical office employees have
the highest Average wage of the three prototypes, due to a larger percentage of occupations in higher
wage categories.
Figure III-8. Average Annual Wage by Prototype
Commercial Prototype Weighted Average
Annual Wage (a)
Hotel $39,935
Retail/ Restaurants/ Services $29,833
Office/ R&D /Medical Office $77,342
Notes:
(a) Average wages are weighted to take into account the proportion of jobs in each occupational wage category.
Sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2013 and Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
(QCEW), 2013; California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2013; Vernazza
Wolfe Associates, Inc.; Strategic Economics, 2015.
The complete occupational mix, and wage data tables for each prototype are presented in Figure III-9,
Figure III-10 and Figure III-11.
3 The weighted average wage takes into account the proportion of jobs in each occupational category.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-21-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
11
-
0
0
0
0
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
11
-
9
0
8
1
L
o
d
g
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$74,498 1.586%
11
-
1
0
2
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$150,628 0.964%
11
-
9
0
5
1
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$63,767 0.487%
11
-
2
0
2
2
S
a
l
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$161,570 0.376%
11
-
3
0
3
1
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$169,227 0.201%
11
-
3
0
1
1
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$110,659 0.165%
11
-
9
1
9
9
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$141,691 0.125%
11
-
3
1
2
1
H
u
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$136,986 0.092%
11
-
1
0
1
1
C
h
i
e
f
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
$207,735 0.064%
11
-
9
1
4
1
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
R
e
a
l
E
s
t
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
ty
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
8
5
,
1
1
7
0
.
0
5
6
%
11
-
2
0
2
1
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$175,141 0.054%
11
-
2
0
1
1
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
r
o
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$119,666 0.039%
11
-
3
0
6
1
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$146,940 0.026%
11
-
3
0
2
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$165,650 0.025%
11
-
2
0
3
1
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
F
u
n
d
r
a
i
s
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$133,651 0.008%
11
-
3
1
1
1
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$143,112 0.007%
11
-
9
1
5
1
S
o
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$78,548 0.006%
11
-
3
1
3
1
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$152,542 0.003%
11
-
9
0
4
1
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$168,643 0.003%
11
-
3
0
7
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
a
n
d
Di
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
1
9
,
6
5
6
0
.
0
0
3
%
11
-
9
0
2
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$138,900 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$112,338 4.293%
13
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
13
-
1
1
2
1
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
io
n
,
a
n
d
E
v
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
s
$63,284 0.475%
13
-
2
0
1
1
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
s
$86,991 0.457%
13
-
1
0
7
1
H
u
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$80,583 0.197%
13
-
1
1
9
9
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$94,719 0.094%
13
-
1
0
2
3
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
t
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
W
h
o
l
e
s
al
e
,
R
e
t
a
i
l
,
a
n
d
F
a
r
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
7
9
,
9
3
9
0
.
0
8
1
%
13
-
1
1
6
1
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
7
,
3
7
4
0
.
0
6
8
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-22-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
13
-
1
1
5
1
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$82,770 0.027%
13
-
1
1
4
1
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
,
B
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
,
a
n
d
J
ob
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
1
,
6
2
1
0
.
0
1
8
%
13
-
2
0
5
1
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$124,663 0.017%
13
-
2
0
9
9
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$118,407 0.012%
13
-
1
0
4
1
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
$87,616 0.012%
13
-
1
1
3
1
F
u
n
d
r
a
i
s
e
r
s
$59,012 0.011%
13
-
1
0
7
5
L
a
b
o
r
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$83,656 0.009%
13
-
1
1
1
1
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$119,726 0.006%
13
-
1
0
2
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
a
n
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
B
u
y
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
F
a
r
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
6
0
,
8
5
6
0
.
0
0
4
%
13
-
2
0
3
1
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$86,457 0.002%
13
-
2
0
4
1
C
r
e
d
i
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$101,611 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$79,133 1.493%
15
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
d
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
ic
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
15
-
1
1
5
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$70,345 0.036%
15
-
1
1
9
9
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$97,276 0.025%
15
-
1
1
4
2
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
s
$95,860 0.023%
15
-
1
1
5
2
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$82,738 0.015%
15
-
1
1
2
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$104,935 0.009%
15
-
1
1
3
4
W
e
b
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
$91,692 0.005%
15
-
1
1
4
1
D
a
t
a
b
a
s
e
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
s
$105,451 0.005%
15
-
1
1
3
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
r
s
$100,716 0.003%
15
-
1
1
3
2
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
,
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
$115,740 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$88,477 0.124%
17
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
17
-
3
0
2
3
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
E
n
gi
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
6
8
,
6
0
4
0
.
0
0
4
%
17
-
2
0
5
1
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$108,648 0.003%
17
-
2
1
4
1
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$100,372 0.003%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$91,281 0.011%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-23-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
19
-
0
0
0
0
Li
f
e
,
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
$96,012 0.006%
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$96,012 0.006%
21
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
21
-
1
0
9
9
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
3
,
3
3
8
0
.
0
0
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$53,338 0.003%
23
-
0
0
0
0
Le
g
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
23
-
1
0
1
1
L
a
w
y
e
r
s
$171,324 0.002%
23
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
r
a
l
e
g
a
l
s
a
n
d
L
e
g
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$71,528 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$128,554 0.004%
25
-
0
0
0
0
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
25
-
3
0
2
1
S
e
l
f
-
E
n
r
i
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$46,984 0.034%
25
-
3
0
9
9
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$
6
9
,
0
2
9
0
.
0
0
4
%
25
-
2
0
1
1
P
r
e
s
c
h
o
o
l
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$37,039 0.003%
25
-
9
0
3
1
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s
$71,751 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$49,878 0.043%
27
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
t
s
,
D
e
s
i
g
n
,
E
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
,
S
p
o
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
a
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
27
-
4
0
1
1
A
u
d
i
o
a
n
d
V
i
d
e
o
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$58,639 0.149%
27
-
2
0
2
2
C
o
a
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
S
c
o
u
t
s
$45,133 0.074%
27
-
3
0
3
1
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$83,345 0.053%
27
-
3
0
9
9
M
e
d
i
a
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$60,146 0.021%
27
-
4
0
9
9
M
e
d
i
a
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
9
7
,
5
3
9
0
.
0
1
3
%
27
-
1
0
2
4
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$72,419 0.009%
27
-
1
0
2
3
F
l
o
r
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$36,644 0.008%
27
-
4
0
1
4
S
o
u
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$49,190 0.008%
27
-
2
0
1
2
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s
a
n
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
$95,971 0.002%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-24-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
27
-
1
0
2
5
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$76,587 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$61,155 0.339%
29
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
29
-
1
1
4
1
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
N
u
r
s
e
s
$129,166 0.006%
29
-
2
0
4
1
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
P
a
r
a
m
e
d
i
c
s
$57,354 0.006%
29
-
9
0
1
1
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$98,501 0.004%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$95,944 0.016%
31
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
31
-
9
0
1
1
M
a
s
s
a
g
e
T
h
e
r
a
p
i
s
t
s
$45,586 0.425%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$45,586 0.425%
33
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
33
-
9
0
3
2
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
G
u
a
r
d
s
$32,013 1.558%
33
-
9
0
9
2
L
i
f
e
g
u
a
r
d
s
,
S
k
i
P
a
t
r
o
l
,
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
on
a
l
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
2
9
,
7
4
6
0
.
3
9
2
%
33
-
1
0
9
9
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
4
,
0
4
0
0
.
1
3
7
%
33
-
9
0
9
9
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$56,801 0.062%
33
-
9
0
2
1
P
r
i
v
a
t
e
D
e
t
e
c
t
iv
e
s
a
n
d
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
o
r
s
$86,255 0.003%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$33,786 2.152%
35
-
0
0
0
0
Fo
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
35
-
3
0
3
1
W
a
i
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
W
a
i
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
$25,413 7.428%
35
-
2
0
1
4
C
o
o
k
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
$29,161 3.335%
35
-
9
0
1
1
D
i
n
i
n
g
R
o
o
m
a
n
d
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
A
t
t
en
d
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
B
a
r
t
e
n
d
e
r
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
$
2
4
,
2
8
4
2
.
6
3
3
%
35
-
3
0
1
1
B
a
r
t
e
n
d
e
r
s
$30,119 2.106%
35
-
3
0
4
1
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
e
r
s
,
N
o
n
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
$33,434 1.813%
35
-
9
0
2
1
D
i
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
$23,035 1.735%
35
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
F
o
o
d
P
r
ep
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
0
,
2
5
6
1
.
2
6
8
%
35
-
2
0
2
1
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$23,942 1.015%
35
-
9
0
3
1
H
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
H
o
s
t
e
s
s
e
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t,
L
o
u
n
g
e
,
a
n
d
C
o
f
f
e
e
S
h
o
p
$
2
6
,
6
7
3
0
.
9
0
0
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-25-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
35
-
3
0
2
1
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
$
2
3
,
5
0
9
0
.
8
1
9
%
35
-
1
0
1
1
C
h
e
f
s
a
n
d
H
e
a
d
C
o
o
k
s
$60,066 0.733%
35
-
3
0
2
2
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
,
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
,
F
oo
d
C
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
C
o
f
f
e
e
S
h
o
p
$
2
3
,
7
1
0
0
.
5
4
1
%
35
-
2
0
1
2
C
o
o
k
s
,
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
$38,049 0.322%
35
-
2
0
1
5
C
o
o
k
s
,
S
h
o
r
t
O
r
d
e
r
$29,030 0.314%
35
-
9
0
9
9
35
-
2
0
1
9
Fo
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
Re
l
a
t
e
d
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
Co
o
k
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$32,386 $36,487 0.276% 0.094%
35
-
2
0
1
1
C
o
o
k
s
,
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
$25,514 0.086%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$28,537 25.418%
37
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
37
-
2
0
1
2
M
a
i
d
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$35,419 24.068%
37
-
2
0
1
1
J
a
n
i
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
M
a
id
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$
2
8
,
3
9
6
2
.
5
4
5
%
37
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
pi
n
g
a
n
d
J
a
n
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
0
,
3
5
2
1
.
7
3
6
%
37
-
3
0
1
1
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$42,100 1.036%
37
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
L
a
w
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
2
,
6
9
6
0
.
1
1
7
%
37
-
3
0
1
9
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$28,819 0.047%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$36,023 29.549%
39
-
0
0
0
0
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
39
-
3
0
1
1
G
a
m
i
n
g
D
e
a
l
e
r
s
$20,999 2.029%
39
-
6
0
1
1
B
a
g
g
a
g
e
P
o
r
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
B
e
l
l
h
o
p
s
$31,257 1.334%
39
-
6
0
1
2
C
o
n
c
i
e
r
g
e
s
$44,649 0.684%
39
-
3
0
9
1
A
m
u
s
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$24,899 0.665%
39
-
1
0
1
1
G
a
m
i
n
g
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
$55,441 0.617%
39
-
9
0
3
2
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$29,101 0.600%
39
-
1
0
2
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
e
rs
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
9
,
7
5
8
0
.
2
3
2
%
39
-
9
0
9
9
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$37,948 0.210%
39
-
3
0
9
3
L
o
c
k
e
r
R
o
o
m
,
C
o
a
t
r
o
o
m
,
a
n
d
D
r
es
s
i
n
g
R
o
o
m
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$
2
9
,
8
6
7
0
.
1
3
3
%
39
-
3
0
3
1
U
s
h
e
r
s
,
L
o
b
b
y
A
t
t
en
d
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
T
i
c
k
e
t
T
a
k
e
r
s
$27,761 0.087%
39
-
5
0
9
4
S
k
i
n
c
a
r
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$47,632 0.082%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-26-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
39
-
3
0
1
2
G
a
m
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
p
o
r
t
s
B
o
o
k
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
R
u
n
n
e
r
s
$30,159 0.061%
39
-
9
0
4
1
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
s
$29,887 0.060%
39
-
5
0
1
2
H
a
i
r
d
r
e
s
s
e
r
s
,
H
a
i
r
s
t
y
l
i
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
C
o
s
m
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
$39,520 0.058%
39
-
5
0
9
2
M
a
n
i
c
u
r
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
P
e
d
i
c
u
r
i
s
t
s
$23,005 0.057%
39
-
7
0
1
1
T
o
u
r
G
u
i
d
e
s
a
n
d
E
s
c
o
r
t
s
$31,761 0.047%
39
-
9
0
1
1
C
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$31,540 0.039%
39
-
2
0
1
1
A
n
i
m
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
e
r
s
$45,123 0.003%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$31,928 7.056%
41
-
0
0
0
0
Sa
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
41
-
3
0
9
9
S
a
l
e
s
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$85,023 0.890%
41
-
2
0
1
1
C
a
s
h
i
e
r
s
$26,859 0.790%
41
-
2
0
3
1
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
$30,457 0.309%
41
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$47,883 0.130%
41
-
2
0
2
1
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
R
e
n
t
a
l
C
l
e
r
k
s
$31,919 0.075%
41
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
N
on
-
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
9
6
,
1
3
9
0
.
0
7
0
%
41
-
3
0
4
1
T
r
a
v
e
l
A
g
e
n
t
s
$44,829 0.033%
41
-
9
0
4
1
T
e
l
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
e
r
s
$29,198 0.029%
41
-
4
0
1
2
S
a
l
e
s
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
a
n
d
M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g,
E
x
c
e
p
t
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
S
c
i
e
nt
i
f
i
c
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
6
5
,
5
9
1
0
.
0
2
0
%
41
-
9
0
2
2
R
e
a
l
E
s
t
a
t
e
S
a
l
e
s
A
g
e
n
t
s
$68,040 0.007%
41
-
3
0
1
1
A
d
v
e
r
t
i
s
i
n
g
S
a
l
e
s
A
g
e
n
t
s
$72,989 0.005%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$53,482 2.358%
43
-
0
0
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
43
-
4
0
8
1
H
o
t
e
l
,
M
o
t
e
l
,
a
n
d
R
e
s
o
r
t
D
e
s
k
C
l
e
r
k
s
$35,774 12.525%
43
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
rv
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
O
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
ve
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
6
,
6
6
8
1
.
4
6
6
%
43
-
3
0
3
1
B
o
o
k
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
A
u
d
i
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$50,052 1.084%
43
-
9
0
6
1
O
f
f
i
c
e
C
l
e
r
k
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$39,997 0.551%
43
-
6
0
1
4
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
L
e
g
a
l
,
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
$
4
3
,
6
1
2
0
.
4
8
5
%
43
-
4
0
5
1
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
$45,657 0.444%
43
-
4
1
8
1
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
T
i
ck
e
t
A
g
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
T
r
a
v
e
l
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
3
5
,
7
8
4
0
.
4
4
2
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-27-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
43
-
2
0
1
1
S
w
i
t
c
h
b
o
a
r
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
,
I
n
c
l
ud
i
n
g
A
n
s
w
e
r
i
n
g
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$
3
7
,
6
0
7
0
.
3
6
1
%
43
-
4
1
7
1
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
l
e
r
k
s
$37,546 0.244%
43
-
5
0
8
1
S
t
o
c
k
C
l
e
r
k
s
a
n
d
O
r
d
e
r
F
i
l
l
e
r
s
$32,149 0.215%
43
-
6
0
1
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
6
9
,
7
1
6
0
.
1
9
0
%
43
-
5
0
7
1
S
h
i
p
p
i
n
g
,
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
l
e
r
k
s
$36,220 0.123%
43
-
3
0
5
1
P
a
y
r
o
l
l
a
n
d
T
i
m
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$53,413 0.092%
43
-
5
0
3
2
D
i
s
p
a
t
c
h
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
Po
l
i
c
e
,
F
i
r
e
,
a
n
d
A
m
b
u
l
a
n
c
e
$44,634 0.074%
43
-
3
0
2
1
B
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$47,723 0.063%
43
-
3
0
6
1
P
r
o
c
u
r
e
m
e
n
t
C
l
e
r
k
s
$49,322 0.031%
43
-
5
0
6
1
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
E
x
p
e
d
i
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$57,140 0.019%
43
-
4
0
4
1
C
r
e
d
i
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
r
s
,
C
h
e
c
k
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
C
l
e
r
k
s
$44,847 0.011%
43
-
4
1
5
1
O
r
d
e
r
C
l
e
r
k
s
$41,890 0.011%
43
-
3
0
1
1
B
i
l
l
a
n
d
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
o
r
s
$49,221 0.009%
43
-
9
0
5
1
M
a
i
l
C
l
e
r
k
s
a
n
d
M
a
i
l
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s,
E
x
c
e
p
t
P
o
s
t
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
$
3
4
,
1
8
4
0
.
0
0
8
%
43
-
4
1
9
9
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
c
o
r
d
C
l
e
r
k
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$48,826 0.007%
43
-
4
0
7
1
F
i
l
e
C
l
e
r
k
s
$39,187 0.005%
43
-
5
1
1
1
W
e
i
g
h
e
r
s
,
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
r
s
,
C
h
e
c
k
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
S
a
m
p
l
e
r
s
,
R
e
c
o
r
d
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
$
3
1
,
0
5
6
0
.
0
0
5
%
43
-
9
0
1
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$48,685 0.005%
43
-
9
0
7
1
O
f
f
i
c
e
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
O
p
e
r
at
o
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
$32,747 0.004%
43
-
3
0
9
9
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
C
l
e
r
k
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$43,338 0.003%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$40,271 18.649%
45
-
0
0
0
0
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
,
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
45
-
2
0
9
3
F
a
r
m
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
F
a
r
m
,
R
a
n
c
h
,
an
d
A
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
$
2
6
,
1
7
9
0
.
0
3
2
%
45
-
2
0
9
2
F
a
r
m
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
,
C
r
o
p
,
N
u
r
s
e
r
y
,
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
$
2
5
,
9
3
6
0
.
0
0
3
%
45
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
,
F
i
sh
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
7
8
,
4
8
6
0
.
0
0
2
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$29,280 0.037%
47
-
0
0
0
0
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
47
-
2
1
4
1
P
a
i
n
t
e
r
s
,
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
$47,652 0.077%
47
-
2
0
3
1
C
a
r
p
e
n
t
e
r
s
$63,165 0.057%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-28-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
47
-
2
1
1
1
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
a
n
s
$84,223 0.030%
47
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
T
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
8
5
,
9
5
4
0
.
0
1
1
%
47
-
2
1
5
2
P
l
u
m
b
e
r
s
,
P
i
p
e
f
i
t
t
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
S
t
e
a
m
f
i
t
t
e
r
s
$82,675 0.010%
47
-
2
0
6
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
$48,816 0.009%
47
-
2
0
7
3
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
7
7
,
5
6
5
0
.
0
0
8
%
47
-
2
0
4
1
C
a
r
p
e
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$53,208 0.003%
47
-
4
0
5
1
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$56,618 0.002%
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$62,281 0.208%
49
-
0
0
0
0
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
49
-
9
0
7
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$50,605 4.446%
49
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
cs
,
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
9
0
,
3
4
0
0
.
3
9
1
%
49
-
9
0
9
1
C
o
i
n
,
V
e
n
d
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
A
m
u
s
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
3
8
,
4
2
2
0
.
0
9
2
%
49
-
9
0
9
9
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
Re
p
a
i
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
1
,
0
3
2
0
.
0
4
3
%
49
-
9
0
2
1
H
e
a
t
i
n
g
,
A
i
r
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
R
e
f
r
i
g
e
r
at
i
o
n
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$
5
6
,
1
9
3
0
.
0
2
7
%
49
-
9
0
9
8
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
-
-
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
an
c
e
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
8
,
4
8
8
0
.
0
2
3
%
49
-
3
0
5
3
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
P
o
w
e
r
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
O
t
he
r
S
m
a
l
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
$
4
5
,
3
0
2
0
.
0
1
1
%
49
-
9
0
4
1
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
$70,075 0.010%
49
-
3
0
2
3
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
$55,124 0.008%
49
-
3
0
4
2
M
o
b
i
l
e
H
e
a
v
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
M
e
c
ha
n
i
c
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
s
$
5
8
,
7
0
7
0
.
0
0
7
%
49
-
9
0
4
3
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y
$42,351 0.007%
49
-
2
0
2
2
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
a
nd
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
L
i
n
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$
5
9
,
6
3
3
0
.
0
0
2
%
49
-
2
0
9
4
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
,
C
o
mm
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
$
6
5
,
9
3
3
0
.
0
0
2
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$53,515 5.070%
51
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
51
-
6
0
1
1
L
a
u
n
d
r
y
a
n
d
D
r
y
-
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$28,552 1.573%
51
-
3
0
1
1
B
a
k
e
r
s
$29,436 0.175%
51
-
8
0
2
1
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
B
o
i
l
e
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$75,624 0.053%
51
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
r
o
d
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
7
,
8
2
8
0
.
0
4
9
%
51
-
6
0
5
2
T
a
i
l
o
r
s
,
D
r
e
s
s
m
a
k
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
C
u
s
t
o
m
S
e
w
e
r
s
$35,179 0.017%
51
-
9
0
6
1
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
,
T
e
s
t
e
r
s
,
S
o
r
t
e
r
s
,
S
a
m
p
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
W
e
i
g
h
e
r
s
$
4
2
,
1
8
3
0
.
0
1
1
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-29-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
9
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
Wa
g
e
s
f
o
r
H
o
t
e
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Average Annual Wage (b) % of Total Hotel Workers (c)
51
-
3
0
2
1
B
u
t
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
M
e
a
t
C
u
t
t
e
r
s
$34,265 0.008%
51
-
6
0
3
1
S
e
w
i
n
g
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$26,245 0.006%
51
-
6
0
2
1
P
r
e
s
s
e
r
s
,
T
e
x
t
i
l
e
,
G
a
r
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
$
2
4
,
8
2
2
0
.
0
0
6
%
51
-
6
0
9
3
U
p
h
o
l
s
t
e
r
e
r
s
$40,577 0.004%
51
-
3
0
9
2
F
o
o
d
B
a
t
c
h
m
a
k
e
r
s
$28,450 0.002%
51
-
6
0
5
1
S
e
w
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$26,031 0.002%
51
-
9
1
9
8
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
-
-
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$31,286 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$31,128 1.907%
53
-
0
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
53
-
6
0
2
1
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$28,363 0.453%
53
-
7
0
6
2
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
a
n
d
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
,
S
t
o
c
k
,
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
3
0
,
6
7
0
0
.
2
9
0
%
53
-
1
0
3
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
te
r
i
a
l
-
M
o
v
i
n
g
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
a
n
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
5
9
,
6
4
3
0
.
0
3
3
%
53
-
1
0
2
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
,
La
b
o
r
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
5
1
,
2
0
8
0
.
0
1
8
%
53
-
3
0
3
3
L
i
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
o
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
$41,869 0.017%
53
-
7
0
6
1
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
$26,168 0.008%
53
-
7
1
9
9
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$58,830 0.005%
53
-
6
0
3
1
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
rc
r
a
f
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$26,859 0.004%
53
-
6
0
6
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
,
E
x
c
ep
t
F
l
i
g
h
t
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$
4
0
,
6
6
0
0
.
0
0
3
%
53
-
5
0
2
1
C
a
p
t
a
i
n
s
,
M
a
t
e
s
,
a
n
d
P
i
l
o
t
s
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
V
e
s
s
e
l
s
$83,149 0.003%
53
-
7
0
5
1
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
a
n
d
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$43,099 0.003%
53
-
3
0
3
1
D
r
i
v
e
r
/
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$33,058 0.002%
53
-
3
0
3
2
H
e
a
v
y
a
n
d
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
-
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
$46,595 0.002%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$31,621 0.840%
To
t
a
l
,
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
$39,935 100.000%
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
x
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
w
a
s
o
b
t
a
i
ne
d
f
r
o
m
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
3
.
(b
)
W
a
g
e
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
-
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
-
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
M
e
t
r
o
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
en
t
,
O
E
S
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
b
y
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
3
.
(c
)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
ed
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
en
t
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
p
r
o
vi
d
e
d
b
y
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
(Q
C
E
W
)
,
2
0
1
3
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-30-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
ag
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
11
-
0
0
0
0
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
11
-
9
0
5
1
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
6
3
,
7
6
7
1
.
3
0
1
%
11
-
1
0
2
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
on
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
5
0
,
6
2
8
0
.
8
2
0
%
11
-
2
0
2
2
S
a
l
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
6
1
,
5
7
0
0
.
0
8
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
9
9
,
7
0
9
2
.
2
0
2
%
13
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
13
-
2
0
1
1
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
s
$
8
6
,
9
9
1
0
.
0
4
5
%
13
-
1
1
9
9
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
ia
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
9
4
,
7
1
9
0
.
0
3
8
%
13
-
1
0
2
2
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
a
n
d
R
e
t
a
i
l
B
u
y
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
F
a
r
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
6
0
,
8
5
6
0
.
0
3
7
%
13
-
1
0
7
1
H
u
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
0
,
5
8
3
0
.
0
2
3
%
13
-
1
1
5
1
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
2
,
7
7
0
0
.
0
2
2
%
13
-
1
1
2
1
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
,
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
E
v
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
s
$
6
3
,
2
8
4
0
.
0
2
0
%
13
-
1
0
5
1
C
o
s
t
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
o
r
s
$
8
7
,
6
7
6
0
.
0
2
0
%
13
-
1
1
6
1
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
7
,
3
7
4
0
.
0
1
6
%
13
-
1
0
2
3
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
A
g
e
n
t
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
W
h
o
l
e
s
al
e
,
R
e
t
a
i
l
,
a
n
d
F
a
r
m
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
7
9
,
9
3
9
0
.
0
1
2
%
13
-
2
0
7
2
L
o
a
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
$
9
9
,
5
8
6
0
.
0
1
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
1
,
5
4
8
0
.
2
4
3
%
15
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
d
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
al
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
15
-
1
1
5
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
7
0
,
3
4
5
0
.
0
0
9
%
15
-
1
1
4
2
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
em
s
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
9
5
,
8
6
0
0
.
0
0
3
%
15
-
1
1
3
2
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
,
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
1
5
,
7
4
0
0
.
0
0
3
%
15
-
1
1
3
4
W
e
b
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
$
9
1
,
6
9
2
0
.
0
0
2
%
15
-
1
1
3
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
r
s
$
1
0
0
,
7
1
6
0
.
0
0
2
%
15
-
1
1
5
2
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
2
,
7
3
8
0
.
0
0
2
%
15
-
1
1
2
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$
1
0
4
,
9
3
5
0
.
0
0
1
%
15
-
1
1
3
3
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
,
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
$
1
1
8
,
6
1
4
0
.
0
0
1
%
15
-
1
1
9
9
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
on
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
9
7
,
2
7
6
0
.
0
0
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
9
,
5
5
3
0
.
0
2
6
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-31-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
17
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
17
-
3
0
1
1
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
D
r
a
f
t
e
r
s
$
6
7
,
4
2
1
0
.
0
0
1
%
17
-
2
0
7
2
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
$
1
0
5
,
9
4
7
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
2
1
4
1
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
0
,
3
7
2
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
3
0
2
3
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
E
n
gi
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
6
8
,
6
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
2
1
1
2
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
ng
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
7
,
8
4
9
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
2
0
7
1
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
8
,
9
8
2
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
2
0
6
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
H
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
2
1
,
2
7
4
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
3
0
1
9
D
r
a
f
t
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
6
2
,
2
6
1
0
.
0
0
0
%
17
-
2
1
9
9
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
Ot
h
e
r
$
1
1
3
,
4
4
4
0
.
0
0
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
7
,
8
2
3
0
.
0
0
2
%
19
-
0
0
0
0
Li
f
e
,
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
19
-
4
0
9
9
L
i
f
e
,
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
4
2
,
1
1
8
0
.
0
0
0
%
19
-
1
0
3
2
F
o
r
e
s
t
e
r
s
$
8
5
,
4
4
9
0
.
0
0
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
5
0
,
0
1
9
0
.
0
0
0
%
21
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
21
-
1
0
1
9
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
4
,
8
3
5
0
.
0
0
0
%
21
-
1
0
9
1
H
e
a
l
t
h
E
d
u
c
a
t
o
r
s
$
7
4
,
6
4
4
0
.
0
0
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
6
3
,
7
4
1
0
.
0
0
0
%
23
-
0
0
0
0
Le
g
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
23
-
2
0
9
3
T
i
t
l
e
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
s
,
A
b
s
t
r
a
ct
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
S
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
$
7
6
,
8
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
%
23
-
2
0
9
9
L
e
g
a
l
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
6
4
,
0
2
1
0
.
0
0
0
%
23
-
1
0
1
1
L
a
w
y
e
r
s
$
1
7
1
,
3
2
4
0
.
0
0
0
%
23
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
r
a
l
e
g
a
l
s
a
n
d
L
e
g
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
7
1
,
5
2
8
0
.
0
0
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
7
,
7
6
2
0
.
0
0
1
%
25
-
0
0
0
0
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
25
-
3
0
2
1
S
e
l
f
-
E
n
r
i
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
d
u
c
at
i
o
n
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$
4
6
,
9
8
4
0
.
0
0
4
%
25
-
3
0
9
9
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$
6
9
,
0
2
9
0
.
0
0
0
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-32-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
an
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
4
7
,
7
7
0
0
.
0
0
4
%
27
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
t
s
,
D
e
s
i
g
n
,
E
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
,
S
p
o
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
27
-
1
0
2
3
Fl
o
r
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$
3
6
,
6
4
4
0
.
0
2
5
%
27
-
1
0
2
6
M
e
r
c
h
a
n
d
i
s
e
D
i
s
p
l
a
y
e
r
s
a
n
d
W
i
n
d
o
w
T
r
i
m
m
e
r
s
$
3
8
,
9
3
1
0
.
0
2
5
%
27
-
3
0
3
1
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
3
,
3
4
5
0
.
0
0
8
%
27
-
1
0
2
4
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$
7
2
,
4
1
9
0
.
0
0
6
%
27
-
1
0
2
5
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
s
$
7
6
,
5
8
7
0
.
0
0
4
%
27
-
3
0
1
2
P
u
b
l
i
c
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
an
d
O
t
h
e
r
A
n
n
o
u
n
c
e
r
s
$
3
1
,
5
6
6
0
.
0
0
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
4
7
,
6
7
3
0
.
0
7
1
%
29
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
29
-
2
0
5
2
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
y
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
4
6
,
3
2
6
0
.
2
9
1
%
29
-
1
0
5
1
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
i
s
t
s
$
1
3
7
,
6
5
4
0
.
2
1
0
%
29
-
2
0
8
1
O
p
t
i
c
i
a
n
s
,
D
i
s
p
e
n
s
i
n
g
$
3
8
,
0
5
1
0
.
0
3
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
1
,
7
4
9
0
.
5
3
4
%
31
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
31
-
9
0
9
5
P
h
a
r
m
a
c
y
A
i
d
e
s
$
2
8
,
4
4
6
0
.
0
4
6
%
31
-
9
0
1
1
M
a
s
s
a
g
e
T
h
e
r
a
p
i
s
t
s
$
4
5
,
5
8
6
0
.
0
2
4
%
31
-
9
0
9
9
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
4
4
,
7
8
0
0
.
0
0
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
4
,
7
1
7
0
.
0
7
3
%
33
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
33
-
9
0
3
2
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
G
u
a
r
d
s
$
3
2
,
0
1
3
0
.
0
4
7
%
33
-
9
0
9
9
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
rk
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
6
,
8
0
1
0
.
0
1
1
%
33
-
1
0
9
9
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
4
,
0
4
0
0
.
0
0
7
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
8
,
7
0
1
0
.
0
6
5
%
35
-
0
0
0
0
Fo
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
35
-
3
0
2
1
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
a
s
t
Fo
o
d
$2
3
,
5
0
9
2
3
.
9
2
0
%
35
-
3
0
3
1
W
a
i
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
W
a
i
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
$
2
5
,
4
1
3
1
9
.
2
4
1
%
35
-
2
0
1
4
C
o
o
k
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
$
2
9
,
1
6
1
8
.
8
7
3
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-33-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
an
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
35
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
F
o
o
d
P
r
ep
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
0
,
2
5
6
5
.
9
1
9
%
35
-
2
0
1
1
C
o
o
k
s
,
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
$
2
5
,
5
1
4
4
.
7
1
6
%
35
-
2
0
2
1
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
on
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
2
3
,
9
4
2
4
.
3
9
5
%
35
-
9
0
2
1
D
i
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
$
2
3
,
0
3
5
3
.
5
9
2
%
35
-
9
0
3
1
H
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
H
o
s
t
e
s
s
e
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t,
L
o
u
n
g
e
,
a
n
d
C
o
f
f
e
e
S
h
o
p
$
2
6
,
6
7
3
3
.
1
1
1
%
35
-
9
0
1
1
D
i
n
i
n
g
R
o
o
m
a
n
d
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
A
t
t
en
d
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
B
a
r
t
e
n
d
e
r
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
$
2
4
,
2
8
4
2
.
5
6
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
2
6
,
2
2
6
7
6
.
3
2
7
%
37
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
37
-
2
0
1
1
J
a
n
i
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
M
a
id
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$
2
8
,
3
9
6
0
.
4
8
5
%
37
-
2
0
1
2
M
a
i
d
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$
3
5
,
4
1
9
0
.
0
4
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
2
8
,
9
4
5
0
.
5
2
7
%
39
-
0
0
0
0
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
39
-
5
0
1
2
H
a
i
r
d
r
e
s
s
e
r
s
,
H
a
i
r
s
t
y
l
i
s
t
s
,
a
n
d
C
o
s
m
e
t
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
$
3
9
,
5
2
0
0
.
2
1
4
%
39
-
2
0
2
1
N
o
n
f
a
r
m
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
a
r
e
t
a
k
e
r
s
$
3
5
,
3
4
8
0
.
0
6
4
%
39
-
5
0
9
2
M
a
n
i
c
u
r
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
P
e
d
i
c
u
r
i
s
t
s
$
2
3
,
0
0
5
0
.
0
4
6
%
39
-
3
0
9
1
A
m
u
s
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
R
e
c
r
ea
t
i
o
n
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$
2
4
,
8
9
9
0
.
0
3
1
%
39
-
1
0
2
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
e
rs
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
9
,
7
5
8
0
.
0
1
9
%
39
-
5
0
9
4
S
k
i
n
c
a
r
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
4
7
,
6
3
2
0
.
0
1
7
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
6
,
5
8
3
0
.
3
9
0
%
41
-
0
0
0
0
Sa
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
41
-
2
0
1
1
C
a
s
h
i
e
r
s
$
2
6
,
8
5
9
6
.
3
6
3
%
41
-
2
0
3
1
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
$
3
0
,
4
5
7
3
.
3
4
4
%
41
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
7
,
8
8
3
1
.
2
1
4
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
0
,
2
9
8
1
0
.
9
2
1
%
43
-
0
0
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
43
-
5
0
8
1
S
t
o
c
k
C
l
e
r
k
s
a
n
d
O
r
d
e
r
F
i
l
l
e
r
s
$
3
2
,
1
4
9
2
.
0
6
5
%
43
-
4
0
5
1
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
$
4
5
,
6
5
7
0
.
4
4
6
%
43
-
9
0
6
1
O
f
f
i
c
e
C
l
e
r
k
s
,
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
$
3
9
,
9
9
7
0
.
3
6
3
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-34-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
an
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
43
-
3
0
3
1
B
o
o
k
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
A
u
d
i
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
5
0
,
0
5
2
0
.
3
5
6
%
43
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
rv
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
O
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
ve
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
6
,
6
6
8
0
.
2
6
5
%
43
-
5
0
7
1
S
h
i
p
p
i
n
g
,
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
3
6
,
2
2
0
0
.
1
5
8
%
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
9
,
0
0
3
3
.
6
5
3
%
45
-
0
0
0
0
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
,
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
45
-
2
0
4
1
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
a
n
d
S
o
r
t
e
r
s
,
A
g
r
i
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$
3
4
,
2
5
4
0
.
0
0
5
%
45
-
2
0
9
2
F
a
r
m
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
,
C
r
o
p
,
N
u
r
s
e
r
y
,
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
$
2
5
,
9
3
6
0
.
0
0
4
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
0
,
5
3
7
0
.
0
0
9
%
47
-
0
0
0
0
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
47
-
2
1
2
1
G
l
a
z
i
e
r
s
$
5
6
,
4
1
5
0
.
0
0
9
%
47
-
2
0
3
1
C
a
r
p
e
n
t
e
r
s
$
6
3
,
1
6
5
0
.
0
0
5
%
47
-
1
0
1
1
Fi
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
$8
5
,
9
5
4
0
.
0
0
2
%
47
-
2
0
4
1
C
a
r
p
e
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$
5
3
,
2
0
8
0
.
0
0
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
6
1
,
4
2
5
0
.
0
1
7
%
49
-
0
0
0
0
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
49
-
3
0
2
3
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
$
5
5
,
1
2
4
0
.
5
2
1
%
49
-
3
0
2
1
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
B
o
d
y
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
5
2
,
6
0
0
0
.
1
4
1
%
49
-
9
0
7
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
W
o
rk
e
r
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
5
0
,
6
0
5
0
.
1
2
0
%
49
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
cs
,
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
9
0
,
3
4
0
0
.
0
9
1
%
49
-
3
0
9
3
T
i
r
e
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
a
n
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
r
s
$
3
2
,
4
4
7
0
.
0
4
0
%
49
-
3
0
3
1
B
u
s
a
n
d
T
r
u
c
k
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
5
5
,
3
9
9
0
.
0
3
9
%
49
-
9
0
9
8
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
-
-
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
an
c
e
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
8
,
4
8
8
0
.
0
3
7
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
5
6
,
3
0
0
0
.
9
8
8
%
51
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
51
-
3
0
1
1
B
a
k
e
r
s
$2
9
,
4
3
6
0
.
3
9
2
%
51
-
3
0
2
1
B
u
t
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
M
e
a
t
C
u
t
t
e
r
s
$
3
4
,
2
6
5
0
.
3
1
3
%
51
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
r
o
d
u
c
ti
o
n
a
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
7
,
8
2
8
0
.
0
7
1
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-35-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
0
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
an
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
au
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
Wa
g
e
(
b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
(
c
)
51
-
6
0
1
1
L
a
u
n
d
r
y
a
n
d
D
r
y
-
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
2
8
,
5
5
2
0
.
0
6
4
%
51
-
3
0
2
2
M
e
a
t
,
P
o
u
l
t
r
y
,
a
n
d
F
i
s
h
C
u
t
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
T
r
i
m
m
e
r
s
$
2
4
,
4
2
5
0
.
0
6
2
%
51
-
3
0
9
2
F
o
o
d
B
a
t
c
h
m
a
k
e
r
s
$
2
8
,
4
5
0
0
.
0
4
7
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
3
,
4
5
8
0
.
9
4
9
%
53
-
0
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
53
-
3
0
3
1
D
r
i
v
e
r
/
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
3
3
,
0
5
8
1
.
4
2
1
%
53
-
7
0
6
4
P
a
c
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
2
6
,
9
4
0
0
.
4
3
4
%
53
-
7
0
6
2
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
a
n
d
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
,
S
t
o
c
k
,
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
3
0
,
6
7
0
0
.
3
7
0
%
53
-
3
0
3
3
L
i
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
o
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
$
4
1
,
8
6
9
0
.
3
2
8
%
53
-
7
0
6
1
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
a
n
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
$
2
6
,
1
6
8
0
.
2
3
9
%
53
-
6
0
3
1
A
u
t
o
m
o
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
c
r
a
f
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$
2
6
,
8
5
9
0
.
1
0
7
%
53
-
6
0
2
1
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
A
tt
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
$
2
8
,
3
6
3
0
.
1
0
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
1
,
9
1
5
2
.
9
9
9
%
T
o
t
a
l
,
M
i
n
o
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
$2
9
,
8
3
2
.
7
7
1
0
0
.
0
0
0
%
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
x
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
w
a
s
o
b
t
a
i
ne
d
f
r
o
m
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
3
.
(b
)
W
a
g
e
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
-
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
-
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
M
e
t
r
o
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
en
t
,
O
E
S
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
b
y
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
3
.
(c
)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
ed
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
en
t
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
p
r
o
vi
d
e
d
b
y
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
(Q
C
E
W
)
,
2
0
1
3
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-36-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
W
ag
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
11
-
0
0
0
0
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
11
-
1
0
2
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
a
n
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
on
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
5
0
,
6
2
8
2
.
4
1
0
%
11
-
3
0
2
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
Sy
s
t
e
m
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
6
5
,
6
5
0
1
.
4
3
6
%
11
-
3
0
3
1
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
6
9
,
2
2
7
0
.
9
2
0
%
11
-
9
1
9
9
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
Ot
h
e
r
$
1
4
1
,
6
9
1
0
.
4
9
9
%
11
-
2
0
2
2
S
a
l
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$1
6
1
,
5
7
0
0
.
4
9
4
%
11
-
2
0
2
1
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
7
5
,
1
4
1
0
.
4
6
9
%
11
-
1
0
1
1
C
h
i
e
f
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
$2
0
7
,
7
3
5
0
.
3
4
7
%
11
-
3
0
1
1
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
1
0
,
6
5
9
0
.
3
3
9
%
11
-
9
0
4
1
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
ne
e
r
i
n
g
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s
$
1
6
8
,
6
4
3
0
.
3
3
6
%
W
e
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
1
5
9
,
3
8
0
7
.
2
5
1
%
13
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
13
-
2
0
1
1
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
s
$
8
6
,
9
9
1
2
.
0
6
7
%
13
-
1
1
1
1
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$
1
1
9
,
7
2
6
1
.
7
9
7
%
13
-
1
1
9
9
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
ia
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
9
4
,
7
1
9
1
.
4
1
6
%
13
-
1
1
6
1
M
a
r
k
e
t
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
a
n
d
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
7
,
3
7
4
1
.
1
2
4
%
13
-
1
0
7
1
H
u
m
a
n
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
0
,
5
8
3
1
.
1
0
9
%
13
-
2
0
5
1
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$
1
2
4
,
6
6
3
0
.
7
6
8
%
13
-
2
0
5
2
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
A
d
v
i
s
o
r
s
$
1
2
5
,
0
7
7
0
.
6
6
0
%
13
-
2
0
7
2
L
o
a
n
O
f
f
i
c
e
r
s
$9
9
,
5
8
6
0
.
5
7
9
%
13
-
1
1
5
1
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
2
,
7
7
0
0
.
4
6
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
9
9
,
2
6
4
9
.
9
8
0
%
15
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
p
u
t
e
r
a
n
d
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
al
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
15
-
1
1
3
2
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
,
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
$
1
1
5
,
7
4
0
4
.
5
1
0
%
15
-
1
1
2
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
t
s
$
1
0
4
,
9
3
5
2
.
8
2
7
%
15
-
1
1
5
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
U
s
e
r
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
7
0
,
3
4
5
2
.
3
1
6
%
15
-
1
1
3
3
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
s
,
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
S
o
f
t
w
a
r
e
$
1
1
8
,
6
1
4
2
.
4
8
7
%
15
-
1
1
3
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
e
r
s
$
1
0
0
,
7
1
6
2
.
2
8
6
%
15
-
1
1
4
2
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
y
s
t
em
s
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
9
5
,
8
6
0
1
.
3
7
1
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-37-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
15
-
1
1
5
2
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
2
,
7
3
8
0
.
6
8
5
%
15
-
1
1
4
3
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
$
1
2
5
,
3
3
1
0
.
7
3
2
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
1
0
3
,
7
9
0
1
7
.
2
1
4
%
17
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
17
-
2
1
4
1
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
0
,
3
7
2
0
.
4
0
8
%
17
-
2
0
6
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
H
a
r
d
w
a
r
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
2
1
,
2
7
4
0
.
3
9
6
%
17
-
2
0
7
1
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
8
,
9
8
2
0
.
3
1
5
%
17
-
2
0
5
1
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$1
0
8
,
6
4
8
0
.
3
1
5
%
17
-
2
0
7
2
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
$
1
0
5
,
9
4
7
0
.
3
0
9
%
17
-
2
1
1
2
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
ng
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
7
,
8
4
9
0
.
3
0
0
%
17
-
2
1
9
9
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
Ot
h
e
r
$
1
1
3
,
4
4
4
0
.
2
6
0
%
17
-
3
0
2
3
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
E
n
gi
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
6
8
,
6
0
4
0
.
2
5
4
%
17
-
2
0
1
1
A
e
r
o
s
p
a
c
e
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
$
1
0
7
,
7
8
8
0
.
1
6
8
%
17
-
1
0
1
1
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
L
a
n
ds
c
a
p
e
a
n
d
N
a
v
a
l
$
1
0
2
,
1
6
3
0
.
1
3
9
%
17
-
3
0
2
9
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
D
r
a
f
t
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
7
3
,
5
3
1
0
.
1
3
7
%
17
-
3
0
1
1
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
C
i
v
i
l
D
r
a
f
t
e
r
s
$
6
7
,
4
2
1
0
.
1
3
6
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
1
0
2
,
3
5
0
3
.
1
3
8
%
19
-
0
0
0
0
Li
f
e
,
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
19
-
1
0
4
2
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
E
p
i
d
e
m
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
$
1
1
6
,
9
7
5
0
.
4
8
9
%
19
-
2
0
3
1
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
s
$1
0
2
,
0
1
1
0
.
2
5
9
%
19
-
4
0
2
1
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
6
6
,
8
5
4
0
.
2
5
0
%
19
-
1
0
2
1
B
i
o
c
h
e
m
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
B
i
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
i
s
t
s
$
1
1
5
,
4
1
6
0
.
1
8
9
%
19
-
2
0
4
1
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
S
pe
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
$
1
0
3
,
8
4
2
0
.
1
7
6
%
19
-
4
0
9
9
L
i
f
e
,
P
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
4
2
,
1
1
8
0
.
1
6
7
%
19
-
4
0
3
1
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
5
2
,
5
5
9
0
.
1
4
2
%
19
-
4
0
6
1
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
4
1
,
2
8
8
0
.
1
2
4
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
9
,
1
2
7
1
.
7
9
5
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-38-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
21
-
0
0
0
0
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
21
-
1
0
1
4
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
s
$
4
3
,
1
4
0
0
.
1
0
5
%
21
-
1
0
9
3
S
o
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
H
u
m
a
n
S
e
r
v
ic
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
3
9
,
2
3
4
0
.
0
9
7
%
21
-
1
0
2
3
M
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
Ab
u
s
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
4
,
9
8
7
0
.
0
9
7
%
21
-
1
0
1
1
S
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
A
b
u
s
e
a
n
d
B
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
D
i
s
o
r
d
e
r
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
s
$
4
4
,
9
0
0
0
.
0
7
2
%
21
-
1
0
2
2
H
e
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
S
o
c
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
7
9
,
5
7
1
0
.
0
5
9
%
21
-
1
0
2
1
C
h
i
l
d
,
F
a
m
i
l
y
,
a
n
d
S
c
h
o
o
l
S
o
c
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
3
,
4
2
9
0
.
0
4
6
%
21
-
1
0
9
1
H
e
a
l
t
h
E
d
u
c
a
t
o
r
s
$7
4
,
6
4
4
0
.
0
3
7
%
21
-
1
0
9
4
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
H
e
a
l
t
h
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
5
,
8
6
1
0
.
0
3
2
%
21
-
1
0
9
9
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
3
,
3
3
8
0
.
0
2
9
%
21
-
1
0
1
5
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
s
$
3
6
,
4
4
2
0
.
0
2
2
%
21
-
1
0
1
2
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
G
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
S
c
h
o
o
l
,
a
n
d
V
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
u
n
s
e
l
o
r
s
$
6
3
,
5
1
6
0
.
0
2
2
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
5
1
,
8
2
7
0
.
6
1
8
%
23
-
0
0
0
0
Le
g
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
23
-
1
0
1
1
L
a
w
y
e
r
s
$1
7
1
,
3
2
4
1
.
1
6
5
%
23
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
r
a
l
e
g
a
l
s
a
n
d
L
e
g
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
7
1
,
5
2
8
0
.
5
7
2
%
23
-
2
0
9
3
T
i
t
l
e
E
x
a
m
i
n
e
r
s
,
A
b
s
t
r
a
ct
o
r
s
,
a
n
d
S
e
a
r
c
h
e
r
s
$
7
6
,
8
0
9
0
.
0
9
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
1
3
5
,
4
1
5
1
.
8
2
7
%
25
-
0
0
0
0
Ed
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
25
-
3
0
9
8
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$
3
6
,
3
0
0
0
.
2
4
7
%
25
-
9
0
4
1
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
3
4
,
9
9
5
0
.
0
5
7
%
25
-
4
0
2
1
L
i
b
r
a
r
i
a
n
s
$7
7
,
3
9
6
0
.
0
5
4
%
25
-
4
0
3
1
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
5
3
,
6
4
1
0
.
0
3
7
%
25
-
2
0
2
1
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
,
E
x
ce
p
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$
6
7
,
5
6
2
0
.
0
3
5
%
25
-
3
0
9
9
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
a
n
d
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
S
u
b
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
$
6
9
,
0
2
9
0
.
0
3
3
%
25
-
9
0
9
9
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
L
i
b
r
ar
y
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
3
7
,
3
0
2
0
.
0
2
6
%
25
-
2
0
2
2
M
i
d
d
l
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
C
a
r
e
e
r
/
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$
6
9
,
8
0
8
0
.
0
2
3
%
25
-
2
0
3
1
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
T
e
a
c
h
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
S
pe
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
C
a
r
e
e
r
/
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
$
7
0
,
7
2
9
0
.
0
2
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
4
8
,
5
0
7
0
.
5
3
6
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-39-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
27
-
0
0
0
0
Ar
t
s
,
D
e
s
i
g
n
,
E
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
,
S
p
o
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
M
e
d
i
a
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
27
-
3
0
4
2
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
$8
5
,
9
3
5
0
.
2
2
8
%
27
-
3
0
3
1
P
u
b
l
i
c
R
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
s
$
8
3
,
3
4
5
0
.
2
1
8
%
27
-
1
0
1
4
M
u
l
t
i
m
e
d
i
a
A
r
t
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
t
o
r
s
$
8
4
,
9
3
4
0
.
1
1
4
%
27
-
2
0
1
2
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s
a
n
d
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
$
9
5
,
9
7
1
0
.
0
9
0
%
27
-
3
0
4
3
W
r
i
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
A
u
t
h
o
r
s
$
6
6
,
1
9
7
0
.
0
6
1
%
27
-
3
0
2
2
R
e
p
o
r
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
$
5
3
,
5
1
0
0
.
0
5
3
%
27
-
1
0
1
1
A
r
t
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
s
$1
2
7
,
0
7
1
0
.
0
4
8
%
27
-
4
0
1
1
A
u
d
i
o
a
n
d
V
i
d
e
o
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
5
8
,
6
3
9
0
.
0
3
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
8
3
,
9
9
7
0
.
8
4
5
%
29
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
29
-
1
1
4
1
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
N
u
r
s
e
s
$
1
2
9
,
1
6
6
1
.
4
2
2
%
29
-
2
0
6
1
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
L
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
V
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
N
u
r
s
e
s
$
6
3
,
0
6
0
0
.
6
0
2
%
29
-
1
0
6
9
P
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
S
u
r
g
e
o
ns
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
1
9
2
,
7
0
1
0
.
5
0
6
%
29
-
2
0
2
1
D
e
n
t
a
l
H
y
g
i
e
n
i
s
t
s
$
1
1
4
,
2
9
4
0
.
4
7
4
%
29
-
1
0
6
2
F
a
m
i
l
y
a
n
d
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
$
1
9
6
,
7
5
8
0
.
2
8
2
%
29
-
1
0
2
1
D
e
n
t
i
s
t
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
1
6
7
,
3
1
8
0
.
2
3
1
%
29
-
2
0
7
1
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
a
n
d
H
e
a
l
t
h
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
i
a
n
s
$
5
4
,
3
5
9
0
.
2
2
2
%
29
-
1
1
7
1
N
u
r
s
e
P
r
a
c
t
i
t
i
o
n
e
r
s
$
1
2
7
,
1
9
3
0
.
2
1
2
%
29
-
1
0
7
1
P
h
y
s
i
c
i
a
n
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
1
1
2
,
8
7
7
0
.
1
9
9
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
1
2
7
,
4
6
4
4
.
1
5
0
%
31
-
0
0
0
0
He
a
l
t
h
c
a
r
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
31
-
9
0
9
2
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
4
4
,
0
1
4
1
.
3
1
8
%
31
-
9
0
9
1
D
e
n
t
a
l
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$4
9
,
2
4
4
0
.
7
5
0
%
31
-
1
0
1
4
N
u
r
s
i
n
g
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
4
2
,
1
3
0
0
.
3
6
3
%
31
-
1
0
1
1
H
o
m
e
H
e
a
l
t
h
A
i
d
e
s
$
2
8
,
5
8
7
0
.
1
6
6
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
4
4
,
2
7
3
2
.
5
9
8
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-40-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
33
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
33
-
9
0
3
2
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
G
u
a
r
d
s
$3
2
,
0
1
3
2
.
0
5
9
%
33
-
1
0
9
9
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
4
,
0
4
0
0
.
0
8
8
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
2
,
9
1
9
2
.
1
4
7
%
35
-
0
0
0
0
Fo
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
35
-
3
0
2
1
C
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
,
I
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
$
2
3
,
5
0
9
0
.
3
8
9
%
35
-
3
0
3
1
W
a
i
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
W
a
i
t
r
e
s
s
e
s
$
2
5
,
4
1
3
0
.
3
0
5
%
35
-
2
0
2
1
F
o
o
d
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
on
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
2
3
,
9
4
2
0
.
1
9
2
%
35
-
2
0
1
2
C
o
o
k
s
,
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
an
d
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
$
3
8
,
0
4
9
0
.
1
6
4
%
35
-
3
0
2
2
C
o
u
n
t
e
r
A
t
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
,
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
,
F
oo
d
C
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
C
o
f
f
e
e
S
h
o
p
$
2
3
,
7
1
0
0
.
1
5
9
%
35
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
F
o
o
d
P
r
ep
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
0
,
2
5
6
0
.
1
3
9
%
35
-
3
0
4
1
F
o
o
d
S
e
r
v
e
r
s
,
N
on
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
$
3
3
,
4
3
4
0
.
1
3
1
%
35
-
9
0
2
1
D
i
s
h
w
a
s
h
e
r
s
$2
3
,
0
3
5
0
.
1
1
3
%
35
-
9
0
1
1
D
i
n
i
n
g
R
o
o
m
a
n
d
C
a
f
e
t
e
r
i
a
A
t
t
en
d
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
B
a
r
t
e
n
d
e
r
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
$
2
4
,
2
8
4
0
.
1
0
8
%
35
-
2
0
1
4
C
o
o
k
s
,
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
$
2
9
,
1
6
1
0
.
0
6
8
%
35
-
3
0
1
1
B
a
r
t
e
n
d
e
r
s
$3
0
,
1
1
9
0
.
0
6
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
2
7
,
6
2
2
1
.
8
2
8
%
37
-
0
0
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
C
l
e
a
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
37
-
2
0
1
1
J
a
n
i
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
M
a
id
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$
2
8
,
3
9
6
4
.
6
6
2
%
37
-
3
0
1
1
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
2
,
1
0
0
2
.
5
6
5
%
37
-
2
0
1
2
M
a
i
d
s
a
n
d
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
C
l
e
a
n
e
r
s
$
3
5
,
4
1
9
0
.
7
8
4
%
37
-
2
0
2
1
P
e
s
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
3
,
6
9
8
0
.
3
1
6
%
37
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
k
e
e
pi
n
g
a
n
d
J
a
n
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
0
,
3
5
2
0
.
3
0
7
%
37
-
1
0
1
2
Fi
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
,
L
a
w
n
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
,
a
n
d
G
r
o
u
n
d
s
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
$6
2
,
6
9
6
0
.
3
0
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
5
,
7
5
8
8
.
9
3
8
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-41-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
39
-
0
0
0
0
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
a
n
d
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
39
-
9
0
2
1
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
C
a
r
e
A
i
d
e
s
$
2
4
,
4
7
6
0
.
2
6
9
%
39
-
3
0
3
1
U
s
h
e
r
s
,
L
o
b
b
y
At
t
e
n
d
a
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
T
i
c
k
e
t
T
a
k
e
r
s
$
2
7
,
7
6
1
0
.
0
9
6
%
39
-
9
0
1
1
C
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
3
1
,
5
4
0
0
.
0
3
7
%
39
-
2
0
2
1
N
o
n
f
a
r
m
A
n
i
m
a
l
C
a
r
e
t
a
k
e
r
s
$
3
5
,
3
4
8
0
.
0
3
2
%
39
-
1
0
2
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
P
e
rs
o
n
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
4
9
,
7
5
8
0
.
0
2
2
%
39
-
9
0
3
2
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
2
9
,
1
0
1
0
.
0
2
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
2
7
,
7
8
2
0
.
4
7
6
%
41
-
0
0
0
0
Sa
l
e
s
a
n
d
R
e
l
a
t
e
d
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
41
-
3
0
9
9
S
a
l
e
s
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
8
5
,
0
2
3
1
.
7
4
5
%
41
-
3
0
3
1
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
i
e
s
,
C
o
m
m
o
d
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
S
a
l
e
s
A
g
e
n
t
s
$
1
4
0
,
6
3
6
1
.
0
9
6
%
41
-
4
0
1
1
Sa
l
e
s
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
a
n
d
M
a
nu
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
,
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
s
$1
0
0
,
4
4
3
0
.
6
6
6
%
41
-
3
0
2
1
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
S
a
l
e
s
A
g
e
n
t
s
$
8
6
,
4
3
4
0
.
5
6
4
%
41
-
4
0
1
2
Sa
l
e
s
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
W
h
o
l
e
s
a
l
e
a
n
d
Ma
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
$6
5
,
5
9
1
0
.
3
8
8
%
41
-
1
0
1
2
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
N
on
-
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
9
6
,
1
3
9
0
.
2
9
2
%
41
-
2
0
3
1
R
e
t
a
i
l
S
a
l
e
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
$
3
0
,
4
5
7
0
.
2
8
4
%
41
-
9
0
4
1
T
e
l
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
e
r
s
$2
9
,
1
9
8
0
.
2
5
6
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
9
2
,
2
0
1
5
.
2
9
0
%
43
-
0
0
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
43
-
9
0
6
1
O
f
f
i
c
e
C
l
e
r
k
s
,
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
$
3
9
,
9
9
7
3
.
7
5
4
%
43
-
4
0
5
1
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
R
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
s
$
4
5
,
6
5
7
3
.
4
0
8
%
43
-
6
0
1
4
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
,
Ex
c
e
p
t
L
e
g
a
l
,
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
,
a
n
d
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
$
4
3
,
6
1
2
2
.
6
4
1
%
43
-
3
0
3
1
B
o
o
k
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
,
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
an
d
A
u
d
i
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
5
0
,
0
5
2
1
.
8
6
2
%
43
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
rv
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
O
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
ve
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
6
6
,
6
6
8
1
.
6
1
2
%
43
-
4
1
7
1
R
e
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
I
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
3
7
,
5
4
6
1
.
5
8
5
%
43
-
6
0
1
1
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
A
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
s
$
6
9
,
7
1
6
1
.
2
2
8
%
43
-
3
0
7
1
T
e
l
l
e
r
s
$3
1
,
9
8
7
1
.
0
5
7
%
43
-
6
0
1
3
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
S
e
c
r
e
t
a
r
i
e
s
$
4
4
,
6
7
5
0
.
9
1
9
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-42-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
43
-
3
0
2
1
B
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
i
n
g
C
l
e
r
k
s
$
4
7
,
7
2
3
0
.
7
8
7
%
43
-
0
0
0
0
Of
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
4
6
,
6
3
2
1
8
.
8
5
2
%
45
-
0
0
0
0
Fa
r
m
i
n
g
,
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
45
-
2
0
9
2
F
a
r
m
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
,
C
r
o
p
,
N
u
r
s
e
r
y
,
a
n
d
G
r
e
e
n
h
o
u
s
e
$
2
5
,
9
3
6
0
.
0
2
0
%
45
-
2
0
9
3
F
a
r
m
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
F
a
r
m
,
R
a
n
c
h
,
an
d
A
q
u
a
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
$
2
6
,
1
7
9
0
.
0
0
8
%
45
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
F
a
r
m
i
n
g
,
F
i
sh
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
7
8
,
4
8
6
0
.
0
0
4
%
45
-
2
0
1
1
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
$
6
6
,
3
4
2
0
.
0
0
2
%
45
-
4
0
1
1
F
o
r
e
s
t
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
5
6
,
6
2
8
0
.
0
0
1
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
4
,
8
0
1
0
.
0
3
4
%
47
-
0
0
0
0
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
47
-
2
0
3
1
C
a
r
p
e
n
t
e
r
s
$6
3
,
1
6
5
0
.
1
2
2
%
47
-
2
1
1
1
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
a
n
s
$8
4
,
2
2
3
0
.
1
1
6
%
47
-
4
0
1
1
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
$
7
4
,
8
3
3
0
.
0
6
6
%
47
-
2
1
5
2
P
l
u
m
b
e
r
s
,
P
i
p
e
f
i
t
t
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
S
t
e
a
m
f
i
t
t
e
r
s
$
8
2
,
6
7
5
0
.
0
4
4
%
47
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
T
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
8
5
,
9
5
4
0
.
0
4
3
%
47
-
2
1
4
1
P
a
i
n
t
e
r
s
,
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
$
4
7
,
6
5
2
0
.
0
4
3
%
47
-
2
0
7
3
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
7
7
,
5
6
5
0
.
0
4
0
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
7
3
,
6
3
4
0
.
4
7
4
%
49
-
0
0
0
0
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
49
-
9
0
7
1
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
W
o
rk
e
r
s
,
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
$
5
0
,
6
0
5
0
.
8
2
6
%
49
-
2
0
2
2
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
a
nd
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
,
E
x
c
e
p
t
L
i
n
e
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$
5
9
,
6
3
3
0
.
2
5
4
%
49
-
2
0
1
1
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
,
A
u
t
o
m
a
t
ed
T
e
l
l
e
r
,
a
n
d
O
f
f
i
c
e
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
5
1
,
4
6
0
0
.
1
8
5
%
49
-
9
0
9
9
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
Re
p
a
i
r
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
5
1
,
0
3
2
0
.
1
5
2
%
49
-
1
0
1
1
F
i
r
s
t
-
L
i
n
e
S
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
s
o
f
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
cs
,
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
9
0
,
3
4
0
0
.
1
4
3
%
49
-
9
0
5
2
T
e
l
e
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
L
i
n
e
I
n
st
a
l
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
R
e
p
a
i
r
e
r
s
$
6
8
,
4
6
7
0
.
1
2
9
%
49
-
2
0
9
8
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
a
n
d
F
i
r
e
A
l
a
r
m
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
r
s
$
4
4
,
4
7
8
0
.
1
0
3
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
5
6
,
1
2
2
1
.
7
9
2
%
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-43-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
I
I
-
1
1
.
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
i
x
a
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
W
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
N
a
m
e
(
a
)
Ave
r
a
g
e
An
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
(b
)
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Workers (c)
51
-
0
0
0
0
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
51
-
2
0
9
2
T
e
a
m
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
r
s
$3
2
,
8
1
1
1
.
3
8
4
%
51
-
9
1
9
8
H
e
l
p
e
r
s
-
-
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
$
3
1
,
2
8
6
0
.
9
2
5
%
51
-
2
0
9
9
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
r
s
a
n
d
F
a
b
r
i
c
at
o
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
2
8
,
7
9
6
0
.
6
3
1
%
51
-
9
1
9
9
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
,
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
$
3
5
,
4
7
4
0
.
5
1
1
%
51
-
9
1
1
1
P
a
c
k
a
g
i
n
g
a
n
d
F
i
l
l
i
n
g
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
Op
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
T
e
n
d
e
r
s
$
3
4
,
4
5
8
0
.
4
7
7
%
51
-
9
0
6
1
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
o
r
s
,
T
e
s
t
e
r
s
,
S
o
r
t
e
r
s
,
S
a
m
p
l
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
W
e
i
g
h
e
r
s
$
4
2
,
1
8
3
0
.
4
2
8
%
51
-
2
0
2
2
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
E
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
A
s
s
e
m
b
l
e
r
s
$
3
8
,
1
6
8
0
.
3
2
3
%
51
-
4
0
4
1
M
a
c
h
i
n
i
s
t
s
$6
0
,
0
1
1
0
.
2
3
8
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
4
,
9
3
0
4
.
9
1
6
%
53
-
0
0
0
0
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
i
n
g
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
s
53
-
7
0
6
2
L
a
b
o
r
e
r
s
a
n
d
F
r
e
i
g
h
t
,
S
t
o
c
k
,
a
n
d
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
M
o
v
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
3
0
,
6
7
0
3
.
5
1
2
%
53
-
7
0
6
4
P
a
c
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
P
a
c
k
a
g
e
r
s
,
H
a
n
d
$
2
6
,
9
4
0
0
.
9
3
2
%
53
-
7
0
5
1
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
T
r
u
c
k
a
n
d
T
r
ac
t
o
r
O
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
$
4
3
,
0
9
9
0
.
4
0
1
%
53
-
3
0
3
2
H
e
a
v
y
a
n
d
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
-
T
r
a
i
l
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
$
4
6
,
5
9
5
0
.
2
7
0
%
53
-
3
0
3
3
L
i
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
o
r
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
D
r
i
v
e
r
s
$
4
1
,
8
6
9
0
.
1
8
9
%
We
i
g
h
t
e
d
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
W
a
g
e
$
3
2
,
1
6
3
5
.
3
0
4
%
To
t
a
l
,
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
Of
f
i
c
e
$
7
7
,
3
4
2
1
0
0
.
0
0
0
%
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
O
c
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
x
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
w
a
s
o
b
t
a
i
ne
d
f
r
o
m
U
S
B
u
r
e
a
u
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
3
.
(b
)
W
a
g
e
d
a
t
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
-
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
-
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
M
e
t
r
o
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
en
t
,
O
E
S
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
b
y
Oc
c
u
p
a
t
i
o
n
,
2
0
1
3
.
(c
)
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
ed
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
en
t
b
y
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
p
r
o
vi
d
e
d
b
y
Q
u
a
r
t
e
r
l
y
C
e
n
s
u
s
o
f
E
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
W
a
g
e
s
(Q
C
E
W
)
,
2
0
1
3
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-44-
Household Incomes
Based on the employee wage calculations discussed above, household incomes are estimated for each
prototype. This step assumes that the income of the second wage-earner is similar to the wage of the first
wage-earner. In order to calculate the annual household income, the average worker wage is multiplied by
the number of wage-earners per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community
Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2010-2012, there is an average of 1.73 wage-earners per household in South
San Francisco. The average annual wage per employee within each occupation was multiplied by 1.73 in
order to determine annual average household income.
Employee households are then categorized as very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income based
on the income definitions and cut-offs established by the California Housing and Community
Development Department (HCD). According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-
Year Estimates, 2008-2012, the average household size in the City of South San Francisco is 3.0. . The
income categories for very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households are therefore
based on the household size of three persons, using the California Department of Housing and
Community Development’s definitions of income thresholds for area median income, as shown in Figure
III-12.
Figure III-12. Household Income Categories
Income Category
3-Person
Household
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) $50,900
Low Income (51-80% AMI) $81,450
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $92,700
Above Moderate Income (>=120%) >$92,700
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, "State Income Limits for 2014", February 28, 2014.
Using the income categories described above, the new worker households were sorted into income
groups. As shown in Figure III-13 below, most hotel worker households are in very low and low income
categories, the vast majority of retail/ restaurants/ services worker households are in the very low income
categories, and less than half of office/ R&D/ medical office workers are in very low, low, and moderate
income categories. Above moderate income households were removed from the subsequent steps of the
nexus analysis, as it is determined that these income groups would be able to afford market-rate housing.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-45-
Figure III-13. Number of Worker Households by Income Category
Prototype
Number of
Employee
Households
Hotel
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 16.0
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 30.5
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 4.7
Above Moderate (>=120%) 6.5
Total 57.8
Retail, Restaurants and Personal Services
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 68.0
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 13.8
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 1.7
Above Moderate (>=120%) 3.2
Total 86.7
Office, R&D and Medical Office Land Use
Very Low Income (<=50% AMI) 14.6
Low Income (51-80% AMI) 53.4
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) 9.0
Above Moderate (>=120%) 96.5
Total 173.4
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-46-
Estimating the housing affordability gap is necessary to calculate the maximum potential housing impact
fee. This affordability gap analysis was conducted at the county-wide level so that it can be applied to all
the jurisdictions in San Mateo County participating in the multi-city nexus study.4 This section
summarizes the approach to calculating the housing affordability gap and the results of the analysis.
METHODOLOGY
The housing affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low, low, and moderate
income households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of new, modest housing units.
Calculating the housing affordability gap involves the following three steps:
1. Estimating affordable rents and housing prices for households in target income groups.
2. Estimating development costs of building new, modest housing units, based on current cost and
market data.
3. Calculating the different between what renters and owners can afford to pay for housing and the
cost of development of rental and ownership units.
The housing affordability gap is estimated at a countywide level, and assumed to be the same for all the
jurisdictions participating in the multi-city nexus studies, for the following reasons:
Both the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)
and U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) define the ability to pay for
housing at the county (rather than the city) level. Existing affordable housing studies and policies
in most jurisdictions rely on these countywide area median income (AMI) estimates published by
HCD or by HUD. This analysis uses 2014 income limits published by California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Construction costs for housing and commercial development do not vary dramatically between
different jurisdictions in San Mateo County, because the cost of labor and materials is regional in
nature.
Although land costs vary widely in San Mateo County, the study estimated a single land value for the
county based on data provided by developers of recently built projects. These costs are at the low end of
recent land sales, as described below. Additionally, because the land costs used in the analysis are from
2012 and 2013, and land values have escalated rapidly since then, the resulting affordability gap will be
slightly lower than if the analysis incorporated 2014 land costs, providing a conservative estimate of the
affordability gap.
4 Although there is a single housing affordability gap estimate for all jurisdictions participating in the multi-city nexus
studies, the subsequent steps in the fee calculations considers market and household characteristics for South San
Francisco, generating a unique maximum fee for each jurisdiction in the county, as described in Section V of this
report.
IV. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-47-
ESTIMATING AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES
The first step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to determine the maximum amount that
households at the targeted income levels can afford to pay for housing. For eligibility purposes, most
affordable housing programs define very low income households as those earning approximately 50
percent or less of area median income (AMI), low income households as those earning between 51 and 80
percent of AMI, and moderate income households as those earning between 81 and 120 percent of AMI.
In order to ensure that the affordability of housing does not use the top incomes in each category, the
analysis uses a point within the income ranges for the low and moderate income groups.5
Figure IV-1 and Figure IV-2 show the calculations for rental housing. The maximum affordable monthly
rent is calculated as 30 percent of gross monthly household income, minus a deduction for utilities. For
example, a very low income, three-person household could afford to spend $1,273 on total monthly
housing costs. After deducting for utilities, $1,220 a month is available to pay for rent. Figure IV-3 and
Figure IV-4 demonstrate housing affordability for homeowners. Homeowners are assumed to pay a
maximum of 35 percent of gross monthly income on total housing costs, depending on income level. The
maximum affordable price for for-sale housing is then calculated based on the total monthly mortgage
payment that a homeowner could afford, using standard loan terms used by CalHFA programs and many
private lenders for first-time homebuyers, including a five percent down payment (Figure IV-3). For
example, a moderate income, three-person household could afford to spend $2,974 a month on total
housing costs, allowing for the purchase of a $348,526 home.
Key assumptions used to calculate the maximum affordable rents and housing prices are discussed below.
Unit types: For rental housing, the analysis included studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom
units. For for-sale housing, one-, two-, and three-bedroom units were included. These unit types
represent the affordable and modest market-rate apartment and condominium units available in
San Mateo County. Condominiums were used to represent modest for-sale housing because
single-family homes in San Mateo County tend to be significantly more expensive than
condominiums.
Occupancy and household size assumptions. Because income levels for affordable housing
programs vary by household size, calculating affordable unit prices requires defining household
sizes for each unit type. Consistent with California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5(h),
unit occupancy was generally estimated as the number of bedrooms plus one. For example, a
studio unit is assumed to be occupied by one person, a one bedroom unit is assumed to be
occupied by two people, and so on. Several adjustments to this general assumption were made in
order to capture the full range of household sizes. In particular, it is assumed that one-bedroom
condominiums could be occupied by one- or two-person households, and three-bedroom
apartments and condominiums could be occupied by four- or five-person households.6
5 For rental housing, 70 percent of AMI is used to represent low income households and 90 percent of AMI is used to
represent moderate income households. For ownership housing, it is assumed that moderate income homebuyers
may earn slightly less than the maximum for that income category (110 percent of AMI). Higher income limits are
used for ownership than for rental housing because ownership housing is more expensive to purchase and maintain.
6 For these unit types, the maximum affordable home price (or rent) is calculated as the average price (or rent) that
the relevant household sizes can afford to pay. For example, the maximum affordable home price for a one-bedroom
condominium is calculated as the average of the maximum affordable home price for one- and two-person
households.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-48-
Targeted income levels for rental housing: For rental housing, affordable rents were calculated
for very low income, low income, and moderate income households (see Figure IV-1 and Figure
IV-2). For eligibility purposes, most affordable housing programs define very low income
households as those earning 50 percent or less of area median income (AMI), low income
households as those earning between 51 and 80 percent of AMI, and moderate income
households as those earning between 81 and 120 percent of AMI. However, defining affordable
housing expenses based at the top of each income range would result in prices that are not
affordable to most of the households in each category. Thus, this analysis does not use the
maximum income level for all of the income categories. Instead, for rental housing, 70 percent of
AMI is used to represent moderate income households and 90 percent of AMI is used to represent
moderate income households.
Targeted income levels for ownership housing For ownership housing, affordable home prices
were calculated only for moderate income households. Higher income limits are used for
ownership than for rental housing because ownership housing is more expensive to purchase and
maintain. It is assumed that moderate income homebuyers may earn slightly less than the
maximum for that income category (110 percent of AMI).
Maximum monthly housing costs.7 For all renters, maximum monthly housing costs are
assumed to be 30 percent of gross household income. For homebuyers, 35 percent of gross
income is assumed to be available for monthly housing costs, reflecting the higher incomes of this
group.8 These standards are based on California’s Health & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and
50053.
Utilities. The monthly utility cost assumptions are based on utility allowances calculated by the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for San Mateo County.9 Both renters and
owners are assumed to pay for heating, cooking, other electric, and water heating. In addition,
owners are assumed to pay for water and trash collection.10
Mortgage terms & costs included for ownership housing. For ownership housing, the
mortgage calculations are based on the terms typically offered to first-time homebuyers (such as
the terms offered by the California Housing Finance Authority), which is a 30-year mortgage
with a five percent down payment. A five percent down payment standard is also used by many
private lenders for first-time homebuyers. Based on recent interest rates to first-time buyers, the
analysis assumes a 5.375 percent annual interest rate.11 In addition to mortgage payments and
7 The calculation of homeowner affordability is conservative in that the model accounts for additional costs for buyers
(such as utility costs) that might not be considered by all lenders.
8 The assumption that homebuyers spend 35 percent of gross household income on housing results in a reduced
affordability gap than if 30 percent of gross household income were used instead.
9 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Allowances for Tenant-Furnished Utilities and Other
Services: Housing Authority of San Mateo County," November 2013.
10 Units are assumed to have natural gas heating, cooking, and water heating systems, as natural gas is the most
common fuel for units located in San Mateo County. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community
Survey, “Table B25117: Tenure by House Heating Fuel,” San Mateo County; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American
Housing Survey, “Table C-03-AH-M, San Francisco-San Mateo-Redwood City: Heating, Air Conditioning, and
Appliances – All Housing Units.”
11 Sources: CalHFA Mortgage Calculator, accessed March 2014; Zillow.com, “Current Mortgage Rates and Home
Loans,” accessed March 2014; interviews with California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Preferred Loan Officers,
March 2014.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-49-
utilities, monthly ownership housing costs include homeowner association (HOA) dues,12
property taxes,13 private mortgage insurance,14 and hazard and casualty insurance.15
12 HOA fees are estimated at $300 per unit per month, based on common HOA fees in San Mateo County as
reported in: Polaris Pacific, “Silicon Valley Condominium Market,” February 2014.
13 The annual property tax rate is estimated at 1.18 percent of the sales price, based on the average total tax rate for
San Mateo County (calculated from County of San Mateo, 2008-09 Property Tax Highlights
http://www.co.sanmateo.ca.us/Attachments/controller/Files/PTH/PTH_2009.pdf) and discussions with Preferred Loan
Officers.
14 The annual private mortgage insurance premium rate is estimated at 0.89 percent of the total mortgage amount,
consistent with standard requirements for conventional loans with a five percent down payment. Sources: Genworth,
February 2014; MGIC, December 2013; Radian, April 2014.
15 The annual hazard and casualty insurance rate is assumed to be 0.35 percent of the sales price, consistent with
standard industry practice.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-50-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
1
.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
R
e
n
t
s
in
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
y
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
S
i
z
e
,
2
0
1
4
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
(
H
H
)
1
2
3
4
5
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
5
0
%
A
M
I
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
t
5
0
%
AM
I
$
3
9
,
6
0
0
$
4
5
,
2
5
0
$
5
0
,
9
0
0
$
5
6
,
5
5
0
$
6
1
,
0
5
0
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
(
a
)
$
9
9
0
$
1
,
1
3
1
$
1
,
2
7
3
$
1
,
4
1
4
$
1
,
5
2
6
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
D
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
9
$
4
0
$
5
3
$
6
8
$
6
8
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
R
e
n
t
(
H
H
S
i
z
e
)
(
b
)
$
9
6
1
$
1
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
2
2
0
$
1
,
3
4
6
$
1
,
4
5
8
Lo
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
7
0
%
A
M
I
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
t
7
0
%
AM
I
$
5
0
,
4
7
0
$
5
7
,
6
8
0
$
6
4
,
8
9
0
$
7
2
,
1
0
0
$
7
7
,
8
7
5
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
(
a
)
$
1
,
2
6
2
$
1
,
4
4
2
$
1
,
6
2
2
$
1
,
8
0
3
$
1
,
9
4
7
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
D
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
9
$
4
0
$
5
3
$
6
8
$
6
8
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
R
e
n
t
(
H
H
S
i
z
e
)
(
b
)
$
1
,
2
3
3
$
1
,
4
0
2
$
1
,
5
6
9
$
1
,
7
3
5
$
1
,
8
7
9
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
9
0
%
A
M
I
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
t
9
0
%
A
M
I
$
6
4
,
8
9
0
$
7
4
,
1
6
0
$
8
3
,
4
3
0
$
9
2
,
7
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
1
2
5
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
(
a
)
$
1
,
6
2
2
$
1
,
8
5
4
$
2
,
0
8
6
$
2
,
3
1
8
$
2
,
5
0
3
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
D
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
$
2
9
$
4
0
$
5
3
$
6
8
$
6
8
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
R
e
n
t
(
H
H
S
i
z
e
)
(
b
)
$
1
,
5
9
3
$
1
,
8
1
4
$
2
,
0
3
3
$
2
,
2
5
0
$
2
,
4
3
5
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
3
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
o
m
e
.
(b
)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
m
i
n
u
s
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
AM
I
:
A
r
e
a
m
e
d
i
a
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
HH
:
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
4
;
U
.
S
.
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
20
1
3
;
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
4
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-51-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
2
.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
R
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
y
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
,
2
0
1
4
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
R
e
n
t
s
b
y
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
(
a
)
St
u
d
i
o
(1
p
e
r
s
o
n
)
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(2
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(3
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(4
a
n
d
5
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
5
0
%
A
M
I
)
$
9
6
1
$
1
,
0
9
1
$
1
,
2
2
0
$
1
,
4
0
2
Lo
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
7
0
%
A
M
I
)
$
1
,
2
3
3
$
1
,
4
0
2
$
1
,
5
6
9
$
1
,
8
0
7
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
9
0
%
A
M
I
)
$
1
,
5
9
3
$
1
,
8
1
4
$
2
,
0
3
3
$
2
,
3
4
2
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
S
t
u
d
i
o
s
a
r
e
c
a
lc
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
o
n
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
;
On
e
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
ed
a
s
t
w
o
-
pe
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
;
T
w
o
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
ul
a
t
e
d
a
s
t
h
r
e
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
;
T
h
r
e
e
-
b
e
d
ro
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
fo
u
r
a
n
d
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
4
;
U
.
S
.
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
20
1
3
;
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
4
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-52-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
3
.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
es
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
y
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
S
i
z
e
,
2
0
1
4
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
(
H
H
)
1
2
3
4
5
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
1
1
0
%
A
M
I
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
a
t
1
1
0
%
A
M
I
(
a
)
$
7
9
,
3
1
0
$
9
0
,
6
4
0
$
1
0
1
,
9
7
0
$
1
1
3
,
3
0
0
$
1
2
2
,
3
7
5
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
(
b
)
$
2
,
3
1
3
$
2
,
6
4
4
$
2
,
9
7
4
$
3
,
3
0
5
$
3
,
5
6
9
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
D
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
$
1
0
6
$
1
0
6
$
1
3
0
$
1
5
6
$
1
5
6
HO
A
D
u
e
s
$
3
0
0
$
3
0
0
$
3
0
0
$
3
0
0
$
3
0
0
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
a
x
e
s
a
n
d
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
(
c
)
$
5
1
7
$
6
0
7
$
6
9
0
$
7
7
3
$
8
4
4
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
I
n
c
o
m
e
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
P
a
y
m
en
t
(
d
)
$
1
,
3
9
0
$
1
,
6
31
$
1
,
8
5
4
$
2
,
0
7
6
$
2
,
2
6
9
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
M
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
A
m
o
u
n
t
(
e
)
$
2
4
8
,
1
95
$
2
9
1
,
2
7
4
$
3
3
1
,
1
0
0
$
3
7
0
,
7
9
5
$
4
0
5
,
1
5
5
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
e
-
H
H
S
i
z
e
(
f
)
$
2
6
1
,
2
5
8
$
3
0
6
,
6
0
4
$
3
4
8
,
52
6
$
3
9
0
,
3
1
1
$
4
2
6
,
4
7
9
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
1
1
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
m
e
d
i
a
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
o
m
e
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
H
C
D
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
i
z
e
.
(b
)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
i
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
a
t
3
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
o
m
e
f
o
r
h
o
m
e
b
u
y
e
r
s
.
(c
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
n
n
u
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
a
x
r
a
t
e
o
f
1
.
1
8
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
s
a
l
e
s
pr
i
c
e
;
a
n
n
u
a
l
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
m
o
r
t
g
a
g
e
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
p
r
e
m
i
u
m
r
a
t
e
o
f
0
.
8
9
p
e
r
ce
n
t
o
f
mo
r
t
g
a
g
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
;
a
n
n
u
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
a
n
d
c
a
s
u
a
l
t
y
i
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
r
a
t
e
o
f
0
.
3
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
s
a
l
e
s
p
r
i
c
e
.
(d
)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
c
o
s
t
m
i
n
u
s
d
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
(e
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
5
.
3
7
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
r
a
t
e
a
n
d
3
0
y
e
a
r
l
o
a
n
t
e
r
m
(f
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
d
o
w
n
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
(
7
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
l
o
a
n
-
t
o
-
v
a
l
u
e
r
a
t
i
o
)
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
AM
I
:
A
r
e
a
m
e
d
i
a
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
HH
:
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
HO
A
:
H
o
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
pm
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
4
;
U
.
S
.
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
13
;
Ve
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
&
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
4
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-53-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
4
.
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
es
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
y
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
,
2
0
1
4
Af
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
e
b
y
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
(
a
)
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(1
a
n
d
2
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(3
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
(4
a
n
d
5
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
)
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
1
1
0
%
A
M
I
)
$
2
8
3
,
9
3
1
$
3
4
8
,
5
2
6
$
4
0
8
,
3
9
5
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
e
s
p
r
i
c
e
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
as
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
O
n
e
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
at
e
d
a
s
a
n
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
o
n
e
-
a
n
d
t
w
o
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
;
T
w
o
-
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
ed
a
s
t
h
r
e
e
-
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
;
T
h
r
e
e
-
be
d
r
o
o
m
u
n
i
t
s
a
r
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
a
n
av
e
r
a
g
e
o
f
f
o
u
r
a
n
d
f
i
v
e
p
e
r
s
o
n
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
4
;
U
.
S
.
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
U
r
b
a
n
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
3
;
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
4
.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-54-
ESTIMATING HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The second step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to estimate the cost of developing new,
modest housing units. Modest housing is defined slightly differently for rental and ownership housing.
For rental housing, the costs and characteristics of modest housing are similar to recent projects
developed in San Mateo County by the affordable rental housing sector. Modest for-sale housing is
assumed to be non-luxury multifamily (condominium) development because single-family homes in San
Mateo County tend to be significantly more expensive than condominiums; many of the new single-
family homes in the county are custom-built luxury units that are too costly to meet the standard for
modest housing.
The calculation of housing development costs used in the housing affordability gap requires several steps.
Because the gap covers both rental housing and for-sale housing, it is necessary to estimate costs for each.
The following describes the data sources used to calculate rental and for-sale housing development costs.
Rental Housing
Rental housing development costs were based on pro forma data obtained from three recent affordable
housing projects in San Mateo County. Figure IV-5 shows the location and description of these projects
and summarizes the information that was used to generate a per-square-foot cost of $410 used in the cost
analysis. These costs include site acquisition costs, hard costs (on- and off-site improvements), soft costs
(such as design, city permits and fees, construction interest, and contingencies), and developer fees. The
costs from the rental housing pro formas were also cross-referenced against proprietary pro formas
available to the consultant team from other private development projects in order to ensure accuracy.
Since these projects assumed state and federal funding, the labor costs included in the original pro formas
reflect the prevailing wage requirement imposed by state and local governments. The costs shown in
Figure IV-5 have been adjusted to subtract out the prevailing wage requirement because the development
cost model used in the housing affordability gap analysis does not assume receipt of government
subsidies. A rule of thumb used by local economists who assist affordable housing developers in
obtaining public financing, is to estimate that, under the prevailing wage requirement, labor costs are 25
percent higher than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, on-site and off-site improvement costs
obtained from the original pro formas are reduced by 25 percent to reflect actual labor costs that would
apply to construction projects that do not have these requirements.16 Finally, on average, land acquisition
costs accounted for 20 percent or less of these total adjusted costs.
16 These prevailing wage requirements refer only to labor cost requirements on construction projects that receive
funding from the state or federal government. These are not the same as minimum wage requirements that individual
cities may adopt.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-55-
Figure IV-5. Affordable Housing Project Pro Forma Data
Project Description Project 1 Project 2 Project 3
Location San Mateo San Mateo San Bruno
Year Built 2013 2010 2011
Land Area (acres) 1.05 1.0 0.63
Gross Building Area (SF) 106,498 127,718 42,688
Net Building Area (SF) 56,075 67,850 33,297
Number of Units 60 68 42
Parking Type Podium Underground Structure
Parking Spaces/ Unit 1.82 1.55 1.0
Land Acquisition Costs $3,157,000
($69 per SF of land)
$5,543,600
($127 per SF of land)
$2,096,500
($76 per SF of land)
Project Costs per SF of Net Building Area
Land Cost (a) $56 $82 $63
Hard Costs (b) $228 $216 $187
Soft Costs (c) $93 $99 $114
Developer Fees $25 $21 $39
Total Project Costs (d) $402 $417 $403
Notes:
(a) Calculated per square foot of net building area.
(b) Excludes prevailing wage requirements for on-site and off-site hard costs.
(c) Includes design, engineering, city permits and fees, construction interest, contingencies, legal, etc.
(d) Total costs include developer fees.
Acronyms:
SF: Square feet
Source: Confidential Pro Forma Data; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2014.
To ensure that the land value assumptions used in the rental development cost estimates (ranging from
$69 to $127 per square foot of land) were reasonable, the consultant team analyzed recent sales of vacant
properties in San Mateo County using DataQuick, a commercial vendor that tracks real estate
transactions. Cities with fewer than three vacant land transactions were excluded from the analysis. As
shown below in Figure IV-6, land values in San Mateo County are highly variable from city to city,
ranging from $45 to $300 per square foot; the average sales price for the selected sites in the County was
$189 per square foot. The analysis demonstrates the land cost assumptions used to calculate rental
housing costs (in Figure IV-5) represent the lower range of current land values.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-56-
Figure IV-6. Sales of Vacant Lands in San Mateo County, 2014
Jurisdiction
Number
Transactions
Average
Sales Price
Average Site
Size (SF)
Average
Sales Price/
SF Land
Belmont 4 $920,000 6,383 $165
Menlo Park 6 $1,239,500 5,802 $220
Pacifica 4 $487,000 7,221 $111
San Bruno 13 $933,769 3,259 $295
San Mateo 8 $1,314,188 5,424 $300
Unincorporated San Mateo County 4 $224,250 5,194 $45
Average of Records $853,118 5,547 $189
Notes: Includes data from cities with 3 or more transactions of vacant land in San Mateo County from January through May
2014. Records with missing sales or land area information were eliminated.
Acronyms:
SF: Square feet
Sources: DataQuick, January-May 2014; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2014.
For-Sale Housing
Since affordable housing developers do not typically build for-sale housing in San Mateo County, the cost
of developing new, modest for-sale housing was estimated using two data methods: the first method used
price data for recently built condominium units as a proxy for development costs; the second approach
estimated development costs based on published market and cost data for similar projects in San Mateo
County. Each of these cost estimate approaches is described in more detail below.
Review of condominium sales data – In this approach, average sales prices from condominium units
built in San Mateo County between 2008 and 2012 are used as a proxy for development costs. 17 This
approach assumes that construction costs, land costs, soft costs, and developer profit are all included in
the unit sales price. Using data provided by DataQuick, the consultant team analyzed sales prices of
condominium units of various sizes in the seven cities that experienced condominium development that
exceeded 10 units in the aggregate between 2008 and 2012. These seven cities included Brisbane, East
Palo Alto, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo City, and South San Francisco. The other
jurisdictions in San Mateo County experienced little or no condominium development during this time
period. Figure IV-7 summarizes the information that was used to generate a per-square-foot cost for
condominium development of $420.
Cost estimate of hypothetical condominium project - The second approach relied on published
industry data sources and recent financial feasibility studies to estimate the development costs of a
hypothetical condominium project, as described in Figure IV-8.18 Land costs were estimated based on
recent DataQuick land transactions shown in Figure IV-6. RS Means cost data, adjusted for the Bay
Area’s construction costs, was used to calculate hard costs. Based on a review of recent financial
17 Ideally, cost estimates would be based only on projects built in the last year or two. However, the decline in new
construction after 2007 necessitated that the analysis use several years’ worth of data in order to estimate for-sale
housing costs. Since costs are not adjusted for inflation, they may be slightly lower than actual costs required for a
new project to be built in 2014 or 2015. This approach is more conservative – and likely more accurate – than
applying across-the-board inflation factors to historic costs. Furthermore, the increasing cost of residentially zoned,
high density parcels is the main source of development cost increase. Adjusting land costs for inflation is not easily
done.
18 The hypothetical condominium building type is a Type V building with underground parking and floor-area ratio of
1.7. The building characteristics are described in Figure IV-8.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-57-
feasibility analyses in the Bay Area, soft costs were estimated at 30 percent of hard costs, and developer
fees and profits were estimated at 12 percent of hard and soft costs. Using this second method, the
development costs are estimated at $495 per net square foot of building area. In order to ensure that the
results of the affordability gap analysis are conservative, the lower development cost estimate of $420 per
net square foot was selected for ownership units.
Figure IV-7. Recent Condominium Sales in San Mateo County (2008-2012)
Jurisdiction
Average Number
of Bathrooms
Average Number
of Bedrooms
Average
Square Feet
Average Price
per Square Foot
Average
Unit Price
Brisbane 1.2 1.5 892 $413 $368,625
East Palo Alto 1.8 1.3 1,029 $340 $349,991
Millbrae 1.9 2 1,290 $429 $553,893
Redwood City 2.7 2.9 1,933 $402 $776,655
San Carlos 1.8 1.8 1,066 $508 $541,932
San Mateo City 2.3 2.2 1,545 $439 $677,430
South San Francisco 1.7 1.8 981 $427 $418,740
Average 1.9 1.9 1,248 $423 $527,401
Sources: DataQuick, Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. & Strategic Economics, 2014.
Figure IV-8. Estimate of Development Costs of Hypothetical Condominium Project
Building Characteristics
Land Area (SF) 110,727
Gross Building Area (SF) 188,235
Net Building Area (SF) 160,000
Number of Units 100
Parking Type Underground
Floor-area ratio (FAR) 1.7
Density (units per acre) 39
Average Unit Size 1,600
Land Acquisition Costs per Square Foot (a) $189
Development Cost Cost per Net SF
Land Cost (b) $131
Hard Costs $250
Soft Costs (c) $75
Developer Fees (d) $39
Total Development Costs $495
Notes:
(a) Land value is calculated based on DataQuick records of vacant land transactions in
the county. See Figure IV-6.
(b) Calculated based on RS Means cost estimates per square foot of net building area.
(c) Estimated at 30 percent of hard costs. Includes design, engineering, city permits
and fees, construction interest, contingencies, legal, etc.
(d) Estimated at 12 percent of hard costs and soft costs.
Acronyms:
SF: square feet
Sources: RS Means, 2014; DataQuick 2014; Recent financial feasibility studies;
Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. & Strategic Economics, 2014.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-58-
Cost Estimates by Unit Size
The data sources described above also provided information on estimated unit sizes. Unit size information
is needed to translate costs/sales prices per square foot to unit costs. Unit sizes are estimated separately
for rental and for-sale units. For the rental units, the recent inventory of projects developed by MidPen
Housing was analyzed. For ownership units, the average sizes of recently built condominium units
(Figure IV-7) were analyzed.
Figure IV-9 provides the unit sizes and development cost estimates for rental units. Per-unit development
costs were calculated by multiplying average unit sizes by the per-square foot development costs of $410.
Rental unit costs range from $205,000 for studio units to $479,700 for three-bedroom units.
Figure IV-10 summarizes the costs of condominium units. The per-unit costs were derived by multiplying
the average unit size by the development cost per square foot of $420. Condominium development costs
range from $357,000 for one-bedroom units to $672,000 for three-bedroom units.
Figure IV-9. Rental Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs
Unit Type
Estimated Cost
per Net SF
Unit Size
(net SF)
Development
Costs
Studio $410 500 $205,000
One bedroom $410 700 $287,000
Two bedroom $410 970 $397,700
Three bedroom $410 1,170 $479,700
Acronyms:
SF: Square feet
Sources: Confidential Pro Forma Data; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. & Strategic Economics, 2014.
Figure IV-10. For-Sale Housing Unit Sizes and Development Costs
Unit Type
Estimated Cost
per Net SF
Unit Size
(net SF)
Development
Costs
One bedroom $420 850 $357,000
Two bedroom $420 1,200 $504,000
Three bedroom $420 1,600 $672,000
Acronyms:
SF: Square feet
Sources: DataQuick, 2014; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. & Strategic Economics, 2014.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-59-
CALCULATING THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
The final step in the analysis is to calculate the housing affordability gap, or the difference between what
renters and owners can afford to pay and the total cost of developing new units. The purpose of the
housing affordability gap calculation is to help determine the fee amount that would be necessary to cover
the cost of developing housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. The calculation does
not assume the availability of any other source of housing subsidy because not all "modest" housing is
built with public subsidies, and tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing are highly competitive
programs that will not always be available to developers of modest housing units.
Figure IV-11 shows the housing affordability gap calculation for rental units. For each rental housing unit
type and income level, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and
the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income
generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses (including
property taxes, insurance, etc.), reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms based on
discussions with local affordable housing developers. Because household sizes are not uniform and the
types of units each household may occupy is variable, the average housing affordability gap is calculated
by averaging the housing affordability gaps for the various unit sizes.
Figure IV-12 shows the housing affordability gap calculation for ownership units. For each unit type, the
gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price
for each income level. As with rental housing, the average housing affordability gap for each income level
is calculated by averaging the housing affordability gaps across unit sizes in order to reflect that
households in each income group vary in size, and may occupy any of these unit types.
Finally, the tenure-neutral estimates of the housing affordability gap were estimated for very low, low,
and moderate income households (Figure IV-13). Because very low and low income households that are
looking for housing in today’s market are much more likely to be renters, an ownership gap was not
calculated for these income groups. The rental gap represents the overall affordability gap for these two
income groups. On the other hand, moderate income households could be either renters or owners.
Therefore, the rental and ownership gaps are averaged for this income group to calculate the overall
affordability gap for moderate income households. The calculated average affordability gap per unit is
$280,783 for very low income households; $240,477 for low income households, and $175,558 for
moderate income households. The housing affordability gap is highest for very low income households
because those households with higher incomes can afford to pay more for housing.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-60-
Fi
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
1
1
.
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
G
ap
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
R
e
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
In
c
o
m
e
L
e
v
e
l
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
Un
i
t
S
i
z
e
(S
F
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
n
t
(
a
)
An
n
u
a
l
In
c
o
m
e
Ne
t
Op
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
In
c
o
m
e
(
b
)
Av
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
fo
r
D
e
b
t
Se
r
v
i
c
e
(
c
)
Su
p
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
De
b
t
(
d
)
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
s
t
s
(
e
)
Affordability Gap
Ve
r
y
L
o
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
5
0
%
A
M
I
)
St
u
d
i
o
50
0
$9
6
1
$
1
1
,
5
3
2
$
3
,
4
5
5
$
2
,
7
6
4
$3
6
,
5
5
2
$
2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
8
,
4
4
8
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
70
0
$1
,
0
9
1
$
1
3
,
0
9
5
$
4
,
9
4
0
$
3
,
9
5
2
$5
2
,
2
5
9
$
2
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
4
,
7
4
1
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
97
0
$1
,
2
2
0
$
1
4
,
6
3
4
$
6
,
4
0
2
$
5
,
1
2
2
$6
7
,
7
2
5
$
3
9
7
,
7
0
0
$
3
2
9
,
9
7
5
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
1,
1
7
0
$1
,
4
0
2
$
1
6
,
8
2
4
$
8
,
4
8
3
$
6
,
7
8
6
$8
9
,
7
3
3
$
4
7
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
8
9
,
9
6
7
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
G
a
p
$280,783
Lo
w
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
7
0
%
A
M
I
)
St
u
d
i
o
50
0
$1
,
2
3
3
$
1
4
,
7
9
3
$
6
,
5
5
3
$
5
,
2
4
3
$6
9
,
3
2
3
$
2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
5
,
6
7
7
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
70
0
$1
,
4
0
2
$
1
6
,
8
2
4
$
8
,
4
8
3
$
6
,
7
8
6
$8
9
,
7
3
3
$
2
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
7
,
2
6
7
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
97
0
$1
,
5
6
9
$
1
8
,
8
3
1
$
1
0
,
3
8
9
$
8
,
3
1
2
$1
0
9
,
9
0
2
$
3
9
7
,
7
0
0
$
2
8
7
,
7
9
8
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
1,
1
7
0
$1
,
8
0
7
$
2
1
,
6
8
0
$
1
3
,
0
9
6
$
1
0
,
4
7
7
$1
3
8
,
5
3
5
$
4
7
9
,
7
0
0
$
3
4
1
,
1
6
5
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
G
a
p
$240,477
Mo
d
e
r
a
t
e
I
n
c
o
m
e
(
9
0
%
A
M
I
)
St
u
d
i
o
50
0
$1
,
5
9
3
$
1
9
,
1
1
9
$
1
0
,
6
6
3
$
8
,
5
3
0
$1
1
2
,
7
9
6
$
2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$
9
2
,
2
0
4
1
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
70
0
$1
,
8
1
4
$
2
1
,
7
6
8
$
1
3
,
1
8
0
$
1
0
,
5
4
4
$1
3
9
,
4
1
7
$
2
8
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
7
,
5
8
3
2
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
97
0
$2
,
0
3
3
$
2
4
,
3
9
3
$
1
5
,
6
7
3
$
1
2
,
5
3
9
$1
6
5
,
7
9
6
$
3
9
7
,
7
0
0
$
2
3
1
,
9
0
4
3
B
e
d
r
o
o
m
1,
1
7
0
$2
,
3
4
2
$
2
8
,
1
0
8
$
1
9
,
2
0
2
$
1
5
,
3
6
2
$2
0
3
,
1
2
7
$
4
7
9
,
7
0
0
$
2
7
6
,
5
7
3
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
G
a
p
$187,066
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
A
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
r
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
mm
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
F
Y
2
0
1
4
I
n
c
o
m
e
L
i
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
nt
y
.
S
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
I
V
-
2
.
(b
)
A
m
o
u
n
t
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
d
e
b
t
.
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
5
%
v
a
c
a
n
c
y
a
n
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
on
l
o
s
s
a
n
d
$
7
,
5
0
0
p
e
r
u
n
i
t
p
e
r
y
e
a
r
f
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
a
n
d
r
es
e
r
v
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
r
e
c
e
n
t
l
y
b
u
i
l
t
(
2
0
1
2
-
2
0
1
4
)
a
n
d
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
f
f
o
r
d
a
b
l
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
.
(c
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
1
.
2
5
D
e
b
t
C
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
R
a
t
i
o
.
(d
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
6
.
3
8
%
,
3
0
y
e
a
r
l
o
a
n
.
Ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
.
(e
)
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
$
4
1
0
/
S
F
f
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
a
b
l
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
f
o
r
m
a
s
.
(f
)
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
en
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
d
e
b
t
.
Ac
r
o
n
y
m
s
:
SF
:
S
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
AM
I
:
A
r
e
a
m
e
d
i
a
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
1
4
;
S
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
S
a
n
M
a
t
eo
R
e
n
t
a
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
P
r
o
F
o
r
m
a
s
;
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
l
f
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
&
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-61-
Figure IV-12. Housing Affordability Gap Calculation for For-Sale Condominium Housing
Income Level
and Unit Type Unit Size (SF)
Affordable Sales
Price (a)
Development
Costs (b) Affordability Gap (c)
Moderate Income (110% of AMI)
1 Bedroom 850 $283,931 $357,000 $73,069
2 Bedroom 1,200 $348,526 $504,000 $155,474
3 Bedroom 1,600 $408,395 $672,000 $263,605
Average Affordability Gap $164,049
Notes:
(a) See calculation in Figure IV-3.
(b) Assumes $420/SF for development costs, based on recent condominium sales data.
(c) Calculated as the difference between development cost and affordable sales price.
Acronyms:
SF: Square feet
AMI: Area median income
Sources: DataQuick Sales Data, 2008-2012; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. & Strategic Economics, 2015.
Figure IV-13. Average Housing Affordability Gap by Income Group
Income Level Rental Gap Ownership Gap
Average
Affordability Gap
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $280,783 N/A $280,783
Low Income (70% - 80% AMI) (a) $240,477 N/A $240,477
Moderate Income (90% - 110% AMI) (b) $187,066 $164,049 $175,558
Notes:
(a) Low income households are defined at 70 percent of AMI for renters and 80 percent of AMI for owners.
(b) Moderate income households are defined at 90 percent of AMI for renters and 110 percent AMI for owners.
Acronyms: AMI: Area median income.
Source: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-62-
This section builds on the findings of the previous analytical steps to calculate the maximum justified
linkage fees for each commercial prototype.
MAXIMUM FEE CALCULATION
To derive the maximum nexus-based fee, the housing affordability gap (see Section IV) is applied to the
number of lower-income worker households linked to the prototypes. This is the basis for developing an
estimate of the total affordability gap for each prototype. The total gap for each prototype is then divided
by the size of each development prototype to calculate a single maximum fee per square foot.
Figure V-1 presents the results of the linkage fee calculations for each prototype. The calculations shown
below assume that 100 percent of the very low, low, and moderate income households linked to the new
commercial space would be accommodated in South San Francisco. The maximum fee results are $127
per square foot for hotel, $227 per square foot for retail/ restaurants/ services, and $185 per square foot
for office/ R&D/ medical office.
The calculated linkage fees are high for two reasons: 1) the cost of housing development in San Mateo
County is high, creating a large affordability gap for very low, low, and moderate income households; 2)
many of the workers associated with new commercial development, especially those in the retail and hotel
industries, earn low wages and fall into very low and low income household categories. For these reasons,
the highest fees are associated with retail/ restaurant/ personal services, generally referred to as service
industries. Occupations in these industries offer workers the lowest average wage; hence the total
affordability gap is highest for these employee households. Although average wages for hotel workers are
similarly low, the density of workers in hotels is lower than in retail and in office/ R&D/ medical office
space; therefore maximum linkage fees for hotels are the lowest among the three prototypes. Finally,
while office workers earn the highest Average wage of all three prototypes, the employment density of
this prototype is the highest. Therefore, the calculated fees for the category covering office/ R&D/
medical office are higher than those calculated for hotel developments, and lower than the retail/
restaurants/ services.
The maximum fees shown in Figure V-1 are not the recommended fees for adoption. They are the nexus-
justified fees that represent the maximum that South San Francisco could charge to mitigate affordable
housing demand related to commercial development.
Figure V-1. Maximum Commercial Linkage Fees
Worker
Households
Requiring
Affordable Housing
Affordability Gap for
All New Worker
Households
Size of
Prototype
(SF)
Maximum
Fee per SF
Hotel 51 $12,673,945 100,000 $127
Retail, Restaurants and
Personal Services 83 $22,708,353 100,000 $227
Office, R&D and Medical Office 77 $18,501,746 100,000 $185
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2015.
V. MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-63-
SUMMARY OF CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS
Employment density assumptions. For each commercial building prototype, an average
employment density was applied based on a combination of national survey data for existing
commercial buildings and a review of recently completed linkage fee nexus studies in the Bay
Area. In order to create conservative assumptions about the number of jobs associated with new
commercial development, the lower range of the density figures were selected for the analysis.
Though some office developments in the Bay Area have much higher employment densities,
particularly for high-technology tenants, the analysis used a lower estimate of density for the
office/R&D/medical office prototype, resulting in a lower maximum fee estimate.
Cost estimates for affordability gap analysis. The affordability gap analysis measures the
difference between what households can afford to pay for housing and the cost of new housing
units. To ensure that the gap is conservative, the development cost estimates are based on the
lower range of land and construction costs in San Mateo County. In many sub-areas of the
county, including priority-development areas and downtown locations, land costs for housing
sites may be higher, particularly under today’s market conditions.
Exclusion of extremely low income households. Although new commercial development could
potentially have impacts on affordable housing demand from extremely low income households,
those impacts are not included in the analysis, thereby reducing the total fee calculation.
Affordability gap for owner households. The calculation of the affordability gap for ownership
households only considers moderate-income households. Low and very low income households
are not considered in the calculation. This also results in a lower estimate of the maximum fee.
Feasibility analysis. The analysis takes into account the financial feasibility of adding the
maximum impact fee and reduced fee levels to the total cost of new development. The financial
feasibility component of the analysis incorporates market-supportable assumptions about
revenues, costs, land costs, and developer return expectations based on research on recent
development trends. The results of financial analysis informed the final recommendations on the
linkage fee.
Comparison to other cities. The Consultant Team researched existing linkage fee in other Bay
Area cities to determine the competitiveness of the maximum fee and reduced fee levels. The fee
recommendations in this report incorporate the findings from the comparative analysis.
Overlap analysis. The City is undertaking two impact fee nexus studies at the same time: the
commercial linkage fee nexus study and the housing impact fee nexus study. To minimize the
potential that some jobs could be double-counted by including the same worker households in
both studies, the Consultant Team ensured that the recommended fees for the two programs
(commercial linkage and housing fees) would – when combined –mitigate less than 100 percent
of the total impact.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-64-
There are a number of policy considerations that can be taken into account when jurisdictions consider
whether to adopt a commercial linkage fee on new non-residential development, and if so, what fee levels
to adopt. These policy factors include the likely impact of the proposed fee levels on future development,
the potential increase to the city’s existing fees on commercial development, a comparison of proposed
linkage fees with those fees already charged in adjacent jurisdictions, and how potential revenues from
new linkage fees can benefit the city’s overall affordable housing goals. This section provides a
discussion of some of the key financial and policy questions for South San Francisco.
PROTOTYPES AND FEE LEVELS
Commercial Prototypes
As described in Section III, the analysis estimates linkage fees for three commercial prototypes: hotel,
retail/ restaurants/ services, and office/ R&D/ medical office. The building characteristics, including size,
density (floor-area-ratio), and parking assumptions are based on a review of recently built and proposed
projects in San Mateo County (Figure VI-1). The financial feasibility of potential fee levels is tested for
each of these prototypes.
Figure VI-1. Description of Commercial Prototypes
Hotel
Retail/
Restaurants/
Services
Office/R&D/
Medical
Office
Prototype Description
Gross Building Area (GBA) 100,000 100,000 100,000
Podium Parking Area 11,970 30,000 63,000
Gross Building Area including Podium Parking (SF) 111,970 130,000 163,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) N/A 0.95 0.9
Net Leasable Sq. Ft. (NSF) N/A 95,000 90,000
Hotel Rooms 133
Parking Spaces 160 400 300
Podium Parking 40 100 210
Surface Parking 120 300 90
Floor Area Ratio (b) 1.1 0.5 2.0
Land Area (Acres) 2.3 6.0 1.9
Land Area (SF) 101,791 260,000 81,500
Notes:
(a) Refers to ratio of gross building area to net leasable area. An efficiency ratio of 0.9 means that 90% of the gross building
area is leasable.
(b) The floor-area-ratio (FAR) is often used as a measure of density. In this analysis, it is calculated as the gross building area
(including podium parking) divided by the total land area.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
VI. FEASIBILITY AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-65-
Fee Levels
In order to provide South San Francisco with some guidance on how proposed fees could impact
development decisions, the Consultant Team conducted a financial feasibility analysis that tested the
impact of proposed linkage fee options on developer profit. The fees were tested for four scenarios, which
represent different assumptions regarding the number of very low, low, and moderate income new worker
households that would be accommodated in South San Francisco:
Figure VI-2 illustrates the different fees per square foot for each scenario, by prototype.
Figure VI-2. Linkage Fee Scenarios by Prototype
Fee Scenarios Hotel
Retail/ Restaurants
/ Services
Office/ R&D/
Medical Office
Scenario 1 - Maximum Fee $126.74 $227.08 $185.02
Scenario 2 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2015.
METHODOLOGY
Financial feasibility was tested using a pro forma model that measures the return on cost of the
commercial prototypes. Return on cost is a commonly used metric indicating the profitability of a
commercial project. The pro forma model tallies all development costs, including land, direct
construction costs, indirect costs (including financing), and developer fees. Revenues from lease rates or
hotel room rates are the basis for calculating annual income from the new commercial development. The
total operating costs are subtracted from the total revenues to calculate the annual net operating income.
The return on cost is then estimated by dividing the annual net operating income by the total development
costs. The fee levels were then added as an additional development cost to measure the resulting change
in the developer’s return on cost.
KEY INPUTS
The key revenue and cost inputs to the financial pro forma analysis are based on market research and
published resources. The data inputs are explained in more detail below.
Revenues
To estimate income from commercial development, the analysis used rental data from Costar for the
Northern San Mateo County sub-market for existing retail and office buildings. A 20 percent increase was
applied to account for the value premium of new commercial space. Hotel room revenue is estimated
based on current revenue per available room (RevPAR) from HVS Consulting and Smith Travel Research
for the San Mateo County market area. The revenue inputs are shown in Figure VI-3.
Direct and Indirect Costs
Cost estimates for the commercial prototypes include direct construction costs (site work, building costs,
and parking), indirect costs, financing costs, and developer overhead and profit. Direct building
construction cost estimates for office/ R&D/ medical office and retail/ restaurants/ services are based on
RS Means. Hotel costs were estimated based on recent data from HVS Consulting and Smith Travel
Research, and include costs for Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E). Direct and indirect cost
inputs for the pro forma analysis are shown in Figure VI-4.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-66-
Land Costs
One of the critical cost factors for a commercial development project is land cost. To determine the land
value of sites zoned for commercial uses, the Consultant Team analyzed recent sales transactions in the
county and reviewed third-party property appraisals, with a focus on the Northern San Mateo County
submarket (where South San Francisco is located). According to the data, land values for commercially
zoned land sold in recent years is $98. However, when the small 5,700-square-foot site in Millbrae is
excluded, the average value is lower. Based on this analysis of land transactions, the estimated land value
for commercial properties in South San Francisco is $90 per square foot (see Figure VI-5). This
approximate land cost is an estimate for the purposes of the financial feasibility analysis; the value of any
particular site is likely to vary based on its location, amenities, and property owner expectations, among
other factors.
Return on Cost Thresholds
In order to understand how the different fee levels impact financial feasibility, the return on cost results
can be compared to an investor’s expectations for each type of development. The thresholds for this
analysis were pegged to investor expectations regarding overall capitalization rates (cap rate) for each
product type in the Bay Area. The cap rate, which is measured by dividing net income generated by a
property by the total project value, is a commonly used metric to estimate potential returns. Lower cap
rates signify high performing markets. In this analysis, the total project value is equivalent to the total
development cost. PWC Real Estate Investor Survey (Fourth Quarter 2014) was the primary data source
for determining cap rates for office/ R&D/ medical office and retail/restaurant/services uses. For hotel,
cap rate data was obtained from HVS, a hotel consulting firm that tracks hotel markets.
To ensure that the financial analysis is conservative and does not reflect peak market conditions, the
thresholds selected for determining project feasibility are slightly higher than the published cap rates. It
was determined that the threshold for the return on cost is between 6.75 percent and 7.0 percent for office/
R&D/ medical office and retail/ restaurants/ services prototypes, and between 7.0 percent and 7.25
percent for hotel (see Figure VI-6).
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-67-
Figure VI-3. Pro Forma Revenue Inputs by Prototype
Prototypes Metric Input
Hotel
Gross Annual Room Income (a) RevPAR $54,750
Gross Annual Other Revenue Per Room $10,950
Less: Vacancy (b) $0
Less: Operating Expenses (c) 70% ($45,990)
Annual Net Operating Income $19,710
Retail/Services
Revenues and Expenses (d)
Monthly Rent - Triple Net per NSF $28
Operating Expenses % of Gross 10%
Vacancy Rate % of Gross 3%
Estimates
Net Square Footage 95,000
Annual Gross Revenues $2,660,000
Operating Expenses ($266,000)
Vacancy Rate ($79,800)
Annual Net Operating Income $2,314,200
Office/R&D
Revenues and Expenses (d)
Monthly Rent - Gross per NSF $47
Operating Expenses % of Gross 28%
Vacancy Rate % of Gross 5%
Estimates
Net Square Footage 90,000
Annual Gross Revenues $4,230,000
Operating Expenses ($1,184,400)
Vacancy Rate ($211,500)
Net Operating Income $2,834,100
Notes:
(a) RevPAR is a measure of revenue per room, calculated as occupancy
percentage times average daily rate.
(b) Expense ratio for limited service and full-service hotels, based on data from
HVS and STR Consulting.
(c)Vacancy is already reflected in RevPAR estimate.
(d) Costar Group average rents in the Northern San Mateo County submarket. A
premium of 20% is applied to account for newer product.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-68-
Fi
g
u
r
e
V
I
-
4
.
D
i
r
e
c
t
a
n
d
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
I
n
p
u
t
s
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
M
e
t
r
i
c
H
o
t
e
l
Re
t
a
i
l
/
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
s
/
Se
r
v
i
c
e
s
Of
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
/
Me
d
i
c
a
l
O
f
f
i
c
e
Di
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
(
a
)
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
&
O
n
-
S
i
t
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
b
)
p
e
r
s
q
.
f
t
.
o
f
G
B
A
$
2
0
0
$
1
3
0
$
2
0
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
s
-
P
o
d
i
u
m
p
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
s
-
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
p
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
In
d
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
(
c
)
A&
E
&
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
%
o
f
D
i
r
ec
t
C
o
s
t
s
8
%
8
%
8
%
Te
n
a
n
t
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
e
r
N
S
F
N
/
A
$
3
0
$
4
0
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
&
F
e
e
s
(
d
)
t
o
ta
l
v
a
r
y
b
y
c
i
t
y
v
a
r
y
by
c
i
t
y
v
a
r
y
b
y
c
i
t
y
Ta
x
e
s
,
I
n
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
,
L
e
g
a
l
&
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
%
o
f
D
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
3
%
3
%
3
%
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
s
%
o
f
D
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
6
%
6
%
6
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
&
F
e
e
%
o
f
D
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
9
%
9
%
9
%
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
%
o
f
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
5
%
5
%
5
%
No
t
e
s
:
(a
)
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
r
o
f
o
r
m
a
s
f
o
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
p
r
o
j
ec
t
s
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
;
R
S
M
e
a
n
s
,
2
0
1
4
.
(b
)
H
o
t
e
l
c
o
s
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
F
u
r
n
i
t
u
r
e
,
F
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
&
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
F
F
&
E
)
.
(c
)
I
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
(
e
x
c
e
p
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
f
e
e
s
)
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
r
e
vi
e
w
o
f
p
r
o
f
o
r
m
a
s
f
o
r
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
n
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
.
(d
)
P
e
r
m
i
t
s
&
F
e
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
.
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
f
o
r
m
a
s
;
R
S
M
e
a
n
s
,
2
0
1
4
;
H
V
S
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
S
m
i
t
h
T
r
a
v
e
l
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
2
0
1
4
;
C
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
;
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
01
5
.
Dr
a
f
t
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
L
i
n
k
a
g
e
F
e
e
N
e
x
u
s
S
t
u
d
y
-69-
Fi
g
u
r
e
V
I
-
5
.
R
e
c
e
n
t
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
V
a
c
a
n
t
La
n
d
T
r
a
n
s
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
C
i
t
y
S
i
t
e
A
r
e
a
Sa
l
e
P
r
i
c
e
/
Ap
p
r
a
i
s
e
d
V
a
l
u
e
S
a
l
e
P
r
ic
e
/
S
F
S
a
l
e
D
a
t
e
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
48
0
E
a
s
t
4
t
h
A
v
e
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
50
,
5
7
3
$
5
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
1
2
0
1
3
18
0
4
L
e
s
l
i
e
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
1
3
,
9
3
9
$
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
2
2
0
1
1
90
0
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
B
e
l
m
o
n
t
8
,
4
0
0
$
6
5
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
8
2
0
1
0
Av
e
r
a
g
e
2
4
,
3
0
4
$
2
,
2
5
1
,
6
6
7
$
8
4
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
48
0
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M
i
l
l
b
r
a
e
5
,
6
6
3
$
1
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
4
O
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
10
0
1
-
1
0
1
5
E
.
M
a
r
k
e
t
St
r
e
e
t
D
a
l
y
C
i
t
y
3
7
,
8
9
7
$
2
,
25
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
9
O
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
68
0
0
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
D
a
l
y
C
i
t
y
1
7
,
4
2
4
$
1
,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
7
2
0
1
2
72
5
5
M
i
s
s
i
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
D
a
l
y
C
i
t
y
2
0
,
0
3
8
$
1
,
2
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
1
2
0
1
2
Av
e
r
a
g
e
2
0
,
2
5
6
1
,
4
8
1
,
2
5
0
$
9
8
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
32
6
4
H
a
v
e
n
A
v
e
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
C
i
t
y
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
1
7
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
8
O
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
17
0
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
2
7
,
0
0
7
$
2
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
1
2
0
1
1
13
0
0
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
M
e
n
l
o
P
a
r
k
1
4
5
,
4
9
0
$
2
4
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
8
2
0
1
2
Av
e
r
a
g
e
2
7
,
0
0
4
$
2
,
6
8
9
,
5
0
0
$
1
2
2
So
u
r
c
e
s
:
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
p
p
r
a
i
s
a
l
s
;
L
o
o
p
n
e
t
,
2
0
1
5
;
V
e
r
n
a
z
z
a
W
o
lf
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
I
n
c
.
a
n
d
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-70-
Figure VI-6. Feasibility Thresholds for Return on Cost
Prototype Capitalization Rates
Selected Threshold for
Return on Cost
Hotel (a)
6.75% - 7.25%
7.0% - 7.25%
Retail/ Restaurants/ Services (b)
6.21% - 7.05%
6.75% - 7.0%
Office/ R&D/ Medical Office(c)
5.88% - 6.71%
6.75% - 7.0%
Notes:
(a) HVS Consulting, January 2015. Cap rate data was only available at the national level. However,
the Bay Area market generally outperforms the rest of the country, so this estimate is likely lower
than cap rates for San Mateo County.
(b) PWC Real Estate Investor Survey, National Retail Market, 4th Quarter 2014. Cap rates are lower
for regional malls and power centers (under 7%) than for strip shopping centers. The feasibility
threshold is set at the higher end of the range to represent smaller retail centers rather than large
regional malls.
(c) PWC Real Estate Investor Survey, San Francisco Office Market, 4th Quarter 2014. Because
capitalization rates for office may be peaking in the Bay Area market, and R&D and medical office
uses have higher cap rates, the financial analysis set the threshold at a higher rate.
Sources: HVS Consulting, January 2015; PWC Real Estate Investor Survey, 4Q2014; Vernazza Wolfe
Associates, Inc. and Strategic Economics, 2015.
RESULTS
The financial feasibility analysis, in addition to considering the effect of the nexus fee scenarios on the
developer’s return, also measures the fee as a share of total development costs, as an indicator of the
financial burden of the fee on new development.
Hotel
The financial analysis shows that without any commercial linkage fees, new hotel projects are marginally
feasible. (See Figure VI-7.) The annual net operating income is approximately $2.62 million ($19,710 per
room). The total development costs, including land, direct and indirect costs total $38.27 million. The net
operating income divided by total development costs yields a return on costs of 6.85 percent without the
linkage fee, which is only slightly under the required 7.0 percent threshold for feasibility, and therefore
marginally feasible. It is possible that the hotel prototype would be more financially feasible if the land
costs, construction costs or soft costs were lower.
The proforma analysis determines the financial burden of the fee scenario on total development costs,
expressed as a percentage. The results of this analysis for each scenario are as follows:
The maximum fee level ($126.74 per square foot) increases total development costs to $50.95
million. The maximum fee accounts for 33.11 percent of total development costs. This fee
scenario generates a calculated return on cost of 5.15 percent, well below the required threshold
for financial feasibility.
Fee scenario 2, a lower nexus fee of $20 per square foot, is equivalent to 5.23 percent of
development costs and generates a potential return on costs of 6.51 percent. This return is
insufficient to meet the threshold for financial feasibility.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-71-
Scenario 3, a fee of $10 per square foot, would account for 2.61 percent of development costs. At
this fee level, the return on cost is estimated at 6.67 percent, which is under the financial
feasibility threshold.
Scenario 4 is a fee of $5 per square foot. This modest fee is 1.31 percent of the project’s total
development costs. The return on costs is estimated at 6.76 percent, which does not meet the
requirement for financial feasibility. However, a slight change in market conditions or prototype
design could make this scenario feasible.
Retail/ Restaurant/Services
The feasibility analysis indicates that at current market rents, without the addition of new linkage fees,
new retail projects would obtain an annual net operating income of approximately $2.31 million, with a
total development cost of $52.79 million. The net operating income divided by total cost results in a
return on cost estimate of 4.38 percent (see Figure VI-7). This figure is well below the feasibility
threshold for new retail development (6.75 percent), indicating that a new retail project without any
linkage fees would likely be unfeasible. It is possible that the prototype could be marginally feasible if
land, construction, or soft costs were slightly lower. The ground-floor retail component of a mixed-use
project may also have stronger financial feasibility results, because it would share land costs with the
residential or office component.
To understand the financial burden of the fee scenarios on overall development costs, the pro forma
analysis measures the fees as a percent of total development costs. The financial feasibility results for the
retail/ restaurants/services prototype are as follows:
Scenario 1, the maximum linkage fee ($227.08 per square foot) reduces the return on cost to 3.07
percent, significantly below the 6.75 percent threshold for financial feasibility. The maximum fee
accounts for 43.02 percent of total development costs.
The fee scenario 2 ($20 per square foot) would correspond to 3.79 percent of development costs.
At this fee level, the retail/restaurant/services prototype generates a return on costs of 4.22
percent. This level of financial return is unlikely to attract retail development.
Scenario 3, a nexus fee of $10 per square foot, would be equivalent to 1.89 percent of total
development costs. The calculated return on cost is estimated at 4.30 percent. While this estimate
of return is stronger, it is still under the feasibility threshold of 6.75 percent.
Scenario 4, a fee of $5, would correspond to a modest 0.95 percent of total development costs.
The return on cost with this linkage fee is estimated at 4.33 percent. While this is still under the
feasibility threshold with today’s rental rates, given that the current retail vacancy rate is under
five percent in Northern San Mateo County, it is possible that the retail market will see growth in
rental rates over the short term, making new development feasible.
Office/R&D/Medical Office
Under a base scenario with no commercial linkage fees on office/R&D/medical office development, a
prototypical project generates an estimated net operating income of $2.83 million, with total development
costs estimated at $45.62 million. The net operating income divided by the total development costs results
in an estimated return on cost of 6.21 percent, under the minimum threshold for financial feasibility for
office/R&D/medical office development, which is currently 6.75 to 7.0 percent (see Figure VI -7).
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-72-
However, it is possible that a different type of office, R&D or medical office development could be
financially feasible under certain conditions; for example, if costs were reduced through lower land costs,
increased densities, parking reductions, or other zoning incentives, if a different prototype design were
used, or if development occurred in an area with lower fees.
The following describes the results for each fee scenario.
Scenario 1, a fee set at the maximum level of $185.02, would account for about 40.55 percent of
total development costs for the office/R&D/medical office prototype. The return on cost with this
fee is estimated at 4.42 percent, which would not be financially feasible.
Scenario 2, a fee level of $20 per square foot, would be 4.38 percent of total development costs.
The calculated return on cost is 5.95 percent, which would not meet the requirement to be
feasible.
Scenario 3, a fee level of $10 per square foot, is equivalent to 2.19 percent of total project
development costs. Under this scenario, the office/R&D/medical office project generates a return
on cost of 6.08 percent, which is still under the feasibility threshold of 6.75 percent.
Scenario 4 at $5 per square foot would be about 1.10 percent of total project costs. The estimated
return on costs is 6.14 percent. While this estimated return is higher, it is still too low to meet the
current feasibility requirements. However, as mentioned previously, it is possible that a
development subject to this linkage fee would be possible under specific market conditions.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-73-
Figure VI-7. Pro Forma Analysis Results
Hotel
Retail/Restaurants/
Services
Office/R&D/Medical
Office
Development Costs (a) per Room Total
per SF of
GBA Total
per SF of
GBA Total
Land $68,881 $9,161,182 $234 $23,400,000 $73 $7,335,000
Direct Costs
Building & On-Site
Improvements $150,376 $20,000,000 $130 $13,000,000 $200 $20,000,000
Parking $9,750 $1,296,750 $33 $3,250,000 $55 $5,475,000
Total Direct Costs $160,126 $21,296,750 $163 $16,250,000 $255 $25,475,000
Indirect Costs
A&E & Consulting $12,810 $1,703,740 $13 $1,300,000 $20 $2,038,000
Tenant Improvements $0 $0 $29 $2,850,000 $36 $3,600,000
FF&E (b) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Permits & Fees (Excl. Housing
Linkage) (c) $15,136 $2,013,075 $55 $5,515,916 $21 $2,107,105
Taxes, Insurance, Legal &
Accounting $4,804 $638,903 $5 $487,500 $8 $764,250
Financing Costs $9,608 $1,277,805 $10 $975,000 $15 $1,528,500
Developer Overhead & fee $13,611 $1,810,224 $14 $1,381,250 $22 $2,165,375
Contingency $2,798 $372,187 $6 $625,483 $6 $610,162
Total Indirect Costs $58,766 $7,815,933 $131 $13,135,150 $128 $12,813,392
Total Development Costs (TDC)
without Nexus Fees $38,273,865 $52,785,150 $45,623,392
TDC with Nexus Fees by Fee
Scenario
Linkage
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
TDC incl.
Linkage
Impact Fee
Linkage
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
TDC incl.
Linkage
Impact Fee
Linkage
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
TDC incl.
Linkage
Impact Fee
No Fee $0.00 $38,273,865 $0.00 $52,785,150 $0.00 $45,623,392
Scenario 1: Maximum Fee $126.74 $50,947,810 $227.08 $75,493,502 $185.02 $64,125,137
Scenario 2 $20.00 $40,273,865 $20.00 $54,785,150 $20.00 $47,623,392
Scenario 3 $10.00 $39,273,865 $10.00 $53,785,150 $10.00 $46,623,392
Scenario 4 $5.00 $38,773,865 $5.00 $53,285,150 $5.00 $46,123,392
Revenues
per Sq. Ft.
of GBA Total
per Sq. Ft.
of GBA Total
per Sq. Ft.
of GBA Total
Annual Net Operating Income (d) $19,710 $2,621,430 $23 $2,314,200 $28 $2,834,100
Return on Cost by Fee
Scenario:
Nexus Fee
per SF
Return on
Costs
Nexus Fee
per SF
Return on
Costs
Nexus Fee
per SF
Return on
Costs
No Fee $0.00 6.85% $0.00 4.38% $0.00 6.21%
Scenario 1: Maximum Fee $126.74 5.15% $227.08 3.07% $185.02 4.42%
Scenario 2 $20.00 6.51% $20.00 4.22% $20.00 5.95%
Scenario 3 $10.00 6.67% $10.00 4.30% $10.00 6.08%
Scenario 4 $5.00 6.76% $5.00 4.34% $5.00 6.14%
Fees as % of TDC
Nexus Fee
per SF
Nexus Fee
as % of
TDC
Nexus Fee
per SF
Nexus Fee
as % of TDC
Nexus Fee
per SF
Nexus Fee
as % of
TDC
No Fee $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00%
Scenario 1: Maximum Fee $126.74 33.11% $227.08 43.02% $185.02 40.55%
Scenario 2 $20.00 5.23% $20.00 3.79% $20.00 4.38%
Scenario 3 $10.00 2.61% $10.00 1.89% $10.00 2.19%
Scenario 4 $5.00 1.31% $5.00 0.95% $5.00 1.10%
Return on Cost - Threshold for
Feasibility 7.0-7.25% 6.75-7.0% 6.75-7.0%
Notes:
(a) See Figure VI-4.
(b) Furniture Fixtures & Equipment for hotel is included in the direct costs.
(c) Permit & fee calculations provided by City Staff. These are estimates for the prototypes created in this analysis; specific development projects
may have different results.
(d) See Figure VI-3.
Sources: Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics, 2015.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-74-
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
While the nexus study provides the necessary economic analysis for the linkage fees, it is up to
policymakers to decide what percentage of the maximum fee to charge to new development. Financial
feasibility is one important factor to examine. In addition, there are a number of other policy issues to
consider, such as:
How much development fees would increase with a new commercial linkage fee;
How a commercial linkage fee in South San Francisco would compare with those in neighboring
jurisdictions;
What options exist for establishing alternatives to the payment of fees; and
How a commercial linkage fee fits into South San Francisco’s overall housing strategy.
Existing City Fees on Commercial Development
The new linkage fee can be considered in context of existing city fees on new commercial development.
Figure VI-8 presents the existing commercial fees that apply to the three commercial prototypes, and the
potential linkage fees under four scenarios. As shown, the existing fees range from $20.13 per square foot
for the hotel prototype, to $55.16 per square foot for the retail/ restaurants/ services prototype.19 The
maximum fee scenario would increase the City’s fees on new development by 400 to almost 900 percent,
depending on the prototype.
Figure VI-8. Existing City Fees on Commercial Development by Prototype
Commercial Prototype
Hotel/ Resort/ Other
Lodging
Retail/ Restaurants/
Services
Office/ Medical
Office/ R&D
Total Existing Permits & Impact Fees per
Prototype $2,013,075 $5,515,916 $2,107,105
Existing Fees per Square Foot $20.13 $55.16 $21.07
Linkage Fee Scenarios
Fee Scenario 1 (Maximum Fee) $126.74 $227.08 $185.02
Fee Scenario 2 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Fee Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Fee Scenario 4 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Sources: South San Francisco, Department of Planning and Building, 2014; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc; Strategic Economics,
2015.
Comparison with Fees Charged in Other Jurisdictions
It is difficult to show an accurate comparison of fees at this time because most cities in San Mateo County
are participating in this project to consider adopting new impact fees or updating existing impact fees and
therefore current fee levels may not accurately reflect future fee levels. Figure VI-9 provides comparative
information for South San Francisco and neighboring jurisdictions in San Mateo County and Santa Clara
County that charge non-residential housing impact fees. At present, Cupertino’s fees are the highest for
19 The fee estimates presented represent the best approximations available from the City of South San Francisco and
assume the development occurs on the East side of Highway 101.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-75-
hotel and retail/restaurant space at $20 per square foot, followed by Palo Alto at $19 per square foot.20
Mountain View’s fees are significantly lower, with the exception of office/R&D/medical office. The
maximum-justified fee levels for South San Francisco are considerably higher than the fees that are
currently in place in the other jurisdictions. The lower fee scenarios are within a reasonable range of the
fees charged in several of the comparison cities, as shown in Figure VI-9.
Figure VI-9. Comparison to Linkage Fees in Neighboring Cities
Hotel Retail/ Restaurant/
Services
Office/R&D/
Medical Office
Date Fee
Was
Adopted
Linkage Fee Scenarios (per SF)
Scenario 1 - Maximum Fee $126.74 $227.08 $185.02 N/A
Scenario 2 $20 $20 $20 N/A
Scenario 3 $10 $10 $10 N/A
Scenario 4 $5 $5 $5 N/A
Neighboring Jurisdictions
Cupertino $20 $20 $20 2015
Menlo Park (a) $8 $8 $15 2014
Mountain View (b) $2.50 $2.50 $25 2015
Palo Alto (c) $19 $19 $19 2014
Sunnyvale (d) $7.50 $7.50 $15 2015
Notes:
(a) Buildings 10,000 SF and under are exempt from fees. A new nexus study is currently underway that may result in an
updated fee.
(b) New gross floor area under 25,000 SF pays 50 percent of full fee.
(c) Palo Alto has a single fee of $19.31 per SF for any new gross square footage in commercial and industrial projects. A new
nexus study is currently underway that may result in an updated fee.
(d) The fee on the first 25,000 SF, for all three commercial uses, is discounted by 50 percent.
Sources: City staff and websites; Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, 2015; Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. &
Strategic Economics, 2015.
Other cities in the Bay Area outside of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties also have commercial linkage
fees that can be compared to the potential fee scenarios for South San Francisco. A summary of some of
these existing fees is shown in Figure VI-10, based on the most current information available. The fee
amounts vary significantly by jurisdiction. San Francisco has the highest impact fees on commercial
development, ranging from $16 for R&D space to $24 for office space.
20 It is important to note that Menlo Park and Palo Alto are currently conducting new nexus studies that may result in
revised commercial linkage fees.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-76-
Figure VI-10. Existing Linkage Fees in Bay Area Cities
City
Commercial Development
Subject to Fees Fee Amount
Walnut Creek
All development commercially classified i.e.
R&D, for-profit medical offices/hospitals, etc.
$5.00 per SF
Oakland
Office and Warehouse/Distribution
$5.24 per SF used for office of warehouse
/distribution needs
beyond 25,000 SF
San Francisco
Entertainment, Hotel, Office, R&D, Retail,
Integrated PDR, Small Enterprise Workspace
Based on type of space and additional gross
SF past 25,000
Entertainment/retail: $22.42 per SF
Office: $24.03 per SF
Integrated PDR/small enterprise: $18.89 per
SF
Hotel: $17.99 per SF
R&D: $16.01 per SF
Dublin
Industrial, Office, R&D, Retail, Services &
Accommodations
Industrial: $.048 per SF
Office: $1.24 per SF
R&D: $0.81 per SF
Retail: $1.00 per SF
Services & Acc.: $0.42 per SF
* Buildings less than 20,000 SF are exempt.
Pleasanton
All commercial office or industrial
development projects
$2.87 per SF
Adjusted annually based on CPI
Alameda
Retail, Office, Warehousing, Manufacturing,
Hotel//Motel
Retail: $2.24 per SF
Office: $4.42 per SF
Warehouse & Manufacturing: $0.77 per SF
Hotel/Motel: $1,108 per room/suite
May be adjusted annually based on CPI
Napa
Office, Hotel, Retail, Industrial (Industrial,
Warehouse, Wine Production)
Office: $1.00 per SF
Hotel: $3.00 per SF
Retail: $0.80 per SF
Industrial: $0.50 per SF
Emeryville Any development of non residential uses for
which a discretionary permit or building permit
is required
$4.00 per SF
Berkeley Developments in non-residential and R-4
Zones, except in South Berkeley IX Target
Area, over 7,500 SF
Office/Retail/Restaurant/Hotel/Lodging/R&D:
$4.50 per SF
Industrial/Manufacturing/Warehouse/Storage:
$2.25 per sq. ft
Sources: The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Strategic Economics, and Vernazza Wolfe Associates,
Inc, 2015.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-77-
Options for Establishing Alternatives to Payment of Fees
When South San Francisco designs its ordinance governing commercial linkage fees, it can provide
options that developers may choose instead of the payment of fees. For example, one option would be for
the developer to provide affordable housing units on- or off-site or to provide a building site for
affordable housing. This flexibility is provided to allow development of creative solutions that may
provide more affordable housing than would be created by payment of fees. Regardless of whether a
commercial developer elects to provide affordable housing or provide a building site, it is necessary to
calculate how these alternatives would compare with any fees established by the City.
The first step in establishing options for a specific development project would be for the City to calculate
the total fees that are owed by the new development. Then, establishing an alternative compliance method
will depend on what is offered by the developer. For example, if the developer offers to provide land for
an affordable housing site, a recent site appraisal generally suffices to place a value on a contribution of
land. This land value can then be compared with the fees that the developer would normally pay. If,
instead of paying a fee, the developer elects to provide affordable housing units, it is also possible to
estimate the value of these units by multiplying the number of affordable units to be provided by a current
affordability gap estimate per unit. The value of alternative compliance measures needs to be calculated at
the time a developer requests one.
Benefit to South San Francisco’s Overall Affordable Housing Strategy
South San Francisco currently has an Inclusionary Housing Program and in lieu fee in place, but does not
have a residential impact fee program or commercial linkage fee program. The revenues to be collected
from a commercial linkage fee would provide an important source of local funding; however, fee
revenues do not generally cover the entire funding gap encountered by sponsors of new affordable
housing. Additional funding is almost always required.
Affordable housing in South San Francisco is currently funded through the use of a variety of sources,
including funding provided by San Mateo County, as well as the federal government. In addition, equity
is also provided directly by developers and indirectly raised through the allocation and sale of Low
Income Housing Tax Credits. Finally, a portion of permanent financing comes from conventional loans
obtained from private lending institutions.
Commercial linkage fee revenues (and housing impact fee revenues, if adopted) would augment existing
affordable housing funds. The existence of a local revenue source such as nexus fees can also make
certain projects more competitive for outside funding. It should be noted that revenues from a commercial
linkage fee need to be spent on housing that benefits the workforce since the funds stem from affordable
housing impacts related to new employment.
Potential for Overlap Between Residential and Commercial Fees
The City is also undertaking a housing impact nexus study simultaneously, and may soon adopt a housing
impact fee in a parallel process to the commercial linkage fee considered in this report. One issue that
may arise if a city considers the adoption of both fees is whether there is any overlap between the two
impact fees, resulting in potential “double-counting” of impacts.
The commercial linkage fee study examined jobs located in new commercial buildings including office/
R&D/ medical office buildings, retail/ restaurants/ services, and hotels. The nexus analysis then calculated
the average wages of the workers associated with each commercial building to derive the annual income of
the new worker households. The analysis determines the area median income (AMI) level of the new
worker households to identify the number of worker households that would require affordable housing.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-78-
The housing impact fee nexus analysis examined households buying or renting new market rate units in
the jurisdiction. The household expenditures by these new residents have an economic impact in the
county, which can be linked to new jobs. The nexus analysis quantified the jobs linked to new household
spending, and then calculated the wages of new workers and the household income of new worker
households. Each worker household was then categorized by AMI level to determine the number of
households that require affordable housing.
There may be a share of jobs counted in the commercial linkage fee analysis that are also included in the
residential nexus analysis, particularly those in the service sector. Other types of jobs counted in the
residential nexus analysis are unique to that analysis, and are not included in the commercial linkage fee
analysis (for example, public sector employees). The commercial linkage fee analysis is limited to private
sector office/ R&D/ medical office buildings, hotels, and retail/ restaurants/ services space.
There is potential that some jobs could be counted in both analyses, and that the two programs may
overlap in mitigating the affordable housing demand from the same worker households. Each of the
proposed fees is required to mitigate no more than 100 percent of the demand for affordable units by new
worker households. However, the recommendations presented in this study (and in the housing impact fee
study) do not exceed the nexus, even if every job counted in the residential nexus study was duplicated in
the commercial linkage fee study.
The nexus fee levels recommended in both studies represent less than the justified nexus amount.
First, the recommended linkage fees are significantly less than the maximum justified nexus
amount for all prototypes. Therefore, the commercial linkage fee would mitigate less than 100
percent of the demand for affordable units generated by the new non-residential space.
Secondly, the recommended housing impact fee levels are also less than 100 percent of the
maximum fee level supported by the residential nexus analysis. Therefore, the combined programs
(commercial and residential fees) would mitigate less than 100 percent of the impact even if there
were overlap in the jobs counted in the two nexus analyses.
Administrative Issues
Similar to any impact fee, the fee should be adjusted annually for inflation and increases in construction
costs. Adjustments are also needed due to possible changes in the housing affordability gap. However,
the connection between new residential construction and growth in employment derived from
employment densities is unlikely to change in the short run.
It is advisable that the City adjusts its commercial linkage fee annually by using an annual adjustment
mechanism. An adjustment mechanism updates the fees to compensate for inflation in development
costs. To simplify annual adjustments, it is recommended that the City select a cost index that is routinely
published. While there is no index that tracks changes in South San Francisco’s development costs,
including land, there are a few other options to consider.
The first option is the Consumer Price Index (Shelter Only). The shelter component of the index
covers costs for rent of primary residence, lodging away from home, owner’s equivalent rent of
primary residence, and household insurance. Of the total shelter index, costs associated with the
owner’s equivalent rent of primary residence constitute 70 percent of total costs entered into the
index.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-79-
A second option to adjust the fee for annual inflation is the construction cost index published in
the Engineering News Record (ENR). This index is routinely used to update other types of
impact fees. Cost index information for the San Francisco area, the closest geographical area to
South San Francisco, is available on an annual basis. While this index measures inflation in
construction costs, it does not incorporate changes in land costs and public fees charged on new
development.
While both indices measure changes in housing costs, both understate the magnitude of inflation for the
reasons presented above. However, since these indices are readily available and relatively simple to use,
it is recommended, that City uses these indices for annual adjustments. It is further recommended that the
City base its annual adjustment mechanism on the higher of the two indices (CPI or ENR), using a five-
year moving average as the inflation factor.
In addition to revising the fee annually for inflation, the City is encouraged to update the commercial
linkage fee study every five years, or at the very least, update the housing affordability gap used in the
basic model. The purpose of these updates is to insure that the fee is still based on a cost/revenue
structure that remains applicable in South San Francisco housing market. In this way, the fee will more
accurately reflect any structural changes between affordable prices/rents and market rate sales
prices/development costs.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-80-
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Affordable Housing: Under state and federal statutes, housing is defined as affordable if housing costs
do not exceed 30 to 35 percent of gross household income.
Annual Adjustment Mechanism: Due to inflation in housing construction costs, it is frequently
necessary to adjust impact fees. An index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or a published
construction cost index (for example, from the Engineering News Record) is used to revise housing fees
to reflect inflation in housing construction costs.
Assisted Housing: Housing that has received public subsidies (such as low interest loans, density
bonuses, direct financial assistance, etc.) from federal, state, or local housing programs in exchange for
restrictions requiring a certain number of housing units to be affordable to very low, low, and moderate
income households.
Boomerang Funds: Monies returned to the City by the State of California, after dissolution of
redevelopment agencies in the State.
Consumer price index (CPI): Index that measures changes in the price level of a market basket of
consumer goods and services purchased by households.
Employment Densities: The amount of square feet per employee is calculated for each property use that
is subject to a commercial development housing linkage fee. Employment densities are used to estimate
the number of employees that will work in a new commercial development.
Household: The US Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a housing unit whether or
not they are related. A single person living in an apartment as well as a family living in a house is
considered a household. Households do not include individuals living in dormitories, prisons,
convalescent homes, or other group quarters.
Household Income: The total income of all the persons living in a household. Household income is
commonly grouped into income categories based upon household size and income, relative to the regional
median family income.
Housing Affordability Gap: The affordability gap is defined as the difference between what a
household can afford to spend on housing and the market rate cost of housing. Affordable rents and sales
prices are defined as a percentage of gross household income, generally between 30 percent and 35
percent of income.
VII. GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-81-
For renters, rental costs are assumed to include the contract rent as well as the cost of utilities,
excluding cable and telephone service. The difference between these gross rents and affordable
rents is the housing affordability gap for renters. This calculation assumes that 30% of income is
paid for gross rent.
For owners, costs include mortgage payments, mortgage insurance, property taxes, property
insurance, and homeowner association dues.21 The difference between these housing expenses
and affordable ownership costs is the housing affordability gap for owners. This calculation
assumes that 35% of income is paid for housing costs.
Housing Subsidy: Housing subsidies refer to government assistance aimed at reducing housing sales
prices or rents to more affordable levels.
Housing Unit: A housing unit can be a room or group of rooms used by one or more individuals living
separately from others in the structure, with direct access to the outside or to a public hall and containing
separate toilet and kitchen facilities.
Inclusionary Zoning: Inclusionary zoning, also known as inclusionary housing, refers to a planning
ordinance that requires that a given percentage of new construction be affordable to households with very
low, low, moderate, or workforce incomes.
In-Lieu Fee: A literal definition for an in-lieu fee for inclusionary units would be a fee adopted “in place
of” providing affordable units. For the purposes of operating an inclusionary housing program, a public
jurisdiction may adopt a fee option for developers that prefer paying fees over providing housing units on-
or off-site. A fee study is frequently undertaken to establish the maximum fee that can be charged as an
in-lieu fee. This fee study must show that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and the cost
of providing affordable housing.
Market-Rate Housing: Housing which is available on the open market without any public subsidy. The
price for housing is determined by the market forces of supply and demand and varies by location.
Nexus Study: In order to adopt a residential housing impact fee or a commercial linkage fee, a nexus
study is required. A nexus requires local agencies proposing a fee on a development project to identify
the purpose of the fee, the use of the fee, and to determine that there is “a reasonable relationship between
the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.” A Nexus Study
establishes and quantifies a causal link or “nexus” between new residential and commercial development
and the need for additional housing affordable to new employees.
Non-Residential Development Housing Impact Fee (or Linkage Fee): A fee or charge imposed on
commercial developers to pay for a development’s impact on the need for affordable housing. The fee is
21 Mortgage terms for first-time homebuyers typically allow down payment of five percent; these terms require private mortgage
insurance.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-82-
based on projected household incomes of new employees that will work in newly created space. The fee
varies according to the type of property use.
Palmer Case: This civil suit affects rental housing only. It affirmed that the Costa Hawkins Rental Act,
passed in 1995 by the California State Legislature, applies to inclusionary rental units. The implication of
this finding is that cities or counties cannot require rental property owners to rent inclusionary units that
become vacant at below market rents, unless the developer accepted financial assistance (including fee
waivers) or received other incentives that lowered development costs.
Property Prototypes: Property prototypes are used for residential and commercial developments in
order to define housing impact fees. The prototypes generally represent new development projects built
in a community and are used to estimate affordable housing impacts associated with new market rate
commercial and residential developments. While the prototypes should be “typical” of what is built, for
ease of mathematical computation, they are often expressed as larger developments in order to avoid
awkward fractions.
Residential Housing Impact Fee: A fee imposed on residential development to pay for a development’s
impact on the need for affordable housing. The fee is based on projected incomes of new employees
associated with the expansion of market rate developments. Two steps are needed to define the fees. The
first step is the completion of a nexus study, and the second step entails selection of the actual fee amount,
which can be below the amount justified by the fee study, but not above that amount.
RS Means: Data source of information for construction cost data.
Draft South San Francisco Linkage Fee Nexus Study
-83-
DEFINITION OF ACRONYMS
AMI: Area Median Income
CBIA: California Building Industry Association
EDD: State of California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor-area-ratio
FF&E: Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment
GBA: Gross Building Area
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development (State of California)
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System
NSF: Net Square Feet
QCEW: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
R&D: Research and development
SF: Square Feet
August 2018 1
MEMORANDUM
To: Deanna Talavera and Nell Selander, City of South San Francisco
From: Sujata Srivastava and Sam Moskol, Strategic Economics
Date: August 1, 2018
Project: Commercial Linkage Fee Update
Subject: Final Report
INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco is considering implementing commercial linkage fees on new
office/R&D, hotel, and retail development projects. The purpose of the linkage fee would be to mitigate
the impacts of an increase in affordable housing demand from new worker households associated
with new commercial development. The funds raised by the linkage fees are deposited into a housing
fund specifically reserved for use by a local jurisdiction to increase the supply of affordable housing
for the workforce. Linkage fees are one of several funding sources that jurisdictions can use to help
meet the affordable housing needs of new workers.
In 2015, Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, Inc. completed a nexus and feasibility
study that established the maximum commercial linkage fees for each of these land uses. This memo
report provides updated policy analysis, including a revised financial feasibility analysis, and a review
of current commercial linkage fees in neighboring cities to establish a recommendation on the
implementation of new linkage fees in South San Francisco.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
Methodology
The financial feasibility of establishing new commercial linkage fees in South San Francisco was tested
using a pro forma model that measures profit for the developer or investor. Yield on cost (YOC) is a
commonly used metric indicating the profitability of a commercial project. The pro forma model tallies
all development costs, including land, direct construction costs, indirect costs (including financing),
and developer fees. Revenues from lease rates or hotel room rates are the basis for calculating annual
income from the new commercial development. The total operating costs are subtracted from the total
revenues to calculate the annual net operating income. The YOC is then estimated by dividing the
annual net operating income by the total development costs. The fee levels were then added as an
additional development cost to measure the resulting change in the YOC.
August 2018 2
Development Prototypes
The analysis estimates the feasibility of potential linkage fees for three commercial prototypes:
office/R&D, hotel, and retail. The building characteristics of each development prototype, including
size, density (floor-area-ratio), and parking assumptions are based on a review of projects that recently
built, under construction, and in planning stages in South San Francisco.
Based on the development activity in South San Francisco, it is assumed that the office/R&D space
will be primarily serving the biotech sector. Hotel development projects are typically select-service
chains. The retail development prototype is assumed to be auto-oriented, single-use retail. The
development prototypes are described in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1: DESCRIPTION OF COMMERCIAL PROTOTYPES
Prototype Description R&D Hotel Retail
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 261,360 54,450 21,780
Parcel Size (Acres) 6.00 1.25 0.50
Floor Area Ratio (without parking) (a) 1.00 2.00 0.35
Gross Building Area (GSF) 261,360 108,900 7,623
Efficiency Ratio (b) 90% n/a 90%
Net Leasable Sq. Ft. (NSF) 235,224 n/a 6,861
Number of rooms n/a 133 n/a
Parking Spaces 653 100 30
Surface Parking 65 10 30
Podium Parking 0 90 0
Structured Garage Parking 588 0 0
Parking Ratio (per room) n/a 0.75 n/a
Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) 2.5 0.92 4.0
Notes: (a) The floor-area-ratio (FAR) is often used as a measure of density. In this analysis, it is calculated as the gross building area, not including
parking, divided by the parcel size.
(b) The Efficiency Ratio refers to the ratio of gross building area to net leasable area. An efficiency ratio of 90% means that 90% of the
gross building area is leasable space.
Source: City of South San Francisco proposed development project list, Strategic Economics, 2018.
Development Costs
The development costs incorporated into the pro forma analysis include hard costs (construction
materials and labor), land costs, soft costs (indirect costs), and financing costs.
HARD COSTS
Hard costs are based on Strategic Economics’ review of pro formas for similar development projects,
publications from HVS Consulting, and interviews with developers with projects in South San Francisco.
The assumptions for hard costs by prototype are described in Figure 2. They include estimates for
basic site improvements, construction costs for the building, and costs for parking by type. In addition,
the cost of construction includes a tenant improvement allowance for office/R&D and retail uses that
are typical for this market.
August 2018 3
FIGURE 2: HARD COST ASSUMPTIONS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category Metric Office/R&D Hotel Retail
Site Prep Per Site Sq. Ft. $3 $3 $3
Construction Costs Per Building GSF $300 $200 $150
Per Room $163,759
Parking Costs Cost per Space
Surface $12,500
Podium $25,000
Structured garage $32,500
Land Costs
Entitled land Per Site Sq. Ft. $125 $85 $60
Tenant Improvement Allowance Per Building NSF $100 n/a $35
Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment Per Room $25,000
Sources: Costar, 2018; HVS Consulting, 2017; Review of pro formas for comparable development projects in Bay Area; interviews with
developers in South San Francisco and Bay Area; Strategic Economics, 2018.
LAND COSTS
One of the critical cost factors for a commercial development project is land cost. To determine the
land value of sites zoned for commercial uses, Strategic Economics analyzed recent sales transactions
in San Mateo County and interviewed developers. As shown in Figure 2 above, the estimates of land
value vary depending on the entitled land use. Sites entitled for office/R&D are estimated to have a
land value of $125 per square foot. Hotel sites are estimated to have a land value of $85 per square
foot. Sites zoned for low-density retail are estimated to have a land value of $60 per square foot. These
land cost estimates are approximations for the purposes of the financial feasibility analysis; the value
of any particular site is likely to vary based on its location, amenities, and property owner expectations,
among other factors.
SOFT COSTS
Soft costs (often referred to as indirect costs) include items such as architectural fees, engineering
fees, insurance, taxes, legal fees, accounting fees, city fees, and marketing costs. City permit fees and
other development impact fees were calculated for the individual prototypes based on estimates
provided by City of South San Francisco staff. Other soft costs were estimated based on standard
industry ratios, calculated as a percentage of hard costs. These assumptions are shown in the table
below (Figure 3).
August 2018 4
FIGURE 3: SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Soft Cost Metric Office/R&D Hotel Retail
City Permits and Fees (a) Per Building GSF
Parks and Recreation Fee $2.77 $3.17 $3.58
Childcare Fee $0.57 $0.18 $0.68
Bicycle and Pedestrian $0.09 $0.24 $0.36
School District $0.56 $0.56 $0.56
Public Safety $0.44 $0.42 $0.44
East of 101 Interchange Fee $1.50 $2.97 $13.58
East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee $6.05 $1.91 $25.06
East of 101 Sewer Impact Fee $1.97 $1.97 $1.97
Building Permits $14.04 $10.50 $1.03
Engineering Permits $0.79 $0.42 $0.01
Subtotal City Permits and Fees $28.78 $22.34 $47.27
Other Soft Costs % of Hard Costs
Arch, Eng & Consulting 5% 5% 5%
Taxes, Insurance, Legal & Accounting 3% 3% 3%
Developer Overhead 4% 4% 4%
Subtotal Other Soft Costs (Excluding Fees) 12% 12% 12%
Construction Financing % of Hard + Soft Costs 6% 6% 6%
Sources: City of South San Francisco, 2018; Individual developer interviews, 2018; Strategic Economics, 2018.
Revenues
Revenue assumptions for each prototype are informed by a range of resources, including commercial
broker reports, hospitality industry reports, and Costar, as well as from interviews with developers
active in South San Francisco. They are summarized in Figure 4.
Yield on Cost Thresholds
In order to understand how the introduction of commercial linkage fees impacts financial feasibility,
the yield on cost (YOC) results can be compared to an investor’s expectations of return for each type
of development. The YOC thresholds for this analysis were established relative to capitalization rates
(cap rates) for each product type in the Bay Area. The cap rate, which is measured by dividing net
income generated by a property by the total project value, is a commonly used metric to estimate
potential returns.
To ensure that the financial analysis is conservative and does not reflect peak market conditions, the
thresholds selected for determining project feasibility are slightly higher than the published cap rates.
Office/R&D projects with a YOC of above 6.50% and hotel projects with a YOC above 8.25% were
considered feasible in this analysis. Retail projects were considered feasible with a YOC higher than
7.5%. (see Figure 5).
August 2018 5
FIGURE 4: REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Prototypes Unit Assumption
Retail Per NSF
Annual Rent (NNN)(a) Per NSF $36
Vacancy Rate 5%
Operating Expenses % of Gross Revenue 10%
Annual Net Operating Income Per NSF $30.60
Cap Rate 7%
Capitalized Value Per NSF $437.14
R&D
Annual Rent per Sq. Ft. (NNN)(a) Per NSF $60
Vacancy Rate 5%
Operating Expenses % of Gross Revenue 7.5%
Annual Net Operating Income Per NSF $52.50
Cap Rate 5.5%
Capitalized Value Per NSF $954.55
Hotel
Gross Annual Room Income RevPAR (b) $62,853
Gross Annual Other Revenue (c) Per Room $21,999
Gross Revenue Per Room $84,852
Vacancy Rate (d) n/a
Operating Expenses 70% of Gross Revenue $59,396
Annual Net Operating Income Per Room $25,455
Cap Rate 7.50%
Capitalized Value Per Room $339,406
Notes:
(a) Rents are informed from both developer interviews and Costar research for relevant properties in South San Francisco.
(b) RevPAR is a measure of revenue per room, calculated as occupancy percentage times average daily rate.
(c) Other Revenue for hotels based on data from STR Consulting, and from hotel developer interviews.
(d) Vacancy is already reflected in RevPAR estimate.
Sources: Costar, 2018; STR Trends Report, 2018; CBRE Cap Rate Survey, 2nd Half 2017; Individual developer interviews, 2018;
Strategic Economics, 2018
FIGURE 5: FEASIBILITY THRESHOLDS FOR RETURN ON COST
Prototype Capitalization Rate Threshold for Yield on Cost
R&D (a) 5.50% 6.50%
Hotel (b) 7.50% 8.25%
Retail (c) 7% 7.50%
Notes:
(a) informed by interviews with active biotech developers in South San Francisco
(b) represents average cap rate for Full Service hotels in San Francisco market area,
according to CBRE .
(c) represents higher end of Class B range for the San Francisco market area, according to
CBRE.
Sources: CBRE Cap Rate Survey, 2nd Half 2017; Individual developer interviews, 2018;
Strategic Economics, 2018.
August 2018 6
Results
Using the YOC thresholds defined above, the following summarizes the results of the financial
feasibility of different linkage fee scenarios for each prototype. The pro forma for each prototype is
shown on Figure 8.
R&D
With no commercial linkage fee on R&D development, (defined as Scenario 1), the prototypical project
generates a YOC of 6.63 percent, which is financially feasible (see Figure 6 and Figure 8). Introducing
a new commercial linkage fee of between $5 and $15 per square foot on R&D projects would be
feasible (Scenarios 2, 3, and 4). The YOC for scenarios 5 and 6, which test fees of $20 and $25 per
square foot, are slightly below the thresholds considered financially feasible.
FIGURE 6: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF R&D PROTOTYPE
Fee Scenario Fee Level per
Square Foot
R&D Yield on
Cost
R&D Feasibility
Scenario 1 (No Fee) $0 6.63% Feasible
Scenario 2 $5 6.58% Feasible
Scenario 3 $10 6.54% Feasible
Scenario 4 $15 6.49% Feasible
Scenario 5 $20 6.45% Not Feasible
Scenario 6 $25 6.41% Not Feasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2018.
HOTEL
As shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, without a commercial linkage fee (Scenario 1), new hotel projects
provide a YOC of 8.46 percent. Linkage fees of $5 to $10 per square foot (Scenario 2 and Scenario 3)
would be financially feasible to implement. Higher linkage fees result in a YOC of below 8.25 percent
and are considered infeasible.
FIGURE 7: SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF HOTEL PROTOTYPE
Fee Scenario Fee Level per
Square Foot
Hotel Yield on
Cost
Hotel Feasibility
Scenario 1 (No Fee) $0 8.46% Feasible
Scenario 2 $5 8.35% Feasible
Scenario 3 $10 8.23% Marginally Feasible
Scenario 4 $15 8.13% Not Feasible
Scenario 5 $20 8.02% Not Feasible
Scenario 6 $25 7.92% Not Feasible
Source: Strategic Economics, 2018.
RETAIL
The financial feasibility analysis shows that without any commercial linkage fee (Scenario 1), new retail
projects are not feasible at this time. The annual net operating income for the prototype is
approximately $210,000, while the total development cost is approximately $3.8 million. This
translates to a yield on cost of 5.45 percent, well below the feasibility threshold for smaller retail
development projects, which would require a return of 7.5 percent.
August 2018 7
It is likely that the ground-floor retail component of a mixed-use project would have stronger financial
feasibility results, as it would be cross-subsidized by other uses, such as residential or office, which
have significantly higher net operating incomes.
FIGURE 8: PRO FORMA RESULTS
R&D Hotel Retail
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 261,360 54,450 21,780
Parcel Size (acres) 6 1.25 0.5
Building Height and FAR
Total Stories 4 - 5 stories 5 stories 1 story
Building Type Steel Concrete Concrete
FAR (without parking garage) 1 2 0.35
Revenues
Income $14,113,440 $11,285,256 $246,985
Net Operating Income (NOI) $12,349,260 $3,385,577 $209,937
Project Costs
Land Costs $32,670,000 $4,628,250 $1,306,800
Direct Costs
Site Prep $784,080 $163,350 $65,340
Gross Building Area $78,408,000 $21,780,000 $1,143,450
FF&E n/a $3,325,000 n/a
Tenant Improvement Allowance $23,522,400 n/a $240,125
Parking $19,922,500 $2,375,000 $375,000
Subtotal Direct Costs $122,636,980 $27,643,350 $1,823,915
per net SF $521 $299 $266
per gross SF $469 $254 $239
Indirect Costs
Soft Costs $14,716,438 $3,317,202 $218,870
City Permits and Fees (excl. commercial
linkage)
$7,521,941 $2,432,826 $360,301
Subtotal Indirect Costs $22,238,378 $5,750,028 $579,171
Financing Costs $8,692,522 $2,003,603 $144,185
Total Development Cost (TDC) $186,237,880 $40,025,231 $3,854,070
per net SF $792 $432 $562
Yield on Cost (NOI/TDC)
Scenario 1: No Linkage Fee 6.63% 8.46% 5.45%
Scenario 2: Linkage Fee of $5/SF 6.58% 8.35% 5.39%
Scenario 3: Linkage Fee of $10/SF 6.54% 8.23% 5.34%
Scenario 4: Linkage Fee of $15/SF 6.49% 8.13% 5.29%
Scenario 5: Linkage Fee of $20/SF 6.45% 8.02% 5.24%
Scenario 6: Linkage Fee of $25/SF 6.41% 7.92% 5.19%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2018.
August 2018 8
COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES
Comparing the nexus fee scenarios to current commercial linkage fees in surrounding municipalities
provides important context for understanding how South San Francisco is currently situated. A large
share of municipalities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, particularly cities that are desirable
locations for tech and biotech companies, have adopted commercial linkage fees.
For office/R&D uses, most cities have set the linkage fees between $15 and $25 per square foot. The
majority of cities have lower fee levels for retail uses, typically in the range of $5 to $10 per square
foot. For hotel uses, the commercial linkage fees are usually between $5 and $15 per square foot. In
general, the cities of Palo Alto and San Francisco have higher linkage fees than the rest of the local
jurisdictions; these cities also have higher average retail and office rents and hotel room rates than
other locations in the Bay Area.
Many municipalities provide exemptions or fee reductions for the following types of projects:
• Smaller commercial projects. For example, commercial linkage fees do not apply to projects
adding less than 5,000 gross square feet in Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo City, Colma,
or Burlingame. Projects adding less than 3,500 gross square feet in unincorporated land in
San Mateo County, and less than 10,000 gross square feet in Menlo Park or East Palo Alto are
also exempt. Some cities also tie their fee to building size on a sliding scale. Mountain View
offers a 50% fee reduction for office projects under 10,000 square feet, and hotel or retail
projects under 25,000 square feet. Sunnyvale also offers a 50% fee discount for the first
25,000 square feet of any project.
• Prevailing wage. Multiple jurisdictions, including Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo City,
and San Mateo County, provide 25% fee reductions for projects that pay prevailing wage.
• Community-serving facilities. Most cities exempt projects such as hospitals/clinics, child care,
public, educational, religious, and/or non-profit uses. Additionally, projects that are replacing
property damaged from natural disasters are also often exempted.
It is common for jurisdictions to allow alternative means of complying with commercial linkage fee
requirements. Developers can typically satisfy the requirement by providing affordable housing either
on or off-site, or by dedicating land for affordable housing. East Palo Alto and Palo Alto allow for the
requirement to be met by either converting market-rate units to affordable units, or by rehabilitating
existing affordable units. In most cases, the applicant must first prove that an alternative is necessary.
For example, Palo Alto requires that the applicant present “substantial evidence to support a finding
of infeasibility” of paying the fee, and of “feasibility of any proposed alternative.”
Many cities have either enacted or updated their fees in the last four years, and fees are typically
adjusted annually, based on either ENR’s Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay area, or
on the national Consumer Price Index.
August 2018 9
FIGURE 9: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES (PER GROSS SF OF NET NEW SPACE) IN NEARBY CITIES
Jurisdiction Hotel Retail/ Restaurant/
Services
Office/ R&D/ Medical
Office Date Fee Was Adopted
Burlingame (a) $12 $7 $18 - $25 2017
Colma $5 $5 $5 2006
Cupertino $10 $10 $20 2015
East Palo Alto none none $10 2016
Foster City $12.50 $6.25 $27.50 2016
Los Altos $15 $15 $25 2018
Menlo Park none none $16.90 1998
Mountain View $2.68 $2.68 $25 2014
Palo Alto $20.37 $20.37 $35 2017
Redwood City $5 $5 $20 2015
San Bruno $12.50 $6.25 $12.50 2015
San Carlos $10 $5 $20 2017
San Francisco $19.08 $23.78 $16.98 - $25.49 2007
San Mateo City $10 $5 $25 2016
San Mateo County $10 $5 $25 2016
Santa Clara City (a) $5 $5 $10 - $20 2017
Sunnyvale $7.50 $7.50 $15 2015
Notes:
(a) Fees range depending on the size of the project. In Burlingame, projects of under 50,000 square feet are charged the lower fee
amount. In the city of Santa Clara, projects of under 20,000 square feet are charged the lower fee amount.
Source: City Ordinances; Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Nexus Studies, 2018; 21 Elements, 2018; Strategic Economics,
2018.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If South San Francisco elects to adopt a linkage fees on commercial development, the recommended
fee levels are as follows: up to $15 per square foot for office/R&D; up to $10 per square foot for
hotels; and under $5 per square foot for retail. These recommendations are based on the findings of
the financial feasibility analysis and a comparison of fees in neighboring jurisdictions.
Attachment 3
NEIGHBORING CITIES: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE COMPARISONS
Jurisdiction Hotel
Retail/
Restaurant/
Services
Office/ R&D/
Medical Office
Date Fee Was
Adopted
Burlingame $12 $7 $18 - $25 2017
Colma $5 $5 $5 2006
East Palo Alto none none $10 2016
Foster City $12.50 $6.25 $27.50 2016
Menlo Park none none $16.90 1998
Redwood City $5 $5 $20 2015
San Bruno $12.50 $6.25 $12.50 2015
San Carlos $10 $5 $20 2017
San Francisco $19.08 $23.78 $16.98 - $25.49 2007
San Mateo City $10 $5 $25 2016
San Mateo County $10 $5 $25 2016
South San Francisco $5 $2.50 $15 TBD
Average Fee $11 $8 $18
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
Ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code adding Chapter 8.69 to establish an affordable
housing commercial linkage fee for new commercial development in the City.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)aims to provide sufficient levels of affordable housing
for its residents; and
WHEREAS,on April 8,2015 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted its 2015-2023
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS,Housing Element Chapter 6.1 “Promote New Housing Development”includes Goal I to “promote
the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community;” and
WHEREAS,Implementing Policy I-3 of the Housing Element provides that “[a]s feasible,the City will
investigate new sources of funding for the City’s affordable housing programs;” and
WHEREAS,Program I-3A of the Housing Element provides that “[t]hrough participation in the 21 Elements
group,the City will investigate the feasibility of commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable
housing;” and
WHEREAS,the City may adopt and impose commercial linkage fees to mitigate the impact of commercial
development projects on the need for affordable housing in the City under the authority of Sections 6600 et seq.
of the California Government Code (“Mitigation Fee Act”); and
WHEREAS,there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of
commercial development within the City,and there is also a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and
the impacts of commercial development; and
WHEREAS,development of new commercial projects encourages new residents to move to the City,and some
of the employees needed to meet the needs of new commercial development earn incomes only adequate to pay
for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS,because affordable housing is in short supply within the City,these employees might otherwise be
forced to live in less-than-adequate housing within the City,pay a disproportionate share of their incomes to
live in adequate housing within the City,or commute ever-increasing distances to their jobs from housing
located outside the City,thereby harming the City’s ability to attain goals articulated in the City’s General Plan;
and
WHEREAS,to ensure that future development projects mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing
in South San Francisco,and to ensure that any adopted commercial linkage fees do not exceed the actual
affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects to which the fees relate,the City agreed to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
participate in the preparation of a nexus study through the countywide 21 Elements collaboration project; and
WHEREAS,the City had prepared an impact study entitled “Commercial Linkage Nexus Study”completed by
Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates,Inc.dated July 2015,(“Nexus Study”),copies of which
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and Economic Development and Housing Division and are hereby
made a part of this Resolution by reference; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study employs widely used,appropriate methodology to determine the maximum
amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by commercial development on the need for affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study establishes that there is a reasonable relationship between the commercial
linkage fees and the commercial development on which it is imposed and between the need for affordable
housing and the commercial development projects against which the fee is charged,pursuant to Government
Code Section 66001; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study has found that there is a nexus between new commercial floor area,the creation
of jobs, and the demand for very low, low, and moderate-income housing for new employees; and
WHEREAS,the fee will be used solely to increase the supply of housing affordable to very low,low,and
moderate-income employees; and
WHEREAS,the fees will be placed in a separate fund and used exclusively for the development of affordable
housing within the City; and
WHEREAS,to ensure that development projects remain economically feasible,the City prepared a commercial
linkage fees analysis,dated July 2018 to reflect financial feasibility given current market conditions and
existing development fees in the City; and
WHEREAS,based on the July 2018 analysis,the recommended commercial linkage fees as shown
corresponding resolution are lower than the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by
new development on the need for affordable housing as determined by the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS,to implement the affordable housing goals,policies,and programs of the City's 2015-2023
Housing Element,the City Council proposes to adopt this ordinance adding Municipal Code Chapter 8.69 (the
“Ordinance”)to establish an affordable housing commercial linkage fees (“the Fees”)for new commercial
development in the City to mitigate the impact of commercial development projects on the need for affordable
housing in the City, after a duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 66001 of Mitigation Fee Act,the Ordinance identifies the purpose of the Fees;
the use to which the Fees will be put;determines that there is a reasonable relationship between the use and the
type of development projects on which the Fees will be imposed;determines that there is a reasonable
relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the Fees
are imposed;and establishes the relationship between the amount of the Fees and the cost of the public facilities
or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development projects upon which the Fees are imposed; and
WHEREAS,at least fourteen (14)days prior to the public hearing at which the Ordinance was considered,
notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 2 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests
with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges,in accordance with
Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS,at least ten (10)days prior to the public hearing at which the Council considered the Ordinance,
the Nexus Study was available for public inspection,review and comment in accordance with Government
Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS,ten (10)days advance notice of the public hearing at which the Ordinance was considered was
published in accordance Government Code Section 6062a; and
WHEREAS,the action taken by the Ordinance has no potential for physical effects on the environment because
it involves an adoption of certain Fees and/or charges imposed by the City,does not commit the City to any
specific project,and said Fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities,
each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities
are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA Guidelines,Section 15004(b)(1)).Therefore,
approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project”for purposes of CEQA,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,
Section 15378(b)(4);and,even if considered a “project”under CEQA,is exempt from CEQA review pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
approval of the Fees and/or charges may have a significant effect on the environment; and
NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.Incorporation of Recitals
The City Council of South San Francisco finds that all Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 2.Amendments
The City Council hereby adds Chapter 8.69 to Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as
follows (with text in strikeout indicating deletion and double-underlined text indicating addition):
Chapter 8.69
AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
8.69.010 Purpose
8.69.020 Commercial Linkage Fee Findings
8.69.030 Definitions
8.69.040 Commercial Linkage Fees
8.69.050 Fee Payment
8.69.060 Exemptions
8.69.070 Alternatives
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 3 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
8.69.080 Deductions and Credits
8.69.090 Affordable Housing Fund
8.69.100 Enforcement
8.69.010 Purpose.
The city council finds and determines that in order to provide sufficient affordable housing to achieve the city’s
goal of providing a full range of affordable housing options to residents of the city,in accordance with the
standards established in the general plan,housing element,and other applicable plans and regulations,
development projects identified in Section 8.69.040 below shall pay a commercial linkage fee in order to
mitigate the impacts of these development projects on affordable housing in the city.
(a)Encourage the development and availability of housing affordable to a broad range of households with
varying income levels within the City as mandated by California Government Code Section 65580, et seq..
(b)Offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new commercial development and mitigate
impacts that accompany new commercial development by protecting the economic diversity of the City’s
housing stock;reducing traffic,transit and related air quality impacts;promoting jobs/housing balance;and
reducing the demands placed on transportation infrastructure in the region.
(c)Promote the City’s policy to promote the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for
all income groups in the community, as identified by the Housing Element of the General Plan.
(d)Support the Housing Element goal of encouraging high-quality residential development,as well as
ensure a full range of affordable housing and the policies and actions that support this goal.
(e)Support the Housing Element goal of providing suitable,decent,and affordable housing for its
residents.
(f)Support the guiding principle of the Housing Element that housing in South San Francisco supports
increasing the range and diversity of housing options that will be an integral aspect of the City’s growth and
development.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 4 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
(g)Support the guiding principle of the Housing Element that South San Francisco values diversity and
strives to ensure that all households have equal access to the City’s housing resources.
(h)Meet the housing needs identified by the Housing Element of the General Plan.
(i)Encourage the production of the very low,low,and moderate-income units planned for by the Housing
Element of the General Plan.
8.69.020 Commercial Linkage Fee Findings
Commercial Linkage Fee.The city council finds and determines that there is a reasonable relationship between
the commercial linkage fee and the type of development projects to which the fee is imposed because the
development projects that are subject to the fee outlined in this chapter will place additional demands on
housing,specifically affordable housing,in the City.The proceeds collected as a result of this fee will address
and mitigate the additional impacts created by these development projects.
8.69.030 Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a)“Administrator”means the Director of Economic and Community Development of the City or other
person designated by the City Manager.
(b)“Affordable housing agreement” means a written agreement between a developer and the City.
(c)“Affordable housing plan” means a plan for a residential development project submitted by a developer.
(d)“Building permit”includes full structural building permits,as well as partial permits such as foundation
-only permits.
(e)“Commercial”use includes hotels;retail uses,restaurants,services;and offices,medical offices,and
research and development uses.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 5 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
(f)“Commercial development project”means an application for a planning permit or building permit that
includes the new construction of gross square feet of commercial space or the conversion of a residential use to
a commercial use.
(g)“Commercial linkage fee”means the fee paid by developers of commercial development projects to
mitigate the impacts that such projects have on the demand for affordable housing in the City.
(h)“Developer”means any person,property owner,firm,partnership,association,joint venture,
corporation,or any entity or combination of entities,which seeks City approvals for all or part of a commercial
development project.
(i)“First approval”means the first discretionary approval to occur with respect to a commercial
development project or,for commercial development projects not requiring a discretionary approval,the
issuance of a building permit.
(j)“Planning permit”means any discretionary approval of a residential project,including but not limited to
a comprehensive or specific plan adoption or amendment,rezoning,tentative map,parcel map,conditional use
permit, variances, or architectural review.
8.69.040 Commercial linkage fees.
The City Council may from time to time adopt by resolution a commercial linkage fee to be imposed on
developers of commercial development projects.Commercial linkage fees shall not exceed the cost of
mitigating the impact of the commercial development projects on the need for affordable housing in the City.
8.69.050 Fee payment
(a)Any commercial linkage fee shall be paid in full at the time of issuance of the first building permit for
the commercial development project subject to the fee or at a time otherwise specified by Council resolution.If
no building permit is required,the fee shall be paid before a conversion of use may take place.The fee shall be
calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 6 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
(b)Calculation of the Commercial Linkage Fee.
(1)The commercial linkage fee for commercial development projects shall be charged on a per-square-foot
basis for all net new gross floor area,including all projects where the floor area is increased,with a specific per
-square-foot amount set for each commercial land use category identified in Table 8.69.050(b)(5)below.The
amount of the fee shall be computed as follows:(Gross Square Feet Commercial Floor Area Minus Existing
Floor Area) × (Current Fee Amount for Applicable Land use Category) = Commercial Linkage Fee Payment.
(2)The amount of each fee for applicable land use category as identified by Table 8.69.050(b)(5)shall be
established by resolution of the city council,and may be adjusted annually by the percentage change in the
Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
(3)In calculating the fee under this section,the chief building official or other city official,shall use those
fees in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permit or,if no building permit is required,at the time
of issuance of a use or other discretionary permit.
(4)The City’s Chief Planner shall determine the appropriate land use category as set forth in Table 8.69.040
(5) below for each new commercial development project.
(5)Commercial Linkage Fee Requirements
Table 8.69.040 (5)
Commercial Development Type
Hotel
Retail, Restaurants and Services
Office, Medical Office and Research and Development
Uses
8.69.060 Exemptions.
(a)The following commercial development projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
(1)Retail uses within the City may be exempted at the discretion of the City Council.
(2)Public projects or projects undertaken on City property.
(3)Any structure proposed to repair or replace a building that was damaged or destroyed by fire or other
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 7 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
(3)Any structure proposed to repair or replace a building that was damaged or destroyed by fire or other
disaster,so long as the square footage and use of the building remains the same,and construction of the
replacement building begins within one year of the damage or destruction.
(4)Desirable public uses,such as community facilities and quasi-public uses like childcare centers,
churches, and schools may also be exempted at the discretion of City Council.
(5)Commercial development projects for which applications have been deemed complete prior to January
1, 2019.
(b)The City Council may,by resolution,elect to waive payment of the commercial linkage fee if it finds
that:(i)the commercial development project is dedicated to a public use owned and operated by other public
agencies or a nonprofit public benefit corporation;and (ii)the benefits to the community provided by such
public use exceed those that would be provided by the payment of the commercial linkage fee.If the City
Council elects to waive commercial linkage fees pursuant to this provision,the public use of the site shall be
guaranteed by a recorded document in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
(c)The City Council by resolution may adopt additional exemptions from time to time.
8.69.070 Alternatives.
(a)A developer may propose the construction of affordable residential units as an alternative to the
payment of the commercial linkage fee by submitting an affordable housing plan,which shall be approved by
the City Council, it its discretion.
(b)If the alternative is approved,the developer shall enter into an affordable housing agreement with the
City.
8.69.080 Deductions and Credits
(a)Change of Use.When a development project changes from a lower impact use to a higher impact use,
the fee to be paid shall be calculated on the net change based on the pre-existing use and corresponding fee
requirements of the new use.
(b)Land Dedication.Upon approval by City Council in its discretion,a developer may dedicate land within
the City of South San Francisco for the purpose of building affordable housing.If land dedication is approved
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 8 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
the City of South San Francisco for the purpose of building affordable housing.If land dedication is approved
by the City Council,the developer may deduct the fair market land value from the project’s total commercial
linkage fee obligation.
(c)Contribution to an Affordable Housing Project.Upon approval by the first approval body or City
Council,a developer would be able to contribute an amount equal to fee due under this Chapter to an entitled
affordable housing project in South San Francisco.
(d)Prevailing Wage.Upon approval by the first approval body or City Council,a developer would be able
to receive a fee credit up to twenty-five percent of the total commercial linkage fee for voluntarily electing to
construct the project utilizing prevailing wage.If granted,the credit would be provided upon issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
8.69.090 Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
(a)Affordable Housing Trust Fund.A fund for the deposit of fees established under this exists as Fund 205
(the “Fund”).The Fund shall receive all fees contributed under this Chapter and may also receive monies from
other sources.
(b)Purpose and Limitations.Monies deposited in the Fund shall be used to increase and improve the supply
of housing affordable to moderate,low,very low,and extremely low-income households.Monies may also be
used to cover reasonable administrative or related expenses associated with the administration of this chapter.
(c)Administration.The Fund shall be administered by the Administrator,who may develop procedures to
implement the purposes of the Fund consistent with the requirements of this chapter and subject to any adopted
budget of the City.
(d)Expenditures.Fund monies shall be used in accordance with the City’s Housing Element,or subsequent
plans adopted by the City Council to maintain or increase the quantity,quality,and variety of affordable
housing units or assist other governmental entities,private organizations or individuals to do so.Permissible
uses include,but are not limited to,land acquisition,debt service,parcel assemblage,gap financing,housing
rehabilitation,grants,unit acquisition,new construction,and other pursuits associated with providing
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 9 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
affordable housing. The Fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.
8.69.100 Enforcement.
(a)Payment of the commercial linkage fee is the obligation of the developer of a commercial development
project.The City may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance
herewith, including, but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit or development approval.
(b)The City Attorney shall be authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter and all affordable
housing agreements,regulatory agreements,and all other covenants or restrictions placed on affordable units,
by civil action and any other proceeding or method permitted by law.
(c)Failure of any official or agency to fulfill the requirements of this chapter shall not excuse any
developer or property owner from the requirements of this chapter.No permit,license,map,or other approval
or entitlement for a commercial development project shall be issued,including without limitation a final
inspection or certificate of occupancy, until all applicable requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.
(d)The remedies provided for in this chapter shall be cumulative and not exclusive and shall not preclude
the City from any other remedy or relief to which it otherwise would be entitled under law or equity.
SECTION 3.Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or
unconstitutional,the remainder of this Ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end,
provisions of this Ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
declares that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase
hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,
clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 4.Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
The approval of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources
Code §§21000 et seq.,“CEQA,”and 14 Cal.Code Reg.§§15000 et seq.,“CEQA Guidelines”).This action is
not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section
15378 and 15061(b)(3)as it is has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it involves an
adoption of certain Fees and/or charges imposed by the City,does not commit the City to any specific project,
and said Fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or activities,each of which
future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with CEQA when sufficient physical
details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 10 of 11
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-716 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5a.
details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA
Guidelines,Section 15004(b)(1)).Therefore,approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project”for purposes
of CEQA,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,Section 15378(b)(4);and,even if considered a “project”under
CEQA,is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the Fees and/or charges may have a significant effect
on the environment.
SECTION 5. Effective Date of Fee Imposed
A fee imposed by Section 2 of this Ordinance shall take effect sixty (60)days from and after its adoption by
resolution pursuant to Government Code Section 66017.
SECTION 6.Publication and Effective Date of Ordinance
Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared
by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to
be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified
copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1)
publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance
along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.
This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 11 of 11
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-717 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5b.
Resolution authorizing the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to establish and set an effective date
for an affordable housing commercial linkage fee for new commercial development in the City pursuant to
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)aims to provide sufficient levels of affordable housing
for its residents; and
WHEREAS,on April 8,2015 the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted its 2015-2023
Housing Element; and
WHEREAS,Housing Element Chapter 6.1 “Promote New Housing Development”includes Goal I to “promote
the provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community;” and
WHEREAS,Implementing Policy I-3 of the Housing Element provides that “[a]s feasible,the City will
investigate new sources of funding for the City’s affordable housing programs;” and
WHEREAS,Program I-3A of the Housing Element provides that “[t]hrough participation in the 21 Elements
group,the City will investigate the feasibility of commercial and housing linkage fees to support affordable
housing;” and
WHEREAS,the City may adopt and impose commercial linkage fees to mitigate the impact of commercial
development projects on the need for affordable housing in the City under the authority of Sections 6600 et seq.
of the California Government Code (“Mitigation Fee Act”); and
WHEREAS,there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of
commercial development within the City,and there is also a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and
the impacts of commercial development; and
WHEREAS,development of new commercial projects encourages new residents to move to the City,and some
of the employees needed to meet the needs of new commercial development earn incomes only adequate to pay
for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS,because affordable housing is in short supply within the City,these employees might otherwise be
forced to live in less-than-adequate housing within the City,pay a disproportionate share of their incomes to
live in adequate housing within the City,or commute ever-increasing distances to their jobs from housing
located outside the City,thereby harming the City’s ability to attain goals articulated in the City’s General Plan;
and
WHEREAS,to ensure that future development projects mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housingCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-717 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5b.
WHEREAS,to ensure that future development projects mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing
in South San Francisco,and to ensure that any adopted commercial linkage fees do not exceed the actual
affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects to which the fees relate,the City agreed to
participate in the preparation of a nexus study through the countywide 21 Elements collaboration project; and
WHEREAS,the City had prepared an impact study entitled “Commercial Linkage Nexus Study”completed by
Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates,Inc.dated July 2015,(“Nexus Study”),copies of which
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and Economic Development and Housing Division and are hereby
made a part of this Resolution by reference; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study employs widely used,appropriate methodology to determine the maximum
amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by commercial development on the need for affordable
housing; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study establishes that there is a reasonable relationship between the commercial
linkage fees and the commercial development on which it is imposed and between the need for affordable
housing and the commercial development projects against which the fee is charged,pursuant to Government
Code Section 66001; and
WHEREAS,the Nexus Study has found that there is a nexus between new commercial floor area,the creation
of jobs, and the demand for very low, low, and moderate-income housing for new employees; and
WHEREAS,the fee will be used solely to increase the supply of housing affordable to very low,low,and
moderate-income employees; and
WHEREAS,the fees will be placed in a separate fund and used exclusively for the development of affordable
housing within the City; and
WHEREAS,to ensure that development projects remain economically feasible,the City prepared a commercial
linkage fees analysis,dated July 2018 to reflect financial feasibility given current market conditions and
existing development fees in the City; and
WHEREAS,based on the July 2018 analysis,the recommended commercial linkage fees as shown in Exhibit A
are lower than the maximum amount needed to fully mitigate the burdens created by new development on the
need for affordable housing as determined by the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS,to implement the affordable housing goals,policies,and programs of the City's 2015-2023
Housing Element,the City Council has considered and adopted on this same date an ordinance amending
Municipal Code Chapter 8.69 to establish an affordable housing commercial linkage fees for new commercial
development in the City to mitigate the impact of commercial development projects on the need for affordable
housing in the City (the “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS,upon adoption,the Ordinance authorizes the City Council to adopt and establish by resolution
commercial linkage fees for commercial development; and
WHEREAS,the City Council now desires to set the commercial linkage fees for certain commercial
development projects,which fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of mitigating the actual
affordable housing impacts attributable to the commercial development projects for which the fee is imposed,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-717 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5b.
affordable housing impacts attributable to the commercial development projects for which the fee is imposed,
pursuant to Government Code Section 66005, as determined by the Nexus Study; and;
WHEREAS,at least fourteen (14)days prior to the public hearing at which the Ordinance and this Resolution
was considered,notice of the time and place of the hearing was mailed to eligible interested parties who filed
written requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges,in
accordance with Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS,at least ten (10)days prior to the public hearing at which the Council considered the Ordinance
and this Resolution,the Nexus Study was available for public inspection,review and comment in accordance
with Government Code Section 66019; and
WHEREAS,ten (10)days advance notice of the public hearing at which the Ordinance and this Resolution on
the proposed fee was published twice in the manner set forth in Government Code Section 6062a as required by
Government Code Section 66004 and Section 66018; and
WHEREAS,the action taken by the Ordinance and this Resolution has no potential for physical effects on the
environment because it involves an adoption of certain Fees and/or charges imposed by the City,does not
commit the City to any specific project,and said Fees and/or charges are applicable to future development
projects and/or activities,each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)when sufficient physical details
regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA
Guidelines,Section 15004(b)(1)).Therefore,approval of the fees and/or charges is not a “project”for purposes
of CEQA,pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,Section 15378(b)(4);and,even if considered a “project”under
CEQA,is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)because it can be seen
with certainty that there is no possibility that approval of the Fees and/or charges may have a significant effect
on the environment; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act,the City seeks to adopt this Resolution to set the commercial
linkage fees as authorized under the Ordinance in order to mitigate the impacts caused by new commercial
development by providing for the payment of development impact fees necessary for the City to maintain
desirable levels of affordable housing for new and existing residents; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco:
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this Resolution herein by reference.
2.The findings of the Nexus Study have been considered and are hereby incorporated into this Resolution
by reference.
3.The facts and substantial evidence in the record establish that there is a reasonable relationship between
the need for affordable housing and the impacts of the commercial development described in the Nexus
Study for which the corresponding fee is charged,and that there is also a reasonable relationship
between the commercial linkage fee's use and the type of commercial development for which the fee is
charged, as is described in more detail in the Nexus Study.
4.The Nexus Study sets forth cost estimates that are reasonable for constructing affordable housing,and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-717 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:5b.
the fees expected to be generated by new commercial development will not exceed these costs.
5.The City Council hereby adopts these commercial linkage fees for commercial development projects
shown on Exhibit “A”, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
6.All commercial linkage fees collected shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (“Fund
205”)to be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing for very low,low,and
moderate-incomes, including necessary administrative costs.
7.The City Council may review the commercial linkage fees from time to time.For any annual period
during which the City Council does not review the commercial linkage fee,fee amounts may be
adjusted by the Administrator as defined in the Ordinance,or his or her designee,according to the
change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
8.The City Council finds that all of the commercial linkage fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution do
not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts of the development projects to which those
commercial linkage fees relate, as set forth in the Nexus Study.
9.Adoption of this Resolution does not require environmental review pursuant to California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4),which provides that a “project”
within the meaning of CEQA does not include the creation of government funding mechanisms or other
government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.Further,the action taken by the
Ordinance and this Resolution has no potential for physical effects on the environment because it
involves an adoption of certain Fees and/or charges imposed by the City,does not commit the City to
any specific project,and said Fees and/or charges are applicable to future development projects and/or
activities,each of which future projects and/or activities will be fully evaluated in full compliance with
CEQA when sufficient physical details regarding said projects and/or activities are available to permit
meaningful CEQA review (See CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(b)(1)).
10.This Resolution shall become effective on the date of adoption of this Resolution.In accordance with
Government Code Section 66017,the Fees set by this Resolution call be effective 60 days from the
effective date of this Resolution,but only if the Ordinance is adopted and effective prior to that date.All
project applications deemed complete prior to January 1,2019 date shall not be subject to this
Resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
EXHIBIT "A"
Commercial Linkage Fees for Commercial Development Projects
Commercial linkage fees for commercial development projects shall be calculated using the
gross floor area of net new commercial space subject to the commercial linkage feepursuant to
South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 8.69. Projects with existing commercial space are
entitled to a credit for the original use square footage.
Commercial Development Type Fee per Square Foot of Net New Gross Floor Area
Hotel $5
Retail, Restaurants and Services $2.50
Office, Medical Office and $15
Research and Development Uses
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-747 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:6.
Report on consideration of a joint City Council and South San Francisco Unified School District School Board
meeting and potential topics for discussion.(Mike Futrell, City Manager)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-84 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:7.
Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to I &A Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,
California for the City Hall Roof Replacement Project (Project No.pf1804)in an amount not to exceed
$206,690 and authorizing a total construction budget of $258,410.(Matt Ruble, Sr. Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a construction contract to I &A
Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,California for the City Hall Roof Replacement Project (Project No.
pf1804) in an amount not to exceed $206,690 and authorizing a total construction budget of $258,410.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In 2008,Skyline Engineering was contracted by the City of South San Francisco (“City”)to conduct a survey
of all the roofs of major city facilities,such as City Hall,the Municipal Services Building and Fire Station 62.
The survey indicated that the existing roof at City Hall had a useful life of approximately another two to three
years.In November 2017,the Engineering Division contracted with Skyline Engineering to design a new
roofing system for City Hall,located at 400 Grand Avenue,South San Francisco,CA.The work consists of
removing and replacing composition shingle roofing,installing roofing membrane,installing underlayment,
removing and replacing flashing,removing and replacing mechanical vents,prepping,priming and painting
roof hatch,installing Kempler Applied Fluid around caps,gutters and flashing,installing rigid foam insulation,
repairing dry rot as needed,installing new vent stack,sealing wood in clock tower,and replacing clock-tower
hatch.The new roof replacement design was completed in July 2018.Staff received two independent engineer’s
estimates for the project, one for $141,955 and the other for $365,000.
Staff advertised a notice inviting bids for the project on July 6,2018,and July 13,2018.On July 9,2018,and
July 16,2018,non-mandatory site meetings were held and 9 prime contractors attended.On July 27,2018,staff
received six bids.Of the six bids received,five were deemed responsive and,one non-responsive.The lowest
responsive and responsible bidder was I &A Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,California.Staff has verified
the low bidder’s current contractor’s license with the California State Licensing Board and found it to be in
good standing.
Public Works contracts are ordinarily awarded to the lowest responsive bidder whose bid is responsive to the
solicitation (Public Contract Code §20166.)Because these projects are locally funded,there are no
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) requirements.
The following is a summary of all bids received:
Base Bid Amount
Best Contracting Services, Inc. of Gardena,, California $248,295
Andy's Roofing Co., Inc. of San Leandro, California $442,617
Stronger Building Services of San Leandro, California $256,100
Central Roofing Inc of South San Francisco, California $156,300*(non-responsive)
Pioneer Contractors Inc. of San Francisco, California $415,890
I & A Contractors Inc. of Redwood City, California $206,690
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-84 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:7.
The Engineers’ estimates ranged from $141,955-$365,000.
The project budget is:
I & A Contractors Inc. Construction Contract $206,690
Construction Contingency (10%)$ 20,670
Construction Management Construction Administration (15%)$ 31,050
Total Project Budget $258,410
The construction contingency will be used for any additional costs related to design changes during the
construction operations.There are no Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)requirements since no federal
funds are being utilized on the project.
FUNDING
This project is funded by the General Fund,and the project is included in the City of South San Francisco’s
Fiscal Year 2018-19 Capital Improvement Program (Project No.pf1804)with sufficient funds allocated to
cover the project cost.
CONCLUSION
Awarding the construction contract to I &A Contractors Inc.of Redwood City,California,California,for the
City Hall Roof Replacement Project.
Attachments:
1.Vicinity Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
ATTACHMENT 1 – Vicinity Map
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-85 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:7a.
Resolution awarding a construction contract to I &A Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,California for the City
Hall Roof Replacement Project (Project No.pf1804)in an amount not to exceed $206,690 and authorizing a
total construction budget of $258,410.
WHEREAS,in 2008,Skyline Engineering was contracted by the City of South San Francisco (“City”)to
conduct a survey of all the roofs of major city facilities.The survey indicated that the existing roof at City Hall
had a useful life of approximately another two to three years; and
WHEREAS,in November 2017,the Engineering Division contracted with Skyline Engineering to design a new
roofing system for City Hall, located at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California; and
WHEREAS,the work consists of removing and replacing composite shingle roofing,installing roofing
membrane,installing underlayment,removing and replacing flashing,removing and replacing mechanical
vents,prepping,priming and painting roof hatch,installing Kempler Applied Fluid around caps,gutters and
flashing,installing rigid foam insulation,repairing dry rot as needed,installing new vent stack,sealing wood in
clock tower, and replacing clock-tower hatch; and
WHEREAS, staff advertised a notice inviting bids for the project on July 6, 2018, and July 13, 2018; and
WHEREAS,on July 9,2018,and July 16,2018,non-mandatory site meetings were held and 9 contractors
attended; and
WHEREAS,on July 27,2018,staff received six bids in response.The lowest responsive bidder was I &A
Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,California.Staff has verified the low bidder’s current contractor’s license
with the California State Licensing Board and found it to be in good standing.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby awards a construction contract,a draft of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A,for the City
Hall Roof Replacement Project to I &A Contractors,Inc.of Redwood City,California,in an amount not to
exceed $206,690 conditioned on I &A Contractors,Inc.timely execution of the Project contract and
submission of all required documents,including but not limited to,certificates of insurance and endorsement,in
accordance with the Project documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council authorizes a total Project construction budget of $258,410 and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-85 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:7a.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council authorizes a total Project construction budget of $258,410 and
authorizes the City Manager to utilize unspent amount of the total Project,if necessary,towards additional
construction contingency budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council authorizes the Finance Department to establish the Project
Budget consistent with the information contained in the staff report.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement and any
other related documents on behalf of the City upon timely submission by I &A Contractors,Inc.Construction
of the signed contract and all other documents, subject to approval by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to take any other related
actions consistent with the intention of the resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
ENGINEERING FILE NO. PF-17-4
PROJECT NO. pf1804, BID NO. 2614
NOTICE INVITING BIDS
PART I - PROPOSAL
PROPOSAL FORMS
FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of 15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 15
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ENGINEERING DIVISION
FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. Scope of Work A-1
2. The Contract Documents A-1
3. Equipment - Performance of Work A-2
4. Contract Price A-2
5. Rights of City to Increase Working Days A-2
6. Option of City to Terminate Agreement in Event
of Failure to Complete Work A-2
7. Termination of Contract for Convenience A-3
8. Performance by Sureties A-5
9. Hold-Harmless Agreement and Contractor's Insurance A-6
10. Insurance A-6
11. Proof of Carriage of Insurance A-7
12. Provisions Cumulative A-8
13. Notices A-8
14. Interpretation A-8
Attachment A – Escrow Agreement for Security Deposits in Lieu of Retention
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 15
Page A-1 of 12
FORM OF AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this ____, day of ______, _____, between the CITY
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of
California, hereinafter called “CITY”, and <Contractor>, Inc., hereinafter called “CONTRACTOR”1.
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work
and improvements herein provided and execution of this contract.
WHEREAS, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvements
hereinafter described.
WHEREAS, on ____________, notice duly given, the City Council (“Council”) of said City
awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to the Contractor,
which Contractor said Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for said improvements.
WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said
improvements pursuant to the terms, definitions, and conditions set forth in the General Provisions and
other Contract Documents.
IT IS AGREED as follows:
1. Scope of Work. Contractor shall perform the Work described briefly as follows:
The Work consists of the furnishing of all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services necessary for
the construction of the CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT; in accordance with the
Contract Documents.
Also included are any such other items or details not mentioned above that are required by the
Contract Documents, which are to be constructed or furnished and installed as shown on the plans, as
specified herein and as directed by the Engineer.
The aforementioned improvements are further described in the "Contract Documents" hereinafter
referred to.
2. The Contract Documents. The complete Contract consists of the following documents:
(A) Notice Inviting Bids
(B) Part I – Submitted Proposal (as accepted)
(C) This Agreement, including Contractor’s Payment Bond, Faithful Performance
Bond and Guaranty Bond.
(D) Part II – General Conditions
1. 1The term "Contractor" as used herein is employed without distinction as to either number or gender and shall
include whenever the context shall permit all agents, representatives, employees, servants, subcontractors and
business or social invitees.
EXHIBIT A
Page 4 of 15
Page A-2 of 9
(E) Part III – Special Provisions: Special Conditions and Technical Specifications,
including State Standard Specifications dated 2015, sections 10-99, as revised in Revised
Standard Specifications (RSS) dated March 3, 2017
(F) Part IV – Project Plans, approved June 2018
(G) Administrative subsections of the State Standard Specifications dated 2015, as
specifically referenced in contract Parts I-IV and as revised in RSS dated March 3, 2017
All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the contract
documents.
All of the above-named documents are intended to cooperate, so that any work called for in one
and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said
documents. The documents comprising the complete contract will hereinafter be referred to as “the
Contract Documents.”
3. Equipment - Performance of Work. Contractor shall furnish all tools, equipment,
apparatus, facilities, labor, and materials necessary to perform and complete in a good and workmanlike
manner the Work of general construction as called for, and for the manner designated in, and in strict
conformity with, the plans and specifications for said Work entitled:
CITY HALL ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT
The equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, and materials shall be furnished and said Work
performed and completed as required in said plans and specifications under the direction and supervision
and subject to the approval of the Engineer of said City or the Engineer’s designated assistant.
4. Contract Price. City shall pay, and Contractor shall accept, in full payment for the Work
agreed to be done the sum of __________________________________ ($). Said price is determined by
the lump sum price contained in Contractor's bid proposal (“Bid”). The lump sum price and unit prices
are set forth in the completed Bid forms attached hereto and made a part hereof as if set forth herein
verbatim. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in
Contractor's bid and the specifications herein, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices
therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in installments as hereinafter provided.
5. Rights of City to Increase Working Days. If such Work is not completed within the time
specified, the Engineer shall have the right to increase the number of working days in the amount it may
determine will best serve the interest of the City. If it desires to increase said number of working days, it
shall have the further right to charge to Contractor and deduct from the final payment for the Work the
actual cost of engineering, inspection, superintendence, and other overhead expenses which are directly
chargeable to Contractor and which accrue during the period of such extension, except that the cost of the
final service and preparation of the final estimates shall not be included in such charges, provided,
however, that no extension of time for the completion of such Work shall be allowed unless at least
twenty (20) calendar days prior to the time herein fixed for the completion thereof or the time fixed by the
Engineer for such completion as extended, Contractor shall have filed application for extension thereof, in
writing with the Engineer.
6. Option of City to Terminate Agreement in Event of Failure to Complete Work. If at any
time in the opinion of the Engineer, the Contractor has refused or failed to prosecute the Work or any
severable part thereof, with such diligence as will insure its work, or any completion within the time
specified, or any extensions thereof, or shall have failed to complete said work within such time, or if
EXHIBIT A
Page 5 of 15
Page A-3 of 9
Contractor should be adjudged a bankrupt, or if Contractor should make a general assignment for the
benefit of Contractor's creditors, or if a receiver should be appointed in the event of Contractor's
insolvency, or if Contractor, or any Subcontractor, should violate any of the provisions of this Agreement,
the Engineer may give written notice to Contractor, and Contractor's sureties of its intention to terminate
this Agreement, such notice to contain the reasons for such intention to terminate this Agreement, and
unless within five calendar (5) days after the serving of such notice, such violation shall cease and
satisfactory arrangements for the correction thereof be made, this Agreement may, at the option of City,
upon expiration of said time, cease and terminate. Any excess of cost arising therefrom over and above
the contract price will be charged against the Contractor and the Contractor’s sureties who will be liable
therefore. In the event of such termination, all money due the Contractor or retained under the terms of
this contract shall be forfeited to the City; but such forfeiture will not release the Contractor or the
Contractor’s sureties from liability or failure to fulfill the contract. The Contractor and the Contractor’s
sureties will be credited with the amount of money so forfeited toward any excess of cost over and above
the contract price, arising from the suspension termination of the operations of the contract and the
completion of the Work by the City as above provided, and the Contractor will be so credited with any
surplus remaining after all just claims for such completion have been paid.
In the determination of the question whether there has been any such noncompliance with the
contract as to warrant the suspension termination or annulment thereof, the decision of the Engineer shall
be binding on all parties to the contract.
7. Termination of Contract for Convenience. The City also reserves the right to terminate
the contract at any time upon a determination by the Engineer in the Engineer's sole discretion that
termination of the contract is in the best interest of the City. If the City elects to terminate the contract for
convenience, the termination of the contract and the total compensation payable to the Contractor shall be
governed by the following:
(A) The City will issue the Contractor a written notice signed by the Engineer,
specifying that the contract is terminated. Upon receipt of said written notice, the Contractor will be
relieved of further responsibility for damage to the Work (excluding materials) as specified in Section
VII-17, "Contractor's Responsibility for the Work," of the General Conditions and, except as otherwise
directed in writing by the Engineer, the Contractor shall:
(1) Stop all work under the contract except that specifically directed to be completed prior to
acceptance.
(2) Perform work the Engineer deems necessary to secure the project for termination.
(3) Remove equipment and plant from the site of the Work.
(4) Take such action as is necessary to protect materials from damage.
(5) Notify all subcontractors and suppliers that the contract is being terminated and that their
contracts or orders are not to be further performed unless otherwise authorized in writing by the
Engineer.
(6) Provide the Engineer with an inventory list of all materials previously produced,
purchased or ordered from suppliers for use in the Work and not yet used in the Work, including
its storage location, and such other information as the Engineer may request.
EXHIBIT A
Page 6 of 15
Page A-4 of 9
(7) Dispose of materials not yet used in the Work as directed by the Engineer. It shall be the
Contractor's responsibility to provide the City with good title to all materials purchased by the
City hereunder, including materials for which partial payment has been made as provided in
Section IX-2, “Progress Payments,” of the General Conditions and with bills of sale or other
documents of title for such materials.
(8) Subject to the prior written approval of the Engineer, settle all outstanding liabilities and
all claims arising out of subcontracts or orders for materials terminated hereunder. To the extent
directed by the Engineer, the Contractor shall assign to the City all the right, title, and interest of
the Contractor under subcontracts or orders for materials terminated hereunder.
(9) Furnish the Engineer with the documentation required to be furnished by the Contractor
under the provisions of the contract, including, on projects as to which Federal and State funds
are involved, all documentation required under the Federal and State requirements included in the
contract.
(10) Take such other actions as the Engineer may direct.
(B) Acceptance of the contract as hereinafter specified shall not relieve the
Contractor of responsibility for damage to materials. The Contractor shall continue to be responsible for
damage to materials after issuance of the Notice of Termination, except as follows:
(1) The Contractor’s responsibility for damage to materials for which partial payment has
been made as provided in Section IX-2, “Progress Payments,” of the General Conditions and for
materials furnished by the City for use in the Work and unused shall terminate when the Engineer
certifies that such materials have been stored in the manner and at the locations the Engineer has
directed.
(2) The Contractor’s responsibility for damage to materials purchased by the City subsequent
to the issuance of the notice that the contract is to be terminated shall terminate when title and
delivery of such materials has been taken by the City.
(3) When the Engineer determines that the Contractor has completed the Work under the
contract directed to be completed prior to termination and such other work as may have been
ordered to secure the project for termination, the Contractor will recommend that the Engineer
formally accept the contract to the extent performed, and immediately upon and after such
acceptance by the Engineer, the Contractor will not be required to perform any further Work
thereon and shall be relieved of the Contractor's contractual responsibilities for injury to persons
or property which occurs after the formal acceptance of the project by the Engineer.
(C) Termination of the contract shall not relieve the surety of its obligation for any
just claims arising out of the work performed.
(D) The total compensation to be paid to the Contractor shall be determined by the
Engineer on the basis of the following:
(1) The reasonable cost to the Contractor, without profit, for all work performed under the
contract, including mobilization, demobilization and work done to secure the project for
termination. In determining the reasonable cost, deductions will be made for the cost of materials
EXHIBIT A
Page 7 of 15
Page A-5 of 9
to be retained by the Contractor, amounts realized by the sale of materials, and for other
appropriate credits against the cost of the work. When, in the opinion of the Engineer, the cost of
a contract item of work is excessively high due to costs incurred to remedy or replace defective or
rejected work, the reasonable cost to be allowed will be the estimated reasonable cost of
performing such work in compliance with the requirements of the plans and specifications and the
excessive actual cost shall be disallowed.
(2) A reasonable allowance for profit on the cost of the work performed as determined under
Subsection (1), provided the Contractor establishes to the satisfaction of the Engineer that it is
reasonably probable that the Contractor would have made a profit had the contract been
completed and provided further, that the profit allowed shall in no event exceed four (4) percent
of said cost.
(3) The reasonable cost to the Contractor of handling material returned to the vendor,
delivered to the City, or otherwise disposed of as directed by the Engineer.
(4) A reasonable allowance for the Contractor’s administrative costs in determining the
amount payable due to termination of the contract.
(5) A reasonable credit to the City for defective or incomplete work not corrected.
All records of the Contractor and subcontractors necessary to determine compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this Section 5 shall be open to inspection or audit by representatives of
the City at all times after issuance of the Notice of Termination and for a period of three (3) years,
thereafter, and such records shall be retained for that period.
After acceptance of the Work by the Engineer, the Engineer may make payments on the basis of
interim estimates pending issuance of the Final Estimate in accordance with Section IX -7, “Final
Payment,” of the General Conditions when, in the Engineer's opinion, the amount thus paid, together with
all amounts previously paid or allowed, will not result in total compensation in excess of that to which the
Contractor will be entitled. All payments, including payment upon the Final Estimate shall be subject to
deduction for prior payments and amounts, if any, to be kept or retained under the provisions of the
contract.
If this contract is terminated by the City for cause, and it is later determined that the proper basis
for a termination for cause did not exist, the termination shall be deemed to have been a termination for
convenience and governed by the terms of this contract dealing with such termination.
If the contract is terminated by the City for cause or convenience, such termination shall neither
act as a waiver by the City of its right to require the Contractor to correct defects in the Work performed
by the Contractor nor void any warranties applicable to the Work performed under the contract.
The provisions of this Section 5 shall be included in all subcontracts.
In the event of conflict between the termination provisions of this Section 8 and any other
provision or the contract, this Section 5 shall prevail.
8. Performance by Sureties. In the event of any termination as herein before provided, City
shall immediately give written notice thereof to Contractor and Contractor's sureties and the sureties shall
have the right to take over and perform the Agreement, provided, however, that if the sureties, within five
(5) working days after giving them said notice of termination, do not give the City written notice of their
EXHIBIT A
Page 8 of 15
Page A-6 of 9
intention to take over the performance of the Agreement and do not commence performance thereof
within five (5) working days after notice to the City of such election, City may take over the Work and
prosecute the same to completion by contract or by any other method it may deem advisable, for the
account, and at the expense, of Contractor, and the sureties shall be liable to City for any excess cost or
damages occasioned City thereby; and, in such event, City may, without liability for so doing, take
possession of and utilize in completing the Work such materials, appliances, plant, and other property
belonging to Contractor as may be on the site of the Work and necessary therefore. Should Contractor
contract in an individual capacity, the surety bond shall contain the following provision: “Should
Contractor contract in the Contractor’s individual capacity, the death of the Contractor shall not relieve
the surety of its obligations.”
9. Hold-Harmless Agreement and Contractor's Insurance. Contractor agrees to, and shall,
hold City, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees harmless from any liability
for damage or claims for damage for personal injury, including death, as well as from claims for property
damage which may arise from Contractor's or any of Subcontractor's operations under this Agreement,
whether such operations be by Contractor or by any Subcontractor or Subcontractors, or by any one or
more persons directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as agent for, Contractor or any Subcontractor
or Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to, and shall, defend City and its elective and appointive boards,
officers, agents, and employees from any suits or actions at law or in equity for damages caused, or
alleged to have been caused, by reason of any of the aforesaid operations, provided as follows:
(A) The City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Contractor which it may have
by reason of the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the
deposit with City by Contractor, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter described in
Paragraph 15, “Insurance” hereof.
(B) That the aforesaid hold-harmless agreement by Contractor shall apply to all damages and
claims for damages of every kind suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of
the aforesaid operations of Contractor or any Subcontractor, regardless of whether or not such
insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims
for damages.
10. Insurance. The Contractor shall take out and maintain during the life of this Agreement
the following policies of insurance:
(A) Workers' Compensation and Employers' Liability Insurance providing full
statutory coverage.
In signing this Agreement, the Contractor makes the following certification, required by
Section 1861 of the California Labor Code:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which
require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers' Compensation
or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and
I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the
work of this contract".
(B) Comprehensive General Liability Insurance.
Public Liability Insurance (includes premises, elevator - if applicable, products,
completed operations, personal injury and contractual):
EXHIBIT A
Page 9 of 15
Page A-7 of 9
(1) Bodily Injury Liability:
$ 500,000 each person $1,000,000 each occurrence
(2) Property Damage Liability [includes XCU (explosion, collapse, and underground
damage); water damage and broad form property damage or third party liability]:
$ 500,000 per occurrence
(C) Comprehensive Automobile Liability Insurance (includes owned, non-owned,
and hired vehicles):
(1) Bodily Injury Liability:
$ 500,000 per person $1,000,000 each occurrence
(2) Property Damage Liability:
$ 500,000 each occurrence
(D) It is agreed that the insurance required by Subsections B and C, in an aggregate
amount of not less than ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,500,000), shall
be extended to include as additional insured the City of South San Francisco, its elective and appointive
boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, with respect to operations performed by the Contractor,
as described herein. Evidence of this insurance described above shall be provided to City upon execution
of this Agreement and shall be subject to approval of the City Attorney as to form, amount, and carrier.
The policy of insurance shall also contain a provision indicating that such insurance shall not be reduced
or cancelled except upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to City. In addition, the following
endorsement shall be made on said policy of insurance:
"The following are named as additional insured on the above policies: The City of South
San Francisco, its elective and appointive boards, officers, agents, and employees."
"Notwithstanding any other provision in this policy, the insurance afforded hereunder to
the City of South San Francisco shall be primary as to any other insurance or re-insurance
covering or available to the City of South San Francisco, and such other insurance or
reinsurance shall not be required to contribute to any liability or loss until and unless the
approximate limit of liability afforded hereunder is exhausted."
The above requirements that the City be named as additional insured, that the insurance
shall be primary to any other, and that the insurance not be cancelled without notice, shall be provided in
the form of an endorsement signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company providing
coverage, who shall declare his or her authority to sign on behalf of the insurer.
11. Proof of Carriage of Insurance. Contractor shall furnish City through the Engineer,
concurrently with the execution hereof, with satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required and
that each carrier shall give City at least thirty (30) calendar days prior notice of the cancellation or change
of any policy during the effective period of this contract. Further, if the Contractor’s insurance policy
includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s
liability, or which has the effect of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others,
including additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such provisions
EXHIBIT A
Page 10 of 15
Page A-8 of 9
must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the additional insured coverage required by
this agreement so as to not prevent any of the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-
insured retention required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liability. Additionally, the
certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any self-insured retention
and also must disclose the deductible.
12. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative, and in addition
to and not in limitation of, any other rights or remedies available to City.
13. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified
mail, postage prepaid.
Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
City Clerk
City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, California 94080
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Notices required to be given sureties of Contractor shall be addressed as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________
Notices required to be given to the Escrow Agent of Contractor, if any, shall be addressed as
follows:
_________________________________________________________________________
14. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes each other gender, the singular
includes the plural, and vice versa.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of twelve
(12) pages (being pages A-1 through A-12), each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed
an original of said Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named, on the day and
year first hereinabove written.
ATTEST: CITY: City of South San Francisco,
a municipal corporation
_______________________________ By: _____________________________
City Clerk Mike Futrell, City Manager
CONTRACTOR:_______________________
EXHIBIT A
Page 11 of 15
Page A-9 of 9
__________________________________
ATTEST: By:_______________________________
(If Contractor is an individual, so state.
_____________________________ If Contractor is a Corporation, a corporate seal
or signatures of the President or Vice President
and the Secretary Treasurer are required).
EXHIBIT A
Page 12 of 15
ATTACHMENT A
ESCROW AGREEMENT FOR
SECURITY DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RETENTION
THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the City of South
San Francisco whose address is 400 Grand Ave., P.O. Box 711, South San Francisco, CA 94083,
hereinafter referred to as "City," and ________________________________________,whose address
is ___________________________________________________________, hereinafter called
“Contractor” and ______________________________________________________________,whose
address is ___________________________________________________________, hereinafter called
“Escrow Agent.”
For the consideration hereinafter set forth, the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent agree as follows:
1. Pursuant to Section 22300 of the Public Contract Code of the State of California,
Contractor has the option to deposit securities with Escrow Agent as a substitute for retention earnings
required to be withheld by Owner pursuant to the Construction Contract entered into between the
Owner and Contractor for __________________ in the amount of _______________dollars ($_____)
dated ___________ (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Alternately, on written request of the
Contractor, the Owner shall make payments of the retention earnings directly to the Escrow Agent.
When the Contractor deposits the securities as a substitute for Contract earnings, the Escrow Agent
shall notify the Owner within 10 working days of the deposit. The market value of the securities at
the time of the substitution shall be at least equal to the cash amount then required to be withheld as
retention under the terms of the Contract between the Owner and Contractor. Securities shall be held
in the name of _______________, and shall designate the Contractor as the beneficial owner.
2. The Owner shall make progress payments to the Contractor for those funds which
otherwise would be withheld from progress payments pursuant to the Contract provisions, provided
that the Escrow Agent holds securities in the form and amount specified above.
3. When the Owner makes payment of retentions earned directly to the Escrow Agent,
the Escrow Agent shall hold them for the benefit of the Contractor until the time that the escrow
created under this contract is terminated. The Contractor may direct the investment of the payments
into securities. All terms and conditions of this agreement and the rights and responsibilities of the
parties shall be equally applicable and binding when the Owner pays the Escrow Agent directly.
4. Contractor shall be responsible for paying all fees for the expenses incurred by
Escrow Agent in administering the Escrow Account and all expenses of the Owner. These expenses
and payment terms shall be determined by the Owner, Contractor, and Escrow Agent.
5. The interest earned on the securities or the money market accounts held in escrow
and all interest earned on that interest shall be for the sole account of Contractor and shall be subject
to withdrawal by Contractor at any time and from time to time without notice to the Owner.
6. Contractor shall have the right to withdraw all or any part of the principal in the
Escrow Account only by written notice to Escrow Agent accompanied by written authorization from
the Owner to the Escrow Agent that Owner consents to the withdrawal of the amount sought to be
withdrawn by Contractor.
7. The Owner shall have a right to draw upon the securities in the event of default by
the Contractor. Upon seven day’s written notice to the Escrow Agent from the Owner of the default,
the Escrow Agent shall immediately convert the securities to cash and shall distribute the cash as
instructed by the Owner.
EXHIBIT A
Page 13 of 15
8. Upon receipt of written notification from the Owner certifying that the Contract is
final and complete, and that the Contractor has complied with all requirements and procedures
applicable to the Contract, Escrow Agent shall release to Contractor all securities and interest on
deposit less escrow fees and charges of the Escrow Account. The escrow shall be closed immediately
upon disbursement of all moneys and securities on deposit and payments of fees and charges.
9. Escrow Agent shall rely on the written notifications from the Owner and the
Contractor pursuant to Sections (5) to (8), inclusive, of this Agreement, and the Owner and Contractor
shall hold Escrow Agent harmless from Escrow Agent’s release and disbursement of the securities and
interest as set forth above.
10. The names of the persons who are authorized to give written notice or to receive
written notice on behalf of the Owner and on behalf of Contractor in connection with the foregoing,
and exemplars of their respective signatures are as follows:
On behalf of Owner: On behalf of Contractor:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Title Title
__________________________________ __________________________________
Name Name
__________________________________ __________________________________
Signature Signature
__________________________________ __________________________________
Address Address
On behalf of Escrow Agent:
__________________________________
Title
__________________________________
Name
__________________________________
Signature
__________________________________
Address
At the time the Escrow Account is opened, the Owner and Contractor shall deliver to the
Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement.
EXHIBIT A
Page 14 of 15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement by their proper officers
on the date first set forth above.
Owner: Contractor:
__________________________________ __________________________________
Title Title
__________________________________ __________________________________
Name Name
__________________________________ __________________________________
Signature Signature
Approved as to form: Attest:
_____________________________________ __________________________________
City Attorney Date City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Page 15 of 15
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-742 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:8.
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of June 13, 2018, June 20, 2018, July 11, 2018 and July 25,
2018.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CALL TO ORDER Time: 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Garbarino, and Gupta,
Vice Mayor Matsumoto (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) and Mayor
Normandy
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Herman Alcalde, Measure W Citizens’ Oversight Committee member, expressed concern with
Measure W funds being used for CalPERS. He asked what source of revenue the City intended to use
to pay the CalPERS obligation. Councilmember Addiego stated the City was responsible for $152
million of pension liability and suggested the information be shared with the Oversight Committee.
Mr. Alcalde stated the Committee had no obligation to oversee the City’s finances, rather reviewed
the auditor’s report on Measure W expenditures.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Study session regarding Community Civic Campus project site plan recommendation and
schematic design scope. (Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager and Smith Group JJR, Master
Architect)
Assistant City Manager Lee introduced the Community Civic Campus project and discussed
increased construction costs. She presented the City’s goals for the project, an overview of
the decisions to date, and an updated working schedule. She introduced Mark Roddy with
the Smith Group.
Mark Roddy, Design Director Smith Group, JJR, explained public outreach process and
general themes of public feedback. He presented an overview of a proposed Campus Master
Plan and explained the logistics of the campus in detail.
Assistant City Manager Lee provided an overview of the project cost and funding and
presented the building plan packages. She explained the variables that affected the cost
increases and the steps the City was taking to contain the costs.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPECIAL MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, June 13, 2018
6:00 p.m.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
Director of Finance Lee discussed the project funding plan in detail including the bonding
process for the City.
Assistant City Manager Lee concluded the presentation, noting the cost consequences
associated with a delayed decision.
Council Member Gupta praised the staff and team. He confirmed that the project was
changed to a three-story building to reduce costs, opening area for greenspace and future
accommodations. He stated his satisfaction with the plans. He also mentioned that the City
could potentially earn more revenue than projected. He expressed concern with the parking
entrance crossing the pedestrian trail and having flexibility between the parking spaces for
Parks and Recreation and Library. He inquired on the entry points to the campus.
Council Member Garbarino concurred about the entrance to the campus. He noted the value
in the project and suggested not tapping into other sources of City funding. He commended
staff for the project plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she would not have voted for the proposed plan and
similarities to the School Board with Prop J. She noted her disapproval with the design and
the importance of IT within the Police Department. She mentioned other sources of funding
for the project.
Council Member Addiego concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto’s comments about
the original plan and need to produce something usable for the next 40-50 years. He
suggested considering whether additional funds should be spent on the project. Mayor Pro
Tem Matsumoto voiced her skepticism that $10 million would be raised for the project.
Council Member Addiego discussed the opportunity for expansion in the future and
suggested more work be put into the project. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto proposed a public
private partnership with AGI and KASA to increase costs savings. City Manager Futrell
reassured the Council that the planners and staff all shared a common goal of meeting the
aspirational needs that were expressed by residents and reminded it of the increase in
construction costs. He invited Council to review the budget to see if there funds available for
the project. He mentioned that the design could be revisited to please the entire community.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto encouraged the suggested budget discussion. Council Member
Addiego took exception to the statement that it was fiscally irresponsible. Mayor Pro Tem
Matsumoto mentioned a new development for park in lieu fees and encouraged further
funding discussions. City Manager Futrell supported discussion regarding funding and
encouraged Council to bring forward any concerns. He stated Measure W funds were
maximized, and additional funding would need to come from an additional source.
Mayor Normandy discussed her meetings with the architects and provided her thoughts on
the Campus Master Plan. She confirmed that the 80 Police Service parking spaces would be
covered and secured and that a loading dock and service elevator would be included in the
plan. She suggested taking the plan to the Subcommittee for further discussion.
City Manager Futrell stated that Council’s direction was sufficient and the architecture of
the project would need to be revisited.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto suggested a short study session so that Council and Staff could
have a more open discussion on the matter. She also inquired on the Oak Avenue extension.
City Manager Futrell informed her that it would be along the green strip in the project
illustrations.
Mayor Normandy tabled Items 2, 2a, and 3 until after the Regular City Council Meeting.
RECESS
Mayor Normandy called a recess at 6:59 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:36 p.m. with all
Councilmembers present.
2. Report regarding a resolution approving the purchase of two type one fire engines in the
amount of $1,393,163; authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with
Hi-Tech Emergency Vehicle Service, Inc., for the construction and purchase of two fire
engines; approving the purchase of tools and equipment related to this apparatus purchase in
the amount of $56,837; and approving budget amendment 18.028 in the amount of $250,000
to appropriate funds from the Developer Contribution Fund towards the total purchase
amount.
2a. Resolution approving the purchase of two type one fire engines in the amount of
$1,393,163; authorizing the City Manager to enter into a purchase agreement with
Hi-Tech Emergency Vehicle Service, Inc., for the construction and purchase of two
fire engines; approving the purchase of tools and equipment related to this apparatus
purchase in the amount of $56,837; and approving budget amendment 18.028 in the
amount of $250,000 to appropriate funds from the Developer Contribution Fund
towards the total purchase amount.
Fire Chief Magallanes presented a report recommending Council approve the purchase of
two type one fire engines. He stated the use of the departments engines, the replacement
schedule, and the total cost of the purchase. He requested that Council approve the motion
authorizing the purchase.
Council Member Addiego voiced his satisfaction with Staff being able to find the funds
necessary to finance the purchase of the fire engines and suggested Staff use the process for
the Civic Center.
Motion – Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto / Second - Councilmember Garbarino: to approve Item 2a.
Approved by roll call vote:
Yes: 5 - Mayor Normandy, Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Councilmember Garbarino,
Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember Addiego
Enactment No: RES 83-2018
3. Report regarding a resolution awarding a construction contract to LC General Engineering
& Construction, Inc. of San Francisco, CA for the Grand Boulevard Initiative Project: Phase
I and II in an amount not to exceed $5,748,633 and authorizing a total construction budget
not to exceed $7,769,368, and rejecting all bid protests. (Matthew Ruble, Senior Civil
Engineer)
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 4
3a. Resolution awarding a construction contract to LC General Engineering &
Construction, Inc. of San Francisco, California for the Grand Boulevard Initiative
Project - Phase I and II in an amount not to exceed $5,748,633 and authorizing a
total construction budget not to exceed $7,769,368, and rejecting all bid protests.
Engineer Ruble presented Council with an overview of the Grand Boulevard Initiative
Project phase I and II and explained the reasons for combining the two phases. He discussed
the bids that the City received and provided a Staff recommendation.
Council Member Garbarino inquired on the construction schedule, the effect construction
would have on surrounding businesses. Engineer Ruble informed him that the construction
would take one season and would be finished Winter 2018, the project work with
surrounding businesses to provide information regarding the construction schedule and
effects.
Council Member Gupta inquired on the details of the bid protest and requested information
regarding the construction plan for El Camino for his review.
Engineer Ruble informed him that Staff interpreted the original bid based on the hand
writing in the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto inquired on placing a sidewalk on the west side of Grand
Avenue.
Engineer Ruble informed her that the City would need CalTrans approval to do work on
state highway.
Council Member Addiego concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto.
City Manager Futrell recommended Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto direct her suggestion for a
sidewalk to the Bike and Pedestrian Masterplan.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto mentioned the bid protest refusal and voiced her concern with
the verbiage of the refusal. She stated that she would be voting no on the item.
City Attorney Rosenberg stated that the City found that there were no major irregularities in
the bid protests and would have discretion if there were. HE stated that Staff believed all bid
protests to be without merit.
Motion - Councilmember Gupta / Second - Councilmember Garbarino: to approve Item 3 and 3a.
Approved by roll call vote:
Yes: 4 - Mayor Normandy, Councilmember Garbarino, Councilmember Gupta, and Councilmember
Addiego.
No: 1 - Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto
Enactment No: RES 84-2018
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 5
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_______________________________ _________________________
Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
CALL TO ORDER Time: 7:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Garbarino, and Gupta,
Vice Mayor Matsumoto, and Mayor Normandy
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PRESENTATIONS
1. South San Francisco Unified Presentation to South San Francisco City Council. (Dr.
Shawnterra Moore, Superintendent of SSFUSD)
SSFUSD Superintendent Moore provided an update on the South San Francisco Unified
School District. She mentioned the District’s vision, the Board of Trustees, the District’s
partnerships, highlights of the District’s facilities, and an update on field projects in the
design phase. She also discussed field maintenance and its evolution over the past 10 years.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto asked who could use the field when not in use by the schools.
Superintendent Moore stated the fields could be reserved through the City’s permit process.
Council Member Addiego expressed his gratitude for Superintendent Moore’s work.
Council Member Gupta mentioned his work with the School District and stated his pleasure
in the results and volunteer work.
Mayor Normandy thanked Superintendent Moore for her work and stated that Council
would like to maintain the relationship and the communication between City Manager
Futrell and the School Board.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Patty Gomez voiced her concern regarding the water leaks and storage shortages in the band room.
She asked about renovations to Parkway. She questioned waivers of park fees due to the
unsatisfactory conditions of the parks in the City. She mentioned her past inquiry for lower cost
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPECIAL MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, June 13, 2018
7:01 p.m.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 13, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
options for the South City groups nonprofit organizations and requested a follow up from the City
and Mr. Futrell regarding an email sent in March 2018.
Mayor Normandy stated she did not know of park fee waivers. She mentioned the quarterly
newsletter which provided information on park improvements.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_______________________________ _________________________
Gabriel Rodriguez, Deputy City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
CALL TO ORDER Time: 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Garbarino, and Gupta,
Vice Mayor Matsumoto and Mayor Normandy.
Absent: None.
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of New Employees. (Mich Mercado, Human Resources Manager)
Human Resources Manager Mercado introduced the new City of South San Francisco
employees as follows:
Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director
Joe Rodriguez, Senior Building Maintenance Custodian
Robert Roman, Police Officer
Scott Peradotto, Police Officer
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Report regarding the fourth public hearing to receive public testimony regarding draft
district maps for City Council elections in the City of South San Francisco pursuant to
Elections Code Section 10010. (Mike Futrell, City Manager and Douglas Johnson, National
Demographics Corporation)
Public Hearing opened: 6:10 p.m.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPECIAL MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 2018
6:00 p.m.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
Management Analyst II Manchester of the City Manager’s Office discussed public outreach on
district elections, including postings on the City’s website, translations and map tools. She
introduced Doug Johnson, the City’s consultant from National Demographics Corporation, to
discuss the focus maps that Staff provided to Council.
Doug Johnson, President of National Demographics, provided an overview on the draft district
maps for City Council Elections in the City of South San Francisco that would be implemented in
2020. He discussed similarities between the 45 different focus maps, which could be found on the
City’s website. In response to Council inquiries, he stated the maps met the legal requirements.
Mayor Normandy indicated her preference for Maps 109, 116, and S44. Councilman Addiego
concurred.
Resident and former Councilman and Mayor Hon. Pedro Gonzalez thanked Council and City Staff
for their work on the focus maps and suggested Map 102b.
Public Hearing closed: 6:45 p.m.
Councilman Gupta stated he needed additional time to review the maps but indicated he did not like
Map 118 due to its impact on voter choice with respect to seated Councilmembers.
Mayor Normandy suggested focusing on neighborhoods not Councilmembers. She discussed Map
118 and queried the process if two (2) councilmembers live in the same district.
Mr. Johnson explained that the councilmembers could leave the Council in 2022 or run for
reelection in 2020 and recommended avoiding that scenario.
Councilman Garbarino stated he liked Maps 109, 106b, 102b, 116, and S44.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated her preference for Maps 102, 109, 117, and 116.
Councilman Addiego stated he liked Map 109 because there were no conflicts and socioeconomic
commonalities were present. He stated Maps 116 and S44 were acceptable.
Councilman Garbarino commended the students and teacher involved in mapping submissions from
El Camino High School.
Councilman Gupta stated Map 109 was his choice.
Mayor Normandy summarized Council consensus on Maps 109, 116, S44, and 102b.
Management Analyst II Manchester stated the public favored Maps 102b and 106b based on three
votes each, with 48 supporting Map 102b.
Mayor Normandy expressed concern with separating Grand Avenue by blocks in Maps 102b and
106b. She stated she preferred Map 116.
Councilman Garbarino added that the districts were well defined in Map 116.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
Mr. Johnson stated 97 people participated in voting on the maps. He explained that Tamarack Lane
was separated into Districts 1 and 2 in Map 116. He explained the reasons for sequencing.
Mayor Normandy clarified that Council concurred on Maps 109, 116, and S44.
City Attorney Rosenberg explained that Council could determine three (3) maps for the ordinance
on June 27, 2018 or decide on one (1) map and discuss sequencing immediately. He stated the
ordinance had to be adopted on July 11, 2018 to meet the safe harbor requirements.
Councilman Addiego clarified that sequencing was dependent on where the current
Councilmembers resided.
Councilmembers Garbarino and Addiego stated Map 109 simplified the sequencing process.
CONSENSUS:
By consensus, the Council selected Map 109.
Mr. Johnson stated Map 109 would simplify sequencing for 2020 in Districts 1 and 3 and 2022 for
Districts 2, 4, and 5. He stated staff would return with renumbered districts.
LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
3. Report regarding an ordinance of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
amending Chapter 4.04.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, pertaining to open
market procedures. (Richard Lee, Director of Finance)
3a. Ordinance of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco amending Section
4.04.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, pertaining to open market procedures.
Director of Finance Lee presented the staff report recommending that Council waive reading and
adopt an ordinance amending Section 4.04.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code,
pertaining to open market procedures.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Director of Finance Lee explained that any City that
received $750,000 of Federal funds or more was required to file a single audit. He discussed the
funds received and utilized by the City.
Motion – Councilman Addiego / Second - Councilman Garbarino: to waive reading and introduce
an Ordinance, amending Section 4.04.080 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, pertaining to
open market procedures. Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
4. Study session on smart growth in South San Francisco. (Alex Greenwood, Economic &
Community Development Director)
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 4
Councilman Addiego discussed the community’s concern regarding the meeting venue and
suggested having the presentation again at the regular City Council meeting. Councilmembers
agreed to hear the item again at its upcoming July 11, 2018 Regular Meeting.
Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood presented a PowerPoint outlining the
context of the current development cycle, projects, projected new development applications, and
economic and policy issues. Director Greenwood continued the presentation discussing the Oyster
Point Development, Caltrain Station, and affordable housing projects.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Director Greenwood discussed the existing 12 million
square feet of biotech space and additional 7.2 million square feet over the next two (2) years. He
stated the City had 25 million square feet of industrial space.
In response to Councilman Garbarino, Director Greenwood stated there was a 20-unit townhome
project being built on McLellan and Mission Road and that construction would be resumed shortly.
Director Greenwood continued his presentation with projects that were going through planning and
would be under construction within one (1) to two (2) years. He stated Genentech would be
doubling its existing space, which would be subject to the 10-Year Master Plan. He informed
Councilman Addiego that Genentech was forecasting 11,000 to 13,000 employees as a result of the
new development. He informed Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto that the Master Plan would be before
Council within the next year. He continued his presentation outlining the new Downtown proposals.
In response to Councilman Addiego, he indicated he could not determine what would happen to the
parking for the small project on Linden Avenue.
Mayor Normandy asked if applicants were advised that areas such as 410 Noir were not residential.
Director Greenwood responded that the City informed applicants that they would need to appeal to
the City Council. Mayor Normandy suggested advising applicants of the other costs involved in the
entire application process.
Director Greenwood continued his presentation describing projects in the El Camino and Chestnut
areas. He informed Mayor Normandy that he was unaware of the proposed number of stories for the
Kaiser project. He discussed future research and development and office proposals and mentioned
the economic outlook for the region, and the impact of new development on City services.
Councilman Addiego discussed the growth experienced by the City and its ability to cure long-term
revenue needs. He mentioned the major predictions for employment, transportation demand
management and housing.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto discussed the upcoming Chamber of Commerce luncheon with major
policy makers.
Councilman Garbarino discussed telecommuting for employees that worked less traditional work
weeks and suggested having companies work on improving traffic conditions for employees.
Director Greenwood informed Council that Staff would be providing a revised Transportation
Demand Management Plan.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 5
Councilman Gupta stated he would like to have another discussion with residents that have
experienced growth throughout the City. He suggested considering the costs and benefits of
development. He noted concern for the unique community asset of South San Francisco and
encouraged Staff to continue to foster an environment in which residents were proud to live.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto discussed a critical commercial linkage fee. She mentioned companies
participating in infrastructure updates to accommodate new employees.
5. Report regarding a resolution amending the shuttle services agreement with PCAM, LLC of
Los Angeles, California by an amount of $1,000,305 in a total not to exceed amount of
$1,430,305 and extending the term until June 30, 2020 for the operations of the South City
Shuttle. (Justin Lovell, Public Works Administrator)
5a. Resolution No. 91-2018 amending the shuttle services agreement with PCAM, LLC
of Los Angeles, California by an amount of $1,000,305 in a total not to exceed
amount of $1,430,305 and extending the term until June 30, 2020 for the operations
of the South City Shuttle.
Public Works Administrator Lovell presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a
resolution amending the shuttle services agreement with PCAM, LLC of Los Angeles, California by
an amount of $1,000,305 in a total not to exceed amount of $1,430,305 and extending the term until
June 30, 2020 for the operations of the South City Shuttle. He introduced Manny Mateo from
PCAM. Administrator Lovell discussed the operations of the South City Shuttle, ridership, and
provided staff’s recommendation for future operations.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto reported concerns of interns who rode the shuttle and provided
recommendations to improve ridership.
Councilman Addiego stated a counter- clockwise route would reduce the full loop ride time and he
discussed the quality of bus drivers that are attracted by the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto suggested taking into account students, especially at Los Cerritos
Elementary.
Councilman Addiego discussed the bus wrap making it hard to see riders inside of the bus.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto suggested adding a plastic advertisement area to the side of shuttles to
provide advertising for City events.
Public Works Administrator Lovell stated more signs would need to be implemented to
accommodate the alternate shuttle line.
Motion – Councilman Garbarino / Second – Councilman Gupta: to adopt Resolution No.91-2018.
Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
6. Report regarding a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a consulting
services agreement with Alta Planning for the preparation of a citywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $270,000 and adopting budget
amendment 18.032 appropriating an additional $40,000 from the General Plan Maintenance
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 6
Reserve in the Developer Deposit Fund for Capital Improvement Project 1705. (Nell
Selander, Economic & Community Development Deputy Director)
6a. Resolution No. 92-2018 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a consulting
services agreement with Alta Planning for the preparation of a citywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan in an amount not to exceed $270,000 and adopting budget
amendment 18.032 appropriating an additional $40,000 from the General Plan
Maintenance Reserve in the Developer Deposit Fund for Capital Improvement
Project 1705.
Deputy Director for Economic and Community Development Selander provided a brief report on
the selection of the bicycle and pedestrian master plan consultant. She introduced the representative
from the selected consultant, Alta Planning.
Deputy Selander informed Councilman Addiego of the General Plan Maintenance Reserve and that
it was funded by a fee on every building permit issued.
Director of Finance Lee informed Councilman Addiego of the ways that the General Plan
Maintenance Reserve could be spent outside of a project like the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan.
Councilman Gupta inquired on the timeline of the project. Deputy Selander stated it would be about
18 months and would be about six (6) months ahead of the General Plan and work in concert with
the general plan update.
Councilman Gupta suggested delegating resources to make modifications based on the final General
Plan so that changes could be taken care of within the project.
Mayor Normandy suggested using Lime Bikes for the tour of the bicycle and pedestrian project.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto confirmed that “citywide” included East of 101. Deputy Selander
discussed the three (3) components of the consultant selection process. Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto
suggested using CCAG and the TA for volunteer work. She discussed the mandate for separate
biking and walking paths.
Motion – Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto/Second - Mayor Normandy: to adopt Resolution No. 92-
2018. Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute first amendments to
two consulting services agreements for administrative, plan review and inspections services:
1) renewing an agreement with CSG Consultants Inc. for two years in the amount not to
exceed $1,400,000 for each year of the two year contract, and 2) renewing an agreement
with West Coast Code Consultants for two years in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for
each year of the two year contract period. (Phillip Perry, Chief Building Official)
7a. Resolution No. 93-2018 authorizing the City Manager to execute first amendments
to two consulting services agreements for administrative, plan review, and
inspections services: 1) renewing an agreement with CSG Consultants Inc. for two
years in the amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for each year of the two year contract,
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 20, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 7
and 2) renewing an agreement with West Coast Code Consultants for two years in an
amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for each year of the two-year contract period.
Chief Building Official Perry presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a
resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute first amendments to two (2) consulting services
agreements for administrative, plan review, and inspections services: 1) renewing an agreement
with CSG Consultants Inc. for two (2) years in the amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for each year
of the two (2) year contract, and 2) renewing an agreement with West Coast Code Consultants for
two (2) years in an amount not to exceed $1,400,000 for each year of the two (2) year contract
periods.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto voiced support for the item and inquired on the differences in the two
(2) contracts. Chief Building Official Perry explained that the contracts were for the same amount
and the residual would carry over to the next year if unused funds remained.
Director Greenwood clarified the resolution for the two (2) year term. Director of Finance Lee
stated there was $10.9 million in the budget for building permits in Fiscal Year 18/19.
Director Greenwood stated 55% of building permit revenue was used to pay the consultant and the
City kept the remainder. He added that there were no consulting fees if the City did the consulting
in house.
Motion – Councilman Addiego/Second- Councilman Gupta: to adopt Resolution No. 93-2018
Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Report regarding a resolution accepting a letter from Measure W Citizens’ Oversight
Committee independently verifying FY 2016-17 audited financials. (William Zemke,
Measure W Citizens’ Oversight Committee Chair)
8a. Resolution No. 94-2018 accepting a letter from the Measure W Citizens’ Oversight
Committee independently verifying Fiscal Year 2016-17 audited financials.
Motion – Councilman Gupta/Second- Councilman Garbarino: to approve the Consent Calendar.
Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_______________________________ _________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
CALL TO ORDER TIME: 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Addiego, Garbarino and Gupta,
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto and Mayor
Normandy.*
ABSENT: None.
*For purposes of these minutes Successor Agency Member titles are assumed in the reference to
Councilmembers titles and all actions and discussions are on behalf of the Council and Successor
Agency unless otherwise specified.
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - comments are limited to items on the Joint Special Meeting.
None.
MINUTES
JOINT SPECIAL
MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
&
SUCCESSOR AGENCY
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2018
6:00 p.m.
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 11, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
City Council only:
1. Report regarding a resolution approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement
with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC, an affiliate of AGI Avant Group, Inc. and
KASA Partners (“AGI-KASA” or “developer”) for the development of a former
South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency property known as the PUC Site (APN
011-312-060), and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Rights Agreement on behalf of the City. (Mike Lappen, Economic Development
Coordinator)
1a. Resolution No. 111-2018 approving an Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement (ENRA)
with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC, an affiliate of AGI Avant Group, Inc. and KASA
Partners (“AGI-KASA” or the “Developer”) for the development of a former South San
Francisco Redevelopment Agency property known as the PUC Site (APN
011-312-060), and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Exclusive Negotiating
Rights Agreement on behalf of the City.
Community Development Coordinator Lappen presented the staff report recommending that Council
adopt a resolution approving an ENRA with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC, an affiliate of AGI Avant
Group, Inc. and KASA Partners for the development of a former South San Francisco Redevelopment
Agency property known as the PUC Site and authorizing the City Manager to execute an ENRA on behalf
of the City. Coordinator Lappen explained the ENRA would encompass about six (6) acres of the 21 acre
PUC site that was acquired by the Redevelopment Agency in 2007. After the dissolution of the
Redevelopment Agency, the State approved a long range property management plan (LRPMP) to develop
the site for mixed use housing, which includes high density housing. In October 2017, as part of the
developer selection process, staff issued an RFP to six (6) finalist developers, five (5) of whom responded
in February with proposals. In March, the Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and Planning
Commission interviewed the developers, recommending AGI-KASA and Blake Griggs to the City
Council. In April, two (2) public meetings were held to gather community feedback and all five (5)
developers were invited before Council to make proposals. In May, the City Council selected AGI-
KASA to enter into an ENRA and move forward with the project. This evening, the Council was being
presented with the ENRA. Neither the Council nor Successor Agency would be evaluating or approving
a project at this point. Project approvals would come much later in the process. The ENRA Agreement
between the Developer and the City would allow staff and the Developer to begin the community
engagement process and shape the type of project the community would accept and enjoy.
Coordinator Lappen then moved to a discussion of the proposed ENRA terms as follows: 1) A one (1)-
year term; 2) A deposit of $150,000 (extending the term six (6) months would require additional
deposits); and 3) The community outreach plan would be due within 30 days after approval of the ENRA.
At the end of the ENRA term, Council would consider the key documents that would drive the project: a
Development Agreement; a Purchase and Sale Agreement; and Affordable Housing Agreements. He
closed the staff report with the recommendation that Council adopt a resolution approving the ENRA
with SSF PUC Housing Partners, LLC to develop the PUC site.
Councilman Gupta asked about the agreement’s first phase plan to build affordable residential units.
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 11, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
Coordinator Lappen responded that the ENRA provides flexibility at this phase to permit financing on the
affordable housing side. At the appropriate time later in the process, staff and the Developer will look at
the phasing more closely. The ENRA is not the Purchase and Sale Agreement so more flexibility is
permissible.
Councilman Gupta was sympathetic to this concept, but emphasized the significance of affordable
housing and its inclusion in the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto questioned the year-long as opposed to 90-day term of the ENRA. She
expressed concern about the length of the term with respect to this specific project given its impact on the
planned Community Civic Process.
Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development Selander explained the rationale behind the
longer ENRA, which included a compressed timeline on the significant project documents, including the
Development Agreement, the Purchase and Sale Agreement and other project approvals. Instead of a
shorter ENRA term followed by a longer period of time in which the Developer would seek entitlements
and negotiate the Purchase and Sale Agreements, the first two (2) phases would be condensed into one
(1). She further noted that the ENRA included reporting requirements as touchstones along the way. For
example, the Developer was required to provide the City with benchmark reports every 60 days. Staff
intended to provide these reports to Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto reiterated her concern that if the ENRA unravels after nine (9) or 11 months,
the City will have lost a year while the project restarts back at square one (1).
Councilman Addiego called out a term establishing the City Manager’s discretion with respect to
affordable units stating the significance of the Council’s position with respect to decisions impacting
project direction.
Coordinator Lappen stated the provision was intended to permit flexibility with respect to negotiations.
Council would ultimately approve the project.
Councilman Addiego shared Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto’s concerns about the duration of the ENRA. He
questioned whether the $150,000 initial deposit would be enough to offset the time loss if the ENRA
unraveled.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto read from the ENRA, section 1c stating: “If the parties proceed to negotiate
diligently in good faith but are unable to reach agreement on the terms of disposition and development,
then City will return a prorated portion of the ENRA Deposit and any unspent portion of the
Reimbursement Deposit to Developer in accordance with the provisions of section 5c of this Agreement
and neither Party will have any further rights against or liability to the other under this Agreement, except
as set forth in Section 15 of this Agreement.” She believed this provision to be of major concern.
Councilman Addiego noted $150,000 is a pittance against the impact to both parties- but especially to the
City which would have to start over. Further, the deposit accrues interest pushed against the purchase
price, which could significantly raise it.
Coordinator Lappen clarified the deposit terms as follows: 1) A developer deposit of $150,000; 2) A
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 11, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 4
separate account for the Developer’s deposit of funding to pay for staff time.
Councilman Addiego was more concerned with whether the ENRA deposit would offset the lost time that
occurs if the City had to switch gears and go to a second developer.
Deputy Selander responded that the deposit was similar to the standard deposit required on City projects
and consistent with past practices.
Councilman Addiego believed this to be a remarkably larger project than was typical for the City.
Deputy Selander acknowledged the atypical scope and noted the project similarly impacted the
Developer’s upfront risk. A large upfront Developer investment would be required based upon the
amount of community outreach it would engage over the next six (6)-nine (9) months. It was unusual for
a developer to bear these significant up-front costs in advance of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and/or
Development Agreement. Due to that risk, staff’s efforts to push-back and increase the deposit yielded
the present $150,000 term.
In response to an inquiry from Councilman Garbarino regarding a one (1) year ENRA term on a prior
project, Councilman Addiego noted he believed the Cadence project had a long ENRA term.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she would be more comfortable with a six (6) month term.
Coordinator Lappen acknowledged validity of the concerns. He confirmed the uniqueness of the project
against others noting the City’s practice is to have a much tighter ENRA period of 90 days. But he
pointed to recent significant projects that varied from standard practice. For example, he believed 200
Linden included an 11 month ENRA term for 31,000 square feet. Regarding the complexity of the
current project, because BART was involved, the Developer would have to resolve many planning,
engineering and infrastructure issues upfront. There was also a community process that would be very in -
depth. In essence, the project would involve a very complex design and development process in which the
Developer would likely need to commit in excess of one (1) million dollars upfront. Accordingly, the
Developer would need the assurance that it’s going to have the time and ability to make those investments
worthwhile. On the other hand, it’s important for the City to have the benchmarks, milestones and
deadlines that have been built into the ENRA in return. With respect to the deposit, the Developer
Council selected is a less capitalized, smaller, more community oriented developer. Staff negotiated the
deposit to be consistent with the significant investment required during the design phase.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto disagreed with the 200 Linden Ave. comparison based on the developers
involved. She reiterated that she’d agree with a six (6) month term.
Mayor Normandy invited Andrew Kawahara, a partner with AGI-KASA, to address Council. Mr.
Kawahara stated his firm originally tried to negotiate an 18-month term due to the required and extensive
community outreach program. After negotiations, the Developer agreed to a reduced 12-month term. He
believed his firm would need every bit of the 12-month term to get through the process.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto queried the extent of expected outreach. She referenced the Developer’s
sign-in sheets at a past event that had only 100-120 people listed out of a population of over 65,000.
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 11, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 5
Mr. Kawahara responded that his team is required to meet with multiple stakeholders regarding this
project, including neighborhood groups. In addition 150 people had already signed up for information in
this very early phase of the project.
Councilman Addiego stated that what drew him to select AGI-KASA on the ENRA was its history of
community focused projects and engagement. It was part of the Developer’s uniqueness and suitability
for this project. The Councilman expected community outreach to be expensive given the scale.
Mr. Kawahara responded his team estimated upwards of a $1,000,000 community engagement budget.
Another Principal from AGI-KASA addressed Council. He reiterated the Developer’s commitment to the
community engagement process. He reminded Council of other stakeholders related to the project and the
need to engage them early on, including BART and the Army Corps of Engineers which would likely
assume the Canal. Additionally, several state and local agencies would be a parallel part of the process.
Next, he addressed Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto’s question regarding the expected extent of outreach. He
noted that pursuant to the ENRA, the team was obligated to draft a program including an explicit plan for
community engagement within the first 30 days of the ENRA.
Councilman Garbarino commented on the time necessary to meet the community commitments that were
part of the developer selection deliberations.
Councilman Addiego stated negotiations with the Army Corps of Engineers are time consuming.
Councilman Gupta noted the substantial community engagement commitments by the Developer. While
he agreed with Mayor Pro Tem that six (6) months might be a good compromise, he heard the Developer
say it wouldn’t be able to meet its community engagement obligations in that amount of time.
Accordingly, he was willing to extend the courtesy of a year unless convinced otherwise.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto requested a clarification from staff regarding the Oak Ave Extension. She
noted a term stating “Developer shall fund and construct the Oak Ave Extension as designed by the City
in consultation with interested parties including the Developer. The City and the Developer shall
mutually agree upon the final cost of construction of the Oak Avenue Extension. Developer will
contribute their fair share to the overall cost of the Extension and will be reimbursed for the remaining
construction costs.” She couldn’t understand whether the developer would be paying for the extension or
whether it would be a partner.
City Manager Futrell responded that staff believes it is more cost effective to have the developer build the
road while they’re mobilized. The Developer will contribute $3.2 million to the cost and has further
agreed to a Community Facilities District. That’s the financing mechanism for the Extension.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto supports CFDs, but was concerned with impacted properties and queried
whether there was a proposal for including properties.
City Manager Futrell responded that was a key point under discussion and a study session was planned on
the subject at the appropriate time.
In response to a follow-up question from Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto regarding the expected cost of the
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY MEETING JULY 11, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 6
extension, City Manager Futrell advised the estimate from Public Works/Engineering was $15,000,000.
The Mayor Pro Tem queried whether the Developer’s community outreach would include management of
the Serra Highlands Neighborhood’s opposition to the Oak Avenue Extension.
The City Manager recognized that that community outreach relative to this new road was necessary. The
ENRA requires the developer to present the City with a community outreach plan. Staff could work with
the Developer to make sure that that was covered, although it would likely require more staff interaction
since it’s a public road.
Mayor Normandy stated her belief that the 12-month term was reasonable in light of the project demands.
Motion –Councilman Addiego/Second− Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No.111 -2018.
Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Addiego, Garbarino and Gupta and Mayor
Normandy; NAYS: Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: None.
CLOSED SESSION
2. Closed Session: Conference with Real Property Negotiators: (Pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8) Properties: 216 Miller Ave (APN 012-314-220) City Negotiators: Alex Greenwood and Nell
Selander Negotiating Parties: City of South San Francisco, South San Francisco Successor Agency and
Sares Regis Under Negotiations: Price and terms
Time entered Closed Session: 6:31 p.m.
Meeting recessed: 7:04 p.m.
Meeting and Closed Session resumed: 8:12 p.m.
Open Session resumed: 8:26 p.m.
Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Normandy: No reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Submitted: Approved:
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
Krista J. Martinelli, City Clerk Liza Normandy, Chair
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
CALL TO ORDER Time: 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Addiego, Garbarino, Mayor Pro
Tem Matsumoto and Mayor Normandy.
Absent: None.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Led by Human Resources Director Lockhart.
AGENDA REVIEW
City Manager Futrell requested that Item No. 6 be moved up in the Agenda and heard under Item
No. 1 as a courtesy to Chandler Asset Management, which would be presenting Item No. 1 and was
the subject of the contract renewal at Item 6. The City Manager further advised that the applicant
on Item No. 2, Public Hearing, requested that the Hearing be moved to Council’s September 12,
2018 Regular Meeting. The City Manager recommended opening the noticed Public Hearing and
continuing the item to the September 12, 2018 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting. A postponement was
also requested for Public Hearing Item No. 3, which was recommended for hearing on August 8,
2018 at Council’s 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting.
Councilman Garbarino noted for the record that he would not be present at the September 12, 2018
Regular Meeting of the City Council.
Council agreed to the actions suggested by the City Manager.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
None.
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REGULAR MEETING
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018
7:00 p.m.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation regarding update on the City of South San Francisco’s investment portfolio (Carlos
Oblites, Jayson Schmitt, and Martin Cassell, Chandler Asset Management )
Finance Director Lee introduced Carlos Oblites and Jayson Schmitt of the City's investment adviser,
Chandler Asset Management to provide a scheduled update. The update pertained to the quarter
ended June 30, 2018. Mr. Oblites provided a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing market trends
and impacts on the City’s investment portfolio. He began by providing a backdrop of forces in the
economy that shaped how the portfolio fared, beginning with a slide explaining that interest rates
are on the rise in the US due to economic growth. Economic growth further yielded a drop in
unemployment and slight inflation. While there has been a slowdown in recent months, real estate
values continue to rise and there are higher yields for fixed income investments. Mr. Oblites advised
the federal government is signaling the market that it may increase interest rates one or two more
times by the end of the year. Mr. Oblites next showed a slide depicting the portfolio’s performance
between the quarters ended March 31, 2018 and June 30, 2018 yielding a total value of $97,655,133
up from $97,424,879.
In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, Mr. Schmitt advised that average
maturity at quarter close was 2.56 with a benchmark of 2.67.
Councilman Gupta queried the connection between the interest rate and CalPERS discount rate.
Mr. Schmitt responded that the CalPERS rate is impacted by interest rates similar to other entities.
For example, lower interest rates generally cause a corresponding decrease in the discount rate and
higher interest rates cause a an increase in the discount rate.
Councilman Addiego noted the significance of the City’s credit rating given the potential for going
out to bond in connection with funding for the Community Civic Campus.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
6. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
Consulting Services Agreement with Chandler Asset Management (Richard Lee, Director of
Finance).
6a. Resolution No. 119-2018 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1
to the Consulting Services Agreement with Chandler Asset Management (Richard
Lee, Director of Finance).
Finance Director Lee presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Consulting Services Agreement
with Chandler Asset Management. Director Lee noted that Chandler has served as the City’s
Investment Advisor since 2009. To facilitate ongoing due diligence, the City issued an RFP for
investment advisory services in April of 2018. In response to the RFP, the City received eight (8)
timely responses. Three (3) finalists were selected from amongst the eight (8) bidders. A panel
consisting of Finance Director Lee, City Treasurer Risso, East Palo Alto’s Director of Finance, the
Redwood City Treasurer and the Deputy City Manager of the City of Half Moon Bay interviewed
the finalists. Chandler emerged as the highest rated bidder as a result of this process.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she had no problem with Chandler. She expressed concern about
the evaluation process which included professionals from financially troubled cities.
Councilman Addiego stated that while the cities in question might have financial difficulties related
to policy determinations by their respective leaders, the professionals’ credentials were sound. The
Councilman further commended Chandler for its work on the City’s behalf over the past nine (9)
years.
Councilman Gupta queried the attainability of an AAA Credit rating.
Finance Director Lee advised this issue would be looked at as part of the financing study related to
the Community Civic Campus.
Motion—Councilman Gupta/Second—Councilman Addiego: to approve Resolution No. 119-
2018.Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
Councilman Addiego made note of the passing of former South San Francisco High School
longtime Baseball Coach, Bob Brian. He noted that Coach Brian imparted baseball skills to
generations of South San Francisco’s youth.
Councilman Garbarino noted that his daughter had kept score for Coach Brian’s teams.
Councilman Garbarino requested that the meeting be adjourned in honor of Eleanor Fourie.
The Councilmembers wished a happy 100th birthday to resident Evelyn Martin. Councilman
Garbarino noted her family was one of the 17 Portuguese families that created the Santo Cristo
Society 90 years ago.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto invited the public to a community health and wellness event that would
take place on Saturday morning, July 28, 2018 at the Municipal Service Building Social Hall. She
also requested a tour of the Pinefino Development.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Report recommending approval of an Amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan, a Zoning Text
Amendment, a Development Agreement and a Relocation Agreement to allow for the installation of
a 65 foot tall, double faced, digital billboard on property located at 180 S Airport in exchange for
removal of one double sided billboard along San Mateo Ave and one single sided billboard along El
Camino Real, together with other considerations. (Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 4
2a. Resolution making findings and determining that the 2018 Addendum to the 2015
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental
document for the Outfront Media Digital Billboard Project.
2b. Ordinance making modifications to the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to
Signage Citywide.
2c. Resolution approving of an Amendment to the East of 101 Area Plan and a
Relocation Agreement to allow for the installation of a 65 foot tall, double faced,
digital billboard on property located at 180 S Airport in exchange for removal of one
double-sided billboard along San Mateo Ave (at Lowrie Ave) and one single-sided
billboard on El Camino Real north of Arroyo Blvd, together with other
considerations.
2d. Ordinance adopting a Development Agreement to allow for the installation of a 65
foot tall, double faced, digital billboard on property located at 180 S Airport in
exchange for removal of one double-sided billboard along San Mateo Ave (at Lowrie
Ave) and one single-sided billboard on El Camino Real north of Arroyo Blvd.
Public Hearing opened: 7:29 p.m.
Public Hearing closed: 7:29 p.m.
Motion−Councilman Addiego/Second− Councilman Garbarino to continue the public hearing to the
City Council’s regular meeting of September 12, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Unanimously approved by roll
call vote.
3. A report regarding an ordinance establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District.
(Richard Cho, Senior Engineer and Kathleen Phalen, Project Manager, Swinerton
3a. Ordinance establishing the Mission Road Underground Utility District.
Public hearing opened: 7:30 p.m.
Public hearing closed: 7:30 p.m.
Motion−Councilman Garbarino/Second− Councilman Addiego: to continue the public hearing to
the City Council’s regular meeting of August 8, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. Unanimously approved by roll
call vote.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
4. Report regarding the Community Civic Campus quarterly update for Quarter 4 Fiscal Year 2017-
2018. (Marian Lee, Assistant City Manager and Dolores Montenegro, Kitchell Program Manager)
City Manager Futrell introduced the staff report regarding the Community Civic Campus quarterly
update for the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2017-2018. Mr. Futrell recapped the Special City
Council Meeting of July 13, 2018. He noted that at that meeting a revised master plan and
schematic design were recommended by staff and discussed by Council. On that basis, the
following budget was recommended: $34,000,000 for program management and design;
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 5
$169,000,000 proposed for allocation to construct the base design package including site
preparation, hard/soft landscaping at $18,000,000, Police building with 81 fenced/walled surface
parking spaces $54,000,000, 75,000 gross sq. ft. of Library and Parks and Recreation buildings,
including shared atrium/lobby space $83,000,000. Finally, $14,000,000 reflected the construction
cost estimate for the optional design packages including: 1) 5,000 gross sq. ft. Community
Theatre/City Council Chamber $8,000,000; 2) Police parking canopy $2,000,000; and 3) Additional
soft and hard landscaping $4,000,000. The Fire Station estimated at $15,000,000 would be
designed, but built in a future phase when the Municipal Services Building site is sold to a
developer/interested party at a time to be determined. Mr. Futrell continued noting the cost
estimates include a 10% contingency, and annual construction cost escalation of 6% over the next
2.5 years, as a hedge against rising construction costs. Escalating construction costs continue to be
the highest risk to the project. As a further hedge against higher than expected construction costs,
the project would have multiple design packages to allow for further construction phasing, if
needed. Mr. Futrell next advised Council its preferred design attached to the staff report would cost
$217,000,000. As the recommended construction budget was $210,000,000 staff would pursue an
alternative/phased bidding plan to determine which variables might be added at a later time.
Councilman Addiego recapped the three (3) optional or variable items as follows: the community
Theatre/Council Chambers; Outdoor Space/Landscaping; and the Police Parking Canopy. The
Councilman stated he did not want to sacrifice the integrity of the Parks and Recreation, Library and
Police facilities for structured underground parking.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto disagreed noting without structured underground parking, the facilities
would be surrounded by surface parking right in front of the buildings. She stated she would initiate
a fundraising campaign to secure the funds required to permit structured underground parking.
City Manager Futrell stated the $210,000,000 recommended budget was exclusive of fundraising.
Councilman Addiego believed it would be difficult to raise funds to support landscaping and
structured underground parking.
In response to a question from Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto about the firmness of the budget
estimates, City Manager Futrell stated nothing was certain, but he believed if the $8 million
Community Theater/Council Chambers was postponed, the project could be accomplished with the
$210,000,000 budget. He expected the project to go out to bid in 18 months and cautioned that
construction costs increase $500,000 every month design is delayed.
City Manager Futrell requested direction from Council with respect to the underground parking
issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she misunderstood the direction at a meeting of the City Council
in February. She intended to solicit a petition of over 20,000 signatures in support of the
underground parking in order to preserve open space.
Councilman Addiego pointed out the extra $10,000,000 to secure underground parking outweighed
the $3,000,000 in open space it would yield.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she had always thought the Council agreed on structured
underground parking and the Police Canopy.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 6
In response to a question from Council, City Manager Futrell sought information from Smith Group
as to the impact of a connected Council Chambers/Community Theater.
A Smith Group representative advised this option would save $3,000,000, but the City would lose
the option to phase the bid.
Mayor Normandy stated she believed the public would expect to see a building on the corner of
Chestnut and El Camino Real. She further pointed out that AGI-KASA would likely incorporate
open space in its very nearby design.
Mayor Normandy confirmed that a majority of Council sought a state of the art park and recreation,
library and police facility. It should be designed with surface parking with phased bidding options
for the Community Theater/Council Chambers, landscaping and Police canopy.
City Manager Futrell advised the anticipated surface parking included 220 spaces. Further an option
for solar in the future would be worked into the plans.
Kitchell Project Manager Montenegro advised Council there would be many more opportunities to
weigh-in and finalize decisions along the way.
5. Designation of Voting Delegate and up to Two Alternates for the 2018 League of California
Cities Annual Conference September 12-14, Long Beach (Mike Futrell)
Motion−Councilman Gupta/Second−Councilman Addiego: to designate Councilman Garbarino as
the voting delegate and City Manager Futrell then Mayor Normandy as the alternate voting
delegates for the 2018 League of California Cities Annual Conference. Unanimously approved by
roll call vote.
7. Report regarding a resolution accepting a transfer of funds from San Mateo County in the amount
of $690,000 to purchase open space on Sign Hill, approving Budget Amendment No. 19.003,
ratifying the purchase of a 0.13 acre parcel at Diamond Avenue (APN 012-121-130) and a grant of
a 20.43 acre parcel on Sign Hill (APN 012-351-350), and authorizing the City Manager to accept
the grant deeds for the two properties upon close of escrow. (Richard Lee, Director of Finance)
7a. Resolution No. 120-2018 accepting a transfer of funds from San Mateo County in
the amount of $690,000 to purchase open space on Sign Hill, approving Budget
Amendment No. 19.003, ratifying the purchase of a 0.13 acre parcel at Diamond
Avenue (APN 012-121-130) and a grant of a 20.43 acre parcel on Sign Hill (APN
012-351-350), and authorizing the City Manager to accept the grant deeds for the
two properties upon close of escrow.
Director of Finance Lee presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a resolution
accepting a transfer of funds from San Mateo County in the amount of $690,000 to purchase open
space on Sign Hill, approving Budget Amendment No. 19.003, ratifying the purchase of a 0.13 acre
parcel at Diamond Avenue and a grant of a 20.43 acre parcel on Sign Hill, and authorizing the City
Manager to accept the grant deeds for the two (2) properties upon close of escrow. Director Lee
explained the proposed resolution would accomplish a number of actions to secure the purchase of
property that would generate open space options on Sign Hill. The plan would add 20 acres of
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 7
permanent open space, including habitat preservation and walking trails. The Planning Commission
determined the proposed plan as consistent with the General Plan on July 19, 2018.
Motion—Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto/Second—Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No.
120-2018.Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
CONSENT CALENDAR
8. Motion to approve the Minutes from the meetings of May 23, 2018 and July 11, 2018.
9. Motion confirming payment registers for July 25, 2018. (Richard Lee, Director of Finance)
10. Motion to cancel the regular meeting of the City Council for August 22, 2018.
11. Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements for the Grand Avenue
Pedestrian Improvements Project and West Orange Avenue/Centennial Way Pedestrian Beacon
Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (total construction cost of
$333,973). (Richard Cho, Sr. Civil Engineer)
12. Report regarding adoption of a resolution of intention to approve an amendment to the contract
between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and
the City of South San Francisco to increase Classic Safety member contributions to pension (Leah
Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
12a. Resolution No. 121-2018 of Intention to Approve an Amendment to Contract
between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco.
Item No. 8: Councilman Garbarino requested that “Lyons” be changed to “Lions” in the July 11,
2018 Regular Meeting Minutes.
Item No. 9: In response to a question from Councilman Garbarino, Director of Finance Lee clarified
an interest payment.
Item No. 10: In response to a suggestion from Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto, the Council determined
to leave the question of cancelling the second regular meeting in August open until the August 8,
2018 Regular Meeting.
Item No. 12: At the request of Council, City Manager Futrell explained the potential CalPERS
liability issue and noted the change in policy at the state level might bankrupt certain cities. The
present action was to amend the City’s public safety MOUs to accommodate a greater contribution
by employees. This action, which had been approved by the public safety unions, would help the
City remain in good standing with respect to its PERS obligations.
Motion− Councilman Addiego/Second−Councilman Garbarino: to approve Consent Calendar Items
Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 12. Unanimously approved by roll call vote.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 8
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL - COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. in honor of Coach
Bob Ryan and Eleanor Fourie.
Submitted by: Approved by:
_______________________________ _________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
CALL TO ORDER TIME: 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Garbarino and Gupta, Mayor
Pro Tem Matsumoto and Mayor Normandy.
EXCUSED: Councilman Addiego.
AGENDA REVIEW
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - comments are limited to items on the Joint Special Meeting.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
1. Report regarding a study session on a proposed residential parking permit program. (Justin
Lovell, Public Works Administrator, Public Works Department)
Public Works Administrator Lovell presented the staff report recommending that Council review and
provide direction on the proposed residential parking permit program. He provided a brief history
detailing background on the issue as follows: In September 2002, the City Council adopted an ordinance
adding Chapter 11.70 regarding preferential parking areas to mitigate concerns of overflow BART
parking. As a result, the City established a preferential parking area in Buri Buri, Sunshine Gardens and
the Promenade neighborhoods. The preferential parking rules allow vehicles without a permit to park for
three (3) hours. Vehicles with a permit can park for up to 72 hours without moving. In late 2014,
MINUTES
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
Meeting to be held at:
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
33 ARROYO DRIVE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 2018
6:00 p.m.
SPECIAL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 2
concerns about residential parking prompted the Police Department to conduct a study in January and
February 2015 to examine the effectiveness of the preferential parking area in the Buri Buri, Sunshine
Gardens, and Promenade neighborhoods. In May 2015, the Police Department and Public Works
Department found that there was no issue with BART overflow parking in the preferential parking area as
the majority of vehicles chalked were owned by residents of the neighborhood. At the March 6, 2017
City Council retreat, issues regarding residential parking were identified. Public Works staff agreed to
revisit the creation of the residential parking permit program to mitigate residential parking concerns. On
May 9, 2017, residents from the Historic Old Town Homeowners/Renters Association (HOTHRA)
attended the Parking Place Commission meeting to address their concerns about parking within their
neighborhood. Staff met with the Environmental Standing Committee of the City Council on May 30,
2017 to review the proposed residential parking permit program. At the conclusion of the meeting, the
Environmental Standing Committee directed staff to continue studying neighboring cities’ existing
programs to determine the best option for the residents of South San Francisco.
Administrator Lovell ran through the results of the study noting that staff created a draft Residential
Parking Permit Program (RPPP) as a result of the study and the parking concerns raised. The draft, which
was attached to the staff report, provided a framework that required neighborhood participation and the
identification of a parking impact generator, such as a high school, transit station, shopping district,
hospital, etc. The draft RPPP was intended for use in single family and multi-family neighborhood areas
to restrict parking to a maximum of two (2) hours unless a residential parking permit is displayed. If a
neighborhood requests an RPP designation, staff would work with the neighborhood to make a
recommendation on whether the Public Works Director should approve or deny the request for a RPPP. If
the request for a RPPP zone was approved, staff would mail letters to the residents within the proposed
permit parking area to inform of the results and notify of the new requirements for on-street parking
within the RPPP area. Residents would have 30 calendar days to appeal the decision of the Public Works
Director. Administrator Lovell closed his report and sought Council’s direction on whether to move
forward with actions necessary to implement the program.
After hearing Administrator Lovell’s report, Council discussed the option and decided that it would not
move forward with the program at this time. Drawbacks related to practical implementation, enforcement
and inability to meaningfully address the concerns at issue were cited. For example, many home have
five (5) vehicles. If permits for only two (2)-three (3) vehicles are authorized, the actual issue of too
many cars per home is not addressed and continues to impact the neighborhood.
Mayor Normandy summarized the consensus of Council, which was “no interest in pursuing the program
at this time.” She believed the issue might be relevant again and revisited after District Elections are
implemented in 2020.
SPECIAL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 3
2. Report regarding a resolution approving an amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement
with Wittman Enterprises, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $280,000 and approving Budget
Amendment No. 19.002 increasing the Fire Department operating budget in the amount of
$75,000. (Richard Walls, Emergency Medical Services Chief)
2a. Resolution No. 116-2018 approving an amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement
with Wittman Enterprises, LLC. in an amount not to exceed $280,000 and approving
Budget Amendment No. 19.002 increasing the Fire Department operating budget in the
amount of $75,000.
Emergency Medical Services Chief Walls presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a
Resolution increasing the City’s contract authority and associated funding for a fee for services
ambulance billing contract with Wittman Enterprises. Chief Walls explained the current contract
authority is limited to $175,000; staff recommended raising that to $280,000. This has become necessary
because the collected ambulance revenue has outperformed projections. There is also a significant one
(1)-time revenue boost from reprocessing accounts previously held by Novato. Therefore, the Department
recommended the budget amendment in the amount of $75,000 to cover the 4-1/2% Wittman fee. Staff
believed that all outstanding revenue from previous billers would be collected during the fiscal year and
forecasting of advance revenues and relative expenses would shortly become more stable.
Councilman Gupta queried the revenue flow structure.
Assistant City Attorney Mattas replied the funds had to be collected before Wittman could be paid.
Motion—Councilman Garbarino/Second—Councilman Gupta: to approve Resolution No. 116-2018.
Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Garbarino and Gupta; Mayor Pro Tem
Matsumoto and Mayor Normandy; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Councilman Addiego.
3. Report regarding a resolution approving a consulting services agreement for the Wet Weather and
Digester Improvements Project at the Water Quality Control Plant with Carollo Engineers of
Walnut Creek, California in an amount not to exceed $3,954,860, authorizing a total construction
management budget of $4,350,346, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreement(Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works, Richard Cho, Senior Civil Engineer and
Brian Schumacker, Plant Superintendent)
3a. Resolution No. 117-2018 approving a consulting services agreement for the Wet Weather
and Digester Improvements Project at the Water Quality Control Plant with Carollo
Engineers of Walnut Creek, California in an amount not to exceed $3,954,860,
authorizing a total construction management budget of $4,350,346, and authorizing the
City Manager to execute the agreement.
Public Works Director Kim introduced the staff report recommending that Council adopt a Resolution
approving a consulting services agreement for the Wet Weather and Digester Improvements Project at the
Water Quality Control Plant with Carollo Engineers of Walnut Creek, California in an amount not to
exceed $3,954,860, authorizing a total construction management budget of $4,350,346, and authorizing
the City Manager to execute the agreement. Director Kim advised the City Council approved award of a
construction contract to Flatiron on July 11, 2018. Carollo is the engineer of record for this project. The
SPECIAL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 4
purpose of the project is to increase the full treatment capacity from 10 million to 40 million gallons per
day while also improving the efficiency and reliability of the facility. The design process for the proposed
improvements required reevaluation of the whole system to carefully engineer modifications to major
components of the facility including conveyance, storage, treatment, and control systems. Director Kim
introduced Project Manager Steve Tarantino to further present the proposal.
Project Manager Tarantino addressed Council. He emphasized the significance of teamwork on this
project. He identified the team as the contractor – Flatiron West, the construction manager – Kennedy
Jenks, and the design engineer – Carollo Engineers. That team is formed to implement the Carollo
project design. This was a very complex project; there were 2500 pages of specifications and 350 sheets,
all of which had to be brought together. The construction manager would be responsible for making sure
the contractor is complying with the plans- that their methods of putting together pipe, pouring concrete,
compacting soil are all done according to the plans and specs. The role of the engineer of record during
construction is to assure quality control performance, which means that all of the items actually being
installed are exactly what was specified. The engineer, as part of his/her scope of work, also participates
in preparing an operations manual and trains the staff on the use of the facility. The control systems are
now extremely sophisticated, so effective training is very important. Putting all of this together, the City
gets a well-functioning plant, trained operations staff and will have wisely spent its $50 million
construction dollars. Mr. Tarantino acknowledged Rick Chan of Carollo Engineering and WQCP plant
Superintendent Schumacker in attendance and invited Council’s questions.
Councilman Gupta queried the means of resolving disagreements between the project team and the
builder and/or engineer.
Mr. Tarantino responded that a disagreement would go to Kennedy Jenks first, as the construction
manager. Kennedy Jenks would agree with the contractor to look at the plans and resolve the issue.
Sometimes it’s not resolvable –maybe the construction manager thinks something, the contractor thinks
another thing, the designer thinks something else. In that case, it would be presented to Mr. Tarantino as
the project manager.
Councilman Gupta queried whether the conflict resolution process is an extra expense.
Mr. Chan of Carollo responded that this activity is included as part of the project’s budget. The
construction budget for the engineered services assumes the costs for the construction manager
responding to requests.
Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto stated she had no issue with Carollo. However, she was troubled by the
process. Carollo designed this project and the bid states that the work can only practically be performed
by Carollo’s design engineer. She believed that Carollo basically built itself another contract for
$4,000,000. Accordingly, she would be voting no.
Councilman Garbarino acknowledged that the contract appeared to be locked in as a sole source. He
would support the resolution because the project needed to move forward, but he was concerned.
Mr. Tarantino responded by noting the impact of liability on bids for the project. He stressed that at issue
was a very complicated set of plans and specifications. It would be extremely difficult for another firm to
come in and digest the plans and specs and take responsibility for them. He opined that no engineer
SPECIAL MEETING JULY 25, 2018
MINUTES PAGE 5
wanted to take on that kind of liability without a substantial fee. He understood the Mayor Pro Tem’s
point and Councilman Garbarino’s concern, but concluded that the liability associated with digesting the
plans and the expense associated with the learning curve on that issue, could have pushed other potential
bidders out.
Councilman Garbarino thanked Mr. Tarantino for this explanation.
Public Works Director Kim advised that the more complex a project is, the more important it is to have
the engineer of record there to provide engineering services during construction, review requests for
information and shop drawings and materials.
Motion—Councilman Gupta/Second—Councilman Garbarino: to approve Resolution No. 117-2018.
Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Garbarino and Gupta and Mayor
Normandy; NAYS: Mayor Pro Tem Matsumoto; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Councilman Addiego.
4. Report regarding a resolution approving a consulting services agreement with Metropolitan
Planning Group of Campbell, California for staff augmentation services in an amount not to
exceed $130,000, authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement, and authorizing a total
budget of $130,000. (Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner)
4a. Resolution No. 118-2018 approving a consulting services agreement with the
Metropolitan Planning Group of Campbell, California for staff augmentation services in
an amount not to exceed $130,000, authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreement, and authorizing a budget of $130,000.
Principal Planner Rozzi presented the staff report recommending that Council adopt a resolution
approving a consulting services agreement with the Metropolitan Planning Group (M Group) of
Campbell, California for staff augmentation services in an amount not to exceed $130,000, authorizing
the City Manager to execute the agreement, and authorizing a budget of $130,000. He noted that the
Planning Division had received a rather large volume of applications over the last two (2) fiscal years and
because of the stretch on staff, it conducted an RFP last fiscal year for staff augmentation by planning
firms. M Group was selected through a competitive process and the City executed a small contract with it
for last fiscal year. Staff was now asking that the Council consider a full contract for up to full time work
with the M Group providing staff augmentation for $130,000. He invited Council’s questions, but there
were none.
Motion—Councilman Garbarino/Second—Councilman Gupta: to approve Resolution No. 118-2018.
Approved by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Garbarino and Gupta, Mayor Pro Tem
Matsumoto and Mayor Normandy; NAYS: None; ABSTAIN: None; ABSENT: Councilman Addiego.
ADJOURNMENT.
Being no further business, Mayor Normandy adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Submitted: Approved:
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk Liza Normandy, Mayor
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-738 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:9.
Motion confirming payment registers for August 8,2018.(Richard Lee,Director of
Finance)
The payments shown in the attached payment register are accurate and sufficient
funds were available for payment (payroll items excluded).
Attachment: Payment Register
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Payment Listing by Department for City Council Review
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
CITY CLERK
AMAZON.COM 7/18/2018 269173CC375024 E 100-02110-5020 28.90 GR- OFFICE SUPPLIES FROM AMAZON
7/25/2018 269381CC375022 E 100-02110-5020 8.60 GR- OFFICE SUPPLIES FROM AMAZON
CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT IN7/20/2018 269199RS2993166 E 100-02110-5001 652.41 RECORD STORAGE FROM 06/1/18 THROUGH 06/
DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION 7/20/2018 269203B3148132 E 100-02110-5020 118.80 NOTICE OF PROPERTY FOUND 06.25.18
7/20/2018 269203B3150893 E 100-02110-5062 70.40 ORD SUMMARY - DISTRICT ELECTION PRE-ADOPT
7/20/2018 269203B3150933 E 100-02110-5020 88.00 ORD SUMMARY - BIOMED REALTY DA AMEND PR
7/20/2018 269203B3151903 E 100-02110-5062 297.00 CITY OF SSF NOTICE OF ELECTION AND MEASURE
7/20/2018 269203B3152279 E 100-02110-5062 313.50 ORD TRASIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
7/20/2018 269203B3152299 E 100-02110-5062 256.30 ORD CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSE TAX BID NOTIC
7/20/2018 269203B3152373 E 100-02110-5020 244.20 ORD OPEN MARKET PROCEDURES
DIVERGENT LAUGUAGE SOLUTIONS 7/18/2018 2691012018-434 E 100-02110-5062 1,250.48 ELECTION NOTICE PUBLICATION CHINESE AND TA
7/18/2018 2691012018-579 E 100-02110-5062 1,215.69 ELECTION NOTICE TRANSLATION
7/20/2018 2692052018-603 E 100-02110-5062 470.00 TRANSLATION FOR ELECTION FROM ENGLISH TO
7/25/2018 2693032018-395 E 100-02110-5062 2,188.75 ELECTION NOTICE CHINESE LANGUAGE TRANSLAT
LISA MICHELLE POPE 7/18/2018 269146180711 E 100-02110-5024 187.50 TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES FOR JUNE 18, 18 HOUS
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-02110-5027 3.04 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
QUALITY CODE PUBLISHING 7/20/2018 2692402018-289 E 100-02110-5025 1,508.25 MUNI CODE SUPPLEMENT 59 ORD. 1554-2018
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/20/2018 2692538050570639 E 100-02110-5062 429.79 OFFICE SUPPLIES MATERIAL FOR ELECTION
7/27/2018 2694278050570639/3834468E 100-02110-5020 506.69 OFFICE SUPPLIES
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-02110-5071 189.01 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Payments issued for CITY CLERK $10,027.31
CITY COUNCIL
B.P.O. ELKS SSF #2091 7/20/2018 269189062118 E 100-01110-5030 50.00 TICKETS TO SSFPD EVENT 6/21/18 MF, RG, KM
BOSTON CAB COMPANY 7/20/2018 269257cc375360 E 100-01110-5032 25.92 LN: TRANSPORTATION AT BIO CONF 2018
BUON GUSTO RESTORANTE 7/20/2018 269257cc375401 E 100-01110-5031 92.70 HE: MEALS FOR CITY COUNCIL MTG FOR FIVE 5/3
DOMINIC'S AT OYSTER POINT 7/25/2018 269305071318 E 100-01110-5031 739.08 MEALS @ SPEC CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION 7/1
GRAND PALACE RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc375398 E 100-01110-5031 50.89 HE: MEALS FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THR
HAWI HAWAIIAN BBQ 7/20/2018 269257cc375466 E 100-01110-5031 28.32 HE: SPEC CITY COUNCIL MTG-MEALS FOR FOUR
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
CITY COUNCIL
LEGAL SEA FOODS 7/20/2018 269257cc375365 E 100-01110-5032 224.56 LN: DINNER AT BIO CONF 2018 FOR FIVE
MARRIOTT MARQUIS WASHINGTON DC7/25/2018 269381cc375640 E 100-01110-5032 594.80 KM: LODGING AT P3 FED CONF, WASH D.C.
MJ O'CONNORS RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc365369 E 100-01110-5032 76.84 LN: DINNER AT BIO CONF 2018 FOR TWO
7/20/2018 269257cc375371 E 100-01110-5032 24.13 LN: MEAL AT BIO CONF 2018 FOR ONE
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-01110-5027 1.73 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
PASTORAL 7/20/2018 269257cc375357 E 100-01110-5032 45.59 LN: DINNER AT BIO CONF 2018 FOR FOUR
REDWOOD CITY-SAN MATEO COUNTY 7/25/2018 269381cc375591 E 100-01110-5030 700.00 RG: REG FEE TO RWC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE E
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/27/2018 269425037277 E 100-01110-5020 27.10 SUPPLIES AT MSB FOR PRE-CITY COUNCIL MEETIN
SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 7/20/2018 269257cc375331 E 100-01110-5031 45.00 KM: TKT FOR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LUNCH &
7/20/2018 269257cc375395 E 100-01110-5032 45.00 PG: TKT FOR CHAMBER LUNCH & LEARN EVENT
STEPHANIE'S BOS @GATE B24 7/20/2018 269257cc375373 E 100-01110-5032 64.76 LN: MEAL AT BIO CONF 2018 FOR THREE
THAI SATAY RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc375465 E 100-01110-5031 58.40 HE: SPECIAL CC MTG MEALS FOR FOUR 6/13/18
UNITED AIRLINES 7/20/2018 269257cc375320 E 100-01110-5032 25.00 KM: TRAVEL EXPENSE AT BIO CONF 2018
7/20/2018 269257cc375334 E 100-01110-5032 25.00 LN: TRAVEL EXPENSE FOR BIO CONF 2018
7/20/2018 269257cc375384 E 100-01110-5032 99.00 PG: TRAVEL EXP FOR BIO CONF 2018
7/20/2018 269257cc375392 E 100-01110-5032 117.00 PG: TRAVEL EXP FOR BIO CONF 2018
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-01110-5071 290.26 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT 7/20/2018 269257cc375327 E 100-01110-5032 1,859.85 KM: LODGING AT BIO CONF 2018
7/20/2018 269257cc375346 E 100-01110-5032 1,517.63 LN: LODGING FOR BIO CONF 2018
Payments issued for CITY COUNCIL $6,828.56
CITY MANAGER
15FIVE 7/25/2018 269381cc375498 E 100-05110-5021 35.40 MF: 15FIVE SUBSCRIPTION JUNE 2018
ALAMO RENT A CAR 7/25/2018 269381cc375492 E 100-05110-5032 406.59 MF: CAR RENTAL FOR BIO CONF 2018
ALI BABA MEDITERRANEAN CUISINE7/20/2018 269257cc375057 E 100-05110-5031 686.96 SB: MEALS FOR 2018 CITIZENS ACADEMY ECD & E
ANTIGUA COFFEE SHOP 7/25/2018 269275070918 E 100-05110-5030 122.50 EVENT: "COFFEE WITH THE SSF CITY MANAGER"
B.P.O. ELKS SSF #2091 7/20/2018 269189062118 E 100-05110-5030 25.00 TICKETS TO SSFPD EVENT 6/21/18 MF, RG, KM
BAY TECH/LABEL 7/20/2018 269257cc375467 E 100-05110-5020 13.88 HE: SUPPLIES FOR VOTER REGISTRATION BOOTH
COURTYARD BY MARRIOTT, TACOMA 7/25/2018 269381cc375511 E 100-05110-5032 520.66 MF: LODGING AT TRANSFORMING LOCAL GOV CO
DELTA AIR 7/20/2018 269257cc375485 E 100-05110-5032 220.80 MF: TRAVEL TO BIO CONF 2018
7/25/2018 269381cc375504 E 100-05110-5032 291.20 MF: FLIGHT TO BIO CONF 2018
ELIZA MANCHESTER 7/25/2018 2693316/4-7/19/18 E 100-05110-5033 77.89 EM: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
CITY MANAGER
FEDEX 7/25/2018 269381cc375495 E 100-05110-5027 70.24 MF: FEDEX SHIPMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY MAY 2
7/25/2018 269381cc375497 E 100-05110-5027 1,392.27 MF: FEDEX SHIPPING TO BIO CONF 2018 BOSTON
HOLIDAY INN 7/20/2018 269257cc375290 E 100-05110-5032 7.99 ML: LODGING EXP-LEAGUE OF CA CITIES ANNUAL
HYATT REGENCY MONTEREY HOTEL &7/25/2018 269381cc375506 E 100-05110-5032 468.02 MF: LODGING FOR 2019 SM COUNTY CHAMBER P
ICMA ONLINE 7/20/2018 269257cc375375 E 100-05110-5031 175.00 EM: ICMA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE 2018
7/25/2018 269381cc375624 E 100-05110-5031 685.00 MF: ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR ICMA 2019
IMPARK 7/25/2018 269381cc375711 E 100-05110-5031 30.00 LA: PARKING FEE AT SF MEETING
LEAGUE OF CA CITIES-PENINSULA 7/20/2018 269257cc375288 E 100-05110-5032 525.00 ML: REG FOR CA LEAGUE CONF 2018
7/25/2018 269381cc375502 E 100-05110-5032 525.00 MF: LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 2018 CONF REG
LINKEDIN 7/25/2018 269381cc375572 E 100-05110-5031 575.88 MF: ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FEE FOR LINKED-IN
MMANC 7/20/2018 269257cc375374 E 100-05110-5031 75.00 EM: MMANC MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR 2018
PAPYRUS 7/25/2018 269381cc375617 E 100-05110-5021 34.37 SMANN/FIRE: SUPPLIES SISTER CITIES JAPAN
PAYPAL 7/25/2018 269381cc375647 E 100-05110-5031 232.62 MF: TKT TO SAMCEDA ANNUAL MTG 6/11/18
PAYPAL - BEST WARRIOR 7/25/2018 269381cc375503 E 100-05110-5030 55.00 MF: TKT FOR LEAGUE OF CA CITIES EVENT 6/22/1
RENEE SANDERS 7/25/2018 269357071318 E 100-05110-5020 81.91 RS: EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 7/13/18
ROYAL PIN DONUTS 7/20/2018 269257cc375050 E 100-05120-5020 90.76 SB: FOOD FOR 2018 MEMORIAL DAY PROGRAM
SAFEWAY STORE 7/20/2018 269257cc375054 E 100-05120-5031 18.27 SB: REFRESHMENTS FOR HOT OVERSIGHT CTTEE
SAN MATEO COUNTY CENTER PRKG 7/20/2018 269257cc375415 E 100-05110-5031 1.00 HE: PARKING FOR FILING OF NOTARY COMMISSIO
SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDER 7/20/2018 269257cc375410 E 100-05110-5005 42.00 HE: FILING OF NOTARY COMMISSION 6/5/18
SISTER CITIES INTERNATIONAL 7/20/2018 26925020180615001978 E 100-05120-5031 790.00 SB: SSF SISTER CITIES ASSOC MEMBERSHIP DUES
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/20/2018 269257cc375034 E 100-05120-5020 47.76 SB: SUPPLIES FOR 2018 MEMORIAL DAY PROGRA
7/20/2018 269257cc375036 E 100-05120-5020 200.00 SB: SUPPLIES FOR COOKIE PACKAGING EVENT 6/2
7/20/2018 269257cc375041 E 100-05110-5031 130.60 SB: SUPPLIES FOR 2018 CITIZENS ACADEMY SESSI
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 7/20/2018 269257cc375400 E 100-05110-5030 55.96 HE: MEALS FOR VOTER REG BOOTH EVENT-SSF HI
SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 7/25/2018 26937110005501 E 100-05110-5005 7,523.72 JUNE 2018 FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS
SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 7/20/2018 269257cc375464 E 100-05110-5030 45.00 HE: TKT FOR CHAMBER LUNCH & LEARN EVENT
STANFORD SUMMER SESSION 7/25/2018 269381cc375564 E 100-05110-5033 250.00 MF: CLASS AT STANFORD SUMMER SESSION 2018
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-05110-5037 64.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THINGS REMEMBERED 7/25/2018 269381cc375051 E 100-05120-5020 199.47 SB: SUPPLIES FOR SISTER CITY PROGRAM
THRIFTY CAR RENTAL 7/25/2018 269381cc375505 E 100-05110-5032 202.69 MF: CAR RENTAL AT TRANSFORMING LOCAL GOV
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-05110-5071 274.17 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT 7/25/2018 269381cc375501 E 100-05110-5032 2,233.10 MF: LODGING FOR BIO CONF 2018
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
CITY MANAGER
Payments issued for CITY MANAGER $19,502.68
COMMUNICATIONS
INC ESSENCE PRINTING 7/25/2018 269310132593 E 100-05130-5025 2,021.12 ENGL & SPAN TRANSLATED JULY 2018 NEWSLTR
Payments issued for COMMUNICATIONS $2,021.12
CITY TREASURER
CHANDLER ASSET MGMT, INC 7/25/2018 2692891806SOSF E 100-03110-5001 7,000.08 JUNE 2018 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO MGMT SVCS
CMTA-CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL 7/25/2018 2692942018-19 E 100-03110-5031 155.00 2018-19 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP DUES: F. RISSO &
Payments issued for CITY TREASURER $7,155.08
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2 BOSTON NCV CR 7/20/2018 269257CC375514 E 100-10110-5030 9.50 AG - BOSTON CONVENTION AND EXHIBIT CTR
ABM ONSITE 7/20/2018 269257CC375181 E 100-10115-5031 27.00 NS- P,T FOR N.S. - MTC PUBLC LANDS TECHNIIIICA
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 7/18/2018 26906230494 E 100-10520-5034 986.63 UNIFORM SHIRTS FOR BUILDING INSPECTORS
ALLISON KNAPP WOLLAM 7/20/2018 2692246-2018 E 270-10413-5005 6,930.00 GENESIS IMPLEMENTATION CONSULTING SVCS 5/
AMAZON MKTPLACE 7/20/2018 269257CC375405 E 100-10115-5020 6.86 NS - AMAZON PURCHASE OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375411 E 100-10110-5020 18.99 IM- AMZAON PURCHASE - OFFICE SUPPLIES
AMAZON.COM 7/20/2018 269257CC361466 E 100-10520-5031 108.16 PP-PRIME MEMBERSHIP PERRY-BUILDING
7/20/2018 269257CC375188 E 100-10115-5020 55.99 IM. - IPAD COVER FOR H.R.
7/27/2018 269432CC375873 E 100-10520-5021 1,059.79 PP -RECHARGEABLE FLASHLIGHTS & CA DISABLED
ANTIGUA COFFEE SHOP 7/20/2018 269257CC375186 E 100-10115-5031 209.91 NS- PUC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP (6 PM BREAKF
BEN TRE RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc375479 E 100-10110-5031 19.00 AG - BEN TREE REST LUNCH MTG
BERSHIRE FARM MARKET 7/20/2018 269257cc375518 E 100-10110-5030 16.82 AG- BERSHIRE FARMS MRKT
BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY 7/20/2018 269257cc375473 E 100-10110-5031 35.00 AG - HEART ANNUAL FUNDRAISER REGISTRATION
7/20/2018 269257cc375475 E 100-10110-5030 35.00 AG - BIOTECHNOLOGY CONF REGISTRATION FOR
BISNOW 7/20/2018 269257CC375413 E 100-10115-5031 178.00 IM- BIZNOW REGISTRATION FOR D.T. AND J.B.
7/20/2018 269257CC375418 E 100-10115-5031 356.00 IM- BISNOW CONF REG FOR ML, EL, JB , DT
7/20/2018 269257cc375542 E 100-10110-5030 89.00 AG - BISNOW REGISTRATION FOR AG
CAMBRIDGE BREWING 7/20/2018 269257cc375510 E 100-10110-5030 26.47 AG- CAMBRIDGE BREWING CO, BOSTON
CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE 7/20/2018 2691927149 E 222-10343-5063 6,032.15 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANTEE CID
CENTURY URBAN LLC 7/20/2018 269193SSF6518 E 100-10115-5005 2,566.25 FY 17-18 AGREEMENT WITH CENTURY URBAN
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CENTURY URBAN LLC 7/20/2018 269193SSF7518 E 100-10115-5005 4,827.50 FY 17-18 AGREEMENT WITH CENTURY URBAN
CITY BAR WATERFRONT 7/20/2018 269257cc375507 E 100-10110-5030 22.26 AG - CITY BAR BIO CONF
COLLIERS INTL HOLDINGS USA INC7/20/2018 269197SFO180030b E 270-10414-5005 8,400.00 216 MILLER AVENUE - APPRAISAL REPORT
7/20/2018 269198SFO180030a E 270-10414-5005 4,250.00 FY 17-18 SERVICES AGREEMENT TO PERFORMA A
CONSTANT CONTACT, INC. 7/20/2018 269257CC375301 E 100-10110-5020 95.00 AG - CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY SERVICE
7/20/2018 269257cc375470 E 100-10110-5020 95.00 AG- CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY SRV
7/20/2018 269257CC375481 E 100-10110-5020 95.00 AG - CONSTANT CONTACT MONTHLY SRV
CREATIVE MARKETING CONCEPTS 7/18/2018 269093182667J E 100-10520-5021 1,285.15 PROMOTIONAL TOTE BAGS FOR BUILDING
CSG CONSULTANTS INC 7/20/2018 269201B180740 E 100-10520-5005 3,375.00 JUN 2018 BLDG PLAN REV SVCS REGULAR
7/20/2018 269201B180742 E 100-10520-5005 5,578.83 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW SERVICES GENENTECH E
7/20/2018 269201B180743 E 100-10520-5005 9,072.87 JUN 2018 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SVCS GENENTECH
DEANNA TALAVERA 7/27/2018 2694287/27/18 E 100-10115-5001 187.00 STAT OF EXP FOR DT - COUNTY DOCUMENT REIM
DI NAPOLI PIZZERIA 7/20/2018 269257cc375562 E 100-10115-5031 66.68 NS -LUNCH MTG (8PP)
DINAPOLI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT7/20/2018 269257cc375202 E 100-10115-5031 247.52 IM- PUC MTG TO PREPARE FOR PUC WORKSHOP (
DOORDASH 7/20/2018 269257CC375420 E 100-10115-5031 -271.33 FRAUDULENT CHARGED MADE TO IM, VISA CARD.
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS IN7/20/2018 269206171122-3 E 100-10115-5005 5,018.75 FY 17-18 ON-CALL AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC
7/20/2018 269206171122-4 E 100-10115-5005 5,030.40 FY 17-18 ON-CALL AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC
EL CONCILIO OF SAN MATEO COUNT7/20/2018 2692077107 E 222-10343-5063 1,909.29 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANT EL CONCILIO OF SAN MAT
EXECUTIVEPULSE, INC 7/20/2018 26920902597 E 100-10110-5005 15,510.00 ENTERPRISE CRM IMPLEMENTATON
FACEBOOK 7/20/2018 269257cc375549 E 100-10110-5020 16.00 AG - FACEBOOK
FEDEX 7/20/2018 269210132300GSX1 E 100-10110-5030 770.28 PL PROJECT - BOSTON TRIP
FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES 7/20/2018 26921113230022579 E 100-10110-5030 207.19 WOMEN IN BIOTECH SUPPLIES - BOSTON TRIP
GUNTER'S RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc375477 E 100-10110-5031 54.36 AG - LUNCH MTG GUNTERS REST
HEALTH MOBILE 7/20/2018 2692187141 E 222-10350-5063 9,000.00 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANT HEALTH MOBILE
HIP HOUSING INC. 7/20/2018 2692207094 E 222-10350-5063 895.04 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANTEE HIP HOUSING
HOUSING LEADERSHIP COUNCIL 7/20/2018 269257CC375184 E 100-10115-5031 45.00 NS -REGISTRATION FOR DT POLICY MAKING BREA
7/20/2018 269257cc375302 E 100-10110-5031 90.00 AG. - REGISTRAT FOR HSG LEADERSHIP CONF
7/20/2018 269257cc375472 E 100-10110-5031 50.00 AG- HOUSING LEADERHIP REGISTRATION FOR AG
IZANAMI JAPANESE CUISINE 7/20/2018 269257cc375558 E 100-10110-5031 21.52 AG - IZANAMI REST LUNCH MTG
JETBLUE 7/20/2018 269257CC375382 E 100-10110-5030 50.00 NS - JETBLUE AIRFARE/LUGGAGE BIO FOR E.L
JOHN PAPAN MEMORIAL 7/20/2018 2692227038 E 222-10350-5063 5,400.00 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANT JOHN PAPAN MEMORIAL
LEGAL SEA FOODS 7/20/2018 269257cc375523 E 100-10110-5030 78.24 AG - LEGAL HARBORSIDE REST
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLI7/20/2018 269257cc375554 E 100-10110-5020 149.57 AG- PURCHASE OF PUBLICATION FOR OFFICE
MARLOWE REST SF 7/25/2018 269381cc 375596 E 100-10115-5031 217.12 VISA PMT FOR N.S - EDH ANNUA RETREAT LUNCH
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 7/25/2018 26933327576 E 241-10880-5007 34.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
METROPOLITAN PLANNING GROUP 7/18/2018 2691321000214 E 100-10410-5005 10,631.25 APR 2018 PLANNING CONSULTANT SVCS
7/18/2018 2691321000324 E 100-10410-5005 6,431.25 PLANNING DEPT CONULTANT PLANNING SERVICE
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 7/20/2018 2692312018050367 E 100-10110-5005 142.50 201-207-217-219 GRAND AVENUE DISP SERVICES
7/20/2018 2692312018050368 E 100-10110-5005 389.00 938 LINDEN AVE LRPMP
7/20/2018 2692312018050370 E 270-10414-5003 370.50 216 MILLER AVNUE LRPMP
7/20/2018 2692312018050374 E 100-10110-5005 1,218.50 PUC PROPERTIES LRPMP
7/27/2018 2694142018060335 E 270-10115-5003 2,639.50 OP HOTEL DRAFT ENRA DOCUMENT
MICHAEL BAKER INTL, INC 7/20/2018 2692321014521 E 222-10310-5001 2,392.50 FY 16-17 CDBG CONSULTING ADMINISTRATIVE S
7/20/2018 2692321018318 E 222-10310-5001 1,415.00 FY 16-17 CDBG CONSULTING ADMINISTRATIVE S
MICHAEL'S 7/20/2018 269257CC375482 E 100-10110-5020 10.88 AG - OFFICE SUPPLIES
MJ O'CONNORS RESTAURANT 7/20/2018 269257cc375516 E 100-10110-5030 19.66 AG - MJ O'CCONNOR REST
NELSON/NYGAARD CONSULT ASSOC 7/25/2018 26933772531 E 100-10410-5005 8,675.00 ON CALL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-10110-5027 1.68 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-10410-5027 9.62 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-10520-5027 1.08 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 7/20/2018 269235153740420001 E 100-10110-5020 7.86 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR STAFF OF (8)
7/20/2018 269235154337576001 E 100-10110-5020 64.63 OFFICE SUPPLY (8PP)
7/25/2018 269340153737633001 E 100-10110-5020 296.66 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR 8
7/25/2018 269340154639782001 E 100-10110-5020 -131.09 RETURNED ELECTRIC 3 HOLE PUNCH
OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF 7/25/2018 2693427145 E 222-10350-5063 4,193.74 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANT OMBUDSMAN SRVCS OF S
PLACEWORKS 7/18/2018 26914565667 E 100-10410-5005 1,997.93 MINIMUM LOT SIZE - DWNTWN RES ZONING AN
PROJECT SENTINEL INC 7/20/2018 2692397131 E 222-10323-5063 3,909.19 CDBG GRANT FY 17-18 PROJECT SENTINEL
RAPE TRAUMA CENTER 7/20/2018 2692416958 E 222-10350-5063 920.51 FY 17-18 CDBG GRANT RAPE TRAUMA CENTER
READYREFRESH 7/25/2018 26935208G0030587240 E 100-10115-5031 39.06 WATER DISPENSER SVCS 6/7 TO 7/6/18
7/25/2018 26935208G0030587265 E 100-10115-5031 32.47 WATER DISPENSER SVCS 6/7 TO 7/6/18
REBUILDING TOGETHER PENINSULA 7/20/2018 2692426970 E 222-10343-5063 15,750.00 CDBG GRANT FY 17-18 REBUILDING TOGETHER PE
7/20/2018 2692427036 E 222-10343-5063 21,137.44 CDBG GRANT FY 17-18 RTP SAFE AT HOME
SAMARITAN HOUSE-SAFE HARBOR 7/20/2018 2692467138 E 222-10350-5063 3,847.91 CDBG GRANT FY 17-18 SAMARITAN HOUSE
SAN FRANCISCO BUSINESS TIMES 7/20/2018 269257CC375409 E 100-10110-5020 115.00 IM- BUSINESS TIMES SUBSCRIPTION FOR 1 YR
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SHOE DEPOT INC 7/20/2018 269248152162/2039 E 100-10520-5034 188.66 SAFETY BOOTS FOR INSP. PENCE
SPECIALTY'S CAFE & BAKERY 7/20/2018 269257cc375205 E 100-10115-5031 214.90 IM - PUC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP MTG MORNI
SQ AIRPORTER WORLDWIDE ANDOVER7/20/2018 269257cc375520 E 100-10110-5030 23.00 AG- AIRPORTER
SSF CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 7/20/2018 269257cc375480 E 100-10110-5031 135.00 AG - REGISTRATION FOR AG (3) FOR CHAMBER O
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/18/2018 2691628050144487 E 100-10410-5020 526.00 PLANNING OFFICE SUPPLIES
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 7/20/2018 269257CC375189 E 100-10115-5031 292.57 IM- SUPPLIES FOR COMMUNITY PUC WORKSHOP
7/20/2018 269257CC375192 E 100-10115-5031 338.30 IM - SUPPLIES FOR COMMUNITY NIGHT MEETING
STARBUCKS WESTIN WATERFRONT 7/20/2018 269257cc375512 E 100-10110-5030 15.21 AG - STARBUCKS WESTIN BOSTON
STARVISTA 7/20/2018 2692547101 E 222-10350-5063 1,875.00 FY 17-18 GRANT STARVISTA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163310718 E 100-10110-5037 32.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
STRATEGIC ECONOMICS, INC 7/20/2018 2692551813.01 E 100-10115-5005 2,253.75 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE CONSULTANT SVCS
ULI- URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 7/20/2018 269257CC375345 E 100-10115-5031 30.00 NS. - ULI REGISTRATION FOR E.L.
7/20/2018 269257CC375417 E 100-10115-5031 20.00 IM- ULI CONFERENCE REG FOR JB
UNITED AIRLINES 7/20/2018 269257cc375484 E 100-10110-5030 50.00 AG - AIRFARE/LIGGAGE FOR AG FOR BIO IN BOST
URBAN LAND INSTITUTE SAN FRAN 7/20/2018 269257CC375304 E 100-10110-5031 40.00 AG- REGISTRATION FOR ULI
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10110-5071 152.32 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10520-5071 519.70 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10520-5045 2,569.96 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10411-5071 70.14 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10410-5071 98.13 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-10115-5071 410.04 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-04-01 E 100-10520-5005 175,246.84 APR 2018 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-04-03 E 100-10520-5005 10,880.00 APR 2018 BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-04-05 E 100-10520-5005 2,210.00 APR 2018 BLDG ADMIN SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-05-01 E 100-10520-5005 30,765.57 MAY 2018 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-05-03 E 100-10520-5005 13,600.00 MAY 2018 BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-05-05 E 100-10520-5005 2,892.50 MAY 2018 BLDG ADMIN SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-06-01 E 100-10520-5005 39,003.47 JUNE 2018 BLDG PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-06-03 E 100-10520-5005 14,110.00 JUNE 2018 BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-411-218-06-05 E 100-10520-5005 7,702.50 JUNE 2018 BLDG ADMIN SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-414-218-04-01 E 100-10520-5005 2,475.00 C3 PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 04/01/18-04/30/18
7/20/2018 269260I-414-218-05-01 E 100-10520-5005 1,210.00 C3 PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 05/01/18-05/31/18
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 7 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 7/20/2018 269260I-414-218-06-01 E 100-10520-5005 1,677.50 C3 PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 06/01/18-06/30/18
7/20/2018 269260I-415-217-011-01-REVE 100-10520-5005 930.22 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SERVICES 11/01-11/30/17
7/20/2018 269260I-415-217-012-01 E 100-10520-5005 7,323.53 DEC 2017 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-415-218-01-01-REV E 100-10520-5005 8,512.14 JAN 2018 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-415-218-02-01-REV E 100-10520-5005 3,028.05 FEB 2018 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-415-218-03-01-REV E 100-10520-5005 3,204.80 MAR 2018 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SVCS
7/20/2018 269260I-415-218-05-01 E 100-10520-5005 3,310.55 MAY 2018 FIRE PLAN REVIEW SVCS
WESTIN BOSTON WATERFRONT 7/20/2018 269257cc375529 E 100-10110-5030 186.15 AG - WESTIN HOTELE FOR EL
7/20/2018 269257CC375540 E 100-10110-5030 1,890.60 AG - WESTIN HOTEL BOSTON , AG
7/25/2018 269381CC 375483 E 100-10110-5030 1,859.81 VISA PMT FOR AG - WESTIN HOTEL FOR BIO CONF
WINSTON MANOR COMMUNITY HOA 7/20/2018 2692622017-2019 E 100-10110-5020 12.00 109 LONGFORD AVNEU WINSTON MANOR COM
ZORBA PIZZA & DELI 7/20/2018 269257CC375187 E 100-10115-5031 257.61 NS. - PUC COMMUNITY WORKSHOP STAFF VOLU
Payments issued for ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $529,312.51
FINANCE
AMAZON.COM 7/20/2018 269257CC375550 E 100-06210-5031 12.01 KM - AMAZON PRIME MEMBERSHIP FEE
CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUN 7/20/2018 269257CC375555 E 100-06210-5031 110.00 KM - CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUN
CITYGATE ASSOCIATES LLC 7/18/2018 26909024563 E 100-06110-5005 10,395.00 MAY 2018 FIRE STUDY SVCS
DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES INC7/25/2018 2692991806161 E 100-06110-5005 995.00 JUN 2018 - PROF CONSULTING SVCS-INFRASTRUC
MANAGEMENT PARTNERS INC 7/27/2018 269410INV05789 E 100-06110-5005 12,190.00 CONSULTING SVCS TO REVIEW PURCHASING POLI
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 7/25/2018 26933327576 E 100-06210-5007 2,516.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-06210-5027 50.46 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 7/25/2018 269340161266452001 E 100-06210-5020 219.23 OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163310718 E 100-06210-5037 64.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-06110-5071 135.71 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Payments issued for FINANCE $26,687.41
FIRE
ACCESS TOOLS 7/20/2018 269257cc374889 E 100-11710-5021 279.65 SM- OPERATING SUPPLIES
ALL WAYS BALLOONS 7/18/2018 269173CC37942 E 100-11110-5021 121.23 AR - CHANGE OF COMMAND CEREMONY DECORA
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT INC 7/18/2018 269066208176 E 100-11710-5021 2,402.63 SCBA VOICE AMPLIFIERS (6)
AMAZON MKTPLACE 7/18/2018 269173cc375139 E 100-11210-5022 152.42 KA-FP PUBLICATIONS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 8 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
AMAZON.COM 7/18/2018 269173CC375167 E 100-11720-5022 801.62 JB - TRAINING BOOKS
APPLE STORE 7/18/2018 269173CC374790 E 100-11110-5045 0.99 BS - ICLOUD STORAGE FOR IPAD
BAUER COMPRESSORS INC 7/18/2018 2690730000240435 E 100-11710-5021 3,177.14 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (3 SCBA COMPRESSO
BLM-NIFC FIRE CACHE 7/20/2018 269257cc375151 E 100-11710-5021 159.08 CC- WILDLAND RESPONSE POCKET GUIDE UPDAT
BOX.NET BUS SRVCS, CA 7/18/2018 269173cc375159 E 100-11310-5021 45.00 KA-OPERATING SUPPLIES BUSINESS WEB LICENSE
BUDWEISER BREWHOUSE 7/18/2018 269173CC375344 E 100-11610-5032 21.60 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360
BULLEX DIGITAL SAFETY 7/20/2018 269257cc375585 E 100-11720-5033 278.77 CC0 FORE LIFE SAFETY TRAINING
CA DIR DOSH 7/18/2018 269173cc375153 E 100-11110-5021 900.00 KA-STATE OF CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
CALECOS DOWNTOWN 7/18/2018 269173CC375349 E 100-11610-5032 20.24 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
CELETTA INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES7/25/2018 26928718-0705 E 100-11110-5036 750.00 PARA FF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
7/25/2018 26928718-0709 E 100-11110-5036 750.00 PARA FF BACKGROUIND INVESTIGATION
CENTER FOR PUBLIC SAFETY 7/25/2018 269381CC375090 E 100-11720-5031 200.00 JB - FIRE OFFICER 3 YEAR CREDENTIAL RENEWAL
CHARLIE GITTOS 7/18/2018 269173CC375342 E 100-11610-5032 24.10 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
COLLECTIONS 7/20/2018 269257cc375557 E 100-11110-5020 40.47 BA - DEPT CHRISTMAS TREE
COSTCO 7/18/2018 269173CC374827 E 100-11730-5021 39.30 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374828 E 100-11610-5020 283.07 AR - MEAL WITH SISTER CITY 20 PPL
7/18/2018 269173CC374831 E 100-11730-5020 93.26 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374854 E 100-11730-5020 82.42 AR - STATION 61 CLEANING SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374858 E 100-11730-5020 20.75 AR-STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374859 E 100-11730-5020 217.39 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173cc375113 E 100-11730-5020 82.89 PM- STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173cc375136 E 100-11310-5021 550.44 KA-DISASTER PREP OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173cc375350 E 100-11710-5021 47.49 AR-OPERATING SUPPLIES FOR STATION
7/18/2018 269173cc375376 E 100-11730-5021 467.40 AR-OPERATING SUPPLIES FOR STATION 64
7/20/2018 269257CC374819 E 100-11730-5020 431.20 BW - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374860 E 100-11710-5021 46.94 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374938 E 100-11730-5020 480.47 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375148 E 100-11730-5020 147.79 BW - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375368 E 100-11710-5021 108.17 AR-OPERATING SUPPLIES FOR THE STATION
7/20/2018 269257cc375496 E 100-11730-5021 124.53 MS-PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIP (PPE) ROOM -
CSG CONSULTANTS INC 7/18/2018 269094F180352 E 100-11210-5005 315.00 FIRE LIFE SAFETY PLAN REVIEWS
DELTA AIR 7/18/2018 269173CC375239 E 100-11610-5032 25.00 BA - BAGGAGE FEE FOR ABC360 CONFERENCE
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 9 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
DEVIN FLANNERY 7/27/2018 269403SPRING 2018 E 100-11610-5033 1,532.92 TUITIION REIMBURSEMENT - D FLANNERY
EB JUNE CESA COASTAL 7/18/2018 269173cc375163 E 100-11310-5004 68.52 KA-CESA COASTAL WORKSHOP LUNCHES (6)
ECMS, INC. 7/18/2018 269106INV156497 E 100-11710-5061 96.96 PPE UNIFORM REPAIR
7/18/2018 269106INV189242 E 100-11710-5061 944.42 STRUCTUAL PPE REPAIR
FASTRAK 7/18/2018 269173cc375150 E 100-11310-5021 25.00 KA-OPERATING SUPPLIES BRIDGE TOLLS OES MTG
FEDEX 7/18/2018 2691096-207-82094 E 100-11110-5036 99.12 POSTAGE
7/18/2018 2691096-207-82094 E 100-11610-5027 99.12 POSTAGE
7/18/2018 2691096-214-71878 E 100-11110-5036 211.49 POSTAGE
7/18/2018 2691096-221-85636 E 100-11610-5027 61.21 POSTAGE
7/18/2018 2691096-221-85636 E 100-11110-5036 33.19 POSTAGE
7/18/2018 2691096-229-73457 E 100-11610-5027 81.48 POSTAGE
FEDEX OFFICE & PRINT SERVICES 7/18/2018 269173CC375177 E 100-11110-5021 60.86 BA - LAPTOP CHARGER
FIRE INSTRUCTION 7/18/2018 269173CC375128 E 100-11720-5033 175.00 JB - TRAINING CLASS TUITION~
7/20/2018 269257CC375126 E 100-11720-5033 175.00 JB - TRAINING CLASS TUITION
FIREANDRESCUENTRNG 7/18/2018 269173CC375089 E 100-11720-5033 415.00 JB - TRAINING CLASS TUITION C BROUGHTON
FOLSOM LAWN & POWER EQUIPMENT 7/18/2018 269173cc375114 E 100-11720-5021 395.90 PM- TRAINING SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173cc375115 E 100-11720-5021 681.41 PM-TRAINING EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE
7/20/2018 269257cc375355 E 100-11720-5021 377.83 PM - TRAINING SUPPLIES
GALLIS' SANITARY BAKERY 7/18/2018 269173CC374950 E 100-11110-5021 170.00 AR -CHANGE OF COMMAND CEREMONY CAKE
GBH POLYGRAPH SERVICES 7/25/2018 26931507112018 E 100-11110-5036 1,500.00 PARA FF BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION
HARGIS & ASSOCIATES 7/20/2018 26921706/30/18 E 100-11110-5036 9,750.00 FIRE MARSHAL EXAM ADMINISTRATION
HYATT REGENCY ST LOUIS 7/18/2018 269173CC375340 E 100-11610-5032 16.59 BA - -MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
7/18/2018 269173CC375348 E 100-11610-5032 22.00 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL 7/18/2018 269173CC375804 E 100-11720-5033 795.00 JB - TRAINING CLASS TUITION
JAMES ANDERSON 7/25/2018 2692746/4/18 E 100-11720-5033 65.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT TRAINING - TASK BOOK REI
JET.COM, NJ 7/20/2018 269257cc375499 E 100-11610-5021 331.03 RW-OPERATING SUPPLIES EMS - SAFE
KAISER PERMANENTE - OHSS 7/18/2018 269116320900248601 E 100-11110-5036 84.60 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
L N CURTIS & SONS 7/18/2018 269119413269 E 100-11710-5061 2,146.06 PPE FOR NEW HIRE
7/18/2018 269119INV181849 E 100-11710-5021 520.03 SUPRESSION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269119INV191821 E 100-11710-5061 4,047.71 STRUCTURAL PPE COSBY, MOON & LAANEN
7/18/2018 269119INV196592 E 100-11710-5061 54.08 PPE FOR NEW HIRE
7/18/2018 269119INV197057 E 100-11710-5036 1,446.42 WILDLAND PPE - DUBOIS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 10 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
L N CURTIS & SONS 7/18/2018 269119INV197527 E 100-11710-5036 395.43 WILDLAND PPE - DUBOIS
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 7/18/2018 269126902936 E 100-11730-5021 72.78 STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126914150 E 100-11710-5021 74.57 STATION 61 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126915525 E 100-11730-5050 20.74 STATION 62 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126915542 E 100-11730-5020 56.97 STATION 61 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126915651 E 100-11710-5021 27.03 STATION 65 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126915936 E 100-11730-5020 -15.49 STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126915938 E 100-11730-5020 6.87 STATION 61 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126916093 E 100-11730-5021 24.33 STATION 63 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126916266 E 100-11710-5021 46.61 OPERATING SUPPLIES - PROPANE
7/18/2018 269126916543 E 100-11730-5021 8.06 STATION 61 OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126916677 E 100-11710-5021 113.73 STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126917781 E 100-11730-5021 103.57 STATION 61 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126943446 E 100-11730-5020 7.22 STATION 61 SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269126943447 E 100-11710-5021 30.93 STATION OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375379 E 100-11730-5021 2,828.56 MS-STORAGE AND SHELVING FOR PERSONAL PRO
LUCKY'S 7/18/2018 269173cc375149 E 100-11310-5004 41.32 KA-REFRESHMENTS FOR CERT TRAINING (24)
LYFT 7/18/2018 269173CC375324 E 100-11610-5032 20.21 BA - TRANSPORTATION DURING ABC360 CONFER
7/18/2018 269173CC375325 E 100-11610-5032 4.00 BA - TRANSPORTATION DURING ABC360 CONFER
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 7/18/2018 269128FFS-000265 E 100-11720-5033 3,000.00 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH TRAINING
MISSION INN HOTEL & SPA 7/25/2018 269381cc375526 E 100-11610-5032 -179.98 CREDIT MEMO FOR TRAVEL ROOM CANCELLATIO
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-11110-5027 6.88 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-11223-5027 3.92 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-11610-5027 0.83 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-11210-5027 59.04 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 7/18/2018 269137153374926001 E 100-11730-5021 459.60 STATION 65 OPERATING SUPPLIES
OPC CA DIR DOSH 7/18/2018 269173cc375155 E 100-11110-5021 20.70 KA-STATE OF CALIFORNIA OCCUPATIONAL HEALT
ORCHARD SUPPLY 7/20/2018 269257cc375116 E 100-11730-5020 14.74 BW - STATION SUPPLIES
PARTY CITY 7/18/2018 269173CC375049 E 100-11110-5021 98.31 AR - CHANGE OF COMMAND CEREMONY
PAYPAL 7/18/2018 269173CC375162 E 100-11720-5022 20.00 JB - FIRE TRAINING DVD
7/20/2018 269257cc375515 E 100-11110-5031 25.00 JM-BREAKFAST AND LEARN AT THE GROSVENOR
7/20/2018 269257cc375535 E 100-11210-5031 50.00 LD - ICC CHAPTER
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 11 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC7/18/2018 269143152003 E 100-11710-5034 795.71 CLASS A UNIFORM - MOON
PENNWELL C & E 7/20/2018 269257CC375146 E 100-11720-5033 945.00 JB - TRAINING VIDEO SUBSCRIPTION
POSTAL ANNEX 7/20/2018 269257cc375545 E 100-11210-5027 15.25 LD- POSTAGE
POWER WORKS/RADIO ACCESORIES.C7/18/2018 269173CC375169 E 100-11710-5021 150.99 BS - PORTABLE RADIO PRGM CABLE
PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 7/18/2018 2691470140982-IN E 100-11110-5039 248.00 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT & RANDOM DRUG
PWW MEDIA INC 7/18/2018 269173CC375229 E 100-11610-5022 270.00 BA - HIPPA TRAINING DVD
ROLLABLES INK, INC. 7/25/2018 269381CC375327 E 100-11223-5021 55.05 BA - OFFICE SUPPLIES
SHAUN HANSEN 7/25/2018 2693186/13/18 E 100-11610-5033 200.00 STAFF DEVELOPMENT PARAMEDIC RECERTIFICATI
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/18/2018 269173cc374806 E 100-11730-5021 42.49 AR-STATION 63 OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374820 E 100-11110-5021 17.25 AR - DINNER WITH SISTER CITY 20 PPL
7/20/2018 269257CC374818 E 100-11740-5021 9.69 BW - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374939 E 100-11110-5021 56.68 AR - CHANGE OF COMMAND CEREMONY REFRES
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 7/20/2018 269251934514 E 100-11710-5021 -26.84 STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269251950429 E 100-11720-5021 2,628.66 PLYWOOD FOR VENTLATION TRAINING
ST LOUIS AIRPORT TAXI 7/18/2018 269173CC375347 E 100-11610-5032 40.00 BA - TRANSPORTATION DURING ABC360 CONFER
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 7/18/2018 269173CC374830 E 100-11710-5021 302.18 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173cc375103 E 100-11730-5020 12.55 AR-STATION 61 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374856 E 100-11730-5020 198.82 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374861 E 100-11730-5020 32.76 AR - STATION SUPPLIES
STARBUCKS 7/18/2018 269173CC375217 E 100-11610-5032 7.68 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-11110-5037 192.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
SUGARFIRE SMOKEHOUSE 7/18/2018 269173CC375324 E 100-11610-5032 16.04 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENG ASSOC 7/18/2018 26916845449 E 100-11710-5021 3,048.34 STATION ALERTING SYSTEM
THE CAFE AT THE ST LOUIS ART 7/18/2018 269173CC375338 E 100-11610-5032 6.54 BA - MEAL DURING ABC360 CONFERENCE
USPS 7/18/2018 269173CC375157 E 100-11720-5021 17.30 JB - RETURN LOANER TRAINING EQUIPMENT
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/25/2018 2693849810020752 E 100-11610-5071 7.02 DATA CHARGES - FIRE
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11310-5071 40.53 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11720-5071 75.25 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11710-5071 952.92 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11710-5045 210.72 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11610-5071 548.57 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11223-5071 38.37 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 12 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
FIRE
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11210-5071 544.49 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11110-5071 387.43 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-11611-5071 247.36 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA 7/18/2018 269179JUNE 2018 E 100-11610-5005 561.38 AMBULANCE LOCKBOX SERVICES
WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS 7/20/2018 269260I-410-218-06-01 E 100-11210-5005 26,505.06 FIRE LIFE SAFETY PLAN REVIEW
7/20/2018 269260I-415-218-06-01 E 100-11210-5005 1,424.05 FIRE SYSTEM PLAN REVIEWS
WEST MARINE PRODUCTS 7/20/2018 269257cc374897 E 100-11710-5021 27.17 SM-OPERATING SUPPLIES
WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC7/18/2018 269180E1662687 E 100-11710-5061 311.26 HELMET
ZISTOS CORPORATION 7/18/2018 269173CC375240 E 100-11720-5021 235.00 JB - REPAIR TRAINING CAMERA
Payments issued for FIRE $89,016.60
HUMAN RESOURCES
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 7/27/2018 26939030526 E 100-09110-5020 95.65 HR BUSINESS CARDS-HR DIRECTOR
BOB MURRAY & ASSOCIATES 7/27/2018 2693937838 E 100-09110-5005 5,932.45 PROFESSIONAL SVCS FOR EXEC. SEARCH-FIRE MA
CITY OF FOSTER CITY 7/25/2018 26929312404 E 100-09110-5005 12,195.00 BAERS ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP FY 18/19
FEDEX 7/18/2018 269173CC375178 E 100-09110-5027 24.83 MM-FEDEX SHIPPING SERVICES
LABOR ARBITRATION INSTITUTE 7/25/2018 269381cc375561 E 100-09110-5033 -650.00 LB-LABOR ARBITRATION INST-CREDIT
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-09110-5027 1.65 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
OFFICE DEPOT INC 7/20/2018 269257cc375453 E 100-09110-5013 129.64 EMP RECOG ITEMS
PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 7/18/2018 2691470140982-IN E 100-09110-5001 346.39 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT & RANDOM DRUG
SAFEWAY STORE 7/18/2018 269173CC375176 E 100-09110-5031 11.99 MM - HCM MEETING ON 06/07/18-REFRESHMEN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-09110-5037 64.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-09110-5071 65.54 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Payments issued for HUMAN RESOURCES $18,217.14
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. 7/18/2018 2690671402436304 E 785-16110-5040 268.15 CLOUD BACKUP SERVICES FOR JUNE 2018
CDW GOVERNMENT LLC 7/18/2018 269083NGK1629 E 785-16110-5040 5,973.46 MICROSOFT SQL 2017 LICENSES
CITY MECHANICAL INC 7/18/2018 26908947685 E 785-16110-5061 19,865.00 PROVIDE/INSTALL AIR CONDITIONING UNIT - IT S
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN7/25/2018 2692958155 20 044 0622357 E 785-16110-5071 239.05 HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE - TERRABAY
FTD.COM 7/25/2018 269381cc375705 E 785-16110-5021 65.23 JD - SYMPATHY FLOWERS
GRANICUS, INC. 7/25/2018 269317100829 E 785-16110-5040 500.00 MONTHLY MANAGED SVC-WEBSITE GOV'T TRANS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 13 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
KELSO COMMUNICATIONS 7/25/2018 269328I2018092 E 785-16110-5005 2,867.39 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE - 08/201
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 785-16110-5027 0.09 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
PARTHEX TECH INC 7/18/2018 269141133-18-SSF E 785-16110-5061 6,875.10 VIDEO SERVER AND STORAGE REPLACEMENT
PENINSULA TELEVISION INC 7/25/2018 26934890286 E 785-16110-5040 20,000.00 PEN TV YEARLY SUPPORT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 785-16110-5037 277.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
TONY BARRERA 7/25/2018 2692817/7-7/13/18 E 785-16110-5022 199.00 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - GIS CONFERENC
7/25/2018 2692817/7-7/13/18 E 785-16110-5032 1,101.80 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT - GIS CONFERENC
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 7/25/2018 269380045-230492 E 785-16110-5040 34,500.00 TYLER CASHIERING - SOFTWARE
UTILITY TELEPHONE, INC 7/25/2018 269383128202 E 785-16110-5071 1,703.65 CITY INTERNET ACCESS & TRANSPORT CHARGES
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 785-16110-5071 224.82 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Payments issued for INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $94,659.74
LIBRARY
ALEXIS DENISE SOLORAZNO 7/25/2018 26936507192018 E 100-15110-5001 750.00 INTERNSHIP ASSIGNMENT - 1ST STIPEND PAYME
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 7/25/2018 26927211C4-H9C7-6MCG E 100-15230-5030 73.06 PROGRAM SUPPLIES - ADULT SERVICES
7/25/2018 26927211LH-GKWV-46DQ E 100-15230-5030 4.30 ADULT SERVICES PROGRAM SUPPLIES
AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 7/18/2018 26906849696666 001 E 100-15110-5030 36.00 BANNED BOOKS WEEK SUPPLIES
BAKER & TAYLOR INC 7/18/2018 269071C0321933 E 100-15210-5022 955.40 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1084154 E 100-15320-5022 1,433.56 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1084154 E 100-15220-5022 3,876.93 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1123914 E 100-15310-5022 2,616.38 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1123914 E 100-15210-5022 7,082.51 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1236954 E 100-15220-5022 400.55 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L1236954 E 100-15320-5022 7.84 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L4317184 E 100-15210-5022 595.12 BOOKS
7/18/2018 269071L4317564 E 100-15310-5022 196.86 BOOKS
BROAD REACH BOOKS 7/18/2018 269076ARU0253543 E 100-15220-5022 344.57 BOOKS
CALIFA GROUP 7/18/2018 26908010525 E 100-15110-5001 102.00 CONTENT DM SUBSCRIPTION MAINTNENCE 2017
CYO TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 7/18/2018 26909536216 E 100-15999-5004 853.00 HOMEWORK CLUB FIELD TRIP TRANSPORTATION
DANIELA JIMENEZ-TORRES 7/25/2018 26932307212018 E 100-15110-5001 750.00 INTERNSHIP ASSIGNMENT - 1ST STIPEND PAYME
DEMCO INC. 7/18/2018 2690986396075 E 100-15110-5021 119.62 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693016404712 E 100-15110-5021 527.94 TECHNICAL PROCESSING SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 14 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
GOOGLE.COM 7/20/2018 269257CC375517 E 100-15110-5031 -47.50 AE - GOOGLE EXPRESS MEMBERSHIP CREDIT
JELLY JAM TIME 7/25/2018 26932231318 E 100-15999-5005 250.00 SUMMER LEARNING CHALLENGE PROGRAM
KAISER PERMANENTE - OHSS 7/18/2018 269116320900248601 E 100-15110-5036 49.50 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
KARLA BOURDON 7/18/2018 26907503/24-06/29/18 E 100-15410-5031 46.95 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, MILEAGE REIMBURS
7/18/2018 26907503/24-06/29/18 E 100-15999-5999 5.99 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, MILEAGE REIMBURS
7/18/2018 26907503/24-06/29/18 E 100-15430-5031 46.95 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, MILEAGE REIMBURS
LEONARDO GOMEZ 7/25/2018 269316JUNE2018 E 100-15110-5033 1,217.59 STATEMENT OF EXPENSE - EDUCATION REIMBUR
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 7/18/2018 269126262621 E 100-15110-5021 -0.54 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
MASE GROUP LLC 7/18/2018 26912900065a E 100-15110-5001 1,275.00 CATALOGING SERVICE
7/18/2018 26912900304 E 100-15110-5001 142.25 DVD LABEL
7/25/2018 26933200305 E 100-15110-5001 285.95 DVD LABELING SERVICE
7/25/2018 26933200306 E 100-15110-5001 356.40 DVD LABELING SERVICE
7/25/2018 26933200307 E 100-15110-5001 424.60 DVD LABELING SERVICE
MIDWEST TAPE 7/25/2018 2693352000009739 E 100-15210-5043 7,683.80 A/V
7/25/2018 2693352000009739 E 100-15310-5043 1,939.66 A/V
7/25/2018 2693352000009739 E 100-15220-5043 440.74 A/V
7/25/2018 2693352000009742 E 100-15220-5043 1,096.59 A/V - JUV
7/25/2018 2693352000009742 E 100-15320-5043 228.09 A/V - JUV
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-15410-5027 0.70 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-15110-5027 10.13 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
OCLC WESTERN 7/18/2018 269136000606297 E 100-15110-5001 483.48 CATALOGING AND METADATA
PACIFIC LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP 7/18/2018 269138648 E 100-15110-5031 450.00 2018 PLP MID. MNGR PRGM 2ND 50%
READING PARTNERS 7/18/2018 2691505769 E 100-15999-5999 1,000.00 REVIEW OF LITERACY SUPPORT MODEL
READYREFRESH 7/25/2018 26935218G5745298009 E 100-15430-5021 60.63 WATER COOLER RENTAL /REFILL
RECORDED BOOKS, INC. 7/18/2018 26915275803044 E 100-15210-5043 121.12 AV
7/25/2018 26935375915710 E 100-15210-5043 86.98 A/V
7/25/2018 26935375918928 E 100-15210-5043 543.75 SVOD MAINTENANCE FEE
SAFEWAY INC 7/18/2018 269154153302 E 100-15999-5999 13.37 SAFEWAY PURCHASES FOR SUMMER CAMPS & E
SCHOLASTIC CORPORATION 7/18/2018 26915517333836 E 100-15220-5022 498.77 BOOKS
7/25/2018 26935817333824 E 100-15999-5021 109.69 BOOKS - LEARNING WHEELS
SEANSSHADOWS 7/25/2018 26935907142018 E 100-15110-5061 450.00 SUMMER LEARNING CHALLENGE PROGRAM - SH
SENTRUM MARKETING LLC 7/25/2018 2693607260718B0818R E 100-15210-5022 254.20 INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE BOOKS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 15 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
LIBRARY
SOPHIES WORLD LLC 7/25/2018 269366052318 E 100-15999-5005 225.00 SUMMER LEARNING CHALLENGE PROGRAMS
SPENCER GREY MAGIC 7/25/2018 2693700000038 E 100-15110-5061 350.00 SUMMER LEARNING CHALLENGE PROGRAM - SPE
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/25/2018 2693738050570497 E 100-15999-5999 67.24 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693738050570497 E 100-15110-5020 473.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693738050570513 E 100-15430-5020 87.38 OFFICE SUPPLIES - CLC
7/25/2018 2693738050570513 E 100-15999-5999 34.34 OFFICE SUPPLIES - CLC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-15110-5037 224.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
7/18/2018 269163310718 E 100-15110-5037 512.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THE GALE GROUP, INC 7/18/2018 26916963927132 E 100-15210-5022 64.48 BOOKS
7/18/2018 26916963935348 E 100-15210-5022 365.35 BOOKS
7/25/2018 26937763943337 E 100-15210-5022 109.25 BOOKS
THE PENWORTHY COMPANY 7/25/2018 2693780542377-IN E 100-15220-5022 26.18 BOOKS
7/25/2018 2693780542378-IN E 100-15220-5022 833.90 BOOKS
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-15110-5071 208.74 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-15430-5071 38.19 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Payments issued for LIBRARY $43,870.45
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 7/25/2018 26926430523 E 100-07110-5025 154.24 BUSINESS CARDS FOR MAYOR AND SPECIAL PROJ
AT&T 7/25/2018 2692779391060749 E 781-07210-5071 185.89 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060750 E 781-07210-5071 473.97 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060756 E 781-07210-5071 67.07 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060761 E 781-07210-5071 20.27 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060842 E 781-07210-5071 28.83 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060843 E 781-07210-5071 14.20 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060844 E 781-07210-5071 26.07 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060845 E 781-07210-5071 354.71 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060869 E 781-07210-5071 244.04 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060870 E 781-07210-5071 472.40 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060972 E 781-07210-5071 30.37 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391060974 E 781-07210-5071 76.11 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692779391061122 E 781-07210-5071 112.20 PHONE CHARGES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 16 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
AT&T 7/25/2018 2692779391062505 E 781-07210-5071 14.26 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 269278650 829 1947 221 7 E 781-07210-5071 183.51 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692799391060855 E 781-07210-5071 1,549.95 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692799391060926 E 781-07210-5071 424.32 PHONE CHARGES
7/25/2018 2692799391060935 E 781-07210-5071 422.62 PHONE CHARGES
BEST BUY 7/25/2018 269381cc375670 E 100-07110-5045 822.61 DW- TELEVISION CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 7/25/2018 2692850982104814 E 781-07210-5073 122.62 WATER SERVICE
7/25/2018 2692854635141659 E 781-07210-5073 742.90 WATER SERVICE
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN7/27/2018 2693968155 20 044 0076067 E 781-07210-5071 89.47 INTERNET SERVICE/MODEM RENTAL
DU-ALL SAFETY LLC 7/18/2018 26910319925 E 100-07110-5001 10,500.00 JUNE 2018 SAFETY PROGRAM CONSULTANT SERV
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 7/25/2018 269326JUL 2018 E 783-00000-4342 145,303.35 KAISER PERMANENTE HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS J
7/25/2018 269326JUL 2018 E 783-00000-4341 232,325.96 KAISER PERMANENTE HEALTHCARE PREMIUMS J
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-07110-5027 0.05 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 886051687/25/18 E 110-00000-5027 4,000.00 CITYWIDE POSTAGE METER REPLENISHMENT
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY7/25/2018 2693440216007588-9 E 781-07210-5070 15.63 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693440379629797-0 E 781-07210-5070 77.94 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693441886610157-1 E 781-07210-5070 771.02 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693441936382234-7 E 781-07210-5070 19.71 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693442859665236-3 E 781-07210-5070 8.12 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693442900060739-9 E 781-07210-5070 23.34 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693443084158901-0 E 781-07210-5070 33.29 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693443569726530-0 E 781-07210-5070 14.04 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693444836977850-0 E 781-07210-5070 159.50 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693445053123842-1 E 781-07210-5070 8.13 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693447036130873-0 E 781-07210-5070 138.98 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693447785237739-7 E 781-07210-5070 104.39 GAS/ELECTRIC SERVICE
7/25/2018 2693455908002015-5 E 781-07210-5070 87,563.85 ELECTRIC SERVICE-WQCP
7/25/2018 2693458634831335-3 E 781-07210-5070 2,543.19 GAS SERVICE-WQCP
READYREFRESH 7/18/2018 26915108G0030587158 E 100-07110-5021 188.75 06/07/-07/06/18 WATER COOLER RENTAL/REFILL
7/25/2018 26935208G0030587240 E 100-07110-5031 39.06 WATER DISPENSER SVCS 6/7 TO 7/6/18
7/25/2018 26935208G0030587265 E 100-07110-5031 32.47 WATER DISPENSER SVCS 6/7 TO 7/6/18
TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 7/18/2018 269171104557 E 782-07410-5081 109,835.92 WORKER'S COMPENSATION LOSS REPLENISHMEN
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 17 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
UTILITY TELEPHONE, INC 7/25/2018 269383126848 E 781-07210-5071 318.32 LD PHONE CHARGES
WESTBOROUGH WATER DISTRICT 7/27/2018 269438SSF0001-53 E 781-07210-5073 53,119.66 WATER SERVICE
Payments issued for NON-DEPARTMENTAL $653,777.30
PARKS & RECREATION
ALENI CAPAZ 7/18/2018 26908109/07/17 E 100-17275-5033 179.35 EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT
ALERT DOOR SERVICE INC 7/20/2018 26918379905 E 100-17410-5005 200.00 FS61 BAY DOOR
ALL INDUSTRIAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY7/25/2018 2692685188296 E 100-17320-5051 196.91 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR ARLINGTON PARK
7/25/2018 2692685188297 E 100-17320-5051 8.14 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR ARLINGTON PARK
ALPINE AWARDS 7/25/2018 2692705528331 E 100-17240-5021 72.27 RAPP SPORTS TROPHIES
AMAZON MKTPLACE 7/18/2018 269173CC375095 E 100-17275-5021 65.94 KC - CHILDCARE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC375096 E 100-17275-5021 251.70 KC - CHILDCARE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC375097 E 100-17275-5021 43.00 KC - CHILDCARE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC375098 E 100-17275-5021 84.90 KC - SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC375100 E 100-17275-5021 581.09 KC - CHILDCARE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375117 E 100-17270-5021 151.75 LA- SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375120 E 100-17270-5021 119.22 LA- SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375125 E 100-17270-5021 25.90 LA- SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375203 E 100-17270-5021 12.00 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375206 E 100-17270-5021 186.94 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
AMAZON.COM 7/18/2018 269173CC375260 E 100-17340-5021 426.39 GM: BACKPACK BLOWER
7/20/2018 269257CC375168 E 100-17276-5061 432.10 KC - PROGRAM SUPPLIES FOR ADULT DAY CARE
7/20/2018 269257CC375190 E 100-17275-5021 262.68 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375194 E 100-17275-5021 61.14 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375200 E 100-17275-5021 21.98 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375201 E 100-17270-5021 9.24 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375570 E 100-17250-5021 108.16 MM - AMAZON PRIME MEMBERSHIP
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 7/18/2018 269069758689665 E 100-17320-5034 220.96 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
7/20/2018 269187758689662 E 100-17410-5034 53.28 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
ARC SERVICES TRAINING 7/25/2018 269381CC375011 E 100-17230-5034 180.00 DS - LIFEGUARD CERTIFICATIONS
B&B CUSTOM DESIGNS 7/20/2018 26918817192 E 100-17230-5034 61.02 AQUATIC STAFF T-SHIRTS
7/20/2018 26918817228 E 100-17275-5021 761.57 STAFF UNIFORMS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 18 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
BAY AREA DISCOVERY MUSEUM 7/20/2018 269257CC375207 E 100-17999-5999 300.00 LA-FIELDTRIP ADMISSION/PRESCHOOL
7/20/2018 269257CC375207 E 100-17275-5021 446.25 LA-FIELDTRIP ADMISSION/PRESCHOOL
7/20/2018 269257CC375208 E 100-17275-5021 527.35 LA- PRESCHOOL FIELDTRIP ADMISSION
CENTRAL CONCRETE SUPPLY CO 7/25/2018 26928817643721 E 100-17971-5061 124.98 SCULPTURE OPER SUPPLIES
CINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 7/20/2018 2691948403722099 E 100-17410-5005 603.52 SAFETY SUPPLIES
CITY MECHANICAL INC 7/20/2018 26919547494 E 100-17420-5050 660.00 HVAC MAINT @ MSB
7/20/2018 26919547496 E 100-17420-5050 660.00 HVAC MAINT @ MSB
7/20/2018 26919547527 E 100-17420-5050 671.29 HVAC MAINT @ MSB
7/20/2018 26919547529 E 100-17420-5050 689.46 HVAC MAINT @ MSB
7/20/2018 26919549493 E 100-17420-5050 1,189.01 HVAC MAINT @ CITY HALL
7/25/2018 26929247495 E 100-17420-5050 960.00 HVAC MAINT @ WALNUT LIBRARY
COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 7/20/2018 269196255175-1 E 100-17420-5021 1,229.06 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269196256237-2 E 100-17420-5021 143.83 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269196256327 E 100-17420-5021 621.44 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269196257060 E 100-17420-5021 752.51 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269196257588 E 100-17420-5021 631.43 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN7/18/2018 2690918155 20 044 0216218 E 100-17276-5021 53.77 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR CE
7/25/2018 2692958155 20 044 0252494 E 100-17240-5021 42.09 MONTHLY CABLE BILL FOR TERRABAY BLDG. - JUN
7/25/2018 26929581555200440252502 E 100-17410-5001 144.75 CORP YARD CABLE SERVICE
COSTCO 7/18/2018 269173CC375099 E 100-17275-5021 684.45 KC - SENIOR PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375127 E 100-17275-5021 375.11 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375182 E 100-17275-5021 381.80 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375183 E 100-17275-5021 297.39 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269381CC374992 E 100-17230-5021 97.83 DS - AQUATIC SUPPLIES
CRAIGSLIST 7/20/2018 269257CC375197 E 100-17275-5033 60.00 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375197 E 100-17275-5031 15.00 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ 7/27/2018 2694217/12/18a E 100-17275-5021 500.00 SUMMER CAMP PROGRAM SUPPLIES ADVANCE
CYO TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 7/20/2018 26920233341 E 100-17275-5021 796.00 WB PRESCHOOL BUSSES FOR FIELDTRIP
DEA SECURITY SYSTEMS CO INC 7/20/2018 269204C041620228 E 100-17410-5005 234.00 FIRE ALARM SVS- W.ORANGE LIBRARY 7/1/18-8/
DIANA GONZALEZ 7/20/2018 26921306/17/18 E 100-17999-5999 108.57 LITTLE STEPS PROGRAM SUPPLIES
DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 7/18/2018 269100P37086060101 E 100-17999-5999 948.79 LITTLE STEPS SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269100P3712450103 E 100-17275-5021 552.11 SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 19 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
DOLLAR TREE STORE 7/20/2018 269257CC374101 E 100-17310-5021 49.52 MP: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENT
7/20/2018 269257CC374948 E 100-17230-5031 43.70 DS - GOGGLES FOR OMP POOL
7/20/2018 269257CC375209 E 100-17275-5021 73.20 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
ENVIROSAFETY PRODUCTS 7/18/2018 269173CC375255 E 100-17420-5021 303.27 AH: OPER SUPPLIES
EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 7/25/2018 2693115699514 E 100-17320-5050 5,649.18 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693115699515 E 234-17530-5050 2,678.00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693115699515 E 233-17533-5050 1,000.00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693115699515 E 232-17532-5050 800.19 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693115699515 E 231-17531-5050 3,000.00 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES
FACEBOOK 7/18/2018 269173CC375257 E 100-17310-5021 16.39 GM: JOB ADVERTISEMENT
7/18/2018 269173CC375258 E 100-17310-5021 1.01 GM: JOB ADVERTISEMENT
FOOD SERVICE PARTNERS OF CA 7/18/2018 269111SSF0185 E 100-17276-5061 2,383.85 JUNE 2018 SENIOR CENTER MEALS (343)
FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ 7/20/2018 2692446/29/18 E 100-17270-5021 880.00 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 2692446/29/18 E 100-17275-5021 424.40 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
FULLY INC. 7/18/2018 269173CC375097 E 100-17276-5061 1,000.00 AD - SENIOR SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375094 E 100-17276-5061 300.00 SR - SENIOR SVCS. SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375122 E 100-17276-5061 848.87 KC - ADULT DAY CARE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375175 E 100-17276-5061 150.00 KC - ADULT DAY CARE PROGRAM SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375385 E 100-17276-5061 697.02 SR -TABLES FOR MAGNOLIA SENIOR CENTER
GARY GRIMM & ASSOCIATES 7/20/2018 269257CC375144 E 100-17276-5061 91.55 KC - ADULT DAY CARE SUPPLIES
GRAND AVENUE HARDWARE 7/20/2018 26921414244/3025 E 100-17420-5050 35.82 FAC - KEYS
7/20/2018 26921414300/3007 E 100-17320-5050 158.58 PARKS SUPPLIES
GREG MEDIATI 7/27/2018 26941212/28/17-6/25/18 E 100-17310-5033 1,685.38 EDUCATION REIMB - MEDIATI
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 7/20/2018 269221106430 E 100-17420-5050 78.07 MAGNOLIA - PAINT SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 26922199081 E 100-17420-5050 30.91 COLOR SAMPLE
INC NORTHERN SAFETY CO 7/20/2018 269233902987110 E 100-17230-5051 196.02 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269233902987111 E 100-17230-5050 103.46 PURELL HAND SANITZER FOR OMP POOL
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 7/20/2018 26922373920 E 100-17320-5050 633.00 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 26922373920 E 231-17531-5050 1,300.00 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 26922373920 E 234-17530-5050 2,000.00 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 7/18/2018 2691201766390618 E 100-17999-5999 1,380.14 BIG LIFT SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 2691201846460718 E 100-17275-5021 3,195.52 SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 20 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS 7/18/2018 2691205086120618 E 100-17275-5021 223.59 SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 2692252235470618 E 100-17275-5022 973.07 PRESCHOOL SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 2692252235490618 E 100-17275-5021 491.37 PROGRAM SUPPLIES
LARRY YAN 7/20/2018 26926306/28/18 E 100-17410-5031 5.00 YAN-BRIDGE TOLL REIMB.
LINCOLN EQUIPMENT INC 7/20/2018 269228EW015061 E 100-17230-5050 364.58 OMP POOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269228EW015063 E 100-17230-5050 815.77 CHLORINE FOR OMP POOL
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 7/18/2018 269126902398 E 100-17320-5050 55.51 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/18/2018 269126902516 E 232-17532-5050 409.00 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/18/2018 269126902516 E 231-17531-5050 480.99 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/18/2018 269126902532 E 100-17340-5021 84.49 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/18/2018 269126902916 E 100-17320-5050 122.78 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/18/2018 269126916683 E 100-17420-5050 -9.32 FAC DIV - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269229901087 E 100-17420-5050 17.93 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269229901379 E 100-17420-5050 161.49 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269229902740 E 100-17420-5050 62.19 CITY FAC - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269257CC375009 E 100-17230-5031 12.98 DS - PUC CEMENT
MARIA SPREMICH 7/20/2018 26925205/21/18 E 100-17276-5061 144.00 EMPLOYEE REIMB FOR SPRING SHOWCASE
NASCO MODESTO 7/20/2018 269257CC375380 E 100-17276-5061 1,072.42 KC - SENIOR CENTER SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375383 E 100-17276-5061 52.49 KC - ADULT DAY CARE SUPPLIES
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-17110-5027 59.87 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-17310-5027 1.91 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
NOE VALLEY BAKERY 7/20/2018 269257CC375161 E 100-17276-5061 51.01 KC - SENIOR CENTER PROGRAM SUPPLIES
NORCAL STMA 7/18/2018 269173CC375259 E 100-17320-5050 20.00 GM- STMA MEMBERSHIP - CUTAJAR
7/18/2018 269173CC375261 E 100-17320-5050 20.00 GM: STMA MEMBERSHIP - MEDIATI
7/18/2018 269173CC375262 E 100-17320-5050 20.00 GM-STMA MEMBERSHIP - CONTRERAS
7/18/2018 269173CC375264 E 100-17310-5034 37.83 GM- STMA TURF MAINTENANCE CLASS (3)
OFFICE DEPOT INC 7/20/2018 269257cc375453 E 100-17310-5020 61.97 EMP RECOG ITEMS
ORIENTAL TRADING CO INC 7/20/2018 269257CC375199 E 100-17275-5061 63.96 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
OTC BRANDS, INC 7/20/2018 269257CC374996 E 100-17230-5031 55.94 DS - MOVIE NIGHT CRAFTS
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 7/25/2018 269343SJ16631001 E 100-17971-5061 11,561.00 ELEVATOR MAINT @ MSB
7/25/2018 269343SJO5429718 E 100-17420-5050 5,801.85 ELEVATOR MAINT - CITY FACS
PAYPAL 7/20/2018 269257CC374105 E 100-17310-5031 45.00 MP: TRANSPORTATION MTG
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 21 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 7/25/2018 269347101857 E 100-17240-5001 1,063.00 UMPIRE FEES FOR SPORTS PROGRAMS
PJ'S REBAR 7/20/2018 269257CC374103 E 100-17971-5061 1,060.38 MP: SCULPTURE SUPPLIES
READYREFRESH 7/18/2018 26915108F0030586945 E 100-17276-5021 34.20 MONTHLY BOTTLED WATER SERVICE AT MAGNO
7/25/2018 26935218G5729903004 E 100-17310-5001 38.34 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER
7/25/2018 26935218G5729903004 E 100-17420-5001 38.34 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER
RED WING BRANDS OF AMERICAN IN7/18/2018 269153984461 E 100-17410-5034 229.99 SAFETY BOOTS-J RODRIGUEZ
ROCHESTER MIDLAND CORPORATION 7/20/2018 269243INV00050354 E 100-17410-5005 54.38 CITY FAC - CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES
ROMEO PACKING COMPANY 7/20/2018 269245133948 E 100-17320-5050 2,936.25 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
SAFEWAY INC 7/18/2018 269154153302 E 100-17275-5021 3,929.04 SAFEWAY PURCHASES FOR SUMMER CAMPS & E
SAFEWAY STORE 7/20/2018 269257CC374104 E 100-17320-5050 73.46 MP: PMW RECRUITMENT TEST SNACKS
7/20/2018 269257CC374994 E 100-17230-5004 9.13 DS - AQUATIC SUPPLIES
SAN JOSE GIANTS 7/25/2018 269355375593 E 100-17275-5061 27.00 FOF GIANTS TICKETS
SAN MATEO COUNTY PARKS & REC 7/20/2018 269257CC375185 E 100-17275-5029 60.00 LA-FOF PICNIC RESERVATION
SHOE DEPOT INC 7/20/2018 269248154012/2072 E 100-17410-5034 238.75 SAFETY BOOTS - M. PEREZ
7/25/2018 269362153943 E 100-17410-5034 137.01 BOOTS - R. HERNANDEZ-ARCILLA
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/20/2018 269257CC374100 E 100-17320-5050 14.95 MP: EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION EVENT
7/25/2018 269364022654 E 100-17275-5021 46.90 BBQ SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 269425021196 E 100-17275-5021 28.78 PONDO ART
7/27/2018 269425030093 E 100-17275-5021 66.93 SUMMER CAMP SNACK
7/27/2018 269425039973 E 100-17275-5021 72.44 SUMMER CAMP SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 269425041529 E 100-17275-5021 10.99 PONDO SCIENCE SUPPLIES
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 7/20/2018 269251949603 E 100-17420-5050 33.69 OMP SCULPTURE - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949665 E 100-17420-5050 72.92 OMP SCULPTURE - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949668 E 100-17420-5050 11.24 OMP SCULPTURE - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949673 E 100-17420-5050 4.59 OMP SCULPTURE - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949795 E 100-17420-5050 18.56 SIEBECKER - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949845 E 100-17420-5050 45.86 W.ORANGE LIBRARY - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949979 E 100-17420-5050 14.08 EOC - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949983 E 100-17420-5050 31.80 EOC - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251949990 E 100-17420-5050 24.57 FIRE STATION 63 - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251950437 E 100-17420-5050 30.00 MSB - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251950477 E 100-17420-5050 11.12 MSB - OPER SUPP
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 22 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 7/20/2018 269251950479 E 100-17420-5050 32.82 MAGNOLIA - OPER SUPP
7/20/2018 269251950493 E 100-17420-5050 10.91 TRUCK 291 - OPER SUPP
7/25/2018 269367950698 E 100-17320-5050 11.89 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/25/2018 269367950751 E 100-17320-5050 7.27 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/25/2018 269367950826 E 100-17320-5050 3.02 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
7/25/2018 269367951283 E 100-17320-5021 15.25 OPER SUPPLIES FOR ARLINGTON PARK
7/25/2018 269367951427 E 100-17320-5050 138.37 PARKS DIV - OPER SUPP
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/20/2018 2692538050570570 E 100-17240-5021 57.87 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAMS AN
7/20/2018 2692538050570570 E 100-17275-5021 1,138.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAMS AN
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 7/20/2018 269257CC374102 E 100-17310-5020 62.85 MP: OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC374990 E 100-17230-5020 212.93 DS - INK/BINDERS FOR OMP POOL
7/20/2018 269257CC375164 E 100-17276-5061 464.51 KC - SENIOR CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257CC375165 E 100-17276-5061 49.14 KC - ADULT DAY CARE OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269257cc375211 E 100-17275-5021 145.27 LA- PROGRAM SUPPLIES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-17310-5037 96.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
7/18/2018 269163310718 E 100-17310-5037 224.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
SUNSHINE YOGA MATS 7/20/2018 269257cc375221 E 100-17275-5021 466.53 LA-PROGRAM SUPPLIES
THE WEBSTAURANT STORE 7/20/2018 269257CC375156 E 100-17276-5061 1,041.14 KC - SENIOR CENTER OFFICE SUPPLIES
TREESTUFF.COM 7/20/2018 269256INV-414797 E 100-17340-5050 264.98 TREE TRIMMING SUPPLIES
7/20/2018 269256INV-418308 E 100-17340-5050 1,128.09 TREE CARE SUPPLIES
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA 7/20/2018 269258114-6921483 E 100-17320-5001 132.75 COMMUNITY GARDEN PORTOLET
USA CLEAN 7/18/2018 269173CC375256 E 100-17420-5050 85.94 AH-OPER SUPPLIES
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17270-5071 0.18 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17276-5071 58.25 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17275-5071 53.52 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17310-5045 314.74 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17310-5071 220.58 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17410-5071 450.59 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17260-5071 53.66 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 231-17531-5071 27.65 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17999-5999 10.02 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17230-5071 25.57 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 23 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PARKS & RECREATION
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17110-5071 93.61 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17250-5071 30.66 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-17210-5071 25.37 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
VISTAPRINT 7/18/2018 269173CC375268 E 100-17310-5021 -90.71 GM: PARKS JACKET
7/25/2018 269381CC375267 E 100-17310-5021 -4.20 GM: PARKS JACKET
WESTERN EXTERMINATOR CO 7/20/2018 2692616084427 E 100-17410-5005 89.00 PEST CONTROL - CLC
7/20/2018 2692616098343 E 100-17410-5005 260.00 PEST CONTROL - MSB
Payments issued for PARKS & RECREATION $92,684.42
POLICE
ADVANCED BUSINESS FORMS 7/27/2018 26939030517 E 100-12720-5021 901.46 NEW PARKING CITATIONS
7/27/2018 26939030518 E 100-12720-5001 692.56 NEW MOVING CITATIONS
7/27/2018 26939030525 E 100-12210-5025 46.60 BUSINESS CARDS - COREY GALINDO
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 7/25/2018 269273M7175147SG E 100-12410-5071 18.52 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
BOGY'S HOFBRAU 7/20/2018 269257CC375060 E 100-12110-5061 54.45 JA - NEW OFFICERS - LUNCH W/ CHIEF
CDAA 7/18/2018 269173CC375076 E 100-12720-5033 -125.00 LS - ANNUAL ASSET FORFEITURE CLASS - MAHON
CITY BAKING COMPANY 7/27/2018 2693952031146 E 100-12110-5061 96.10 BADGE CEREMONY 100 PPL 7/17/18
CORA 7/25/2018 269296SSF FY 18-19 E 100-12720-5002 12,814.00 DV COUNSELORS - FY 2018/19
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 7/25/2018 269297FY 2018/2019 E 100-12720-5001 87,082.00 SMC NARCOTICS TASK FORCE - SHARE COST
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF 7/25/2018 26929807/30-08/01/18 E 100-12720-5033 930.00 BASIC PATROL RIFLE CLASS - TVRDIK/MASSONI/Z
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO SHERIFF'S 7/20/2018 26920011114 E 100-12720-5033 1,968.05 RANGE FEES - 04/18-06/18 RIFLE TRAINING
7/20/2018 26920011118 E 100-12720-5033 506.07 RANGE FEES APRIL - JUNE 2018~
7/27/2018 26939807/03/2018 E 100-12210-5001 1,460.00 CAL ID REIMB FY 17/18 (292 APPLICANTS @ $5 S
DATA911 7/18/2018 269096SI-109032 E 100-12410-5005 1,955.58 NEW COMPUTERS FOR PST CARS
7/18/2018 269096SI-109040 E 100-12410-5005 13,424.52 NEW COMPUTERS FOR PST CARS
DFS GREEN, INC 7/27/2018 26940026608-11 E 100-12210-5001 398.00 CARPET CLEANING
EASTMAN INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES7/18/2018 269104454 E 100-12720-5036 1,100.00 BACKGROUND INVESTIGATION - MILGROM
HARD DRIVE GRAPHICS 7/27/2018 26940616408 E 100-12110-5061 878.37 SUMMER YOUTH ACADEMY TSHIRTS
K-9 TACTICAL GEAR 7/18/2018 269173CC375052 E 100-12110-5020 368.93 LS - CANINE SUPPLIES
KAISER PERMANENTE - OHSS 7/18/2018 269116320900248601 E 100-12720-5036 103.50 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL
KEN CHETCUTI 7/27/2018 26939407/23-07/25/18 KC E 100-12720-5033 242.66 SLI TRAINING - EXPENSES REIMB
LA TAPATIA, LLC 7/27/2018 26940960176 E 100-12110-5061 241.50 CITIZEN'S ACADEMY - 1ST NIGHT DINNER 08/2/18
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 24 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
POLICE
LABELVALUE.COM 7/18/2018 269173CC375058 E 100-12110-5020 952.80 AR- EVIDENCE SUPPLIES
LC ACTION POLICE SUPPLY LTD 7/18/2018 269122384341 E 100-12720-5034 389.56 BULLET PROOF VEST - PLANK
7/18/2018 269122384341 E 100-12999-5999 389.57 BULLET PROOF VEST - PLANK
7/18/2018 269122384348 E 100-12720-5034 506.20 BULLET PROOF VEST - R. ROMAN
7/18/2018 269122384348 E 100-12999-5999 506.21 BULLET PROOF VEST - R. ROMAN
7/18/2018 269122384352 E 100-12720-5034 504.57 BULLET PROOF VEST - PERADOTTO
7/18/2018 269122384352 E 100-12999-5999 504.56 BULLET PROOF VEST - PERADOTTO
LEXISNEXIS 7/18/2018 2691241806121348 E 100-12720-5002 104.40 INVESTIGATIVE DATABASE
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 7/27/2018 26941342497 E 100-12110-5020 353.68 RADIO PARTS/SUPPLIES
NAPA VALLEY COLLEGE 7/27/2018 26941502/04/2019 E 100-12720-5033 364.00 FIELD TRAINING OFFICER UPDATE - LOPEZ/PORTO
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-12310-5027 20.86 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
PENINSULA UNIFORMS & EQUIP INC7/18/2018 269143JUNE 2018 E 100-12720-5034 1,783.95 UNIFORM ITEMS
PENSKE TRUCK LEASING 7/20/2018 269257CC375527 E 100-12110-5061 337.52 MR - TRUCK RENTAL FOR NAPA FIRE DONATIONS
PREFERRED ALLIANCE, INC 7/18/2018 2691470140982-IN E 100-12720-5036 43.00 JUNE 2018 PRE-EMPLOYMENT & RANDOM DRUG
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS7/25/2018 26934932902 E 100-12210-5025 1,857.25 COURTESY NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS
7/25/2018 26934932905 E 100-12210-5025 513.48 PROPERTY EVIDENCE RECEIPTS
SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC SAFE7/27/2018 269426219046 E 100-12410-5033 395.00 BASIC DISPATCH TRAINING - D. ORTIZ
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 100-12720-5037 132.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
7/18/2018 269163310718 E 100-12720-5037 132.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
STEPHANIE TENORIO 7/27/2018 26942902/23-02/24/18 ST E 100-12720-5033 232.00 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
TRAINING FOR SAFETY, INC. 7/27/2018 26943012/3-12/5/18 E 100-12410-5033 296.00 DU-18-08 ADV. DISPATCHER UPDATE - JORDAN
TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 7/18/2018 26917228283 E 100-12720-5001 3,990.40 FY 17-18 CITATION PROCESSING - JUNE 2018
7/27/2018 26943128202 E 100-12720-5021 655.50 HANDHELD DEVICES CITATION ROLLS
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/18/2018 2691769810018920 E 100-12410-5071 1,543.44 DATA CARD SERVICES FOR LAPTOPS IN PATROL C
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-12410-5045 150.86 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-12410-5071 1,447.76 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
VORTEX INDUSTRIES, INC 7/27/2018 26943645-1263620-1 E 100-12720-5051 415.00 REPAIRS TO GARAGE METAL DOOR
Payments issued for POLICE $143,679.44
PUBLIC WORKS
AHERN RENTALS, INC. 7/25/2018 26926519093372-2 E 710-13941-5051 179.72 OPERATING SUPPLIES
AIRGAS USA, LLC 7/25/2018 2692669077839968 E 710-13943-5051 337.42 WELDING GAS
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 25 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
AIRGAS USA, LLC 7/25/2018 2692669077885174 E 781-13610-5028 115.26 GARAGE - PROPANE FOR FORKLIFT
7/27/2018 2693919078130962 E 710-13922-5021 299.93 WELDING GAS REPLENISHMENT
AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC 7/25/2018 269267386016 E 710-13930-5051 25.36 BATTERY TESTERS
ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTOR7/18/2018 269064S4318986.002 E 710-13941-5021 17.56 FREIGHT CHARGES FOR PLC
ALLDATA CORP 7/18/2018 269173CC374912 E 781-13610-5001 125.00 DB- MONTHLY DATA SERVICE CHARGE
ALPHA ANALYTICAL LABORATORIES 7/25/2018 2692698071501-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 80.00 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071791-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 55.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071792-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 210.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071793-MD_SSF E 710-13951-5005 163.00 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071826-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071827-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 58.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071897-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 873.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
7/25/2018 2692698071978-MD_SSF E 710-13953-5004 872.00 FY 2018-2019 ANALYTICAL SERVICES
ALTRANS 7/20/2018 26918431-1501 E 100-13999-5999 510.00 OBSERVATION & MONITORING SERVICES OF SOU
7/25/2018 26927131-1509 E 100-13999-5999 510.00 OBSERVATION & MONITORING SERVICES OF SOU
AMAZON.COM 7/18/2018 269173CC374947 E 781-13610-5021 48.95 MM- GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 263/250
7/18/2018 269173CC374952 E 781-13610-5020 19.65 MM- PACKING TAPE FOR GARAGE
7/18/2018 269173CC374955 E 781-13610-5021 29.78 MM - SHOP SUPPLIES
7/18/2018 269173CC374958 E 781-13610-5021 33.81 MM - CO DETECTORS FOR VEH 859
7/18/2018 269173CC374964 E 781-13610-5021 12.99 MM- OPER SUPPLIES VEH 0858/502
AMERICAN LANGUAGE SERVICE 7/20/2018 269257cc374983 E 710-13310-5061 95.00 LA: TRANSLATION SVCS ENG TO SPAN AVALON-B
AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES 7/25/2018 269273M7175147SG E 710-13910-5071 77.61 PAGER SERVICE - PD & WQCP
APEX LIFE SCIENCES LLC 7/20/2018 269186LAB550448245 E 710-13951-5051 2,142.50 LAB SUPPORT
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 7/25/2018 269276758713155 E 710-13910-5001 141.91 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
7/25/2018 269276758713156 E 710-13910-5001 220.30 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
7/27/2018 269392758701364 E 710-13910-5001 138.18 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
7/27/2018 269392758701365 E 710-13910-5001 192.00 WEEKLY UNIFORM SERVICE
BLUE LINE TRANSFER INC 7/25/2018 2692830000718017 E 710-13962-5004 68,981.62 BIOSOLIDS (SEWAGE SLUDGE) DISPOSAL
BRIAN SCHUMACKER 7/27/2018 2694236/25/2018 E 710-13910-5005 2,000.00 EDUCATIONAL EXPENSE FOR BRIAN SCHUMACKE
BROADMOOR LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 7/25/2018 26928447953 E 710-13315-5021 92.37 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 26928447969 E 710-13315-5021 154.60 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 26928448052 E 100-13450-5021 183.54 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES FOR HAZELWOOD & KENW
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 26 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY AUTO SUPPLY 7/25/2018 2692913-543342 E 781-13610-5021 28.03 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 509
7/25/2018 2692913-544965 E 781-13610-5021 9.18 GARAGE SHOP OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2692913-545313 E 781-13610-5021 17.38 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES 0858 (VEH 108)
CITY MECHANICAL INC 7/18/2018 26908946833 E 720-13720-5005 1,191.64 INSPECTION AT MILLER PARKING GARAGE
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATION IN7/25/2018 26929581555200440252502 E 100-13410-5001 144.76 CORP YARD CABLE SERVICE
COURTESY TOW 7/18/2018 2690928033 E 781-13610-5001 438.75 GARAGE- VEH 509 TOW SERVICE
CULLIGAN SANTA CLARA 7/27/2018 2693990083333 E 710-13941-5051 21.75 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
7/27/2018 2693990084237 E 710-13941-5051 202.40 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
7/27/2018 2693990086415 E 710-13941-5051 29.85 WATER SOFTENER SERVICE
CWEA SPECIALTY CONFERENCES 7/18/2018 269173CC374911 E 710-13315-5033 90.00 DB- CERT RENEWAL FOR T.DONALDSON
7/18/2018 269173CC374930 E 710-13315-5031 180.00 LL- CWEA MEMBERSHIP FOR G.JOHNSON
7/18/2018 269173CC374935 E 710-13315-5031 180.00 LL- CWEA MEMBERSHIP FOR M.FANG
7/18/2018 269173CC374936 E 710-13315-5031 180.00 LL- CWEA MEMBERSHIP FOR P.RUBINO
DAVID SAFRADIN 7/27/2018 2694227/26/2018 E 710-13910-5033 180.00 CWEA MECHANIC TECH. GRADE 2 FOR DAVID SAF
DEA SECURITY SYSTEMS CO INC 7/18/2018 269097C062020185 E 720-13720-5005 350.00 FIRE ALARM INSTALLATION AT MILLER PARKING
7/25/2018 269300C062920182 E 720-13720-5005 490.00 COMMERCIAL FIRE ALARM INSTALL/SERVICE AT
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7/25/2018 269302SL181011 E 100-13450-5001 13,504.30 SIGNALS & LIGHTING APRIL 2018 - JUNE 2018
DEVIN KEAHI 7/18/2018 26911706/29-07/12/18 E 710-13315-5031 107.91 STANDBY MILEAGE REIMB - D.KEAHI
DIESEL FORWARD INC 7/18/2018 269173CC374941 E 781-13610-5021 2,483.69 MM- GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 504
7/18/2018 269173CC374944 E 781-13610-5021 368.27 MM - GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 504
7/18/2018 269173CC374967 E 781-13610-5021 -70.79 MM CC- GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES
DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP LLC 7/18/2018 269173CC374903 E 710-13315-5033 450.00 DB -SUPERVISOR 101 TRAINING FOR P.SHEA & P.
7/18/2018 269173CC374916 E 710-13315-5033 735.00 LL- SSO NOTIF. TO CIWQS CERT FOR H.GRAY, M.F
7/18/2018 269173CC374925 E 710-13315-5033 225.00 LL- SUPERVISOR 101 TRAINING FOR P.SHEA
7/25/2018 26930413895 E 710-13310-5061 4,800.00 SSO RESPONSE DRILL TRAINING
DYSERT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 7/25/2018 26930613507 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613508 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613509 E 710-13951-5005 302.50 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613510 E 710-13951-5005 445.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613511 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613512 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613513 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 27 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
DYSERT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 7/25/2018 26930613519 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613520 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613521 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613522 E 710-13953-5005 490.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/25/2018 26930613523 E 710-13953-5005 245.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/27/2018 26940113525 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/27/2018 26940113526 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/27/2018 26940113527 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/27/2018 26940113533 E 710-13953-5005 155.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
7/27/2018 26940113534 E 710-13953-5005 400.00 FY 2018-2019 SAMPLING SERVICES
E-BUILDER INC 7/25/2018 2693075082 E 710-13310-5061 4,874.97 USER TRAINING & EBUILDER TRAVEL EXPENSE
EDUCATION & TRAINING SVCS, LLC7/25/2018 26930818-224 E 710-13910-5033 3,493.00 REG FEE FOR 7 EMPL. MGMT & SUP. LEADERSHIP
EXPRESS PLUMBING & SEWER 7/25/2018 26931222849P E 710-13315-5001 68,200.00 EMERGENCY REPAIR SERVICES OF 10" LINE AT 60
FLYERS ENERGY LLC 7/18/2018 26911018-701617 E 781-13610-5028 1,629.50 FS 61 FUEL
7/18/2018 26911018-701618 E 781-13610-5028 2,566.39 FS 61 FUEL
7/18/2018 26911018-702847 E 710-13922-5021 2,486.65 DIESEL FUEL
7/25/2018 269313CFS1633383 E 781-13610-5028 12,978.58 GARAGE- CITYWIDE CARDLOCK FUEL
7/27/2018 26940418-712254 E 781-13610-5028 1,878.91 FS 61 FUEL
7/27/2018 26940418-712255 E 781-13610-5028 3,039.97 FS 63 FUEL
7/27/2018 26940418-712257 E 781-13610-5028 1,063.76 FS 61 FUEL
7/27/2018 26940418-716048 E 781-13610-5028 1,342.78 FS 65 FUEL
FONG BROTHERS PRINTING, INC. 7/25/2018 2693142801651 E 100-13999-5999 770.21 PRINTING OF SOUTH CITY SHUTTLE TIMETABLE
GOLDEN STATE CHEMICAL & SUPPLY7/27/2018 269405770498 E 710-13910-5021 764.05 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
HOUSE OF COLOR SSF 7/27/2018 269407107045 E 710-13941-5051 99.44 PAINT FOR PLANT
IPS GROUP, INC 7/25/2018 26932134472 E 720-13720-5021 5,742.50 POLE MOUNT KIT FOR PARKING MAINTENANCE
JARED COONS 7/27/2018 2693971/2/16-1/31/18 E 710-13910-5033 862.00 CWEA MEMBERSHIP CERT. AND RENEWAL FOR JA
K JACK ENGINEERING COMPANY 7/25/2018 2693242916 E 100-13410-5020 1,864.90 NEW CITY NEWSRACK FRAMES
K-119 OF CALIFORNIA 7/25/2018 26932574094 E 710-13315-5021 961.19 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 7/25/2018 269327T691564 E 710-13942-5051 5.23 PARTS FOR PRIMARY CLARIFIER NO. 3
7/25/2018 269327V327067 E 710-13942-5051 1,189.38 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES PRIMARY CLARIFIER
7/25/2018 269327Z 63217 E 710-13942-5051 321.42 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES PRIMARY CLARIFIER
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 7/25/2018 269330902226 E 100-13460-5021 43.66 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 28 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
LOWE'S CREDIT SERVICES 7/25/2018 269330902346 E 710-13941-5050 35.98 LUMBER
7/25/2018 269330902422 E 710-13315-5021 89.34 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902515 E 100-13460-5021 33.34 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902565 E 710-13315-5021 33.19 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902594 E 710-13315-5021 4.13 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902623 E 710-13315-5021 136.13 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902665 E 100-13460-5021 37.10 STREETLIGHTING OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902712 E 710-13315-5021 23.10 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902861 E 100-13420-5021 68.79 CONCRETE OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330902897 E 710-13315-5021 90.24 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330915123 E 710-13962-5051 36.51 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330915376 E 710-13943-5051 53.70 PAINT BRUSH & WATERPROOFER
7/25/2018 269330916130 E 710-13962-5051 20.76 OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330917517 E 710-13922-5051 12.34 OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269330923243 E 710-13962-5051 9.82 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
MAINSTREAM ENGR/EPA 7/18/2018 269173CC375275 E 781-13610-5033 19.95 AH- OPER SUPPLIES
MAZE & ASSOCIATES 7/25/2018 26933327576 E 710-13910-5007 510.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
7/25/2018 26933327576 E 710-13310-5007 272.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
7/25/2018 26933327576 E 720-13720-5007 34.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
7/25/2018 26933327576 E 250-13510-5007 34.00 AUDIT SERVICES FOR 01/18 - 03/18
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 7/27/2018 26941168028711 E 710-13932-5050 285.02 OPERATING SUPPLIES
MESA LABORATORIES INC 7/18/2018 269131INV-225625 E 710-13951-5021 211.61 LAB SUPPLIES
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 7/25/2018 26933442409 E 781-13610-5001 3,528.22 SUPPLIES FOR VEHICLE #112
7/25/2018 26933442410 E 781-13610-5001 1,915.74 SUPPLIES FOR FIRE VEHICLE #242
MUNIQUIP, LLC 7/25/2018 269336104242 E 710-13943-5051 10,613.20 REPLACEMENT MECHANICAL SEAL DIGESTER NO.
NATIONAL CINEMEDIA, LLC 7/18/2018 269135INV-154862 E 710-13953-5030 4,693.40 ON-SCREEN OUTREACH
7/27/2018 269416INV- 155584 E 710-13953-5030 751.40 SEWER OUTREACH PROGRAM-ON SCREEN OUTRE
NEOPOST USA INC 7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 100-13210-5027 2.55 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 710-13910-5027 8.10 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
7/25/2018 26933815454393 E 710-13310-5027 13.64 MAILING SUPPLIES - POSTAGE MACHINE
NORCAL KENWORTH 7/25/2018 269339G89215 E 781-13610-5001 250.00 REPAIR FOR STREETS TRUCK #208
OLE'S CARBURETOR & ELEC INC 7/25/2018 269341422610 E 781-13610-5021 127.66 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 310
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 29 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
OLE'S CARBURETOR & ELEC INC 7/27/2018 269417422642 E 781-13610-5021 199.83 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 1-17
OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY 7/25/2018 269343SJ16622001 E 720-13720-5005 1,666.85 ELEVATOR TESTING AT MILLER PARKING GARAGE
PARADISE POINT 7/25/2018 269381cc375742 E 100-13410-5032 224.68 DM FOR EK: LODGING FOR PUB WKS OFFICERS IN
PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 7/25/2018 269346INVM0012396 E 100-13999-5999 19,662.72 MAY 2018 SOUTH CITY COMMUNITY SHUTTLE
7/25/2018 269346INVM0012536 E 100-13999-5999 18,768.96 JUNE 2018 SOUTH CITY COMMUNITY SHUTTLE
PETERSON POWER SYSTEMS INC 7/27/2018 2694182420194 E 710-13941-5051 3,122.59 PERFORM SERVICES ON ENGINE
7/27/2018 2694182420197 E 710-13961-5051 5,442.64 PERFORM SERVICES ON ENGINE
PETERSON TRUCKS, INC. 7/27/2018 26941934739 E 781-13610-5001 664.80 GARAGE - VEH 509 REPAIRS
PRODUCTIVE PRINTING & GRAPHICS7/27/2018 26942032931 E 710-13953-5021 353.97 OFFICE SUPPPLIES
R&B COMPANY 7/25/2018 269350S1756990.001 E 710-13315-5021 5,188.07 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
RDO EQUIPMENT CO 7/25/2018 269351P77735 E 781-13610-5021 611.13 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
READYREFRESH 7/18/2018 26915118G002846270 E 710-13910-5021 416.29 DRINKING WATER (06/07-07/06/18)
7/25/2018 26935218G5729903004 E 100-13610-5001 38.36 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER
7/25/2018 26935218G5729903004 E 100-13410-5001 38.34 CORP YARD BOTTLED WATER
RICHARD K. HOPPER 7/25/2018 2693203282 E 100-13210-5005 2,155.00 ALL-WAY STOP WARRANT ANALYSIS
SAFEWAY STORE 7/18/2018 269173CC374919 E 710-13315-5061 55.57 LL- SUPPLIES FOR CITIZENS ACADEMY
SAN MATEO LAWNMOWER INC. 7/25/2018 269356183164 E 781-13610-5021 1,626.50 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 800/796
SERRAMONTE FORD INC 7/25/2018 269361618924 E 781-13610-5021 76.15 GARAGE OPER SUPPLIES VEH 1
7/25/2018 269361624776 E 781-13610-5021 72.06 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269361625075 E 781-13610-5021 30.67 GARAGE VEH 904 OPER SUPPLIES
SILVERADO AVIONICS INC 7/25/2018 2693639373 E 781-13610-5001 4,816.24 RADIO FOR VEHICLE #112
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/18/2018 269173CC374924 E 710-13310-5061 390.11 LL- WATER FOR PW LUNCHEON (100 PEOPLE)
SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 7/25/2018 269367950103 E 781-13610-5021 12.65 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269367950734 E 710-13315-5051 79.49 SEWER MAINT OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 269367951319 E 781-13610-5021 20.70 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 213
SP PLUS CORPORATION 7/25/2018 26936842688-M1-0518F E 720-13720-5005 1,000.00 DESIGN & DEVEL0P CITY'S PARKING WEBSITE & G
7/25/2018 26936842688-M1-0618F E 720-13720-5005 1,000.00 DESIGN & DEVEL0P CITY'S PARKING WEBSITE & G
SPARTAN MOTOR CHASSIS, INC. 7/25/2018 269369IN00739261 E 781-13610-5021 1,011.51 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES VEH 506
SSF SCAVENGER CO INC 7/25/2018 2693720000716293 E 710-13962-5072 15,517.49 DEBRIS BOX SVC FOR SWEEPER/VACTOR DUMPSI
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/27/2018 2694278050570550/3834463E 710-13951-5021 49.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 2694278050570550/3834463E 710-13910-5021 51.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 2694278050570550/3834463E 710-13941-5021 80.90 OFFICE SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 30 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 7/27/2018 2694278050570550/3834463E 710-13910-5021 33.90 OFFICE SUPPLIES
STAPLES CREDIT PLAN 7/18/2018 269173CC374926 E 710-13315-5020 122.33 LL- PHONE CASE FOR MAINT. PHONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 E 710-13310-5037 32.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
7/18/2018 269163310718 E 710-13310-5037 32.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
THATCHER COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA7/25/2018 269376253478 E 710-13941-5021 5,529.67 FY2018-19 FERRIC CHLORIDE
TRACTION-GENUINE PARTS CO. 7/25/2018 2693791801P105487 E 781-13610-5021 15.60 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693791801P106143 E 781-13610-5021 404.66 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693791801P106144 E 781-13610-5021 59.04 GARAGE STOCK OPER SUPPLIES
UNITED LABORATORIES 7/25/2018 269382INV228201 E 710-13941-5021 676.20 ODOR CONTROL BULK CHEMICAL REPLINISHMEN
VERIZON WIRELESS 7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 740-13820-5071 71.37 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 710-13910-5071 381.06 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13210-5071 213.22 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13220-5071 70.29 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13410-5071 222.25 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13411-5071 66.33 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 781-13610-5071 87.45 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13430-5071 27.01 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 720-13720-5071 50.48 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 710-13910-5045 642.49 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13420-5071 12.67 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 100-13450-5071 35.12 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 710-13310-5071 52.26 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
7/27/2018 2694349811093442 E 710-13315-5071 260.61 CITYWIDE IPHONES, IPADS, MIFI/DATA - 07/2018
VIRIDIAN WASTEWATER CONSULTING7/27/2018 2694357/18/2018 E 710-13910-5033 500.00 GRADE 1&2 EXAM REVIEW FOR JESUS GOVEA
VWR INTERNATIONAL LLC 7/18/2018 2691778082823277 E 710-13951-5021 28.60 LAB SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693858082852617 E 710-13951-5021 149.91 LAB SUPPLIES
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 7/18/2018 2691789767908602 E 100-13450-5034 85.43 SAFETY BOOTS FOR RANDY CHEN
7/18/2018 2691789768300163 E 100-13450-5021 255.04 ELECTRIC OPER SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693869839133718 E 710-13962-5051 46.08 OPERAITNG SUPPLIES
7/25/2018 2693869840676622 E 710-13942-5051 217.29 OPERATING SUPPLIES - FILTER RESTOCK
7/25/2018 2693869840785779 E 710-13941-5021 224.97 OPERATING SUPPLIES - FILTER RESTOCK FOR A/C
7/25/2018 2693869842356678 E 710-13962-5051 250.07 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 31 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
PUBLIC WORKS
W.W. GRAINGER INC. 7/25/2018 2693869842356686 E 710-13953-5021 28.27 OPERATING SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 2694379845295816 E 710-13961-5050 201.63 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
7/27/2018 2694379851510272 E 710-13941-5021 354.75 OPERATING SUPPLIES REPLACEMENT OUTLETS
WORLD OIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 7/25/2018 269387I500-00343785 E 781-13610-5028 120.00 HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
YAMAHA GOLF CARS OF CALIFORNIA7/25/2018 269388L30576 E 710-13922-5021 210.55 REPLACEMENT CART BELTS
YAN YAN ZHANG 7/25/2018 2693897/7/2018 E 710-13951-5033 188.00 CWEA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL FOR YAN YAN ZH
Payments issued for PUBLIC WORKS $345,850.14
BALANCE SHEET
AKKAYA CIHAN 7/18/2018 269087E18-0516 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT. 304 GRAND AVE
ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 B 280-21706 0.50 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
BAY AREA PAVING 7/18/2018 269074E18-0513 B 270-21703 2,000.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 328 ALIDA WAY
C & J ROOFING CO INC. 7/18/2018 269077B18-0128 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 228 BRENTWOOD DR
CHRISTENSON PLUMBING 7/18/2018 269086E18-0518 B 270-21703 500.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 350 VALENCIA DR
CINDY C/AMADO GARCIA 7/18/2018 269088B16-1465 B 270-21724 300.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 837 NEWMAN
DISCOUNT PLUMBING 7/18/2018 269099E18-0620 B 270-21703 1,800.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 510 BADEN AVE
ENTERPRISE ROOFING SERVICES 7/27/2018 269402B18-0290 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 383 E GRAND
GRAND ROOFING INC 7/18/2018 269114B18-0794 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 3830 SHAMROCK
JIMENEZ CONCRETE 7/18/2018 269115E18-0290 B 270-21703 575.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 1057 GRAND AVE
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 7/18/2018 26912111117 B 100-21742 2,701.93 CEQA ANALYSIS FOR 201 HASKINS THROUGH 3/2
7/18/2018 26912111140 B 100-21742 3,182.50 CEQA ANALYSIS FOR 201 HASKINS THROUGH 4/2
7/18/2018 26912111162 B 100-21742 2,841.78 CEQA ANALYSIS FOR 201 HASKINS THROUGH 5/1
MACROBUILD CORPORATION 7/18/2018 269127E18-0550 B 270-21703 500.00 ENRCOACH DEPOSIT, 510 BADEN
PAK'S ROOFING COMPANY 7/18/2018 269139B18-0757 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 201 NORWICH DR
PARAMOUNT CABLE CORPORATION 7/18/2018 269140E18-0539 B 270-21703 1,000.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 304 GRAND AVE
PAUL LIU 7/18/2018 269125E18-0419 B 270-21703 576.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 43 CAPAY CIRCLE
ROTO-ROOTER SERVICE CO 7/25/2018 269354E18-0503 B 270-21703 576.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 765 COTTONWOOD AVE
SF GONZALEZ CONCRETE INC 7/18/2018 269156E18-0584 B 270-21703 720.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 346 VALENCIA DR.
SIGNATURE BUILDERS INC 7/27/2018 269424B18-0764 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 278 HOLLY
SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING INC 7/18/2018 269157E18-0581 B 270-21703 576.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 125 CHERRY AVE
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 785-21201 560.46 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 100-21201 6,277.05 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 32 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
BALANCE SHEET
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 280-21201 247.79 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 710-21201 686.02 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 720-21201 447.77 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 781-21201 56.75 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
7/25/2018 26937499-252901 B 786-21201 330.16 APR18-JUN18 SALES AND USE TAX ACCRUAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7/18/2018 269163304906 B 100-21205 49.00 MAY 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
7/18/2018 269163310718 B 100-21205 396.00 JUNE 2018 LIVESCAN SUBMISSIONS
STRONGER BUILDING SERVICES 7/18/2018 269166B18-0732 B 270-21724 200.00 C & D DEPOSIT REFUND 217 ROCKWOOD DR
THE WHITING-TURNER CONTRACTING7/18/2018 269170E18-0361 B 270-21703 2,000.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 279 E GRAND AVE
UNIVERSAL SERVICES RESTORATION7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 B 280-21706 1.04 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
YIU MING CHEUNG 7/18/2018 269085E18-0284 B 270-21703 576.00 ENCROACH DEPOSIT, 257 WESTVIEW DR
ZHAO XIAOLING TR 7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 B 280-21706 0.73 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
Payments issued for BALANCE SHEET $31,178.48
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRIC7/25/2018 269282W-19.5-002-SSF E 510-99995-5999 15,000.00 PERMIT FEES FOR BART TUNNEL SURVEY 7/23/18
BAY AREA TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS INC7/18/2018 269173CC374893 E 510-99999-5999 2,200.00 EK- ELECTRONIC SIGN BOARD RENTAL & FLAGGER
7/18/2018 269173CC374900 E 510-99999-5999 2,200.00 DB- ELECTRONIC SIGN BOARD RENTAL & FLAGGE
CAROLLO ENGINEERS, PC 7/18/2018 2690820167589 E 710-99999-5999 861.39 CONSULTING SERVICES, WQCP DIGESTER DESIGN
E-BUILDER INC 7/25/2018 2693075281 E 510-99999-5999 1,357.91 PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE IMPLEMENT
EKI ENVIRONMENTAL; & WATER INC7/25/2018 269309B70050.04-03 E 710-99999-5999 11,458.53 PROGRAM MGMT & STAFF AUGMENTATION SER
KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC7/18/2018 269118122944 E 710-99999-5999 6,591.05 CM & Inspection Services: WQCP Wet
KITCHELL CEM 7/27/2018 26940878928 E 510-99995-5999 35,759.00 COMM CIV CAMPUS PROGRAM MGMT KITCHELL
LAMPHIER-GREGORY 7/18/2018 26912111100 E 514-99999-5999 39,376.34 OPD PHASE IIID-IVD RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK 7/18/2018 2691332018040287 E 514-99999-5999 5,894.67 OP PHASE IC-405.1259- GREENLAND PHASE INFR
7/18/2018 2691332018040288 E 514-99999-5999 49.00 OP PHASE IC-405.1261 GREENLAND LAND CONVE
MICHAEL BAKER INTL, INC 7/18/2018 2691341014585 E 514-99999-5999 1,380.00 OP PHASE IC- CR-MICHAEL BAKER-PEER REVIEW S
OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT LLC 7/20/2018 269237OPD2017011 E 514-99999-5999 59,335.00 OPD LOT LINE ADJ AND PARCEL MAP REIMBURSE
PRONTO LASAGNERIA N PIZZERIA 7/20/2018 269257cc375407 E 510-99995-5999 148.57 HE: MEALS FOR COMMUNITY CIV CAMPUS MTG F
SWINERTON MGMT & CONSULTING 7/25/2018 26937517100051-6 E 710-99999-5999 3,008.00 ON CALL RESO 141-2017 MULTI-DISCIPLINARY EN
7/25/2018 26937517100059-6 E 710-99999-5999 1,504.00 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR VARIOU
WOODARD & CURRAN INC 7/18/2018 269181151834 E 710-99999-5999 7,287.90 ON CALL WATER RESOURCES SERVICES FY 17-18
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 33 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
WOODARD & CURRAN INC 7/18/2018 26918126170 E 710-99999-5999 8,164.77 2017-2 EFFLUENT STORAGE POND LINER DESIGN
Payments issued for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $201,576.13
DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE
ADOLPH KEIFER & ASSOCIATES 7/20/2018 269257CC374991 B 280-27405 1,398.88 DS - AQUATIC SUPPLIES
ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 B 280-27465 8.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 7/25/2018 2692721J1P-TQD3-9M9K B 280-27408 69.07 MAKERSPACE SUPPLIES - FOL DONATION
7/25/2018 2692721Q3K-7TN7-LPDR B 280-27408 21.99 MAKERSPACE SUPPLIES - FOL DONATION
CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS 7/27/2018 269432CC375885 B 280-27465 780.00 PC- CALBO ED WEEK MCNICOL & KINAHAN
KARLA BOURDON 7/18/2018 26907503/24-06/29/18 B 280-27423 17.98 PROGRAM REFRESHMENTS, MILEAGE REIMBURS
SMART & FINAL STORES LLC 7/18/2018 269173cc375218 B 280-27410 18.97 AR-CPTF CLEANUP FRANCISCO TERRACE REFRESH
UNIVERSAL SERVICES RESTORATION7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 B 280-27465 6.40 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
ZHAO XIAOLING TR 7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 B 280-27465 6.40 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
Payments issued for DESIGNATED FUND BALANCE $2,327.69
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
ALEXANDER COMPANY (4615) 7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 R 270-00000-35105 26.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 R 270-00000-35101 2.32 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 R 100-10520-32111 1.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
7/18/2018 269065B18-0978 R 100-10520-32101 84.60 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 352 A
ANDREW LIEBERMAN 7/20/2018 2692271058606 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURNED IN FULL
7/20/2018 26921217-447537 R 100-11610-35203 93.58 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
AP3-SF3 7/20/2018 269185B18-0252 R 100-10520-32101 16,348.00 REIMBURSEMENT OF BLDG PERMIT FEE CHRGED
ARAYAT ASSOCIATION 7/18/2018 2690701058550 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK
AUDENTES THERAPEUTICS 7/25/2018 2692801058441 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 CANCELLED PICNIC RESERVATION REFUND OF DE
BILL FRANCO 7/18/2018 269112B17-2219 R 100-10520-32109 477.00 REFUND FOR AFTER HOURS INSP FEE 435 FORBES
7/20/2018 26923417-437200 R 100-11611-35204 96.11 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
ED BARBIERI 7/18/2018 2690721058555 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK
ELI OSHITA 7/20/2018 2692361058612 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURNED IN FULL
7/20/2018 26920817-104720 R 100-11611-35204 2,000.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
EQUIPO DE SERVICIO 7/18/2018 2691081058412 R 100-17250-35301 200.00 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR USE OF ORANGE PARK
FARHAD DOCTOR 7/18/2018 2691021817803-1 R 100-00000-35403 350.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR FINGERPRINTING
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 34 of 35
VENDOR NAMEDATE CHECK #INVOICE #ACCOUNT #AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
Payments issued between and7/16/2018 7/29/2018 -City of South San Francisco
REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS
7/18/2018 26914417-352634 R 100-11611-35204 113.48 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
HALIMA VENKATAYA 7/20/2018 2692591058608 R 100-17250-35301 500.00 DAMAGE DEPOSIT RETURND IN FULL
7/20/2018 26924717-242133 R 100-11611-35204 25.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
7/20/2018 26921917-318713 R 100-11611-35204 95.82 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
7/20/2018 26924917-462430 R 100-11611-35204 19.05 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT
7/20/2018 26919117-352601 R 100-11610-35203 2,300.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
7/20/2018 26923817-462412 R 100-11611-35204 50.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
MARIA HERNANDEZ 7/25/2018 26931907/14/2018 R 100-12720-35403 1,045.00 EVENT - SECURITY REFUND
7/20/2018 26923017-487689 R 100-11610-35203 1,900.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
7/18/2018 26914818-5817 R 100-11611-35204 96.96 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
MARTHA CARCAMO 7/25/2018 2692861058511 R 100-17275-35307 340.00 REFUND OF SUMMER CAMP
MELLISA HAPIN 7/20/2018 2692161058650 R 100-17250-35301 349.50 REFUND OF DEPOSIT FOR HALL RENTAL
7/20/2018 26921517-301042 R 100-11610-35203 100.00 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
PETE BELTRAN 7/20/2018 2691901058601 R 100-17250-35301 350.00 DAMAGE HALL DEPOSIT RETURNED IN FUL L
7/18/2018 26911317-447537 R 100-11611-35204 21.95 AMBULANCE TRANSPORT OVERPAYMENT REFUN
UNIVERSAL SERVICES RESTORATION7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 R 100-10520-32101 233.52 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 R 100-10520-32107 100.32 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 R 100-10520-32111 0.80 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 R 270-00000-35105 20.00 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
7/27/2018 269433B18-0806 R 270-00000-35101 12.80 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 230
YU-WEI CHANG 7/25/2018 269290PKNGREF-071318CHAR 720-00000-35801 140.00 METER RESERV REFUND FOR 07/12/18
ZHAO XIAOLING TR 7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 270-00000-35101 8.96 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 100-10520-32101 177.96 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 100-10520-32106 52.96 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 100-10520-32107 58.24 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 100-10520-32111 0.80 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
7/18/2018 269182B18-0361 R 100-10520-32108 29.28 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CANCELLED PERMIT 106 L
Payments issued for REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS $29,121.01
TOTAL PAYMENTS FOR PERIOD $2,347,493.21
Monday, July 30, 2018 Page 35 of 35
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-204 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:10.
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the Sign Hill Generator Replacement
project (CIP Project No.pf1506)as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction
Cost $491,239.72). (Richard Cho, Principal Engineer, and Peter Vorametsanti, Swinerton)
RECOMMENDATION
On July 12,2017,the City awarded a construction contract to Blocka Construction Inc.to complete the Sign
Hill Generator Replacement Project (“Project”)at the City’s Sign Hill communication facility.This facility
houses radio equipment critical to the delivery of basic emergency services to support for the City’s public
safety and public works and other agencies such as Caltrain,San Mateo County,and the California Water
Company.The Project replaced the old backup generator system installed in 1974 with a new 25KW generator,
automatic transfer switch,and diesel fuel tank;installed air conditioning to maintain temperature and humidity
in the facility building within acceptable ranges for the radio equipment; and upgraded the exterior site lighting.
The City approved a 12%construction contingency to cover the cost of any necessary additional work needed
to complete the project.During construction,additional cost was incurred to add support structures,including
concrete footings and metal brackets,for the new air conditioning exterior ducts,and to make modifications to
the existing fire suppression system.This additional cost is within the approved contingency.The total
construction cost incurred for the contract is summarized as follows:
Projected Actual
Blocka Construction Inc. Contract $464,000.00$464,000.00
Construction Contingency $55,680.00 $27,239.72
Total Construction Budget $519,680.00$491,239.72
Construction was completed in coordination with representatives from the City Police,Parks &Recreation,and
Public Works Departments.The contractor’s work has been inspected and found to have been completed in
accordance with the contract plans and specifications.
FUNDING
Funding for this project was included in the City of South San Francisco 2017-2018 Capital Improvement
Program.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends acceptance of the contract work as complete.Upon acceptance,a Notice of Completion will
be filed with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s Office.At the end of the thirty-day lien filing period,the
retention funds will be released to the Contractor after the City receives a one-year warranty bond.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-205 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:11.
Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the Citywide Gap Closure -Haskins
Sidewalk (Project No.st1402)as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction
Cost $200,324). (Richard Cho, Principal Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council,by motion,accept the construction improvements of the
Citywide Gap Closure -Haskins Sidewalk (Project No.st1402)as complete in accordance with plans and
specifications (Total Construction Cost $200,324).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
With the support of a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)grant,the City awarded a
construction contract to Spencon Construction,Inc.to construct sidewalk to complete a gap in the Haskins Way
sidewalk from East Grand Avenue to Jaime Court,thereby improving pedestrian/ADA access to the nearby
Regional Bay Trail.The work included installing three new ADA-compliant curb returns at E.Jaime Court and
at the wide commercial driveway at 201 Haskins Way.Nine older street trees were removed in accordance with
an arborist survey that found these trees to be either dead,in poor condition,and/or unlikely to survive the
construction. Street trees in good health were retained and protected with short retaining curbs.
As required for all federal aid transportation grants,this contract contained all required federal contract
language including the requirements for Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE)subcontracting.The
Contractor committed subcontracting $11,700 or 6%of the bid amount to two qualified DBE firms.In
accordance with federal aid DBE regulations and direction from the Caltrans Office of Local Assistance,staff
withheld payment of $5,700,the listed value of one listed DBE’s work,because the Contractor self-performed
this DBE’s specified portion of the work without following the contractual process for substituting a listed
DBE.
The total construction cost incurred for the project is summarized as follows:
Projected Actual
Spencon Construction of Danville, California $194,205$194,205
Construction Contingency (10%)$19,421 $11,819
DBE Subcontractor Withholding -$5,700
Total Construction Budget $213,626 $200,324
Contingency was used to adjust various bid item quantities to the actual placed quantities as measured during
construction.
FUNDING
Funding for this project was included in the City of South San Francisco 2018-2019 Capital Improvement
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-205 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:11.
Program. The project was delivered on time and under budget.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends acceptance of the project as complete.Upon acceptance,a Notice of Completion will be
filed with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s office.At the end of the thirty day lien period,the retention
funds will be released to the Contractor after the City receives one year warranty bond.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-737 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:12.
Report regarding consideration of the League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Packet for
the 2018 Annual Conference in Long Beach,California on September 12-14,2018.(Mike Futrell,City
Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider and take a position on the League of California Cities
Annual Conference Resolutions Packet for the 2018 Annual Conference in Long Beach,California on
September 12-14, 2018.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The League of California Cities (“League”)will consider two resolutions at its 2018 Annual Conference in
September 2018.The City Council has the opportunity to consider and take a position on each in advance of the
event.The General Resolutions Committee (“Committee”)of the League will meet during the Conference to
take positions on each of these resolutions.The positions of member cities will be considered by the
Committee.
The two resolutions and accompanying analyses are included as attachment 1 to this staff report.The two
resolutions are as follows:
1)Resolution of the League of California Cities calling upon the League to respond to the increasing
vulnerabilities to local municipal authority,control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would further strengthen local democracy and authority.
2)Resolution of the League of California Cities declaring its commitment to support the repeal of
preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code §11501.1 that prevents local governments from
regulating pesticides.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.
CONCLUSION
The City Council should consider and take a position on each of the two resolutions included within the League
of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Packet so the City has the opportunity to weigh in on
League Policy.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2018 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
September 12 – 14, 2018
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and
referred to League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: Five policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider
and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality,
Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic Development;
Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will
meet from 9:00 – 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 12, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The
sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting.
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
September 13, at the Hyatt Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding
the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional
divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals
appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting
will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 14, at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m.,
Thursday, September 13. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacities.org/resolutions.
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224
1
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, September 12, 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
The following committees will be meeting:
1. Environmental Quality
2. Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations
3. Housing, Community & Economic Development
4. Revenue & Taxation
5. Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, September 13, 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon
Friday, September 14, 12:30 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
2 Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
GOVERNANCE, TRANSPARENCY & LABOR RELATIONS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Local Municipal Authority, Control, and Revenue
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet will
be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note:
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.
5
1. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING UPON THE
LEAGUE TO RESPOND TO THE INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY, CONTROL AND REVENUE AND EXPLORE THE
PREPARATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE AND/OR CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT THAT WOULD FURTHER STRENGTHEN LOCAL DEMOCRACY
AND AUTHORITY
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Arcadia, Burbank, Cupertino; Duarte;
Oceanside; Ontario; Palo Alto; Redondo Beach; Santa Cruz; Sunnyvale; Torrance; West
Hollywood
Referred to: Governance, Transparency & Labor Relations; Housing, Community & Economic
Development; Revenue and Taxation; and Transportation, Communication & Public Works
Policy Committees
WHEREAS, the State of California is comprised of diverse communities that are home
to persons of differing backgrounds, needs, and aspirations; yet united by the vision that the most
accessible, responsive, effective, and transparent form of democratic government is found at the
local level and in their own communities; and
WHEREAS, subsidiarity is the principle that democratic decisions are best made at the
most local level best suited to address the needs of the People, and suggests that local
governments should be allowed to find solutions at the local level before the California
Legislature imposes uniform and overreaching measures throughout the State; and
WHEREAS, the California Constitution recognizes that local self-government is the
cornerstone of democracy by empowering cities to enact local laws and policies designed to
protect the local public health, safety and welfare of their residents and govern the municipal
affairs of charter cities; and
WHEREAS, over recent years there have been an increasing number of measures
introduced within the Legislature or proposed for the state ballot, often sponsored by powerful
interest groups and corporations, aimed at undermining the authority, control and revenue
options for local governments and their residents; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations are willing to spend millions in
political contributions to legislators to advance legislation, or to hire paid signature gatherers to
qualify deceptive ballot proposals attempting to overrule or silence the voices of local residents
and their democratically-elected local governments affected by their proposed policies; and
WHEREAS, powerful interest groups and corporations propose and advance such
measures because they view local democracy as an obstacle that disrupts the efficiency of
implementing corporate plans and increasing profits and therefore object when local residents—
either through their elected city councils, boards of supervisors, special district boards, or by
action of local voters—enact local ordinances and policies tailored to fit the needs of their
individual communities; and
6
WHEREAS, public polling repeatedly demonstrates that local residents and voters have
the highest levels of confidence in levels of government that are closest to the people, and thus
would be likely to strongly support a ballot measure that would further strengthen the ability of
communities to govern themselves without micromanagement from the state or having their
authority undermined by deep-pocketed and powerful interests and corporations.
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities should assess the increasing
vulnerabilities to local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to
further strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy to best preserve their
local quality of life.
7
Background Information on Resolution No. 1
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Background:
The relationship between the state and cities functions best as a partnership where major
policy issues are approached by the state with careful consideration of the varied conditions
among the state’s 482 cities and 58 counties. There should be an appreciation of the
importance of retaining local flexibility to tailor policies to reflect the needs and
circumstances of the local community. Still, cities have had to respond to state legislation
that undermines the principle of “local control” over important issues such as land use,
housing, finance, infrastructure, elections, labor relations and other issues directly affecting
cities.
Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America” examined the operation of the principle
of subsidiarity in the early 19th century. Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that states
matters should be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority.
Tocqueville wrote that "Decentralization has not only an administrative value, but also a
civic dimension, since it increases the opportunities for citizens to take interest in public
affairs; it makes them get accustomed to using freedom.” Tocqueville’s works were first
published in 1835 with a second volume published in 1840. The United States had a
population of just 17 million people in 1840, less than 50% of the population of California
today and yet there was value found in decentralization.
Another consideration is to examine how the European Union (“EU”) operates. There are
two prime guiding principles for the EU. The first is principle of conferral, which states
that the EU should act only within the limits of the competences conferred on it by the
treaties. The second, which is relevant to this resolution, is the principle of subsidiarity,
which states that the EU should act only where an objective cannot be sufficiently achieved
by the member states acting alone. Sacramento should operate in a similar manner and only
govern when objectives need to be achieved at a much larger level than a local government.
For years, Governor Jerry Brown himself has spoken on the principle of “subsidiarity.”
Governor Brown has asserted for numerous years that local officials should have the
flexibility to act without micromanagement from Sacramento.
Legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the state legislature has continually
threatened local control in flagrant opposition to the principle of subsidiarity. This has
included, but not been limited to, Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities (“SB 649”) in 2017; AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local government: taxation:
prohibition: video streaming services (“AB 252”) in 2017; and Senate Bill 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus (“SB 827”) in 2018.
SB 649 would have applied to all telecommunications providers and the equipment they
use, including “micro-wireless,” “small cell,” and “macro-towers,” as well as a range of
video and cable services. The bill would have allowed the use of “small cell” wireless
8
antennas and related equipment without a local discretionary permit in all zoning districts
as a use by-right, subject only to an administrative permit. Additionally, SB 649 provided a
de facto CEQA exemption for the installation of such facilities and precluded consideration
by the public for the aesthetic, nuisance, and environmental impacts of these facilities. SB
649 would have also removed the ability for cities to obtain fair and reasonable
compensation when authorizing the use of public property and rights of way from a “for
profit” company for this type of use.
SB 649 passed out of the State Assembly by a vote of 46-16-17 and out of the State Senate
by a vote of 22-10-8 despite over 300 cities and 47 counties in California providing letters
of opposition. Ultimately, Governor Brown vetoed the bill as he believed “that the interest
which localities have in managing rights of way requires a more balanced solution than the
one achieved in this bill.” It is strongly believed that the issue of wireless
telecommunications facilities is not over and it is anticipated that legislation will be
introduced on this topic in January 2019.
Another example of an incursion into local control was AB 252, which would have
prohibited any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services, including sales and use
taxes and utility user taxes. Over the last two decades, voters in 107 cities and 3 counties
have adopted measures to modernize their Utility User Tax (“UUT”) ordinances. Of these
jurisdictions, 87 cities and 1 county approved ordinances to allow a UUT on video
providers. Prior to its first Committee hearing, AB 252 received opposition letters from 37
cities, the League of California Cities, South Bay Council of Governments, California
Contract Cities Association, and nine other organizations. This bill failed in the Assembly
Revenue and Taxation Committee 8-0-2, which the author of the Committee chaired.
More recently, SB 827 would have overridden local control on housing development that
was within ½ mile of a major transit stop or ¼ mile from a high-quality bus corridor as
defined by the legislation with some limitations. On April 17, 2018, SB 827 failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee 4-6-3 but was granted reconsideration. State
legislators have indicated they will continue to introduce legislation that will override local
zoning ordinances for the development of affordable housing in conjunction with mixed
use and/or luxury condominium/apartment housing.
These are just three examples of the increasing attempts by Sacramento to supersede local
control. Presently, there are discussions occurring in Sacramento to ban cities from creating
their own municipal broadband or to prohibit local ordinances over the regulation of shared
mobility devices such as dockless electric scooters. These decisions should remain with
each individual jurisdiction to decide based on the uniqueness of their community and the
constituents that live in each city.
Often fueled by the actions of special interest groups, Sacramento is continually attempting
to overreach their authority with various incursions on local control. The desire in
Sacramento to strip communities of their ability to make decisions over issues which
should remain at the local level seems to intensify each state legislative cycle. Increasingly,
legislation is being introduced with a “one-size-fits-all” approach which is detrimental in a
9
state with over 40 million residents that have extremely diverse communities from the
desert to the sea, from the southern to the northern borders.
Loren King in the book “Cities, Subsidiarity and Federalism” states, “Decisions should be
made at the lowest feasible scale possible”. The proposed resolution directs the League of
California Cities to assess the increasing vulnerabilities to local authority, control and
revenue. It also directs the League of California Cities to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment which would aim to ensure that decisions are
made as close to home as possible.
Local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy precisely because it is
closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would provide the
state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the role of
local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the appropriate
issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic. Any ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment should institutionalize the principle of
subsidiarity, while encouraging inclusive regional cooperation that recognizes the diversity
of California’s many individual communities. The time has come to allow the residents of
California’s voters to decide if they prefer top down governance from Sacramento or
bottom up governing from their own locally elected officials.
10
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Dan Carrigg, Johnnie Pina
Committees: Governance, Transparency and Labor Relations
Housing, Community & Economic Development
Revenue & Taxation
Transportation, Communication and Public Works
Summary:
This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should assess the vulnerabilities to
local authority, control and revenue and explore the preparation of a ballot measure and or
constitutional amendment that would give the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen
local authority and preserve the role of local democracy.
Background:
The City of Beverly Hills is sponsoring this resolution in reaction to their concerns over
measures coming from the Legislature and the initiative process attempting to roll back local
control and hinder cities from providing optimal services to their residents.
As examples, the city cites the 2017-2018 legislative cycle, the Legislature introduced bills such
as Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and AB 252 (Ridley-
Thomas) proposing to prohibit taxes on video streaming services, and more recently Senate Bill
827 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing. SB 649 was vetoed by the Governor
and SB 827 died in policy committee, however if these measures had been signed into law they
would have impinged on the ability of a local government to be responsive to the needs of their
constituents.
The city maintains that “local government, when done right, is the best form of democracy
precisely because it is closest to home. A ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment would
provide the state’s voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and maintain the
role of local democracy to best preserve their local quality of life while still leaving the
appropriate issues at the county, regional or state legislature depending on the topic.”
Fiscal Impact:
By requesting the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” the preparation of a ballot
measure that would further protect local authority, there are no proposals to be quantified. But it
is presumed that the League would not pursue a measure that did not have positive impacts of
further protecting local authority.
For the League as an organization, however, the fiscal impact of sponsoring a ballot measure can
be very expensive. It can take several million dollars to qualify a measure via signature
gathering, and much more to fund an effective campaign and overcome organized opposition.
Comments:
1) Ballot measure advocacy is a settled aspect of California’s political process. This year’s
November ballot is an example of that, with proposals ranging from dividing California
11
into three states, restoring rent control, repealing transportation funding, to funding
housing and water bonds. Three other measures are not on the November ballot after
their sponsors spent millions gathering signatures to qualify measures, then leveraged
last-minute legislative deals in exchange for pulling them from the ballot.
2) Most major stakeholder organizations in Sacramento have realized that they cannot rely
on legislative advocacy alone to protect their interests, but must develop and maintain the
capacity to protect their interests in the ballot process as well.
3) The League has been engaged in ballot advocacy for nearly 20 years. In the early 2000’s,
city officials were angered by repeated state raids of local revenues. These concerns led
to the League –-for the first time in its then 100-year history—developing a ballot
advocacy infrastructure that included forming and fundraising for an issues political
action committee (PAC), establishing a network of regional managers, and building a
coalition with other organizations that ultimately led to the passage of Prop. 1A of 2004.
Over the years, the League’s successful campaigns include the passage of Proposition 1A
and Proposition 99 and the defeat of Propositions 90 and 98.
a. Yes on Proposition 1A (2004)
As a result of the passage of Prop 1A, local government revenues that otherwise
would have been raided by the state legislature were kept in local coffers. This
resulted in increased funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks and other
locally delivered services. Proposition 1A PASSED WITH 83.7% OF THE
VOTE.
b. No on Proposition 90 (2006)
Prop. 90 was a well-financed special interest-backed initiative that sought to
eliminate most of local governments’ land use decision making authority. Led by
the League, the opposition educated voters on how this measure’s far reaching
provisions would have cost taxpayers billions of dollars by driving up the cost of
infrastructure projects, prevented voters and state and local agencies from
enacting environmental protections, jeopardized public safety services and more.
Proposition 90 FAILED WITH 52.4% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
c. No on Proposition 98 Yes on Proposition 99 (2008)
Given the hidden agendas within Prop 98, our message was not always an easy
one to communicate to the electorate. The No on 98/ Yes on 99 campaign was
able to educate voters on the important differences between both measures. As a
result, important eminent domain reforms were enacted and both land use
decision making and rent control were preserved within our communities.
Proposition 98 FAILED WITH 61.6% OF THE VOTERS VOTING NO.
Proposition 99 PASSED BY 61% OF THE VOTE.
d. Yes on Proposition 22 (2010)
As a result of the passage, local governments have been able to pay for
infrastructure investment, create local jobs and avoid devastating cuts in our
communities. Proposition 22 APPROVED BY 60.7% OF VOTERS.
12
4) While the League has been able to recently defeat several major legislative proposals
aimed and undermining local authority, and avoid a battle over the Business
Roundtable’s measure in November due to the “soda tax” deal, the threats to local
authority and revenue remain a constant concern. Other interest groups may be
emboldened by some of the recent “deals” cut by ballot proponents and seek to
implement similar strategies for the 2020 ballot. The next Governor may also have
different philosophies then Governor Jerry Brown on “subsidiarity.”
5) The League’s President opted to send this resolution to four policy committees for
several reasons: (a) the recent major threats to local control covered broad policy areas:
telecom, land use, contracting, and revenue; and (b) having this issue vetted broadly
within the League policy process will provide a better assessment of the depth of concern
for the vulnerability to local control within the membership
6) If the membership chooses to approve this measure, it is strongly advisable to retain
continued flexibility for the League to “assess” vulnerabilities and “explore” options.
Any ballot initiative consideration must be approached very carefully by the organization.
It is a difficult and very expensive endeavor that can have additional political
ramifications. For 120 years the League’s core mission has been to protect local control -
- and it has gone to the ballot successfully before to do so -- but any such effort must be
approached thoughtfully, prudently and cautiously.
Existing League Policy:
Related to this Resolution, existing policy provides:
The League of California Cities’ Mission Statement is, “To expand and protect local
control for cities through education and advocacy. To enhance the quality of life for all
Californians”
The League of California Cities’ Summary of Existing Policy and Guidelines states,
“We Believe
o Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy.
o Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest.
o In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving
problems.
o In conducting the business of government with openness, respect, and civility.
o The spirit of public service is what builds communities.
o Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public
trust.
o Cities are the economic engine of California.
o The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
o The active participation of all city officials increases the League’s effectiveness.
o Focused advocacy and lobbying is most effective through partnerships and
collaboration.
o Well-informed city officials mean responsive, visionary leadership, and effective
and efficient
o city operations.”
Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.
13
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: Steven Scharf, Cupertino City Council
Member; Michael S. Goldman, Sunnyvale City Council; Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Council
Member; David Terrazas, Mayor of Santa Cruz; Peter Weiss, Mayor of Oceanside; Alan D.
Wapner, Mayor pro Tem of Ontario; Patrick Furey, Mayor of Torrance; Lauren Meister, West
Hollywood Council Member; Liz Reilly, Duarte Mayor Pro Tem; Bill Brand, Mayor of Redondo
Beach; Sho Tay, Mayor of Arcadia; Emily Gabel-Luddy, Mayor of Burbank.
14
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Source: City of Malibu
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Agoura Hills; Calabasas; Davis; Menlo
Park; Moorpark; Ojai; Oxnard; Richmond; West Hollywood
Referred to: Environmental Quality
WHEREAS, anticoagulant rodenticides are poisonous bait products that are poisoning
80 to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging
in non-target animals, including pets, that accidentally ingest the products. Approximately
10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned by anticoagulant rodenticides each
year nationwide; and
WHEREAS, in response to these harms, the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the
Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by
anticoagulant rodenticides; and
WHEREAS, the state of California currently only recognizes the harm posed by second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides, which are prohibited in state wildlife habitat areas but are
still available for agricultural purposes and by certified applicators throughout the state of
California; and
WHEREAS, first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are still available to the public
and used throughout California without limitation; and
WHEREAS, nonpoisonous rodent control methods, such as controlling trash, sealing
buildings, setting traps, erecting raptor poles and owl boxes, and removing rodent nesting areas
are also effective rodent control methods; and
WHEREAS, the state of California preempts cities from regulating pesticides; and
WHEREAS, many cities across California have passed resolutions restricting pesticide
use on city property and have expressed the desire to ban the use of pesticides within their
jurisdictions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the General Assembly of the League of
California Cities, assembled in Long Beach, California on September 14, 2018, to do as follows:
1. Encourage the state of California to fund and sponsor further research into the negative
impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides to determine whether the use of these products
should be further restricted or banned statewide.
15
2. Direct the League of California Cities staff to consider creating a task force with other
organizations and jointly commission a report on the unintended negative impact of
anticoagulant rodenticides;
3. Encourage cities throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant rodenticides as
part of their maintenance program in city-owned parks, lands, and facilities and to report
on the effectiveness of other rodent control methods used in in their maintenance
program;
4. Encourage property owners throughout California to eliminate use of anticoagulant
rodenticides on their properties;
5. Encourage cities throughout California to join in these advocacy efforts to mitigate the
unintended negative impacts of anticoagulant rodenticides;
6. Endorse a repeal of California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 to end local
preemption of regulating pesticides; and
7. Call for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League of California Cities
and other stakeholders to consider and implement this reform.
16
Background Information on Resolution
Source: City of Malibu
Background:
A. Anticoagulant rodenticides are unnecessarily destructive and dangerous
Anticoagulant rodenticides contain lethal agents that disrupt the normal blood clotting or
coagulation process causing dosed rodents to die from uncontrolled bleeding or hemorrhaging.
Deaths typically occur between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
Animals commonly targeted by anticoagulant rodenticides include rats, mice, gophers and
squirrels. Non-target predator wildlife victims, which are exposed to an 80-90% risk of
poisoning, include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears, foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. The
endangered species at risk of poisoning include fishers, spotted owls, and San Joaquin foxes. The
use of anticoagulant rodenticides not only harms rodents, but it commonly harms pets, such as
dogs, cats, and bunnies, and other wildlife that mistakenly eat the bait through primary poisoning
or that unknowingly consume animals that have ingested the anticoagulant rodenticide through
secondary poisoning. Children also suffer poisoning by mistakenly ingesting anticoagulant
rodenticides.
California recognizes the grave harm that can be caused by anticoagulant rodenticides and has
partially restricted access to second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides by the public:
Because of documented hazards to wildlife, pets and children, the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation has restricted public access to some of these
materials in California. As of July 1, 2014, rodenticide products containing the
active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difethialone and difenacoum are
only to be used by licensed applicators (professional exterminators).1
California has also prohibited the use of these ingredients in any “wildlife habitat area,” which is
defined as “any state park, state wildlife refuge, or state conservancy.”2
The United State Environmental Protection Agency3 and the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation4 have both documented in detail the damage to wildlife from second-generation
anticoagulant rodenticides in support of the 2014 consumer ban on the purchase and use of the
products. While first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are less toxic, they are far more
abundant due to their continued availability to all members of public.4 The California
Department of Fish & Wildlife was tasked with collecting data on poisoning incidents to
ascertain the effectiveness of the restrictions on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides.
After almost four years of collecting data, there was no evidence supporting a reduction in the
number of poisonings.
1 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/living-with-wildlife/rodenticides.
2 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 12978.7.
3 https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-products
4 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/registration/reevaluation/chemicals/brodifacoum_final_assess.pdf
17
Recent studies by the University of California, Los Angeles and the National Park Service on
bobcats have shown that first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning levels similar to the
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides poisoning levels.5 A comprehensive study of 111
mountain lions in 37 California counties found first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the
liver tissue of 81 mountain lions (73% of those studied) across 33 of the 37 counties, and second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in 102 mountain lions (92% of those studied) across 35 of
the 37 counties.6 First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides were identified as contributing to
the poisoning of Griffith Park mountain lion, P-22, (who was rescued), and the deaths of
Newbury Park mountain lion, P-34, and Verdugo Hills mountain lion, P-41.
This data demonstrates the inadequacy of current legislative measures to ameliorate the
documented problem caused by both second-generation and first-generation anticoagulant
rodenticides.
B. State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides
A general law city may not enact local laws that conflict with general state law.7 Local
legislation that conflicts with state law is void.8 A local law conflicts with state law if it (1)
duplicates, (2) contradicts, or (3) enters a field that has been fully occupied by state law, whether
expressly or by implication. A local law falling into any of these categories is “preempted” and is
unenforceable.
State law expressly bars local governments from regulating or prohibiting pesticide use. This bar
is codified in the California Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1(a):
This division and Division 7 . . . are of statewide concern and occupy the whole
field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of
pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically
provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including,
but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county
board of supervisors, or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of
an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter
relating to the registration, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these
ordinances, laws or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
State law also authorizes the state to take action against any local entity that promulgates an
ordinance or regulation that violates § 11501.1(a).9 The statute was specifically adopted to
overrule a 30 year old court decision in People v. County of Mendocino,10 which had held that a
5 L. E. K. Serieys, et al, “Anticoagulant rodenticides in urban bobcats: exposure, risk factors and potential effects
based on a 16-year study,” Ecotoxicology (2015) 24:844–862.
6 J. Rudd, et al, “Prevalence of First-Generation and Second-Generation Rodenticide Exposure in California
Mountain Lions,” Proceeding of the 28th Vertebrate Pest Conference, February 2018.
7 Cal. Const. art. XI § 7.
8 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 Cal. 4th 729, 743.
9 Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1, subd. (b).
10 People ex rel. Deukmejian v. County of Mendocino (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 476.
18
local regulation prohibiting aerial application of phenoxy herbicides was not then preempted by
state or federal law.11
The use of pesticides is broadly regulated by state law. In the language of preemption law, the
state “occupies the field,” leaving no room for additional local law on the subject. Accordingly, a
city’s ban on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides would be unenforceable.
C. California should repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to decide how to regulate pesticides within their
own jurisdictions based on local concerns
The state of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in
their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
Recognizing that cities’ power to “make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary,
and other ordinances and regulations” is presently preempted by the general laws of the state,
cities throughout California request that the state provide cities with the authority to decide how
to deal with rodents based on their land use.
Depending on such land use, cities may decide to allow the use of nonpoisonous control
methods, non-anticoagulant rodenticides, or anticoagulant rodenticides, if necessary.
Nonpoisonous methods to control rodent pests, include sealing entrances to buildings, sanitizing
property, removing rodent habitats, such as ivy or wood piles, setting traps, and erecting raptor
poles or owl boxes. For example, a recent landmark study by Ventura County established that
installing raptor poles for hawks and owls was more effective than anticoagulant rodenticides in
reducing the damage to water control levees caused by ground squirrel burrows. Burrows
decreased by 66% with the change.12
The ultimate goal is to allow cities to address their local concerns with the input of community
members at open and public meetings. Presently, cities are unable to adequately address local
concerns; they are limited to encouraging or discouraging behavior.
D. Conclusion
The negative effects from the use of anticoagulant rodenticides across California has garnered
the interest of cities and community members to remedy the problem. By presenting this
resolution to the League of California Cities, the City of Malibu hopes to organize support and
gain interest at the state level to repeal the preemption in Cal. Food and Agric. Code § 11501.1 to
provide cities with the authority to regulate pesticides based on individual, local concerns.
11 IT Corp. v. Solano County Bd. Of Supervisors (1991) 1 Cal. 4th 81, fn. 9; Turner v. Chevron USA Inc., 2006 WL
1314013, fn. 14 (unpublished).
12 http://vcportal.ventura.org/BOS/District2/RaptorPilotStudy.pdf
19
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2
Staff: Erin Evans-Fudem
Committee: Environmental Quality
Summary:
This resolution seeks to have the state and the League study the negative impacts of
anticoagulant rodenticides and address the inability of cities to regulate the use of rodenticides
and pesticides.
Specifically related to anticoagulant rodenticides, the resolution would encourage the state to
fund research into the negative impacts and a potential restriction or ban; direct the League to
consider creating a task force to study and report on the unintended negative consequences;
encourage cities and property owners to eliminate use; and encourage cities to join advocacy
efforts. In addition, the resolution would direct the League to endorse repeal of a statute that
preempts local regulation of pesticides.
Background:
The City of Malibu is sponsoring this resolution out of concern about the effect of a certain type
of rodent control (anticoagulant rodenticides) has on other wildlife. According to the City,
anticoagulant rodenticides disrupt the blood clotting process and therefore cause rodents to die
from bleeding or hemorrhaging. This rodenticide is commonly used on rats, mice, gophers, and
squirrels. Predator animals that eat rodents can be exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides if they
consume animals that have eaten the bait. These animals include owls, hawks, bobcats, bears,
foxes, coyotes, and mountain lions. Furthermore, pets can also be exposed to anticoagulant
rodenticides if they eat the bait or consume animals that have eaten the bait.
Some cities have passed “ceremonial resolutions” locally. For example, the City of Malibu has
two ordinances in place to discontinue use of rodenticides and traps in city-owned parks, roads,
and facilities, as well as encourage businesses and property owners not to use anticoagulant
rodenticides on their property.
Fiscal Impact:
Costs to cities would include using alternative methods of rodent control and studying the
efficacy. Since the resolution encourages, but does not mandate action by cities, city costs would
be taken on voluntarily.
Fiscal impact to the League would include costs associated with the task force, scientific
research, and educating League staff and members. For the task force, the League may incur
costs associated with staffing, convening, and educating a task force to study anticoagulant
rodenticides, as well as the cost of writing a report. This could include a need for outside experts
with knowledge of pesticides and their ecological impacts. League resources would also be
utilized to support proposals to repeal the statute preempting local regulation of pesticides;
however, this cost may be absorbed with existing staff resources.
20
Comments:
Pesticides are regulated by federal and state governments. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) reserves for the federal government authority over pesticide
labeling. States can adopt stricter labeling requirements and can effectively ban sale and use of
pesticides that do not meet state health or safety standards.1 For 51 years, California has reserved
regulation of pesticides for the state only, preempting local regulation.2 This preemption has
been ratified and confirmed in subsequent court decisions and legislation. However, County
Agricultural Commissioners work to enforce the state laws. Local governments may regulate or
restrict pesticide use in their own operations, including use in municipal buildings or parks.34
Broad direction. This resolution would direct the League to take a position allowing broad local
discretion over pesticide regulation in general. Because the regulation of anticoagulant
rodenticides is largely based in science, additional or outside expertise may be need ed to ensure
full understanding of the science behind rodent control methods. The resolution itself is not
limited to allowing local governments to regulate anticoagulant rodenticides, which this
resolution otherwise targets.
Rodent control methods. There are numerous methods of controlling rodents, including lethal
traps, live traps, and poison baits. There are two generations of rodenticide poisons because after
rodents became resistant to the first generation, the second was developed. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) provides the following information below related
to the science and use of anticoagulant rodenticides:
Most of the rodenticides used today are anticoagulant compounds that interfere with
blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Deaths typically occur between
four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
First-generation anticoagulants include the anticoagulants that were developed as
rodenticides before 1970. These compounds are much more toxic when feeding occurs on
several successive days rather than on one day only. Chlorpophacinone, diphacinone and
warfarin are first-generation anticoagulants that are registered to control rats and mice in
the United States.
Second-generation anticoagulants were developed beginning in the 1970s to control
rodents that are resistant to first-generation anticoagulants. Second-generation
anticoagulants also are more likely than first-generation anticoagulants to be able to kill
after a single night's feeding. These compounds kill over a similar course of time but tend
to remain in animal tissues longer than do first-generation ones. These properties mean
that second-generation products pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on
bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these
1 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017
Update, pg. 9, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
2 California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 (1967).
3 CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 9,
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
4 County Agricultural Commissioners work with CDPR to enforce state laws. CDPR, A Guide to Pesticide
Regulation in California: 2017 Update, pg. 13, https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pressrls/dprguide/dprguide.pdf.
21
risks, second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides no longer are registered for use in
products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest
control and structural pest control markets. Second-generation anticoagulants registered
in the United States include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone.
Other rodenticides that currently are registered to control mice include bromethalin,
cholecalciferol and zinc phosphide. These compounds are not anticoagulants. Each is
toxic in other ways.5
Legislative attempts to ban. Several legislative measures have been introduced to ban the use of
certain anticoagulant rodenticides (AB 1687, Bloom, 2017. AB 2596, Bloom, 2016). However,
neither of these measures were heard and failed to pass key legislative deadlines.
Existing League Policy:
The League does not have policy related to pesticides or rodenticides.
Related to federal regulation, League policy states:
The League supports flexibility for state and local government to enact environmental
and other standard or mandates that are stronger than the federal standards. However, the
League reserves the right to question or oppose stronger standards on the merits. The
League also opposes legislation that prohibits state and local governments from enacting
stricter standards.
Support:
The following letters of concurrence were received: William Koehler, Mayor of Agoura Hills;
Fred Gaines, Mayor of Calabasas; Brett Lee, Mayor Pro Tem of Davis; Catherine Carlton, Menlo
Park City Council Member; Janice Parvin, Mayor of Moorpark; Suza Francina, Ojai City
Council Member; Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard City Council Member; Tom Butt, Mayor of
Richmond; Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood City Council Member
5 U.S. EPA, Restrictions on Rodenticide Products, https://www.epa.gov/rodenticides/restrictions-rodenticide-
products
22
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
Local Municipal Authority, Control and Revenue
23
24
25
26
From: Steven Scharf <scharf.steven@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2018 8:34 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the preparation
of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that would strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy at the local level as the state
legislature is continually attempting to override the local authority of cities."
Speaking only for myself, and not on behalf of the City of Cupertino or other Cupertino City
Council Members, I hereby give my support for such a measure. You may use my name as a
supporter.
Sincerely,
Steven Scharf
Cupertino City Council Member
27
cif Duqrrf,e
1600 Huntington Drive I Duarte, CA 91010 | nr.. 626.357.7ggt I nu" 626.358.0018 | o* u.u...rrduarte.com
July 10,2018 Mayor
John Fasana
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mayor Pro Tern
Liz Reilly
Councilmernbers
Margaret E. Finlay
Samuel Kang
Tzeitel Paras-Caracci
City Manager
Darrell J. George
2018 CONT'ERENCE RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO TIIE INCREASING
VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTrrORrTy, CONTROL,
AIID REVENUE
Dear Committee:
The City of Duarte supports the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills calling for the League to explore the preparation of a ballot measure
that would provide the State's voters an opportunity to further strengthen local authority and preserve the
role of local democracy.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 by the legislature has continually threatened to erode local
control. Whether this was Senate Bill 649 (Hueso) (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) or the more
recently introduced Senate Bill827 (Wiener) (Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus) that was
defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a
local government to institute discretionary legislation that is responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a State ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing
taxes more onerous on local jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group
successfully negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda
tax for twelve years, trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure. However,
as a result of the passage of that Assembly Bill, the State ballot initiative was pulled from the November
2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by the State legislature and powerful interest groups should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted, and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
State of California.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to the League
to pursue a ballot measure andlor constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and
authority. For these reasons, the City of Duarte strongly supports this resolution.
Sincerely,
'-ra'4<{<o
Liz Reilly
Mayor Pro Tem
cc:Vice Mayor John Mirisch, City of Beverly Hills
28
29
30
31
DocuSign Envelope ID : 48D4AEF4-48B3-442A-A3E1 -12DFA5002A14
July 11, 2018
General Resolutions Committee
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Ci!yof Palo Alto
Office of the Mayor and City Council
Re: EXPLORING A RESOLUTION TO RESPOND TO INCREASING VULNERABILITIES TO LOCAL
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
Dear Committee Members:
As one Councilmember of the City of Palo Alto, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a
body, or the City, I write to support the League of California Cities ("League") Annual Conference Resolution
proposed by the City of Beverly Hills . This resolution asks the League to explore the preparation of a ballot
measure and/or constitutional amendment that would provide voters an opportunity to further strengthen local
authority and preserve the role of local democracy. If the resolution passes, I encourage the League to ensure any
potential measure includes both charter and general law cities.
State legislation introduced in both 2017 and 2018 has continually threatened to erode local control. Whether this
was SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunications Facilities or the more recently introduced SB 827 (Wiener)
Planning and Zoning: Transit-Rich Housing Bonus that was defeated in Committee, legislatures are continually
introducing proposals that impinge on the ability of a local government to institute discretionary legislation that is
responsive to the needs of their constituents.
More recently, a state ballot initiative was introduced that would have made increasing fees and passing taxes
more onerous on loca l jurisdictions due to the interest of powerful interest groups. This interest group successfully
negotiated an Assembly Bill that banned on constituents in local jurisdictions from passing a soda tax for twelve
years; trumping the will of the people should they wish to support such a measure . However, as a result the
passage of that Assembly Bill , the state ballot initiative was pulled from the November 2018 ballot.
These continual incursions into local control by state legislature, and powerful interest groups, should be
prohibited in areas where it is unwarranted and does not best serve the unique communities that make up the
state of Californ ia.
The passage of the proposed resolution by the City of Beverly Hills would provide direction to t he League to pu rsue
a ballot measure and/or constitutional amendment that would strengthen local democracy and authority. For
these reasons I support this resolution.
Sincerely,
r:--"' L!.:!!::~
Lyd ia Kou
Councilmember, City of Palo Alto
cc :
Palo Alto City Council
M ayor John M i risch, City of Beve r ly Hills
James Keene, Palo Al t o Cit y Manager
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlo rine.
P.O . Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2477
650.328.3631 fax 32
33
34
From: Michael Goldman <miklg@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2018 4:37 PM
To: Cindy Owens
Subject: Letter of Support for California League of Cities Resolution
Dear Ms. Cowens,
I was forwarded your email requesting support for a resolution in support of "the
preparation of a ballot measure and/or state constitutional amendment that
would strengthen local authority and preserve the role of local democracy at
the local level as the state legislature is continually attempting to override the
local authority of cities."
Speaking solely on my own behalf, I hereby give my whole-hearted support for such a
measure. The essence of democracy is the control by the people of their community. As
public servants, we elected officials serve the democratically expressed will of the
public.
Sincerely,
Michael S. Goldman
Sunnyvale City Council, Seat 7
35
36
37
38
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 2
Repeal Preemption of Regulating Pesticides
39
40
41
42
July 13, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A Resolution of the League of California Cities Declaring Its Commitment to Support the
Repeal of Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 That Prevents
Local Governments from Regulating Pesticides
Dear President Garbarino:
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison unintended targets, including predator wildlife in California
and pets that ingest the products. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-
target animals. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally
poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Brett Lee
Mayor Pro Tem
43
July 5, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS COMMITMENT TO
SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE §
11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Empty
Empty
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in our
cities and throughout California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target
animals - including pets - that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned
rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned
each year nationwide.
My own mother lost a dearly loved pet dog, who was poisoned when it ate a poisoned rat!
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost four
years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease
in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
State law now preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in
California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of
California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local concerns in their
communities. The State of California should provide cities with the authority to regulate the use
of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Catherine Carlton
Environmental Committee Vice Chair for the League of California Cities
44
CITY OF MOORPARK
JANICE S. PARVIN
Mayor
ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D.
Councilmember
DAVID POLLOCK
Councilmember
KEN SIMONS
Councilmember
MARK VAN DAM
Councilmember
799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021
Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino:
The City of Moorpark supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote at the
upcoming League of California Cities Conference on September 14, 2018.
As a community surrounded by the beauty of the Santa Monica Mountains and its wildlife, the
City adopted a resolution in 2013 urging Moorpark residents and businesses to not use
anticoagulant rodenticides in Moorpark. In 2014, the City applauded passage of AB 2657,
which removed many second generation anticoagulant rodenticides from the state.
However, as we are all unfortunately aware, scientific research continues to find
anticoagulant rodenticides in non-target animals, including the natural predators that help
regulate rodent populations and endangered species throughout California. Accordingly, the
City has supported subsequent legislative proposals to ban all anticoagulant rodenticides
statewide, including AB 2422, which is currently stalled in the state legislature.
The City further believes that local governments should have the opportunity to regulate
pesticide usage within their jurisdictions if the communities they represent desire to do so.
Therefore, the City supports the above referenced resolution being brought to a vote.
Yours truly,
Janice Parvin
Mayor
45
Resolution of the League of California Cities re: Anticoagulant Rodenticides
Page 2
cc: City Council
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant to the City Manager
League of California Cities, Meg Desmond (mdesmond@cacities.org)
City of Malibu, Mary Linden (MLinden@malibucity.org)
46
Councilmember Suza Francina
City of Ojai
401 South Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023
Email: Suzaojaicitycouncil@gmail.com
Cell: 805 603 8635
July 9, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides are products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including
pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition,
approximately 10,000 children under the age of six are accidentally poisoned each year
nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of
second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite collecting data for almost
four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and Wildlife found no evidence supporting a
decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of pesticides, including
anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city councilmember I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code
Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate
pesticides based on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should
provide cities with the authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based
on their own individual local needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General
Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Suza Francina
Councilmember, City of Ojai
47
July 12, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES DECLARING ITS
COMMITMENT TO SUPPORT THE REPEAL OF PREEMPTION IN CALIFORNIA
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE § 11501.1 THAT PREVENTS LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS FROM REGULATING PESTICIDES
Dear President Garbarino,
I write as one council member of the City of Oxnard regarding the state law that
preempts general law cities such as ours from regulating the use of pesticides. Our
city is heavily impacted with environmental burdens associated with pesticide use
as well as other industrial toxins, which affect the health of the people, wildlife and
our environment. Oxnard residents are requesting that the use of pesticides in our
public spaces be curtailed and restricted. This would include anticoagulant
rodenticides, products that are poisoning 80 to 90% of predator wildlife in
California. These poisons cause painful, internal hemorrhaging in non -target
animals including pets that ingest the products either directly or from consuming
poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age of six
are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase
and use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Despite
collecting data for almost four years after this ban, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant
rodenticides due to this partial restriction of the supply.
Currently, State law preempts general law cities from regulating the use of
pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides. In my official capacity as a city
councilmember I support the proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause
in California Food and Agriculture Code Section 11501.1 to provide cities across the
state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based on the local
concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their
own individual local needs.
48
Letter to President Garbarino
July 12, 2018
Page two
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Thank you very much for your attention to this.
Sincerely,
Carmen Ramirez
49
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | 510-620-6503 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org
Home of Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
July 6, 2018
The Honorable Rich Garbarino
President, League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: In Support to Repeal the Preemption in California Food and Agriculture Code § 11501.1 that
Prevents Local Governments from regulating pesticides
Dear President Garbarino,
Anticoagulant rodenticides poison 80% to 90% of predator wildlife in California. These poisons cause
painful, internal hemorrhaging in non-target animals including pets that ingest the products either
directly or from consuming poisoned rodents. In addition, approximately 10,000 children under the age
of six are accidentally poisoned each year nationwide.
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation banned the consumer purchase and use of second-
generation anticoagulant rodenticides in July 2014. Currently, State law preempts general law cities
from regulating the use of pesticides, including anticoagulant rodenticides, which has minimized the
impact of the State’s ban. Despite collecting data for almost four years, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife found no evidence supporting a decrease in poisonings by anticoagulant rodenticides due to
the partial restriction of the supply.
As a member of the League of California Cities’ Environmental Quality Policy Committee, I support the
proposed resolution to repeal the preemptive clause in California Food and Agriculture Code Section
11501.1 to provide cities across the state of California with the authority to regulate pesticides based
on the local concerns in their communities. The State of California should provide cities with the
authority to regulate the use of pesticides in their own jurisdictions based on their own individual local
needs.
I concur with the submission of this resolution at the League of California Cities General Assembly at its
annual meeting in Long Beach on September 14, 2018.
Sincerely,
Mayor Tom Butt
Richmond, California
50
51
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-73 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:13.
Report regarding a resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project (Project No.
sd1701).(Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace
Storm Drain Project (Project No. sd1701).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project,number sd1701 (“Project”)of the 2018-19 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP),scope upgrades the City’s storm drainage system in the area of Terrace Drive and Spruce
Avenue by installing new storm pipes,new catch basins,and new manholes.The project also includes
installing a new raised crosswalk,new sidewalk,replacing an existing curb ramp,and placing asphalt paving
and slurry seal over the existing street pavement.
Staff advertised a notice inviting bids for the project on July 5,2018 and on July 23,2018,2018,the City
received the following single bid:
Golden Bay Construction of Hayward, California $597,632
The engineer’s estimate for the contract work was $383,900.
Staff reviewed the bid,comparing its individual bid items with those in the engineer’s estimate,and determined
some bid item prices were unusually higher than expected.Staff will work with the designer to evaluate the
cause of these high prices and then revise the contract scope of work for the purpose of the project to be rebid
successfully.
It is recommended that all bids be rejected.
FUNDING
There is no impact to the current CIP budget.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm
Drain Project (Project No. sd1701).
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-74 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:13a.
Resolution rejecting all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project (Project No. sd1701).
WHEREAS,on July 5,2018,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)staff issued a Notice Inviting Bids for
the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project,Project No.sd1701 and on July 23 24,2018 received one (1)bid in
response; and
WHEREAS,the single bid received was substantially higher than the engineer’s estimate and the project
construction budget; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 20166,a public entity retains the discretion to reject all
bids it receives on a given project and readvertise; and
WHEREAS;the City has determined that it will need to review and revise the contract scope of work and then
rebid the project.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby rejects all bids for the Francisco Terrace Storm Drain Project and authorizes City staff to
readvertise the Project.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-704 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:14.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $300 donation to the Parks and Recreation
Department from Bimbo Bakeries USA,in addition to a $5,000 donation previously approved under Resolution
No.88-2018,for a total of $5,300,to purchase new equipment and supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange
Memorial Pool.(Sharon Ranals, Director, Parks and Recreation Department)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $300
donation to the Parks and Recreation Department from Bimbo Bakeries USA,in addition to a $5,000
donation previously approved under Resolution No.88-2018,for a total of $5,300,to purchase new
equipment and supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At the June 13,2018 City Council regular meeting,the Council approved Resolution No.88-2018 accepting a
$5,000 donation from Bimbo Bakeries USA to purchase equipment and supplies to go towards improvements to
support the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool.Bimbo Bakeries USA initiated a second tally of efforts
in support of the pool facilities,which resulted in an additional $300 donation.The purpose of this staff report
and associated resolution is to recognize the additional $300 donation by Bimbo Bakeries USA,for a total
donation of $5,300 in support of the Aquatics Program.
This donation will be used to replace aging equipment at the pool,such as a new lifeguard chair and tot-docks
for swimming lessons.A tot-dock is a platform that can be brought into the pool to create a shallow staging area
for young swimmers.In addition to its donations,Bimbo Bakeries USA will sponsor one Family Swim Night
this summer,which staff will turn into a celebratory event,acknowledging Bimbo Bakeries USA for the
donation.Family Swim Night is an event that takes place on Friday nights in which one family,of up to five
members,can enter the pool for an entry fee of $5.75.Sponsorship of Family Swim Night will allow
approximately 30 families to swim at the pool for free.Further,Bimbo Bakeries USA will provide volunteers to
assist staff with repainting the interior of the Orange Memorial Pool facility.This painting work will be
scheduled during with the Pool’s planned two-week closure in August 2018 for maintenance and deep cleaning.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funds from this donation will be received and expended from the Parks and Recreation donation account.
Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to provide ongoing funding.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will offset the cost of new equipment and supplies for Orange Memorial Pool,and
admission for up to thirty families to attend one Family Swim Night.It is recommended that the City Council
accept the additional $300,for a total donation of $5,300 donation by Bimbo Bakeries USA to support the
City’s Aquatics Program.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-705 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:14a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of a $300 donation to the Parks and Recreation Department from Bimbo
Bakeries USA,in addition to a $5,000 donation previously approved under Resolution No.88-2018,for a total
of $5,300, to purchase new equipment and supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Parks and Recreation Department oversees the Aquatics
Program at Orange Memorial Pool; and
WHEREAS,at its regular meeting on June 13,2018,City Council adopted Resolution No.88-2018,
authorizing the acceptance of a $5,000 donation from Bimbo Bakeries USA to purchase new equipment and
supplies for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool,and to sponsor one Family Swim Night,allowing
approximately 30 families of up to five members free access to the pool; and
WHEREAS, Bimbo Bakeries wishes to make an additional $300 donation for the Aquatics Program; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends the acceptance of a $300 donation to the Parks and Recreation Department from
Bimbo Bakeries USA,which is in addition to a $5,000 donation that was approved under Resolution No.88-
2018, for a total donation of $5,300 for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool; and
WHEREAS,the foregoing donation will be received and expended from the Parks and Recreation donation
budget.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
accepts a $300 donation to the Parks and Recreation Department from Bimbo Bakeries USA,which is in
addition to a $5,000 donation that was approved under Resolution No.88-2018,for a total donation of $5,300
for the Aquatics Program at Orange Memorial Pool.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-710 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:15.
Report regarding a resolution approving the San Mateo County Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
between the City of South San Francisco and cities within San Mateo County.(Phil Perry,Chief Building
Official)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the San Mateo County Building
Department Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and cities within San
Mateo County.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
During past storm events and other natural disasters,the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services
(OES),acting in its capacity as the Operational Area for the County,encountered significant difficulties
obtaining mutual aid assistance from building inspectors from neighboring cities.
In March 2017,OES staff contacted the City Building Division and requested that the City consider mutual aid
agreements with its neighbor cities within the County.The purpose of these agreements is to provide an
organized means of providing voluntary mutual aid to neighboring cities or agencies in the event of a disaster.
In many ways,this provision of aid is similar to what already exists between police and fire services (with the
exception that aid from the Building Division will not be automatic but is instead voluntary).The language of
the San Mateo County Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement (Agreement)and its accompanying
Procedures Guide (Exhibit A to the Agreement)specifically envisions that coordination and assistance provided
will generally mirror the zone concept of mutual aid that mirrors existing and developing zones for police and
fire mutual aid agreements.
There is no requirement for a majority or all municipalities in San Mateo County to enter into such an
agreement,although staff believes there is a high likelihood that many cities will enter into the Agreement.A
similar agreement was adopted for provision of mutual aid by the City’s Public Works Department in 2015.
Utilizing the Public Works Departments agreement as a template,San Mateo County has drafted an updated
agreement for the County’s Building Departments.
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed agreement (see Exhibit A to the associated resolution)requires that within sixty days,the
“Requesting Party”reimburse the “Assisting Party”for all reasonable costs based upon standard rates
applicable to the Assisting Party’s internal operations.The advantage provided to the “Requesting Party”by the
agreement is that pre-existing arrangements for the provision of services are often necessary to promptly obtain
reimbursement from state funds (i.e.,California Disaster Assistance Act)or federal funds (i.e.,Federal
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-710 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:15.
reimbursement from state funds (i.e.,California Disaster Assistance Act)or federal funds (i.e.,Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a Building Division Mutual
Aid Agreement for use between the City of South San Francisco and other cities in San Mateo County.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-713 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:15a.
Resolution approving the San Mateo County Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement between the City of
South San Francisco and cities within San Mateo County.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco and the cities and towns in San Mateo County have expressed a
mutual interest in the establishment of a plan to encourage Building Department mutual aid agreements; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has determined that it would be in the City’s best interest to participate in a
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement; and
WHEREAS,Section 8630 et seq.of the State of California Government Code,grants local agencies full
power to provide mutual aid, pursuant to established agreements; and
WHEREAS,a form of agreement for building department mutual aid has been presented to this Council and
considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves the County of San Mateo Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement, included as
Exhibit A to this resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
EXHIBIT A
County of San Mateo Building
Department Mutual Aid Agreement
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
11
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
This Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement (“Agreement” or “Mutual Aid Agreement”)
is made and entered into this 8th day of August, 2018, by and between the parties signatory
below (hereinafter individually referred to as “Party” or collectively referred to as the “Parties”
to this Agreement).
WHEREAS, it is desirable and necessary for the protection of life, property and the
environment that each of the parties hereto voluntarily aid and assist each other by the
interchange of building department services and resources in the event of an emergency; and
WHEREAS, County of San Mateo’s Building Department and all twenty (20) cities
within the County of San Mateo (“County”) have expressed an interest in the establishment of
a plan to facilitate and encourage Building Department Mutual Aid Agreements throughout the
County of San Mateo; and
WHEREAS, the Parties have determined that it would be in their best interests to enter
into a Mutual Aid Agreement that implements a plan and sets forth procedures and
responsibilities of the Parties whenever emergency personnel, equipment, and facility
assistance is provided from another Party’s building department to the other; and
WHEREAS, no Party should be in a position of unreasonably depleting its own
resources, facilities, or services providing such mutual aid; and
WHEREAS, such an agreement is in accord with the California Emergency Services Act
(“Act”) set forth in Title 2, Division 1, Chapter 7 (Section 8550 et. seq.) of the Government
Code and specifically with Article 17 (Section 8630 et seq.) of the Act; and
WHEREAS, all Parties must use protocols established in the Standardized Emergency
Management System and the National Incident Management System to be eligible for
possible state or federal reimbursement of response-related personnel and resource costs.
In consideration of the conditions and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as
follows:
SECTION 1 -
DEFINITIONS
For this Agreement, the following terms shall be ascribed the following meanings:
A. “Assisting Coordinator” shall mean the Coordinator of a Party providing building
department mutual aid.
B. “Assisting Party” shall mean the Party to this Agreement providing building
department mutual aid to another Party.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
21
C. “Coordinator” shall mean the person designated by each Party to act on behalf of
that Party on all matters relative to building department mutual aid, to include but not
be limited to requests, responses, and reimbursement. This term shall also include the
following distinct Coordinators:
1. Operational Area Coordinator is the individual who arranges and coordinates
distribution of building department mutual aid countywide.
2. Zone Coordinator is the individual who coordinates distribution of building
department mutual aid from resources assigned by the operational area to
local jurisdictions within a geographic zone.
3. Local Coordinator is the individual who fulfills the functionality equivalent
role of a city or town Building Department Branch Director.
4. “Local Emergency” shall mean the actual or threatened existence of
conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons or property
within the territorial limits of one of the Parties caused by human or natural
conditions such as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, wind, earthquake,
explosion, transportation accident, hazardous material problem, tsunami,
sudden or severe energy shortage, epidemic, riot or other occurrences, other
than conditions resulting from a labor controversy, which occurrences, or the
immediate threat thereof, are likely to be beyond the control of the personnel,
equipment, or facilities of that Party to this Agreement and which personnel,
equipment or facilities of the other Party are therefore desired to combat.
5. An “Operational Area” for the coordination of Building Department Mutual
Aid will be San Mateo County and all the jurisdictions within the County that
are Parties to this Agreement. Consistent with the Standardized Emergency
Management System, the Operational Area is an intermediate level of the
state emergency services organization, which serves as a link in the systems
of communications and coordination between the political subdivisions
comprising the Operational Area and the Regional or State Emergency
Operations Center (s).
6. “Requesting Coordinator” shall mean the Coordinator of a Party requesting
building department mutual aid.
7. “Requesting Party” shall mean the Party to this Agreement requesting
building department mutual aid.
SECTION 2 – DESIGNATION OF COORDINATOR
Coordinators shall be designated by each Party; the Title, Name, Address, and Phone Number of
the Coordinator shall be provided to the Operational Area Coordinator designated in Paragraph
21 hereinafter. If said designation changes, the Parties shall notify the Operational Area
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
31
Coordinator as soon as practical after the appointment has been made.
SECTION 3 – MUTUAL AID
When a local emergency has been proclaimed by a Party’s governing body or authorized official,
the Requesting Coordinator may request assistance from the Parties in accordance with the
Procedures Guide attached as Exhibit A to this Agreement. In situations where extreme
imminent threat to life, property, or the environment exists, the requirement for a proclamation
before providing assistance may be waived under the presumption that such a proclamation will
be made in accordance with all local and state regulations as promptly as reasonably possible.
SECTION 4 – TERM
The term of this agreement is for ten years from May 1, 2018.
SECTION 5 - AVAILABILITY
The Parties agree that the mutual aid extended under this Agreement and the operational plans
implementing this agreement are to be available and furnished in all cases of emergencies
regardless of type, provided that such mutual aid does not compromise any Party’s ability or
capacity to respond to calls for service within its own jurisdiction. When request for assistance
is received, the Assisting Coordinator will promptly advise of the extent of response, provide
whatever personnel, equipment, and facilities are available without jeopardizing the safety of
persons or property within their jurisdiction. No Party receiving a request for assistance shall
be under any obligation to provide assistance or incur any liability for not complying with the
request.
SECTION 6 – RETURN TO RESOURCES
When the Assisting Party’s personnel, equipment, or facilities are no longer required, or when the
Assisting Coordinator advises that the resources are required within their own jurisdiction, the
Requesting Coordinator shall immediately arrange for the return of those resources.
SECTION 7 – SAFEKEEPING OF RESOURCES
The Requesting Party shall be responsible for the safekeeping of the resources provided by the
Assisting Party. The Requesting Coordinator shall remain in charge of the incident or
occurrence and shall maintain control and direction of the resources provided by the Assisting
Party. The request may include the provision of supervisory personnel to take direct charge of
the resources under the general direction of the Requesting Coordinator. The Requesting Party
shall make arrangements for feeding and/or assisting personnel, and for fueling, servicing, and
repair of equipment unless the Assisting Coordinator agrees that these arrangements are not
necessary or are to be provided by the Assisting Party.
SECTION 8 – EMPLOYMENT STATUS
The Assisting Party’s personnel shall not be deemed employees of Requesting Party and vice
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
41
versa.
SECTION 9 - INSURANCE
Each Party shall be responsible to provide, in its own discretion, at its sole expense, the insurance
specified in Exhibit B. Self-insurance is also acceptable.
SECTION 10 – WORKER’S COMPENSATION
Each Party shall provide, at its sole expense, the required worker’s compensation insurance
coverage necessary for its own employees. It is recognized that at such times as one Party
provides aid to another Party under the terms of this Agreement, the employees of the Assisting
Party may claim to have become special employees on a temporary basis of the Requesting Party.
Should any such claim result in any worker’s compensation claim being asserted, it is hereby
agreed that each such claim shall be the responsibility and liability of the Assisting Party as
general employer to process, defend, and pay, if necessary.
SECTION 11 – MUTUAL AID COSTS
The Requesting Party agrees to pay all reasonable direct, indirect, administrative and
contracted costs of the Assisting Party incurred as a result of providing assistance under this
Agreement, based upon standard rates applicable to Assisting Party’s internal operations.
Payment shall be made within sixty (60) days after receipt of a detailed invoice. Payment may be
delayed if agreed upon by both Parties. Requesting Party shall not assume any liability for the
direct payment of any salary or wages to any officer or employee of the Assisting Party.
SECTION 12 – DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION
12.1 Claims Arising from Sole Acts or Omissions of a Party. Each Party to this Agreement
hereby agrees to defend and indemnify the other Parties to this Agreement, their agents, officers
and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against another Party, arising solely out of
its own acts or omissions in the performance of this Agreement. At each Party’s sole discretion,
each Party may participate at its own expense in the defense of any claim, action or proceeding,
but such participation shall not relieve any Party of any obligation imposed by this
Agreement. Parties shall notify each other promptly of any claim, action or proceeding and
cooperate fully in the defense.
12.2 Claims Arising from Concurrent Acts or Omissions. The Parties hereby agree to defend
themselves from any claim, action, or proceeding arising out of the concurrent acts or
omissions of the Parties. In such cases, Parties agree to retain their own legal counsel, bear their
own defense costs, and waive their right to seek reimbursement of such costs, except as provided
in paragraph 12.3 below.
12.3 Joint Defense. Notwithstanding paragraph 12.2 above, in cases where Parties agree in
writing to a joint defense, Parties may appoint joint defense counsel to defend the claim, action,
or proceeding arising out of the concurrent acts or omissions of Parties. Joint defense counsel
shall be selected by mutual agreement of said Parties. Parties agree to share the costs of such joint
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
51
defense and any agreed settlement in equal amounts, except as provided in paragraph 12.4 below.
Parties further agree that no Party may bind the others to a settlement agreement without the
written consent of the others.
12.4 Reimbursement and/or Reallocation. Where a trial verdict or arbitration award allocates or
determines the comparative fault of the Parties, those Parties may seek reimbursement and/or
reallocation of defense costs, settlement payments, judgments and awards, consistent with such
comparative fault. The Parties expressly waive pro rata allocation off liability under
Government Code Section 895.6.
SECTION 13 – NO WAIVER
This agreement shall in no way abrogate or waive any of the immunities available under
Federal, State, and local law and regulations, including but not limited to the California
Emergency Services Act, Government Code sections 8655 et seq.
SECTION 14 - RECORDS
When mutual aid is provided, the Requesting and Assisting Parties will keep account records
of the personnel, equipment, mileage, and materials provided as required by Federal and State
law, the California Disaster Assistance Act, and FEMA guidelines to maximize the possibility
of Federal and State disaster reimbursement. Each Party shall have access to another Party’s
records for this purpose.
SECTION 15 - EFFECTIVE DATE
This agreement shall take effect immediately upon its execution and shall remain in effect until
terminated.
SECTION 16 - WITHDRAWAL
Any Party may withdraw from this agreement, with or without cause, upon delivery of one-
hundred twenty (120) days prior written notice to the Operational Area Coordinator designated in
Paragraph 21 below.
SECTION 17 – PRIOR AGREEMENTS
To the extent that they are inconsistent with this agreement, all prior agreements for Building
Department Mutual Aid between the Parties are hereby null and void. This agreement expressly
supersedes the June 14, 1994 “Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement” entered into by the
County of San Mateo and the cities in San Mateo County. This process does not preclude any
routine or shared services for which the Parties may provide, may already have contracted, or
may contract in the future.
SECTION 18 – MULTIPLE REQUESTS
Requests for building department mutual aid under this agreement when more than one city is
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
61
impacted by an emergency will be channeled through the Operational Area Coordinator, whether
or not that individual is activated as part of a Department Operations Center or as part of the San
Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Operation Center, to ensure maximum effectiveness
in allocating resources to the highest priority needs.
SECTION 19 - MEDIATION
Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to
mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall
be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each
submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State
Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected
by a blind draw.
SECTION 20 – TORT CLAIMS ACT
This agreement in no way acts to abrogate or waive any immunity available under the Tort
Claims Act.
SECTION 21 – OPERATIONAL AREA COORDINATOR
The County of San Mateo Department of Building Department shall act as the initial
Operational Area Coordinator of this program for the purpose of:
A. Receipt of new members to the agreement.
B. Maintaining a current list of signatory Parties and Coordinators.
C. Establishing and maintaining a list of Local Coordinators who have volunteered to
serve as a Zone Coordinator.
D. Circulating annually a list of all Parties and Coordinators to all signatory parties.
E. Arranging for amendments to the Agreement as may be necessary.
SECTION 22 - EXECUTION
All Parties agree that any other qualified public agency or quasi-public agency may become a
Party to this Agreement by executing a duplicate copy of this Agreement and sending same to
the Operational Area Coordinator, initially the County of San Mateo Department of Building
Department, addressed as follows:
Building Department Director
County of San Mateoth
555 County Center, 5 Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1665
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
71
SECTION 23 – AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT
Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power,
right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.
SECTION 24 – THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Nothing set forth in this Agreement shall create, nor is it intended to create, third party
beneficiaries with rights to enforce any clause, condition or term of this Agreement, or assert a
claim or cause of action for breach of this Agreement.
SECTION 25 - SEVERABILITY
Should any term or provision of this Agreement be determined to be illegal or in conflict with
any law, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected thereby. Each
term or provision of this Agreement shall be valid and enforced as written to the fullest extent
permitted by law.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
81
In witness of and in agreement with this Agreement’s terms, the parties, by their duly authorized
representatives, affix their respective signatures:
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
By:
President, Board of Supervisors, San Mateo County
Date:
ATTEST:
By:
Clerk of Said Board
Resolution # 074124
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid Agreement
91
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each Party has caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by
its proper officers thereunto duly authorized, as follows:
Signatories Resolution/Action Number Date of Adoption
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
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
Exhibit A
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
Procedures Guide
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Procedures Guide is to provide Parties to the Building Department
Mutual Aid Agreement with a practical set of guidelines on how to effectively provide and
receive building department assistance. The terms of the Agreement shall govern in the
event there is any actual or apparent conflict between this procedure guide and the
Agreement. The following provisions are suggested guidelines only and not binding on any
agency. These provisions should be modified and expanded as necessary to meet the unique
needs, emergency organizational structure, and working relationships of each operational
and regional area.
II. TENETS OF OPERATIONAL AREA BUILDING DEPARTMENT MUTUAL AID
1. The most effective means of providing timely assistance to a jurisdiction impacted by a
disaster is to have agreements in place in advance of the disaster.
2. Assistance is voluntary.
3. Assistance provided shall be reimbursed by the requesting jurisdiction.
4. Jurisdictions should reasonably commit their own resources before requesting mutual aid.
5. A Proclamation of a Local Emergency is necessary to activate the agreement, unless
waived by the Parties per paragraph 3 of the Agreement.
6. Cooperative planning and training are desirable to enhance the effectiveness of providing
mutual aid when needed.
III. PROCEDURES FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT MUTUAL AID
1. Designated Building Department Coordinator
The Agreement specifies that the “Coordinator” shall mean the person designated by each
party to act on behalf of that party on all matters relative to building department mutual
aid, including but not limited to requests, responses and reimbursement.
It is suggested that the Coordinator be a person who during a disaster would be authorized
to request building department resources and bind their agency for the cost of these
resources. The Coordinator should also be in a position to authorize the providing agency
to release personnel and equipment to the agency impacted by the disaster.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
It is suggested that alternate coordinators be designated in case the primary coordinator is
unavailable during the disaster.
2. WebEOC Communication
To obtain Building Department assistance, a planned method of communicating requests is
essential. This includes using WebEOC as the primary means to process the request and
maintain lines of communication. It is recommended that WebEOC be used to request
assistance using the Resource Task (ICS-213RR). Communication via telephone, radio,
microwave, etc. may be necessary in the early phases of an incident to ensure requests are
being received and processed in a timely manner, and may also be used as secondary
communication channels.
3. Operational Area Concept
The Agreement notes that an Operational Area, normally a County and all the jurisdictions
within the County, will be the basic unit for coordinating building department mutual aid.
Additionally, the coordination and assistance provided will generally mirror the zone
concept of mutual aid under development by the San Mateo County Office of Emergency
Services. Additionally, parties to the Agreement are expected to work cooperatively to
pre-plan standardized response “packages” of resources to be provided to the varying
levels of incident complexity identified in the National Incident Management System
(NIMS).
4. California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) Role
Cal OES is expected to support building department mutual aid assistance under the
agreement by offering assistance to the Regional and Operational Building Department
Coordinator, and act as Statewide Coordinator for seeking mutual aid resources if required
from beyond the impacted region.
5. Resource Lists and Contacts
It is strongly recommended that lists of building department resources be developed for
each participating agency in the Operational Area. This list should be populated in the
resources section of WebEOC and regularly reviewed and updated. Such lists are
essential for the Operational Area Coordinator to quickly identify which agencies have
the particular types of resources needed by the requesting impacted agency.
The designated Local Coordinator for each jurisdiction should develop a detailed list of
resources for their agency by quantity, type of personnel equipment, materials, and a
contact number to check on its availability when needed. It is suggested that the
coordinator then provide a brief summary of that information to the operational area
coordinator.
It is suggested that each party develops common standardized terminologies for resources
to facilitate categorizing and compiling these inventory lists. However, the development
of the standardized terminology should not impede the development of these resource lists.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
6. Arrange Care for Assisting Forces
The Agreement requires that the Requesting Party be responsible for the safekeeping of
the resources provided by the Assisting Party.
7. Documentation for Reimbursement
In accordance with the Agreement, each requesting and assisting party is required to keep
accounting records of the personnel, equipment, and materials provided under the Mutual
Aid Agreement as required by the Federal Stafford Act administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and State guidelines. This requirement
is to maximize the requesting agencies reimbursement of costs expended to receive
mutual aid.
8. Proclamation of Emergency
The Agreement required that a Proclamation of Local Emergency must be approved by an
authorized official of the impacted jurisdiction. A State of Emergency should also be
requested through the Operational Area for approval by the Governor to authorize State
reimbursement and, if warranted, a request for a Presidential Proclamation of Emergency
to authorize federal reimbursement. Each Agency should include in their emergency plan a
provision to seek such a proclamation from the authorized official in their jurisdiction as
soon as they can reasonably determine that the disaster will be beyond the scope of mutual
aid assistance. Because cumulative estimates of damage across the county may be
combined to establish a basis for reimbursement from the state and a gubernatorial
declaration of emergency, the collection and provision of damage estimates to the
Operational Area for any incident that might have countywide implication is important in
obtaining external resources.
9. Agency in Charge
The Agreement provides that the Requesting Coordinator shall remain in charge of the
incident and provide direction and control to the resources provided by the assisting
party. The request may also include having the Assisting Party providing supervisory
personnel to take direct charge of their forces under the overall di rection of the
Requesting Coordinator. The intent is that the Assisting Party will comply with all
reasonable directions from the Requesting Coordinator. However, the Assisting Party
should not be obligated to perform any work that it reasonably believes w ould unduly
jeopardize the safety of its employees.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
10. Checklists for Requesting Mutual Aid
Each Party to the Agreement is encouraged to develop checklists for their Coordinator to
use in assuring that all required steps are followed to properly and effectively seek and
provide Building Department Mutual Aid for the benefit of the impacted area and protection
of the assisting party. These checklists should establish who is to carry out each essential
function both internally to the agency and externally, and contact numbers and means for
reaching them.
Attachment A (San Mateo County Operational Area Building Department Checklist for
Mutual
Aid Assistance) is a sample checklist.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
Attachment A
San Mateo County Building Department
Checklist for Mutual Aid Assistance
I. Pre-Event
Develop procedures at the local operational area to carry out mutual aid including checklists of
actions, resource lists, etc.
II. Post Event
1. Local Agency quickly assesses estimated extent of damage and availability of local
resources to respond.
2. If it is apparent that outside resources will be needed to effectively deal with the
emergency, promptly authorize local official to request Proclamation of Local Emergency
and, if warranted, request State of Emergency Proclamation through the Operational Are a
Emergency Operation Center.
3. Upon proclamation of local emergency, request mutual aid assistance from Operational
Area Building Department Mutual Aid Coordinator according to pre-established procedures
in WebEOC.
4. Ensure request is specific as to type and quantity of resources needed, when to report, who
to report to, how long needed, type of work to be performed.
Once a providing party can be located to satisfy the resource request, the coordinator will
determine how quickly these resources can be made available and notify the requesting party
of that fact.
5. The requesting party will make all necessary arrangements to care for the assisting party’s
personnel and equipment if needed.
6. The requesting party will carefully document all costs by specific damage site according to
State and Federal procedures to maximize reimbursement for costs. Carefully record the
names of assisting personnel and equipment at each site, hours worked, and mileage.
7. The requesting party should return the assisting party’s resources as soon as possible.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
Exhibit B
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07
covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal &
advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit
applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the
general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Assisting
Party has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less
than
$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and
Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury
or disease.
If the assisting party maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Requesting Party requires
and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the assisting party.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
Additional Insured Status
The Requesting Party, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as
insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or
on behalf of the Assisting Party; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or
operations performed by or on behalf of the Assisting Party including materials, parts or equipment
furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the
form of an endorsement to the Assisting Party’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85
or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the Assisting Party’s insurance coverage shall be primary
insurance as respects the Requesting Party, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Requesting Party, its elected and appointed officials,
employees, or agents shall be excess of the Assisting Party’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after
thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the Requesting
Party.
County of San Mateo
Building Department Mutual Aid
Agreement
Waiver of Subrogation
Assisting Party hereby grants to Requesting Party a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of
said Assisting Party may acquire against the Requesting Party by virtue of the payment of any loss under
such insurance. Assisting Party agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this
waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the Requesting Party has
received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Requesting Party.
The Requesting Party may require the Assisting Party to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or
retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and
defense expenses within the retention.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless
otherwise acceptable to the Requesting Party.
Verification of Coverage
Assisting Party shall furnish the Requesting Party with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or
copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and
endorsements are to be received and approved by the Requesting Party before work commences. However,
failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Assisting Party’s
obligation to provide them. The Requesting Party reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-718 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:16.
Report regarding a resolution amending the Human Resources Department’s Position Budget in the Fiscal Year
2018-19 Adopted Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco.(Leah Lockhart,Human Resources
Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopt a resolution approving
a change to the Human Resources Department’s Position Budget in the Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19
Adopted Operating Budget.The proposed change will replace the current Administrative Assistant II
position with a Human Resources Technician position.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In the Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19 operating budget,the Human Resources (HR)Department is comprised of a
staff of seven employees to support over 900 full-time,part-time and hourly employees.In addition to
management and professional staff,the structure includes 1.0 full-time Administrative Assistant II and 1.0 full-
time Human Resources Technician who provide administrative and paraprofessional support.In June,2018 the
Administrative Assistant II position became vacant,allowing staff the opportunity to evaluate the Department’s
staffing needs in light of current priorities.One of the current priorities for HR is to complete the
implementation of a new Human Capital Management (HCM)system,in support of effective operations and
financial sustainability.In June,2018 the new system went live,and staff are currently in the process of
implementing additional modules including employee self-service,employee time entry,and electronic
workflow.
The HR Technician position provides paraprofessional support work in several HR functional areas.This
includes applying technical and specialized rules,regulations,policies and procedures to be able to process new
hires,separations and personnel changes.Currently,the primary role of the HR Technician is to enter and
maintain personnel information and changes in the HCM system so that departments are able to enter time and
payroll is able to process pay.Although the implementation of an electronic workflow process is expected to
reduce some of the manual data entry,the HR Technician will continue the critical function of reviewing for
accuracy and compliance,and make corrections and updates as necessary.Relying on one HR Technician to be
the primary point person means there has been little capacity for paraprofessional support in other priority
areas, such as recruitment, training and development, and employee relations.
Having only one staff member with the primary responsibility for these processes leaves the City vulnerable to
errors or delays in processing payroll.A second HR Technician would ensure more continuous coverage for
payroll processing,and would increase the Department’s capacity for error-checking.In addition,by sharing the
HCM support duties between two Technicians,both positions will have more capacity to perform work in other
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-718 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:16.
HCM support duties between two Technicians,both positions will have more capacity to perform work in other
HR functional areas.This will also increase the opportunity to for staff to develop a broader range of HR skills,
consistent with the City’s succession development efforts.
Under the existing structure,the primary focus of the Department’s Administrative Assistant II position has
been to provide varied complex and confidential administrative and secretarial support to the HR Director.
Although historically,the Administrative Assistant II and HR Technician have cross-trained in several
functions,the Administrative Assistant II classification is more limited in terms of performing paraprofessional
HR duties.While there remains a need for administrative support,the Human Resources Technician
classification allows for greater flexibility to perform both paraprofessional and administrative support duties.
The administrative duties would also be shared between the two HR Technicians to ensure continuous and
effective operations and customer service.
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional budget appropriations are necessary,as the salary schedules and benefits for the Administrative
Assistant II and the Human Resources Technician are the same.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving a change to the Human Resources
Department’s Position Budget in the Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19 Adopted Operating Budget,replacing the current
Administrative Assistant II position with a Human Resources Technician.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-719 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:16a.
Resolution approving an amendment to the Human Resources Department’s Position Budget in the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2018-19 Adopted Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco.
WHEREAS,the Fiscal Year (FY)2018-19 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco was adopted
by the City Council on June 27, 2018; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends replacing the position of Administrative Assistant II with the position of Human
Resources Technician in order to increase operational effectiveness at no additional cost; and
WHEREAS,the position budget in the Human Resources Department’s section of the FY 2018-19 Operating
Budget,attached herein as Exhibit A,reflecting the modified position listing,should be included in the FY
2018-19 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
amend the FY 2018-19 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco to reflect the modified position
budget for the Human Resources Department, attached herein as Exhibit A.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Attachment A. Position Budget
Human Resources
Human
Resources
Job
Code Position Title
2018‐19
Adopted
2018‐19
Proposed Change
Full Time N130 Director Of Human Resources 1.00 1.00 0.00
Full Time M270 Human Resources Analyst II 2.00 2.00 0.00
Full Time O265 Human Resources Technician 1.00 2.00 1.00
Full Time M775 Human Resources Manager 1.00 1.00 0.00
Full Time M700 Human Resources Analyst I 1.00 1.00 0.00
Full Time O310 Administrative Assistant II 1.00 0.00 (1.00)
SUBTOTAL Full Time 7.00 7.00 0.00
Hourly X310 Human Resources Clerk 0.00 0.00 0.00
SUBTOTAL Hourly 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL FTE ‐ Human Resources 7.00 7.00 0.00
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-723 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:17.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in grant funding from the Woodlawn
Foundation to support Project Read’s Learning Wheels Family Literacy Program and approving Budget
Amendment 19.010. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in
grant funding from the Woodlawn Foundation to support Project Read’s Family Literacy Program
delivered by Learning Wheels and approving Budget Amendment 19.010.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Project Read has been awarded funding from The Woodlawn Foundation to support the family literacy services
offered through Learning Wheels for low income,low literacy families in North San Mateo County.Learning
Wheels,the Library’s mobile literacy program,brings story times,literacy activities,free books,and family
workshops to those areas with limited access to the library.Each month,Learning Wheels visits over 400
families at preschools,transitional housing locations,social service agencies,health clinics,and community
events.In the past year,Learning Wheels Family Literacy program distributed approximately 5,700 books
during 169 visits to families throughout the community.In addition,Learning Wheels services provide
information and brochures about safety net services available to underserved families.Funding from The
Woodlawn Foundation allows Project Read’s Learning Wheels to continue providing vital services to residents
of South San Francisco and the surrounding communities of Daly City, Colma, and San Bruno.
FISCAL IMPACT
Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current Fiscal Year (FY)2018-2019 Operating
Budget via Budget Amendment 19.010. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will support the Learning Wheels Family Literacy Program for low income,low literacy
families.It is recommended that the City Council accept $35,000 in grant funding and amend the Library
Department’s FY 2018-2019 operating budget via Budget Amendment 19.010.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-724 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:17a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $35,000 in grant funding from the Woodlawn Foundation to support
Project Read’s Learning Wheels Family Literacy Program and approving Budget Amendment 19.010.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department established Project Read to assist
adults and their families in reaching literacy goals; and
WHEREAS,Learning Wheels,a program of Project Read,provides literary services to low-income,hard to
reach families in South San Francisco and surrounding cities through site visits; and
WHEREAS,the Woodlawn Foundation has awarded the City $35,000 in grant funding to support Learning
Wheels; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends the acceptance of the grant funding in the amount of $35,000 from the
Woodlawn Foundation to support Learning Wheels, a program of Project Read; and
WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2019-19 Operating Budget of the Library
Department via Budget Amendment 19.010.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
accept $35,000 in grant funding from the Woodlawn Foundation and approve Budget Amendment 19.010 to
amend the Library Department’s FY 2018-19 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $35,000.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-726 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:18.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $9,483 in donations to support the Library’s
Summer Learning Challenge and the Community Learning Center, and approving Budget Amendment 19.009.
(Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting donations in the amount of $9,483
to support the library’s Summer Learning Challenge and the Community Learning Center, and
approving Budget Amendment 19.090.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Library has received $4,368 in donations from local businesses and community groups, listed below, to
support the 2018 Summer Learning Challenge. This annual program helps prevent learning loss and encourages
children and teens to read, learn, and explore during the school break. This year’s theme is Reading Takes You
Everywhere, which is not purely about travel, but how through reading, anyone can explore, discover and
experience people, places and things they would not normally encounter. The specific donations received are as
follows:
·Cyprus Lawn Cemetery Association, $500
·Francis Drake Masonic Lodge 376, $500
·First National Bank, $250
·Lucky Chances, $500
·South San Francisco Friends of the Library, $1,500
·South San Francisco Kiwanis, $500
·South San Francisco Rotary Club, $600
·Uncle Jer’s Traveling Bee Show, $18
The Library has also received a donation from Malloy’s Tavern in the amount of $5,115 to support the
Community Learning Center. Molloy’s held the 39th Annual Chili Cook-off fundraiser on June 3, 2018, and
donated the proceeds to the Library’s Community Learning Center to support local families in achieving their
educational goals.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Library Department’s current FY 2018-19 Operating Budget will be amended to reflect the donations
totaling $9,483 via Budget Amendment 19.009. Funds not expended in Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 will be
carried over into FY 2019-20.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-726 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:18.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to enhance summer programs for children as well as services at
the Community Learning Center. It is recommended that the City Council accept $9,483 in donations to support
the Library’s Summer Learning Challenge and the Community Learning Center and amend the Library
Department’s FY 2018-19 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 19.009.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-727 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:18a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $9,483 in donations to support the Library’s Summer Learning
Challenge and the Community Learning Center, and approving Budget Amendment 19.090.
WHEREAS,the annual Summer Learning Challenge program was established to encourage children and teens
to read during the school break; and
WHEREAS,the Cyprus Lawn Cemetery Association made a donation to the City in the amount of $500 to
support the Summer Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the Francis Drake Masonic Lodge 376 made a donation to the City in the amount of $500 to
support the Summer Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the First National Bank of Northern California made a donation to the City in the amount of $500
to support the Summer Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,Lucky Chances,Inc.made a donation to the City in the amount of $500 to support the Summer
Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Friends of the Library made a donation to the City in the amount of
$1,500 to support the Summer Reading Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the Kiwanis Club of South San Francisco made a donation to the City in the amount of $500 to
support the Summer Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Rotary Club made a donation to the City in the amount of $600 to
support the Summer Learning Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the Uncle Jer’s Traveling Bee Show made a donation to the City in the amount of $18 to support
the Summer Reading Challenge; and
WHEREAS,the Community Learning Center was established to assist community members in meeting their
educational goals; and
WHEREAS,Molloy’s Tavern held a fundraiser benefiting the Community Learning Center which raised
$5,115; and
WHEREAS,staff recommends the acceptance of the donations in the amount of $9,483 to support the Summer
Learning Challenge and the Community Learning Center; and
WHEREAS,the foregoing donations will be used to amend Fiscal Year 2018-19 operating budget of theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-727 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:18a.
WHEREAS,the foregoing donations will be used to amend Fiscal Year 2018-19 operating budget of the
Library Department via Budget Amendment 19.009.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
accept $500 from Cyprus Lawn Cemetery Association,$500 from Francis Drake Masonic Lodge 376,$500
from First National Bank of Northern California,$500 from Lucky Chance,Inc.,$1,500 from the South San
Francisco Friends of the Library,$500 from the Kiwanis Club of South San Francisco,$600 from the South
San Francisco Rotary Club,and $18 from Uncle Jer’s Traveling Bee Show to fund the Summer Learning
Challenge and $5,115 from Molloy’s Tavern fundraiser to support the Community Learning Center and amend
the Library Department’s 2018-2019 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $9,483 via Budget
Amendment 19.009.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-734 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:19.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement between the City of South San
Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District for the continuing use and maintenance of the
expansion of the West Orange Library Parking Lot.(Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of an agreement
between the City of South San Francisco (City)and the South San Francisco Unified School District
(SSFUSD)for the continuing use and maintenance of the expansion of the West Orange Library parking
lot.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On September 3,1998,the City and the SSFUSD entered into an agreement whereby the City was granted the
use of SSFUSD property on the Adult Education Campus to facilitate the expansion of the parking lot for a
period of 20 years.The expansion is located at the southern end of the library parking lot,and consists of an
encroachment of approximately 91’x 94’on SSFUSD property.The City made improvements to the property
including paving,striping,lighting,and landscaping the extended parking lot and building a fence and gate
connecting the properties.
The parking lot at the West Orange Library is highly utilized and the additional parking spaces enabled through
the use of SSFUSD property are needed to ensure adequate public access.The current agreement expires on
September 3,2018,and the City and SSFUSD wish to extend the agreement for a period of ten years.At the
end of the ten-year period, upon agreement by both parties, an additional ten-year period may be added.
FISCAL IMPACT
During the time of the agreement, the City is responsible for the maintenance of the parking lot and access gate.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing an agreement to extend the use and
maintenance of the West Orange Library parking lot expansion for a period of ten years,with an option to add
an additional ten years.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-735 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:19a.
Resolution approving an agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco
Unified School District for the continuing use and maintenance of the expansion of the West Orange Library
Parking Lot.
WHEREAS, the South San Francisco Unified School District (District) owns land adjacent to the West Orange
Library; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 1998, the District granted the City a nonexclusive irrevocable license to construct
improvement on such land, including a parking lot, new paving, striping, landscaping, lighting and fencing
deemed necessary by the parties; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District desire to enter into an agreement for the continuing use and maintenance
of the parking lot; and
WHEREAS, such parking as provided through the extension of the lot is necessary to provide adequate public
access to the West Orange Library; and
WHEREAS, such agreement shall be for an initial ten-year period and may be extended an additional ten years
upon approval by both governing bodies.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves an agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco
Unified School District, a draft of which is attached as Exhibit A, for the continued use and maintenance of the
expansion of the West Orange Library parking lot.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that the City Manager is authorized to execute the
agreement between the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified School District, a
draft of which is attached as Exhibit A, for the continued use and maintenance of the expansion of the West
Orange Library parking lot, and to take any other action consistent with the intent of this resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO AND THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FOR USE OF THE PARKING LOT AT THE WEST ORANGE LIBRARY
This Memorandum of Understanding (“Agreement”) is made and entered into by and
between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (hereinafter “City”) and the
South San Francisco Unified School District (hereinafter “District”) .
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the District owns land adjacent to the West Orange Library; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 1998, the District granted the City a nonexclusive
irrevocable license to construct improvements on such land, including a parking lot, new paving,
striping, landscaping, lighting, and fencing deemed necessary by the Parties; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District desire to enter into an agreement for the continuing
use and maintenance of the parking lot;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto mutually agree as follows in consideration of
their mutual covenants, promises, and conditions contained herein:
AGREEMENT
1. PREMISES. The “Premises” is defined for purposed of this Agreement as that portion of
real property owned by the District located at 825 Southwood Drive, South San Francisco,
California, adjacent to the West Orange Library, on which a parking lot now exists measuring
approximately ninety-one (91) feet by ninety (90) feet , as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.
2. TERM. The District and City hereby agree that this Agreement shall exist for a period of
ten (10) years from the date this Agreement is executed. At the end of the initial ten (10) year
period, the Parties, upon approval by both governing bodies, may enter into an additional ten
(10) year period.
3. USE. The District and City hereby agree that the subject parking lot is for City use, with
access to the District via a gate between the properties for the mutual benefit of the Parties, and
in consideration of the persons served by the Parties at their respective adjacent facilities. Each
party shall have access to the Premises during such times as shall be mutually agreed upon by the
City Librarian and the site administrator responsible for District’s operations on the District’s
property upon which the Premises is located. At the request of either party, the District
administrator and City librarian shall meet and confer in good faith not less than annually to
make any adjustments to the hours of access to the Premises reasonably necessary to ensure the
equitable mutual benefit of the Parties. The Parties shall have joint control and access of the gate
that services the Premises.
4. MAINTENANCE. In consideration of this Agreement, maintenance of the parking lot
and access gate shall be the sole responsibility of the City.
5. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or
obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or
obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
6. INSURANCE. City shall provide and maintain in full force and effect for the term of this
Agreement, policies of insurance covering City’s use of the Premises, and agrees to secure and
maintain:
a. General Liability. City agrees to maintain and pay for a general liability policy naming
District, its officers and employees as additional insureds and insuring them against
liability or financial loss resulting from injuries occurring to persons or property, in or
about or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement. Each policy
of insurance shall provide primary coverage on an occurrence basis in a company
satisfactory to District in the following minimal amounts: personal injury - $1,000,000
for each person and $1,000,000 per occurrence; property damage - $1,000,000 per
occurrence. Each policy shall provide that it shall not be canceled without 30 day's prior
written notice to District. The general liability policy shall provide (a) if District, its
officers or employees have other insurance against the loss covered by said policy said
other insurance shall be excess insurance only, and (b) that District, its officers and
employees are not precluded from claim under said policy against other insured Parties.
b. Workers Compensation. City agrees to comply with all State requirements relating
to workers compensation insurance and to provide the same for its employees.
c. Automobile liability. City agrees to maintain and pay for automobile liability
insurance in the comprehensive form, which shall include coverage for owned, hired
and non-owned automobiles, with a limit of $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property
damage combined.
d. Certificates. City shall file certificates and endorsements of insurance with District in
a form satisfactory to District attorney upon execution of this Agreement evidencing
said coverage and the requirements of this paragraph. The certificates and
endorsement shall contain a reference to the date and title of this Agreement.
7. INDEMNIFICATION. It is agreed that City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify
District, its officers, agents, and employees, from any and all claims for injuries or damage to
persons and/or property, which arise out of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and
which result from the negligent act or omissions of City, its officers, agents, and/or employees
It is further agreed that District shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its
officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims for injuries and/or damages to persons
and/or property which arise out of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and which result
from the negligent acts or omissions of District, its officers, agents, and/or employees.
The duty to indemnify and save harmless as set forth herein shall include the duty to
defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code.
In the event of concurrent negligence of City, its officers, agents, and/or employees, and
District, its officers, agents, and/or employees, then the liability for any and all claims for
injuries or damages to persons and/or property which arise out of terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall be apportioned according to the California theory of comparative negligence.
8. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written
agreement signed by both Parties, as approved by their respective governing bodies.
9. MEDIATION. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet
and attempt to reach a resolution with the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Either
party shall be permitted to file a legal action after first meeting in mediation and making a good
faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be shared
equally by the Parties. If a mediated settlement is reached, neither party shall be deemed the
prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and each party shall bear its own legal costs.
10. NOTICE. Any written notice to City shall be sent to:
City Manager
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Any written notice to District shall be sent to:
Assistant Superintendent/Business Services
398 B Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
11. ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS. Both Parties to this Agreement recognize that
additional agreements between the Parties may be necessary to fully effectuate the purpose of
this Agreement. Both Parties agree to provide all reasonably required documents, permits, and
approvals as necessary to complete this project in a timely manner.
12. MISCELLANEOUS TERMS.
A. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid,
illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the
remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
B. Governing Law; Venue. The laws of the State of California shall govern this
Agreement without regard to principles of conflicts of laws. Any action to
enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed in the Superior Court of San
Mateo County, California.
C. Integration; Amendments. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated
Agreement between City and District with respect to the subject matter hereof,
and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written
or oral with respect thereto. This Agreement may be modified or amended only
by a subsequent written agreement signed by both Parties.
D. Attorneys’ Fees. If a party to this Agreement brings any action, including an
action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provisions of this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in
addition to any other relief to which such party may be entitled.
E. Waiver. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of this Agreement
shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no
waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. An
extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an
extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act, and no
extension shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party.
F. No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to
or shall be deemed to confer upon any person, other than the Parties, any rights or
remedies hereunder.
G. Headings. The headings of the sections and exhibits of this Agreement are
inserted for convenience only. They do not constitute parts of this Agreement and
are not to be used in its construction.
H. Authority. The undersigned expressly represents that he or she is authorized to
execute this Agreement on behalf of District and that it meets each of the
requirements set forth in the Agreement, including but not limited to the insurance
and workers compensation requirements.
I. Counterparts; E-Signatures. The Parties agree that execution of this Agreement
by exchanging facsimile, PDF, or e-Signature (as defined below) signatures shall
have the same legal force and effect as the exchange of original signatures.
Pursuant to this Agreement, e-Signatures shall mean a signature that consists of
one or more letters, characters, numbers or other symbols in digital form
incorporated in, attached to or associated with the electronic document, that (i) is
unique to the person making the signature; (ii) the technology or process used to
make the signature is under the sole control of the person making the signature;
(iii) the technology or process can be used to identify the person using the
technology or process; and (iv) the electronic signature can be linked with an
electronic document in such a way that it can be used to determine whether the
electronic document has been changed since the electronic signature was
incorporated in, attached to or associated with the electronic document. The
written form shall be required to make changes to this clause as well.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the City of South San Francisco and the South San Francisco Unified
School District have executed this Agreement as of as of this _____ day of _______, 2018.
City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation
By:
Mike Futrell, City Manager
South San Francisco Unified School District
By: __________________________________
Shawnterra Moore, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Approved as to Form
By: _____________________________
____________________, City Attorney
2988655.1
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-739 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:20.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing submission of a comment letter on behalf of the City of South San
Francisco to the California Bureau of Cannabis Control regarding the proposed regulations.(Jason Rosenberg,
City Attorney)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving submission of a comment letter to
Bureau of Cannabis Control regarding proposed regulations.
BACKGROUND
In July 2018,the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC)released proposed regulations,which seek to codify the
emergency regulations first implemented in December 2017.The proposed regulations would authorize
cannabis businesses to deliver in any jurisdiction,regardless of whether or not that local jurisdiction banned
deliveries,and would reduce the amount of time cities have to determine the validity of a cannabis business
license.
On July 26,2018,the League of California Cities (League)issued a comment letter to the BCC opposing and
also asking cities to review the proposed regulations and submit their comments before the deadline.The
comment letter is attached.The deadline to submit comments to the BCC is August 27,2018.A public hearing
has also been scheduled on August 7, 2018 in Oakland for oral comments.
A key concern is that the proposed regulation creates a 10-day “shot clock”for cities to respond to the BCC’s
inquiry of whether a license is valid before that license is deemed valid.The League’s comment letter stated
that a 10-day “shot clock”would not afford cities sufficient time to review license applications and respond to
the BCC.
DISCUSSION
Existing state law allows cities 60 days to provide notification of compliance or noncompliance with local
ordinances or regulations before a license application is deemed in compliance.(Bus.&Prof.Code §26055(g)
(2)(D)).Staff believes that the 60-day standard,set in our state’s current law,should also be applied to these
regulations,because it will allow the City the appropriate time needed to verify that a license submitted to the
BCC is,in fact,valid under the local regulations.Reducing the local review period to 10 days would not
provide the City adequate time to verify whether a city has approved a temporary or annual license to a
cannabis company, especially one that sends multiple purposed local licenses.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing submission of a comment letter opposing the
10-day “shot clock” in the proposed BCC cannabis regulations.
Attachment 1: LOCC Comment Letter to BCC
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
July 26, 2018
Lori Ajax, Chief
Bureau of Cannabis Control
P.O. Box 419106
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Submitted via Email: bcc.comments@dca.ca.gov
RE: Bureau of Cannabis Control Proposed Regulations – July 2018
Dear Chief Ajax,
The League of California Cities® appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations
released in July 2018, which seek to codify the emergency regulations implemented in December 2017.
The League is committed to ensuring that California has a reliable, safe, and smart regulatory system for
cannabis that upholds the ability of local jurisdictions to control and regulate business entities participating
in their local area, which was central to the passage of both the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis
Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) and the Control, Regulate and Tax adult Use of Marijuana Act
(Proposition 64).
We understand the challenge that the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC) faces in developing a
comprehensive regulatory structure for the now largest legal cannabis market in the country. However,
cities remain concerned about critical aspects of these regulations that would undermine their ability to
decide if and how cannabis is right for their communities. Our key concerns are as follows:
§5416(d). Cannabis Deliveries to a Physical Address. Section 5416(d) subverts the intent of the voters
who passed Proposition 64 by removing a local government’s ability to prohibit cannabis deliveries
within its jurisdiction.
Recognizing the value of local control in regulating commercial cannabis activity, Proposition 64’s
purpose and intent provisions expressly provided that “[i]t is the intent of the People in enacting this Act
to…[a]llow local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses….” Thus, under existing law—as
articulated in Proposition 64 and, now, MAUCRSA—local governments can adopt and enforce local
ordinances to ban or regulate all commercial cannabis activity, including deliveries, within their borders.
Section 5416(d), as proposed, fundamentally alters this pillar of Proposition 64 by forcing local
governments to allow cannabis deliveries.
By authorizing cannabis delivery employees to deliver cannabis to any jurisdiction within California,
section 5416(d) removes a critical component of the local enforcement model established by Proposition
64. The influx of cannabis deliveries that will result from such a regulation will increase public safety
costs for local law enforcement agencies. These increased costs cannot be easily absorbed by local
governments. Therefore, if section 5416(d) is adopted, local governments will be forced to make difficult
decisions about how best to allocate their limited resources to ensure the safety of the public—decisions
that they are not required to make under Proposition 64 or MAUCRSA.
That section 5416(d) contradicts existing law is further illustrated by the failure of SB 1302 by Senator
Lara, which would have similarly preempted a local government from adopting or enforcing an ordinance
that would ban cannabis deliveries within its jurisdiction. Not only did SB 1302 fail to attain the required
2/3 majority vote required by Proposition 64 for the enactment of amendments that contradict Proposition
64’s express terms, it failed to pass out of its house of origin.
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
www.cacities.org
Because section 5416(d) goes beyond the statutory provisions of Proposition 64 and MAUCRSA,
adoption of 5416(d) would exceed the BCC’s regulatory authority. California Business and Professions
Code section 26013 limits the regulatory authority of the BCC to enacting rules and regulations that are
“consistent with the purposes and intent of [Proposition 64].” By allowing deliveries in every jurisdiction
in California, the BCC is fundamentally changing Proposition 64, not simply clarifying existing law. For
these reasons, the League strongly urges that section 5416(d) be removed from the regulations.
§5001(c)(11). Temporary License Application Requirements and §5002(c)(28). Annual License
Application Requirements. Both sections 5001(c)(11) and 5002(c)(28) create a 10-day “shot clock” for
cities to respond to the BCC’s inquiry of the validity of a license before that license is deemed valid. This
10 day “shot clock” does not afford cities sufficient time to review license applications and respond to the
BCC. The League advocated in 2017 in SB 94 for a 90-day “shot clock” that was ultimately reduced to 60
days. This proposed 10-day “shot clock” effectively makes cities obsolete in approving or verifying the
authenticity of licenses. This will undermine a fundamental pillar of Proposition 64 that ensures local
jurisdictions can regulate cannabis in their communities.
Current law, Business and Professions Code Section 26055(g)(2)(D), states that cities have 60 days to
provide notification of compliance or noncompliance with local ordinances or regulations before a license
application is deemed in compliance. The League strongly believes that the 60-day standard set in
existing law should also be applied to these regulations, because it will allow cities the time they need to
verify that a license submitted to the BCC is, in fact, valid.
If this 10-day shot clock were to be adopted, cities would be susceptible to a cannabis company sending
multiple purported local licenses to the BCC claiming that they are all valid, knowing that a city may not
have the time and resources to check each license’s validity before the 10-day verification period ends.
Ensuring that a local jurisdiction has approved either a temporary or annual license is key to promoting
public safety and should not be reduced to an over-the-counter approval process. For these reasons, the
League strongly urges that these regulations be amended from a 10-day to a 60-day period in both
sections 5001(c)(11) and 5002(c)(28), in order to both reflect current law and ensure cities an appropriate
amount of time to verify whether local licenses are indeed valid.
Furthermore, some patience with this newly-minted law is essential. As California’s experiment in
decriminalizing commercial cannabis activity unfolds, many jurisdictions that opted not to allow sales and
distribution within their jurisdiction are observing the experience in other jurisdictions. In time, as
successful examples of local implementation emerge, more jurisdictions can be expected to alter their
policies and permit the sale and delivery of cannabis.
For these reasons, the League strongly requests the outlined amendments to these proposed regulations.
The League appreciates the stakeholder engagement process the BCC is undertaking. We look forward to
continued opportunities to comment on specific regulatory proposals. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me at (916) 658-8252.
Sincerely,
Charles W.R. Harvey
Legislative Representative
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-740 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:20a.
Resolution authorizing submission of a comment letter on behalf of the City of South San Francisco to the
California Bureau of Cannabis Control regarding the proposed regulations.
WHEREAS,in July 2018,the Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC)released proposed regulations,which seek to
codify the emergency regulations implemented in December 2017; and
WHEREAS,the proposed state cannabis regulations,specifically Sections 5001(c)(11)and 5002(c)(28),create
a 10-day “shot clock”for cities to respond to the BCC’s inquiry of whether a license is valid before that license
is deemed valid; and
WHEREAS,Business and Professions Code Section 26055(g)(2)(D)currently states that cities have 60 days to
provide notification of compliance or noncompliance with local ordinances or regulations before a license
application is deemed in compliance; and
WHEREAS,California’s voters were assured that Proposition 64 “preserves local control”,pursuant to the
ballot pamphlet issued to the public; and
WHEREAS,reducing the local review period to 10 days would not provide the City of South San Francisco
adequate time to verify whether our City has approved a temporary or annual license to a cannabis company;
and
WHEREAS, the deadline to submit written comments to the BCC is August 27, 2018.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that it hereby
approves submission of a comment letter to the BCC on the proposed regulations,a draft of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that it hereby authorizes
the Mayor,or her designee,to submit a comment letter on behalf of the City to the BCC,a draft of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit A, regarding the proposed cannabis regulations.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-643 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:21.
Report regarding a resolution approving the grant of utility easements on City of South San Francisco property,
APN 012-338-160,for the South San Francisco Station Improvements Project (st1603)to Pacific Gas &
Electric’s for gas and electrical lines,and to California Water Service’s for water line,and authorizing the City
Manager to execute an easement deed to grant the easements. (Patrick Caylao, Associate Civil Engineer)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the grant of utility easements on
City of South San Francisco property,APN 012-338-160,for the South San Francisco Station
Improvements Project (st1603)to Pacific Gas &Electric’s for gas and electrical lines,and to California
Water Service’s for water line,and authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement deed to grant
the easements.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (“JPB”)South San Francisco Station Improvements (“Project”)
will construct a new Caltrain Station to the south of the existing Caltrain station near the Grand Avenue
overpass and Poletti Way.The Project will modernize the station and accommodate additional train service.The
improvements will include a new pedestrian underpass that will connect the new center platform with the
Downtown area (at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard)and the East of 101 (at Poletti Way and the 101
North Bound Off-Ramp).
As part of the Project,utility relocations are necessary to resolve utility conflicts with the proposed pedestrian
underpass.Pacific Gas &Electric (“PG&E”)and California Water Service (“Calwater”)both have existing
facilities that will require relocation to accommodate the new pedestrian underpass.The property located in
parcel APN 012-338-160 (“Property”),is owned by the City of South San Francisco.The Property does not
currently include a dedicated easement to accommodate the relocation of each utility facility owned by PG&E
and Calwater.PG&E requests the City grant a utility easement to accommodate the relocation of both its
existing gas and electrical lines.Calwater also requests the grant of a separate utility easement to accommodate
the relocation of its existing water line.
Attachment 1 attached to this staff report highlights the overall location of each easement that is being
requested.The easements would run parallel to each other and cross into City property and reconnect to their
existing utilities running along Airport Boulevard.Page 1 of Attachment 1 shows the course of the proposed
easements in green highlight.Page 2 of Attachment 1 shows the way that the proposed easement would cross
over CalTrans and City properties.
At this time,the general locations of the easements are shown but the final,exact locations will be submitted
and approved by the City once construction has been completed.The City Manager will retain authority to
authorize the final submittal of as-built easements for filing with the San Mateo County Recorder.
California Government Code section 65402 requires that,as a precondition to any disposition of real property,
the City’s Planning Commission must determine that the location,purpose and extent of the proposed
disposition are in conformity with the City’s General Plan.Staff has concluded that the location,purpose andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-643 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:21.
disposition are in conformity with the City’s General Plan.Staff has concluded that the location,purpose and
extent of the proposed reservation of separate easements for Pacific Gas &Electric’s gas and electrical lines
and California Water Service’s water line is in conformity with the City’s General Plan because (1)it fulfills the
purpose of the Project and underlying land use of the General Plan;(2)the purpose of the project is to facilitate
the development of a public transit facility in accordance with the intent of the General Plan land use
designation of Transportation Center;and (3)the amount of property being disposed of is necessary to construct
the project as proposed.
On July 19,2018,the Planning Commission determined that the location,purpose,and extent of the proposed
reservation of separate easements for Pacific Gas &Electric’s gas and electrical lines and California Water
Service’s water line are in conformity with the City’s adopted General Plan in accordance with Government
Code section 65402.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the grant of utility easements on City of
South San Francisco property,APN 012-338-160,for the South San Francisco Station Improvements Project
(st1603)to Pacific Gas &Electric’s for gas and electrical lines,and to California Water Service’s for water line,
and authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement deed to grant the easements.
Attachment 1 - Map of Grant of Easement for PG&E and Calwater
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
17
8
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-644 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:21a.
Resolution approving the grant of utility easements on City of South San Francisco property,APN 012-338-
160,for the South San Francisco Station Improvements Project (st1603)to Pacific Gas &Electric’s for gas and
electrical lines,and to California Water Service’s for water line,and authorizing the City Manager to execute an
easement deed to grant the easements.
WHEREAS,the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (“JPB”)South San Francisco Station Improvements
(“Project”)will construct a new Caltrain Station to the south of the existing Caltrain station near the Grand
Avenue overpass and Poletti Way; and
WHEREAS,the Project includes a new pedestrian underpass that will connect the new center platform with the
Downtown Area at Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, and the East of 101 at Poletti Way; and
WHEREAS,the Project requires utility relocations in order to resolve existing utility conflicts with the
proposed pedestrian underpass; and
WHEREAS,Pacific Gas &Electric (“PG&E”)and California Water Service (“Calwater”)both have existing
utilities that will require relocation in order to accommodate the new pedestrian underpass; and
WHEREAS,the property located in parcel APN 012-338-160 (“Property”),is owned by the City of South San
Francisco (“City”); and
WHEREAS,the Property does not currently include a dedicated utility easement to accommodate the new
location of each of the utilities owned by PG&E and Calwater; and
WHEREAS,PG&E requests a grant of a utility easement to accommodate relocation of both its existing gas
and electrical lines; and
WHEREAS,Calwater also requests a grant of a separate utility easement to accommodate the relocation of its
existing water line; and
WHEREAS, the general locations of the proposed easements are shown on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS,exact locations for the utility easements on the Property will be submitted for approval by the City
once construction has been completed; and
WHEREAS,the City Manager will retain authority to authorize the final exact location of the easements for
filing with the San Mateo County Recorder, based on the as-built engineering plans; and
WHERAS,California Government Code section 65402 requires that,as a precondition to any disposition ofCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-644 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:21a.
WHERAS,California Government Code section 65402 requires that,as a precondition to any disposition of
real property,the City’s Planning Commission must determine that the location,purpose and extent of the
proposed disposition conforms with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS,on July 19,2018,the Planning Commission determined that the location,purpose,and extent of
the proposed grant of utility easements for Pacific Gas &Electric’s gas and electrical lines and California Water
Service’s water line are in conformity with the City’s adopted General Plan in accordance with Government
Code section 65402.
THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves
the grant of proposed separate public utility easements on the City of South San Francisco property,APN 012-
338-160,for the South San Francisco Station Improvements Project to be granted for Pacific Gas &Electric’s
gas and electrical lines and California Water Service’s water line.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby authorizes the
City Manager to execute easement deed,in substantially the same form as the document is attached hereto as
Exhibit B,on behalf of the City in order to effectuate the grant of the utility easements,subject to review and
approval as to form by the City Attorney,and take any other action necessary to accomplish the intent of this
resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/21/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO:
[INSERT PUBLIC UTILITY NAME AND
ADDRESS- PG&E and Cal Water]
Location: City/Uninc______________________
Recording Fee $_____________________________
Document Transfer Tax $ __________
[ ] This is a conveyance where the consideration and
Value is less than $100.00 (R&T 11911).
[ ] Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or
[ ] Computed on Full Value Less Liens
& Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale
Signature of declarant or agent determining tax
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY)
LD# EASEMENT DEED
The City of South San Francisco, hereinafter called Grantor, hereby grants to [respectively,
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY/CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICES], a California
corporation, hereinafter called Grantee, the right from time to time to construct, reconstruct, install,
inspect, maintain, replace, remove, and use facilities for [gas distribution/electricity distribution/water
distribution (corresponding to the public utility grantee)], and more particularly specified hereinafter
(“Work”), together with a right of way therefor, on, over, and under the easement area as hereinafter
set forth, and also ingress thereto and egress therefrom, over and across the lands of Grantor situate in
the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows:
(APN 012-338-160)
Insert Land Description
Said easement area is described as follows:
Final easement description to be selected and approved by the City for each public utility
(1) The strip(s) of land described in Exhibit “A” and shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a
part hereof
(2) The strip(s) of land of the uniform width of ______ feet, the center line(s) of which is/are
delineated by the heavy dashed line(s) shown upon the print(s) of Grantee's Drawing No. _________
attached hereto and made a part hereof
(3) The strip(s)/parcel(s) of land outlined by heavy dashed lines on the print(s) of Grantee's Drawing
No. _________ attached hereto and made a part hereof.
(4) The strip(s) of land of the uniform width of ______ feet, lying ______feet on each side of the
alignment of the facilities as initially installed hereunder. The approximate locations of said facilities
are shown upon Grantee’s Drawing No. ___________ attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Grantee agrees that on receiving a request in writing, it will at Grantor’s expense, survey, prepare and
record a “Notice of Final Description” referring to this instrument and setting forth a description of
said strip(s) of land.
Said Work in the easement area above are as follows: (Select appropriate category for the public utility
grantee):
For Gas Distribution:
Grantee proposes to relocate an existing 8in diameter gas line (operating pressure of 46psig) housed in
plastic pipe that is in the way of the new station pedestrian underpass with a new 8in diameter gas line
(operating pressure of 46psig) that avoids the new underpass.
For Electricity Distribution:
Grantee proposes to relocate 4kv and 12kv electrical distribution lines to avoid new station pedestrian
underpass.
For Water Distribution:
Grantee proposes to excavate existing ground for a bore pit for the relocated line that will be installed
by jacking and boring underneath the existing railroad tracks; to excavate trench for new water line
alignment within the easement area; to connect new line to existing line near Grand Avenue-Airport
Boulevard Intersection; and to deactivate old 18-inch line.
Grantor further grants to Grantee the right, from time to time, to trim or to cut down any and all trees
and brush now or hereafter by Grantee or Grantee’s qualified and licensed contractors within said
easement area, and shall have the further right, from time to time, to trim and cut down trees and brush
along each side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of Grantee may interfere
with or be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder, or as Grantee deems necessary to comply with
applicable state or federal regulations.
Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure, or drill or operate any well, or
construct any reservoir or other obstruction within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add
to the ground level in said easement area, or construct any fences that will interfere with the
maintenance and operation of said facilities.
The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective
parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land.
Dated: __________________, _______.
_________________________________
City of South San Francisco
.
State of California
County of )
On __________________________, before me, ,
Here insert name and title of the officer
personally appeared
,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within
instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that
by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted,
executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true
and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[ ] Individual(s) signing for oneself/themselves
[ ] Corporate Officer(s) of the above named corporation(s)
[ ] Trustee(s) of the above named Trust(s)
[ ] Partner(s) of the above named Partnership(s)
[ ] Attorney(s)-in-Fact of the above named Principal(s)
[ ] Other
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who
signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of
that document.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-721 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:22.
Report regarding an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of Administration,California Public
Employees’Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco to increase Classic Safety member
contributions to pension (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of
Administration,California Public Employees’Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco to
increase Classic Safety member contributions to pension and waive further reading.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In July 2017, the Council approved agreements with public safety employees, which include International
Association of Firefighters Local 1507 (IAFF), Police Officers Association (POA), Public Safety Managers
(PSM), and Executive Management. These agreements outlined provisions for employee cost-sharing of City
contributions to CalPERS as part of a long-term strategy to reduce the City’s pension costs. The plan includes
an increase in employee contributions to pension by 3% of salary, for a total employee contribution of 12% of
salary. This will, in turn, reduce the City’s costs by the same amount. The increases are scheduled to occur in
1% increments in each fiscal year from 2017 to 2019. In November 2017, Council adopted an ordinance to
amend the CalPERS contract in order to increase the employee contribution for public safety members from 9%
to 10% of salary for fiscal year 2017-2018. As a separate action is required to amend the contract each year, a
new ordinance is necessary to effectuate the increase scheduled for the current fiscal year.
To begin the contract amendment process,on July 25,2018,Council adopted a resolution of intention to amend
the contract between California Public Employees’Retirement System (CalPERS)and the City.This contract
amendment would increase the employee contribution from 10%to 11%for the current fiscal year.These
changes do not apply to employees hired on or after January 1,2013 who are “new members”under the Public
Employees’Pension Reform Act (PEPRA).New members,who receive a lower benefit,are required to pay
50%of the normal cost of the benefit,and this amount is subject to change based on the projected cost of future
benefits.Classic members (all safety employees who are not new members)will see a 1%increase in employee
contributions.
CalPERS also requires a ballot vote of employees who are affected by the change, and this voting process is
currently underway. Once these steps are complete, the final adoption of the ordinance to amend the contract
with CalPERS may occur. The final ordinance will be scheduled for adoption on September 12, 2018.
FISCAL IMPACT
The approved labor agreements provide for long-term structural changes in the City’s Classic Safety member
pension costs.The projected savings from this year’s proposed contract amendment,approximately $202,000
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-721 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:22.
pension costs.The projected savings from this year’s proposed contract amendment,approximately $202,000
annually,have been included in the 2018-2019 fiscal year budget.The 1%increase in employee contributions
was anticipated to begin July 1,2018.However,due to administrative delays in beginning the process for a
contract amendment,the increase in employee contributions cannot be effectuated until the final ordinance is
adopted. This will result in an approximate cost of $55,600 for fiscal year 2018-2019 only.
CONCLUSION
In order to reduce the City’s pension costs and to comply with existing public safety employee agreements,it is
recommended that the City Council introduce an ordinance amending the contract between the Board of
Administration,California Public Employees’Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco to
increase Classic Safety member contributions to pension and waive further reading.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/2/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:18-722 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:22a.
Ordinance of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco authorizing an amendment to the contract
between the City of South San Francisco and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System.
WHEREAS,the Public Employees’Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their
employees in the Public Employees’Retirement System by the execution of a contract,and sets forth the
procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to
said Law; and
WHEREAS,on July 25,2018,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco adopted a resolution of
intent to approve an amendment to said contract,which resolution contained a summary of the change proposed
in said contract; and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco wishes to adopt an ordinance to approve an
amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration California Public Employees’Retirement
System and the City Council,City of South San Francisco,implementing the ability for Classic Safety
members to pay a portion of the employer share of their California Public Employees’Retirement System
(CalPERS) pension costs.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED that based on the entirety of the record before it,as described below,
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.APPROVAL OF CALPERS CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The City Council hereby approves an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration
California Public Employees’Retirement System and the City of South San Francisco,implementing the ability
for Classic Safety members to pay a portion of the employer share of their CalPERS pension costs,attached
hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
The City Council also hereby authorizes the City Manager to enter into and execute the amendment to the
contract on behalf of the City in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A;to make any
revisions,amendments,or modifications,subject to the approval of the City Attorney,deemed necessary to
carry out the intent of this ordinance and which do not materially alter or increase the City’s obligations
thereunder.
SECTION 2.SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or
unconstitutional,the remainder of this ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to otherCity of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:18-722 Agenda Date:8/8/2018
Version:1 Item #:22a.
unconstitutional,the remainder of this ordinance,including the application of such part or provision to other
persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect.To this end,
provisions of this ordinance are severable.The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby declares
that it would have passed each section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase hereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,subsections,subdivisions,paragraphs,sentences,clauses,
or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.
SECTION 3.PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall be published once,with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it,
in the South San Francisco Examiner,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 at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,held the 8th day of
August, 2018.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/10/2018Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker cotntnents are limited to three (3) minutes
Please iiio jtlSate Whicb item you'd like to speak on:
ZPublle Continents, or
2�_Agenda Item
Name: L) '
C C— Date:
Pronounced:
Address (optional) "" S
CITYOF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CART)
To address the City council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
Public Comments, or
2) Agenda Item
Name: i f' f%'y'��i i`1 Date:-'
Pronounced:
Address (optional
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council. please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on: �
1 jPublic Comments, or
QkAgenda Item
Name:, W ;t,�� l'ti'l Date-7
Pronounced:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CART)
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker continents are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
Public Comments, or J�
2) Agenda Item
Name: F b e � t ZC6,-Q..l Date: bl �l
Pronounced: 1 CD
Address (optional) % Sa,
OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CART!
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate w°lii(.h item you'd like to speak on:
JX _Public Comments, or �,5
2) Agenda Item
Name:"`��if
Pronounced:
Address (optional)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate "'Inch item you'd like to speak on:
! -Public Comments, or
' Agenda/ Item
Name:
Pronounced:
Address (optional) I Address (optional)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD (D
To address the City Council. please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minute
,,lease iudicate item you'd like to speA oat:
`_Xublic Comments, or
Z�
—Agenda Item
Name: �r�e� � � V Date:
Pronounced:
Address (optional
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Spe
aker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item you'd like o speak om (
1 Public Comments, or ' "
2) Agenda Item
Name:
Pronounced:.
.Address (optional)
CITE' OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD \ 1�
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Please indicate which item yoc' 1 like to speak on:
Public Comments, r�l like
�f
t
_Agenda Item
Pronounced:
Address (optional
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISL:O
SPEAKER CARD r
To address the City Council. please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are linvted to three (3) minut
Please indicate which item you'd like to speak onILK:
Public Conunents, or " OC.0E-
2) -Agenda Item
Name: % / �t AD te:
Pronounced:
Address (optional)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk �u
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
Mcase indicate which item you'd like to speak on:
1 \ Public Comments, or
2 Agenda Item
Name: tC-k D -� i MC'�rwZDate:'? P k(73
Pronounced:
Address (optional)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
'To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk
Speaker comments are limited to three (3) minutes
please inchcat._ «hick item you'd like to speak on:
1 Public Comments, or Uf'�-! �
___Agenda Item
Name: if. Date: 1
Pronounced:
Address (optional
CITE' OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SPEAKER CARD
To address the City Council, please complete this card and
submit it to the City Clerk Add
Speaker conmients are linuted to three (3)
please indicatc> which item you'd like to speak on: �
1) Public Comments, or * T U �
_Agenda Item
Name: f f f C's Tate:
Pronounced:
Address (optional)