HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-13 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, January 13, 2021
7:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
City Council
Regular Meeting Agenda
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION
OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS
THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY
BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Councilmembers Coleman and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City staff will
participate via Teleconference.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
Or via Zoom:
Please click on the link below to register for the session:
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_4E48Zs5aQWS-f-tIQcN4vQ
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the
Zoom meeting follow the instructions listed under Remote Public Comments.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City 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 adjourned regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each
month at 7:00 p.m.
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.
MARK ADDIEGO, Mayor (At Large)
MARK NAGALES, Vice Mayor (District 2)
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, Councilmember (At Large)
JAMES COLEMAN, Councilmember (District 4)
VACANT (At Large)
ROSA GOVEA ACOSTA, City Clerk
FRANK RISSO, City Treasurer
MIKE FUTRELL, City Manager
SKY WOODRUFF, City Attorney
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 an adjourned
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 adjourned 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 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
AGENDA REVIEW
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS
Remote Public Comments Received1.
Members of the public may address the City Council regarding items that are on the agenda or on items that are
not on the agenda.
The Public Comments portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Council on any
matter NOT on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this
section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced subject to the
Mayor’s discretion to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).).
Comments that are not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the
record if they are in writing or muted if they are made live.
Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of
the meeting to e-mail: all-cc@ssf.net by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received by the deadline will be
forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Emails received after 4:00 p.m. will
not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
•If you are commenting on a particular item on the agenda, please identify the agenda item in the subject line
of your email.
•If you are commenting on an item not listed on the agenda, please identify your comment as a General
Public Comment in the subject line of your email.
State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred
to staff for follow up.
Oral Comments: Speakers are asked to register in advance via the Zoom platform by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting
date, meeting information listed on the agenda. You will be asked to enter a name, an email address, and the
Agenda item about which you wish to speak or to state that you wish to provide a comment about an item that
is not on the agenda. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After registering, you will receive
an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.
When the City Clerk announces the item on which you wish to speak, including general public comments, your
name will be called and you will be unmuted. No more than three minutes will be allocated to read each email
comment, and oral comments will also be limited to no more than three minutes. Approximately 300 words
total can be read in three minutes.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of October 28, 2020, November 9,
2020 and November 18, 2020.
2.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,800 in grant funding
from the United Way of the Bay Area to support the Volunteer Income Tax
Assistance Program at Project Read and amending the Library Department’s Fiscal
Year 2020 - 2021 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.030. (Valerie
Sommer, Library Director)
3.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,800 in grant funding from the United Way
of the Bay Area to support the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program at Project
Read and amending the Library Department’s Fiscal Year 2020 - 2021 Operating
Budget via Budget Amendment 21.030.
3a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding
from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San
Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.032. (Adam Elsholz, Assistant
Library Director)
4.
Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding from the County of
San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and
approving Budget Amendment 21.032.
4a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the second amendment to the Purchase and
Sale Agreement with Baden Developments LLC for 432 Baden (Julie Barnard,
Economic Development Coordinator).
5.
Resolution approving the second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement
with Baden Developments LLC for the sale of 432 Baden Avenue.
5a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in
their Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget in the amount of $16,951 to support beverage
container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to
adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 revenue budget upon receipt of funds
pursuant to budget amendment #21.033. (Josh Richardson, Parks Manager)
6.
Resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 budget in the amount of $16,951 to support beverage container
recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the
City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to
budget amendment 21.033.
6a.
Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency
and the need to continue emergency repairs in response to the Sign Hill Diamond Fire.
(Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation)
7.
Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and authorizing
procurement for emergency remediation work relating to fire damage on Sign Hill in
South San Francisco
7a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First
Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement between the CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO with KITCHELL CEM, of Sacramento, California for Program
and Construction Management Services to the Community Civic Campus project in an
amount not to exceed $862,307 for consulting services. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of
Capital Projects)
8.
Resolution amending an existing consulting services agreement with Kitchell CEM for
Program and Construction Management Services on the Civic Campus projects in an
amount not to exceed $862,307.00.
8a.
Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) with the City and County of San Francisco acting through its
Public Utilities Commission for the SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and
Recovery Well Site Access and approving a future access easement on South San
Francisco owned property. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
9.
Resolution approving the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with
the City and County of San Francisco acting through its Public Utilities Commission
for the SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Well Site Access and
approving a future access easement on South San Francisco owned property.
9a.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,070 in grant funding
from Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) to support the City Manager’s office
communications outreach relating to climate action throughout South San Francisco
and approving Budget Amendment 21.034. (Katie Donner, Library Assistant II)
10.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,070 in grant funding from Peninsula
Clean Energy to support the City Manager’s Office outreach relating to climate action
throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.034.
10a.
Report regarding a resolution approving a consulting services agreement to provide
Geotechnical, Special Inspection and Material Testing services with Ninyo and Moore,
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants of Alameda, California for the
CIVIC CAMPUS: PHASE II LIBRARY, PARKS & RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (LPR) (Project No. pf2103) in
an amount not to exceed $500,000.00 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreement. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
11.
Resolution approving a consulting services agreement for Geotechnical, Special
Inspection and Material Testing services with Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical and
Environmental Sciences (“Ninyo & Moore”) consultant of Alameda, California for the
CIVIC CAMPUS: PHASE II LIBRARY, PARKS & RECREATION AND
COMMUNITY THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (“LPR”) (Project No. pf2103) in
an amount not to exceed $500,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreement.
11a.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report on a resolution approving the Annual Development Impact Fee and Sewer
Capacity Charge Report (AB 1600) for the Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Janet Salisbury,
Director of Finance)
12.
Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for
Fiscal Year 2019-20.
12a.
Report regarding a resolution approving the draft response to the San Mateo County
Grand Jury Report titled, “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The
Neighborhoods” (Nell Selander, Deputy Director, Economic & Community
Development Department).
13.
Resolution approving the draft response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report
titled, “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods.”
13a.
Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and San
Mateo County establishing the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team Pilot
Program (Sharron Watts, Management Fellow)
14.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo in establishing
the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) Pilot Program.
14a.
Report on the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center parking canopy design.
(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
15.
Report regarding a resolution supporting Assembly Bill 15, the Tenant Stabilization
Act of 2021, and authorizing the Mayor to send a letter in support to the state
legislature. (Sharon Ranals, Assistant City Manager)
16.
Resolution regarding Assembly Bill 15, the Tenant Stabilization Act of 2021, and
authorizing the Mayor to send a letter in support to the state legislature.
16a.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Policy regarding public comments at City Council meetings (Mark Addiego, Mayor)17.
Process for Council vacancy appointment. (Mark Addiego, Mayor)18.
Council discussion on changing the time of the Regular City Council meetings. (Mark
Addiego, Mayor)
19.
Discussion of C/CAG Committee Vacancies for Elected Officials. Congestion
Management & Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee (4) vacant seats,
Legislative Committee (3) vacant seats, Resource Management and Climate Protection
(RMCP) Committee (1) vacant seat. (Mark Addiego, Mayor)
20.
ADJOURNMENT
Page 8 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
January 13, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Page 9 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1038 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:1.
Remote Public Comments Received
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1039 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:2.
Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of October 28, 2020, November 9, 2020 and November 18,
2020.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garbarino called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales, and Nicolas,
Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Garbarino.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS – comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Members of the public wishing to participate were encouraged to submit public comments in
writing in advance of the meeting to all-cc@ssf.net by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 28, 2020.
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
1. Report regarding Resolution No. 137-2020 approving an Outside Sewer Service Agreement
with the owner of California Golf Club at 844 West Orange Avenue and 95 Westborough
Boulevard (APN 013-250-080), and authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement on
behalf of the City of South San Francisco and to record the agreement in the San Mateo
County official records. (Jason Hallare, Senior Civil Engineer)
Senior Civil Engineer Hallare presented the report and provided background information on the
project. The City had received a request from Rick Kazakoff on behalf of California Golf Club of
San Francisco “Cal Club”, owner of the property, to authorize an on-site development for a new
maintenance yard that included service centers and dormitories to connect to the City of South San
Francisco’s sanitary sewer system. The proposal was for the city to authorize the requested sanitary
sewer load increase subject to the terms and conditions in the agreements and to authorize the
execution of said agreements.
Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the traffic management on Westborough Boulevard and
dormitories on the property. Mark Haesloop, a representative from Cal Club provided clarification
on the dormitories and indicated that vehicle traffic would not be directed towards Westborough
Boulevard.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Teleconference via Zoom
City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California
Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 and
COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 2
Vice Mayor Addiego thanked Cal Club for installing a new sewer line and city staff for their work
on the project.
Councilmember Nicolas expressed her concerns with the size of trees to be planted and inquired
whether it would be possible to plant larger trees. Mark Haesloop indicated that the agreement with
the County was to install and maintain 16-feet trees. Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation
Mediati provided clarification on the trees that were approved for the project.
Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Vice Mayor Addiego: to approve Resolution No.
137-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
2. Report regarding Resolution No. 138-2020 to approve the final map for condominium
purposes for 645 Baden Avenue, and authorize the recordation of the final map and all
related documents. (Jason Hallare, Senior Engineer)
Senior Civil Engineer Hallare presented the report and provided background information on the
condominium project located at 645 Baden Avenue. Baden Condos LLC (“Developer”) had
completed several building permit submittals and was anticipating approval of the building permit
shortly. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Developer to begin vertical construction,
the Developer is required to execute an Encroachment and Maintenance Agreement with the city to
install certain improvements within the City Right of Way and to require the Developer to maintain
all landscape along the frontage of the property.
He stated that the City Engineer and the city’s technical reviewer, with concurrence of all affected
city departments and divisions, had determined that the final map for 645 Baden Avenue was in
compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, the city’s Subdivision Ordinance, and all applicable
conditions of approval for said development.
Councilmember Matsumoto and Vice Mayor Addiego complimented staff on their work and the
design team on the project.
Mayor Garbarino thanked Councilmember Matsumoto and Vice Mayor Addiego for their
participation on the Housing Standing Committee and expressed his support for the project.
Motion— Vice Mayor Addiego/Councilmember Matsumoto: to approve Resolution No. 138-2020,
by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego
and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
3. Report regarding Resolution No. 139-2020 approving and authorizing the City Manager to
execute a Federal Cost Sharing Agreement with the Department of the Army for the
Preliminary Design of the Water Quality Control Plant Sea Level Rise Project (SS1802) in
the amount projected to be $510,000. (Jason Hallare, Senior Civil Engineer)
Senior Civil Engineer Hallare presented the report and provided background information on the
Water Quality Control Plant Sea Level Rise Project. The Colma Creek watershed, which flows
through the southern part of the City of South San Francisco (“City”) into the San Francisco Bay,
contains residential neighborhoods that have been severely flooded, habitat for threatened and
endangered species, and substantial public infrastructure. The South San Francisco San Bruno
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 3
Water Quality Control Plant (“WQCP”) is a critical infrastructure asset that treats wastewater for in
South San Francisco, San Bruno, Colma, and Daly City and serves as a shared final effluent pump
station for Millbrae, Burlingame, and San Francisco International Airport.
On September 26, 2018, the City requested assistance from the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (“Army Corps”), part of the United States Department of the Army, under Section 205 of
the Flood Control Act of 1948. For the feasibility study, the City confirmed an understanding to
cost sharing of 50% of the feasibility study costs exceeding $100,000.
On August 27, 2019, the Army Corps completed their Federal Interest Determination Report and
recommended that the Army Corps proceed with the feasibility study under the Continuing
Authorities Program (CAP) Section 103, as part of the River and Harbor Act of 1962. The
Feasibility Study and the rest of the CAP Section 103 project will be managed by the Army Corps
with the City as the non-Federal sponsor. The first step of the feasibility phase is to execute the
Federal Cost Sharing Agreement (“FCSA”). In preparation of the FCSA, the Army Corps estimated
that the feasibility study’s cost share for the City would be approximately $510,000.
Councilmember Matsumoto inquired whether other cities benefitting from sewer services were
contributing to the cost of the project. Superintendent Schumacker provided clarification on the
contributions from other cities towards the project.
Councilmember Nicolas inquired whether other cities were facing the same situation and how were
they preparing for the sea level rise. Senior Civil Engineer Hallare indicated that the County had
done a sea level rise vulnerability assessment and found that many cities would be affected by the
sea level rise. City Manager Futrell stated that South San Francisco was the only city that had
successfully partnered with the Army Corps of Engineers to address the sea level rise and provided
an overview of other efforts in the works.
Motion— Councilmember Nicolas/Councilmember Nagales: to approve Resolution No. 139-2020,
by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego
and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Approved:
Cindy Avila Mark Addiego
Assistant City Clerk Mayor
Approved: / /
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garbarino called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales, and Nicolas,
Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Garbarino.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
Executive Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez announced a partnership with the County of San
Mateo to offer free COVID-19 testing in South San Francisco. Testing will be available on
November 5, 2020 and November 19, 2020 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. No documentation
required. For additional information call (650) 272 -7431.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Recitation of a proclamation observing November as Native American Heritage Month in
South San Francisco. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor)
Mayor Garbarino read into t he record the proclamation observing November as Native American
Heritage Month. Dr. Elizabeth Parent, a South San Francisco resident, accepted the proclamation
and thanked the Council for the recognition.
2. Census 2020 Final Update (Kathy Blandon Escobar, Census 2020 Program Manager)
Census 2020 Program Manager Blandon provided a final update on the 2020 Census 2020 self-
response rates. The City of South San Francisco had a response rate of 79.8%, an increase from the
2010 Census of 75.1%. She provided an overview of staff efforts to reach the hard to count
population and indicated that they visited 6,200 households; distributed material to over 100
organizations, and made 27,468 calls to promote participation.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2020
7:00 p.m.
Teleconference via Zoom
City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with
California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and
N-29-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 2
Mayor Garbarino thanked her and the Census team for their diligence and hard work to count
people in the community. Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the monetary compensation
that the city would receive for every counted individual. Census Program Manager Blandon
indicated that the city would receive $1000 per person over the next ten years.
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS
3. Members of the public wishing to participate were encouraged to submit public comments in
writing in advance of the meeting to all-cc@ssf.net by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 28,
2020.
The following individual submitted a public comment via email. The comment was read into the
record by Deputy City Clerk Rodriguez, disseminated to the City Council, and uploaded to the
website:
Ariel San Jose – Community Member
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Mediati provided an overview of the city’s effort to
address the fire damage on Sign Hill, including fire break work of the area.
Vice Mayor Addiego shared a concern from members of the Sunshine Garden neighborhood about
the difficulty of gaining access to El Camino Real during Sign Hill's fire evacuation. He requested a
future discussion. City Manager Futrell indicated that he w ould meet with the Fire Department staff
to review evacuation plans and schedule a future meeting with community members to discuss
concerns.
Councilmember Matsumoto discussed the city's press release related to the cause and possible
suspects of causing the fire at Sign Hill, including restitution of expenses for public safety services
rendered. She inquired about an approximate cost and the extent of the damage. She suggested that
staff add an emergency evacuation plan for residents in the upcoming cit y newsletter. City Manager
Futrell will follow-up and provide a cost estimate to the Council. City Attorney Woodruff indicated
that in his experience in other similar cases, the court tried individuals that caused damage. He
noted that staff is currently working with the city insurance to recover costs.
Councilmember Nicolas suggested a citywide Zoom meeting to discuss safety training and address
community concerns. Fire Chief Magallanes indicated that the city has partnered with San Mateo
County on the Zonehaven Community Evacuation project scheduled to be launched on November
16, 2020. The program was designed to assist the public in the event of a public safety situation.
Fire Department personnel will encourage and promote the use of the app to reside nts of the
community. He indicated that Emergency Services Manager Anderson produced an emergency
preparedness video that can be found on the city's social media page and website. He will provide
additional information via a Thursday memo to Council. Counc ilmember Matsumoto suggested
adding it to the newsletter.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
Councilmember Nicolas informed the community of the upcoming free Flu Shot Clinic hosted by
Lions Club International – District 4. The event will be a drive-through and walk-up event held at
the City Hall parking lot on Saturday, November 7, 2020, and Sunday, November 22, 2020, from
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 3
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. She expressed her sincere appreciation and congratulated Deborah Carlino,
a 5th-grade teacher at Martin Elementary Sc hool, for her recent award recognizing her dedication
and commitment to student success. Councilmember Nicolas requested to adjourn the meeting in
memory of Father Robert Walsh, former president of St. Ignatius College Preparatory in San
Francisco and brot her of longtime South San Francisco resident.
Vice Mayor Addiego requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Norma Niemann (Jurin), a
former South San Francisco Unified School District teacher. He acknowledged her 35 years of
dedication to the community and read her obituary.
Councilmember Nagales discussed his concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic and provided
statistics for the County. He encouraged the community to wear a mask and shelter in place to help
stop the spread.
Councilmember Matsumoto discussed public safety power shutoffs and inquired about the city's
charging stations and general accessibility in an emergency. She requested an update on the current
elections process and clarified that the City Clerk is the city's elections official. City Manager
Futrell indicated that before COVID-19, the South San Francisco Main Library was a free public
place available to residents to charge their phones and cool down. He will follow -up with staff and
provide a memo to the Council. City Clerk Acosta prov ided an update on elections and informed the
community of voting locations for the November 3, 2020 election.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in
discussion of specific item as follows: Items 7, 8, 9, 13, and 14 were pulled for further discussion.
Item 7 – Councilmember Nagales congratulated the Library Department for their efforts in reaching
out to the community. He inquired about the three school sites and suggested reaching out to ot her
schools. Library Director Sommers indicated that the grant was tied to a specific program funding
specifically for the specified schools' lunch programs. She provided an overview of the Library's
citywide outreach events. Parks and Recreation Director Ranals provided an overview of the
department's pop-up PE program funded by the city's Innovation Fund.
Item 8 – Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the expense of expanding the project. City
Manager Futrell provided an overview of the project and expa nsion due to the availability of
additional funding. Vice Mayor Addiego congratulated Senior Engineer Liu on her efforts.
Item 9 – Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the city’s process to ensure compliance with
Caltrans procedures. Principal Engineer Ruble provided an overview of the city’s process and
procedures to ensure compliance.
Item 13 – Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the write-off amount and requested data to
reflect yearly write-offs. Vice Mayor Addiego requested staff provide a percentage amount of write-
offs in addition to a dollar amount. Emergency Medical Services Chief Walls provided an overview
of the billing process. The Council thanked him for the report's accuracy and his work to recover
costs for the city.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 4
Item 14 – Co uncilmember Matsumoto inquired about the funding and distribution of air quality
monitors specifically to our at -risk community members. She requested that staff provide outreach
to ensure families are aware of the service and benefit from it. Library Dire ctor Sommers provided
an overview of the process and indicated that the team would be heavily promoting the services in
various languages to ensure community awareness.
4. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meeting of August 26, 2020.
5. Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of the FY 18 -19 Curb
Ramp Replacement Project (Project No. ST193B) as complete in accordance with plans and
specifications (Total Construction Cost $195,642.00). (Angel Torres, Senior Civil Engineer)
6. Report regarding Resolution No. 140-2020 approving the City’s Investment Policy for Fiscal
Year 2020-21. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance and Frank Risso, City Treasurer)
7. Report regarding Resolution No. 141-2020 authorizing the acceptance of $2,100 in grant
funding from the California Library Association to support Pop-up Library Programming at
three South San Francisco Unified School District meal sites and approving Budget
Amendment 21.017. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
8. Report regarding Resolution No. 142-2020 approving and authorizing the City Manager to
execute a purchase agreement amendment with Atlantis Water Management Victoria for the
purchase of additional storage tank materials for the construction of the Orange Memorial
Park Storm Water Capture Project, in an amount not to exceed $231,900. (Bianca Liu,
Senior Engineer and Robert Dusenbury, Lotus Water)
9. Report regarding Resolution No. 143-2020 authorizing the adoption of Caltrans’ Local
Assistance Procedures Manual Chapter 10, entitled “Consultant Selection.” (Matthew Ruble,
Principal Engineer)
10. Report regarding Resolution No. 144-2020 authorizing the filing of a grant application for
the State of California Parks and Water Bond Act of 2018 (Proposition 68) Per Capita Grant
for a total amo unt not to exceed $218,949 for improvements of Gardiner Park, and
acceptance of grant funding if awarded. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and
Recreation)
11. Report regarding Resolution No. 145-2020 accepting a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) grant in the amount of $65,650.45; authorizing the use of Public Safety
Impact Fees in an amount not to exceed $15,630.40; approving budget amendment 21.020
amending the Fire Department’s operating budget for Fiscal Year 2020 -21 in the amount of
$81,280.85; and authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchase agreement on behalf of
the City of South San Francisco with LN Curtis and Sons, Inc. for the purchase of firehose
in an amount not to exceed $81,280.85. (Jesus Magallanes, Fire Chief)
12. Report regarding Resolution No. 146-2020 authorizing the acceptance of $150,000 in
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) County Program Manager Funds from the
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) to furnish new traffic signal detection
which would include detection of bicyclists and to approve budget amendment 21.019 which
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 5
would amend the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Capital Improvement Program to fund the East of 101
Bicycle Safety Improvement Project (Project No. tr2104). (Bianca Liu, Senior Engineer)
13. Report regarding Resolution No. 147-2020 authorizing the write-off of $116,314.41 in
uncollectible ambulance billing accounts receivable. (Richard Walls, Emergency Medical
Services Chief)
14. Report regarding Resolution No. 148-2020 authorizing the acceptance of $4,927.50 in grant
funding from Pacific Library Partnership to fund the distribution of air quality monitors
through the Library Department and approving Budget Amendment 21.021. (Valerie
Sommer, Library Director)
15. Report regarding Resolution No. 149-2020 authorizing the acceptance of $19,950 in grant
funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South
San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.022. (Valerie Sommer, Library
Director)
16. Report regarding Resolution No. 150-2020 authorizing the acceptance of a $5,000 in crisis
collection grant funding from the California State Library to address the increased demand
for e-resources as library buildings are closed. (Valerie Sommer, Library Director)
17. Report regarding the adoption of Ordinance No. 1612-2020 amending the parkland
acquisition fee and the park construction fee. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
Motion — Vice Mayor Addiego /Second – Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Consent Calendar
items 4-17 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas, and Nagales, Vice
Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
18. Report regarding a financial status update for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and recommended
budget adjustments. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
Director of Salisbury presented the report and provided an overview of the city’s financial report for
FY 2020-21 including General Fund surplus. Estimated revenues for FY 2020-21 were $106.3
million. Even with this conservative revenue estimate, which is projected to be approximately $7.6
million less than the FY2019-20 budget, actual revenue collections are lower on a percentage of
budget basis than where the City was at the same time last year (11.8% vs. 13 .6%). However, the
current 11.8% collection is still within a reasonable range for the City for this time of the year.
She indicated that the expenditures outpacing revenues was fairly typical for the City’s cash flow
during this time of year. In the fir st quarter of the current fiscal year, actual expenditures were
greater than revenues by $19.7 million (revenues of $12.5 million less expenditures of $32.2
million). Much of the mismatch was due to how the City pays its unfunded actuarial liability (UAL)
to CalPERS. In order to receive a discount, the City pays CalPERS its UAL payment in July as a
lump sum. In 2020, the UAL paid out of the General Fund exceeded $11.8 million. In addition, the
City does not receive any notable property tax disbursements unt il around December creating the
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 6
temporary cash flow optics of expenditures far exceeding revenues. Usually, this ratio is inversed
going into the second half of the fiscal year.
COVID-19 dramatically impacted the City’s finances—stressing core revenue streams and
requiring unbudgeted spending for many departments. To curtail some of the negative financial
impacts, belt -tightening measures were put into place very early, even before the County’s March
16, 2020 shelter-in-place mandate, to mitigate some of the financial impact. These measures
included enacting a hiring freeze and implementing cost reduction measures by limiting all
nonessential spending.
Much of the fiscal impact on FY 2020-21 is dependent upon the extent of the financial impact of
COVID-19 along with the finalization of the FY2019-20 financials. Staff has identified $5.5 million
of additional unrestricted funding through various PO and encumbrance releases. This allows
Council to make the additional General Fund appropriations request without affecting the City’s
reserve levels aside from what was previously identified. Despite the dramatic economic shock of
the worldwide pandemic, the City’s finances remain resilient.
Councilmember Matsumoto provided an overview of the city’s conservative approach to weather
difficult situations such as the pandemic. She expressed her desire to help the city’s small
businesses during these difficult times.
City Manager Futrell indicated that the city’s Investment Advisors have indicated that if the city’s
revenues were to stop, due to the city’s reserves, the city would have enough money to operate for
one year.
Vice Mayor Addiego requested clarification on the Transit Village Park location. Deputy Director
of Parks and Recreation Mediati indicated that the site was identified and named a future park in the
Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. City Manager Futrell indicated that this project is the result of
community engagement from residents of the area.
Councilmember Nagales expressed his concern with sunset of eviction moratoriums and the impacts
to community members. He provided an overview of programs available and encouraged the
Council to consider funding additional support. City Manager Futrell provided an update on the
city’s status of housing assistance and funding.
Motion— Councilmember Nicolas/Second Councilmember Nagales: to approve Resolution No.
151-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
19. Report regarding Resolution No. 152-2020 authorizing the City Manager to execute a bill
of sale for the purchase of conduit with Intermountain Infrastructure Group (IIG) in an
amount not to exceed $545,086, authorizing the City Manager to execute a funding
agreement with C/CAG for the purchase of the conduits which overlap with the Smart
Corridor project in an amount not to exceed $300,000 and approving budget amendment
21.018 which would amend the Fiscal Year 2020/21 Capital Improvement Program.
(Bianca Liu, Senior Engineer and Tony Barrera, IT Director)
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 7
Senior Engineer Liu presented the report and provided an overview of three initiatives coming
together at the same time which could form the basis of a beneficial Public -Private-Partnership (P3).
In 2019, the City adopted a Dig Once Policy in an effort to reduce the impact of
telecommunications construction in the City’s public right -of-way. As required by the Dig Once
Policy, Intermountain notified City staff of their plan to install unde rground conduit throughout the
City. This triggered the process to allow the City and carriers to negotiate with Intermountain to
install conduit at a reduced rate. When compared to the cost to the City to install these conduits
independently, collaborat ing with IIG will realize savings in excess of $3 million dollars.
South San Francisco ’s goal is to install city-owned underground conduit and fiber optics cables.
Partnering with IIG would expand SSF’s citywide fiber network by adding eleven miles of cit y-
owned conduits. This is the first project to take advantage of the Dig Once Policy, and presents a
one-time opportunity to expand our fiber infrastructure throughout the city at a substantial savings.
The City’s cost of participation for Phase I shown in is $545,086. Participation allows the City to
build out our broadband network with large cost savings, because the cost of the trench would be
shared amongst all participants. Phase II would come as a separate agreement at a later time.
C/CAG’s Sout h San Francisco Smart Corridors Expansion is part of a larger San Mateo County
Smart Corridor Project designed help with freeway incident management and to improve mobility
of local arterial streets by installing Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) equ ipment. The project
would be fully funded by C/CAG, using a mix of funding from State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP), Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) grant, and county funds.
The IIG Phase I routes align with the needs of the Sma rt Corridors Project, which includes Airport
Boulevard, Oyster Point Road, Gateway Boulevard, and Grand Avenue, all close to the freeway
corridor and consist of major and minor arterials that extend north-south parallel to U.S. 101 or
east -west arterial-to-freeway connectors. Instead of C/CAG paying the full cost of fiber installation,
C/CAG agreed to partner with the City and pay for the route that overlaps this project. C/CAG will
pay $300,000 to the City to purchase conduits for the Smart Corridor projec t.
Councilmember Nicolas thanked Senior Civil Engineer Liu for saving the city $300,000 due to her
quick thinking and attention to detail. Senior Civil Engineer Liu was able to identify the alignment
of the IIG Phase I and the Smart Corridor s Project.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No.
152-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
20. Report regarding Resolution No. 153-2020 authorizing the City Manager to execute a
professional services contract with Traffop Corp of Scottsdale, Arizona to procure an
automated traffic signal p erformance measures (ATSPM) system for the East of 101 Traffic
Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) in an amount not to exceed $278,410.
(Bianca Liu, Senior Civil Engineer)
Senior Civil Engineer Liu presented the report and provided an overvie w of the project. She
indicated that the East of 101 Traffic Signal Improvements Project (Project No. tr1902) aims to
improve arterial operations and enhance safety at signalized intersections throughout the City. This
would start by deploying an ATSPM system in the East of 101 area at 33 signalized intersections
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 8
along several corridors in South San Francisco that either parallel US 101, or feed into it. These
corridors are critical to the region as they serve as de facto bypass routes to the I -380 and US 101
freeways in the event of incidents or major congestion. In addition to this project, the City is
implementing other transportation technology enhancements in the project area to move traffic
more efficiently through these corridors.
The City’s procurement process is governed by both state and local law. State law requires contracts
for construction to be competitively bid pursuant to a set of specific, established rules. In particular,
the City is required to award construction contracts to “lowest res ponsible bidder” after providing
notice in accordance with law. (Pub. Contract Code §§ 20162, 20164.)
However, in awarding contracts for the purchase of professional services, equipment and supplies,
like for the procurement of the ATSPM system, the City had some latitude. State law requires the
City to adopt regulations and policies to govern such service and supplies procurement, but
otherwise provides the City flexibility in determining relevant requirements as long as they are
consistent with applic able state law. (Gov. Code § 54202.) Chapter 4.04 of the Municipal Code and
the City’s Purchasing Procedures (Administrative Instruction Section IV, No. 1) govern the City’s
purchasing policies and contract procurement processes.
Councilmember Nicolas requested clarification on the upgrades and associated costs. Senior Civil
Engineer Liu provided an overview of costs.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No.
153-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
21. Report regarding Ordinance to create a Public Art Requirement as part of new
non-residential construction. (Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
Management Analyst Enders presented the report and provided an overview of the proposed
project. The Public Art Requirement program would require certain new non-residential
development projects in the city to provide cultural and artistic resources a s part of their
development or redevelopment projects. Developers would satisfy the civic enhancement
requirement by integrating artwork into the project, including space in the development that is open
and accessible to the public. Staff recommended that the value of the art installation be in an
amount equal to one percent (1%) of hard construction costs, as certified by the City’s Building
Division at the time of application for building permits. Alternatively, developers could satisfy the
requirement by depositing an “in-lieu” fee into the City’s Public Art Fund set aside for civic
enhancement at the value of half of one percent (0.5%) of the amount of construction costs.
She indicated that a key consideration of the public art requirement was the appro val of art and
administration of the program. As established and described in Chapter 2.80 of the Municipal Code
the City has a Cultural Arts Commission, the purpose of which is to “encourage and promote
cultural arts and activities in the community and act as an advisory body to the city council on
matters pertaining to the arts and cultural affairs.” The Commission identifies desirable locations for
public art, conducts the selection of artists at public meetings which include the opportunity for
public input, and makes recommendations to City Council for final approval. This structure would
provide appropriate administration and oversight for the program.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 28, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 9
Vice Mayor Addiego requested clarification about the 1% of hard construction cost. City Attorney
Woodruff and Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood provided an overview
of the proposed cost. Vice Mayor Addiego requested additional information including public art
programs in neighboring cities. Mayor Garbarino requested an update by November 9, 2020.
Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to waive reading and
introduce an Ordinance to create a Public Art Requirement as part of new non-residential
construction, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nico las and Nagales, Vice
Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMNTS
None.
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 9, 2020.
Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting in memory of Norma Niemann,
and Father Robert Walsh at 9:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Approved by:
Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego
City Clerk Mayor
Approved by the City Council: / /
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garbarino called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales, and Nicolas,
Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Garbarino.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF
Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez provided an update on the COVID -19 testing event held in
the city last week. The city assisted 158 people, of which 70% were of Latin ethnicity. She thanked
the CERT team and city staff for helping with the event and indicated that the next event was on
November 19th from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at the same location. Community members with any
questions should reach out to the city at (650) 829 -6666. The city also hosted a successful drive-
through flu shot clinic, thanks to the leadership of Councilmember Nicolas and in partnership with
the Masons and Lions Clu b. The city served 152 people, and the next flu shoot event was scheduled
for November 22th from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the City Hall parking lot.
Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation Mediati invited the community members to participate in
various recreation programs and the Virtual Thanksgiving 5K Fun Run.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Proclamation Celebrating 100th Birthday of City Hall November 11, 2020 (Richard
Garbar ino, Mayor)
Mayor Garbarino read into the record a proclamation celebrating 100th Birthday of City Hall on
November 11, 2020.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020
5:00 p.m.
Teleconference via Zoom
City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with
California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and
N-29-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 2
2. South San Francisco City Hall Centennial Celebration (Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library
Director)
Assistant Library Director E lsholz thanked the Mayor for the proclamation and shared a video
presentation on City Hall's history.
3. Proclamation honoring Ruby Bridges Walk To School Day in South San Francisco on
November 14, 2020. (Richard Garbarino, Mayor)
Councilmember Matsumoto expressed her honor and privilege with working with Mrs. Carlino and
her students from Martin Elementary on the Walk to School Day. Mrs. Carlino introduced her
students, and they read a proclamation honoring Ruby Bridges.
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS
4. Members of the public wishing to participate were encouraged to submit public comments in
writing in advance of the meeting to all-cc@ssf.net by 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 9,
2020.
None.
COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS
Councilmember Matsumoto expressed her appreciation for San Mateo County voters for supporting
Measure RR and shared an upcoming transit pilot program.
Councilmember Nicolas expressed her appreciation to all the city staff, Kaiser Permanente staff,
and the CERT team that assisted with the flu shot clinic. Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center was
helping small business owners with a $250 electric bill credit; for more information, visit their
website at RenCenter.org. Councilmember Nicolas provided an update on the Racial and Social
Equity Commission and invited the community to participate in an online survey. She wishe d
Assistant City Manager Ranals a happy birthday. She requested the meeting be adjourned in
memory of Mrs. Maria Gotangco, who passed away at the age of 102 in Chicago, Illinois.
Councilmember Nagales thanked Parks and Recreation staff for the successful drive -in movie event
and shared that he was a guest speaker at the Housing Leadership Conference. Many of the topics
included affordable housing, and he would like to discuss further with the Council. He would also
like to explore a partnership with Impossible Market to provide a hundred families with food.
Vice Mayor Addiego shared news about the presidential election outcome, and regardless of
everyone’s political views, we needed to come together as citizens and respect each other.
Mayor Garbarino echoed Vice Mayor Addiego's comments about the outcome of the presidential
election and congratulated James Coleman on his election to the City Council. He reminded the
community that November 11th would be Veterans Day and thanked former and current military
members. He also requested that staff look into improvements to Colma Creek and wished As sistant
City Manager Ranals a happy birthday.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 3
CONSENT CALENDAR
The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in
discussion of specific item as follows: Item #8 and #9 were pulled by Councilmember Nicolas,
Matsumoto and Vice Mayor Addiego for further discussion.
5. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of September 9, 2020.
6. Motion to cancel the Regular City Council meetings of November 11, 2020, November 25,
2020, and December 23, 2020. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk)
7. Report regarding Resolution No. 154-2020 authorizing the use of Development Impact Fees
in an amount not to exceed $22,194.49 to upgrade three air compressors used to refill
self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) equipment; and approving budget amendment
21.023 amending the Fire Department’s operating budget for fiscal year 2020 -2021. (Jesus
Magallanes, Fire Chief)
8. Report regarding Resolution No. 155-2020 approving the South San Francisco Fire
Department’s annual inspections performance pursuant to the California Health and Safety
Code section 13146.4. (Jesus Magallanes, Fire Chief)
9. Report regarding Resolution No. 156-2020 accepting a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) grant in the amount of $320,536.36; authorizing the use of Public Safety
Impact Fees in an amount not to exceed $107,962.76; approving a purchase agreement with
All Star Fire Equipment Inc., for the purchase of 46 SCOTT Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA) units and accessories in an amount not to exceed $428,499.1 2; approving
budget amendment 21.024 amending the Fire Department’s operating budget for Fiscal Year
2020-21 in the amount of $428,499.12; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the
purchase agreement on behalf of the City of South San Francisco. (Jes us Magallanes, Fire
Chief)
Item 8- Councilmember Matsumoto requested clarification on the number of Fire inspections
completed. Fire Chief Magallanes provided clarification on the number of inspections and staffing.
Councilmember Nicolas requested infor mation about the technology component that needed to be
implemented based on the Grand Jury response and estimated completion date. Fire Chief
Magallanes stated that their inspection software was updated and now had the ability to take
electronic plan checking. They have acquired tablets for staff and are working with IT on file
migration. He will work with IT to provide a completion date and inform the Council. Vice Mayor
Addiego requested a projection on the number of the daycare facilities to be inspecte d for the
coming year. Fire Chief Magallanes provided additional information and would update the Council
on the number of inspections.
Item 9- Vice Mayor Addiego inquired clarification on the number of breathing a pparatus. Fire Chief
Magallanes provided clarification on how they arrived at the requested 46 breathing apparatus.
Motion — Vice Mayor Addiego /Second – Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Consent Calendar
items 5-9 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas, and Nagales, Vice Mayo r
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 4
PUBLIC HEARING
Public Hearing opened: 5:53 p.m.
10. Report regarding consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on
September 17, 2020, adopting an Initial Study/M itigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
and approving certain entitlements to construct a new five-story hotel at 840 El Camino
Real. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner)
Public Hearing closed: 5:58 p.m.
City Attorney Woodruff stated that the city received a letter from the appellants that contained new
technical information related to the California Environmental Quality Act. Due to the late delivery
of the letter, neither city staff nor the applicant had an opportunity to review the letter before the
meeting in order and would require additional time to review that information. He recommended the
Council continue this public hearing to a later date.
Item was continued.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to continue the item, by roll
call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and
Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
11. Study session regarding Downtown Design Guidelines (Tony Rozzi, Principal Plan ner and
Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood introduced the item and provided
background information on the Downtown Design Guidelines. The Downtown Station Area
Specific Plan (DSASP) focuses on properties wit hin 0.5 miles of the City’s Caltrain Station and
includes much of the historic downtown. The DSASP comprises separate sub-districts; the criteria
for each sub-district were informed by community input, urban design best practices, recognition of
the historic fabric of Grand Avenue, and a desire to safeguard scale and form. Companion zoning
for the DSASP codified bulk, height, setbacks, design elements, materials, and open space.
As part of the Zoning Code Update, the consultant team would be developing an approach to
provide Form-Based Code standards for key focus areas within the City, including Downtown. A
Form-Based Code's primary purpose is to control the building form, using graphics and clear,
objective standards to indicate the intended building form in a given district. Cities in the region that
have adopted such a code include Hayward and Redwood City.
Senior Planner Rozzi provided a presentation displaying historic structures and renderings of recent
projects.
Councilmember Matsumoto stated that one of the goals of the DSASP was to preserve the historical
look so that we can honor the past while respecting the future.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 5
Vice Mayor Addiego shared information about the Miller parking garage and indicated that was the
look they wanted to maintain for the downtown. He also shared that many visitors were enchanted
by City Hall and the Library and did not want to lose the historic feel of downtown.
Mayor Garbarino indicated that he did not want to lose the charm of downtown, and anything new
should blend into the existing structures.
The Council provided feedback to staff on the various questions regarding the direction of the
Downtown Design Guidelines.
12. Report regarding an update on the South San Francisco Minimum Wage Ordinance.
(Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager)
Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez presented the report and provided background information
on the Minimum Wage Ordinance. The City Council directed staff at a Special City Council
meeting on April 9, 2019, to explore the minimum wage increase to $15 per hour for all businesses
citywide with an effective date of January 1, 2020. On August 28, 2019, the City Council passed
Ordinance 1587-2019, which increased the hourly minimum wage to $15 for all employers for
hours worked within the City's geographic boundaries.
Ordinance 1587-2019 requires that the hourly wage be adjusted every January 1st per the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco -Oakland-San Jose as determined by the United States
Department of Labor. The change is calculated using the August to August change in the CPI to
calculate the annual increase, if any, and rounded to the nearest nickel. A decrease in CPI would
not result in a reduction of the minimum wage. The United States Department of Labo r, Bureau of
Labor Statistics, has announced the CPI for the San Francisco area for the relevant period was 1.6%.
Using this CPI, the City’s ordinance requires the minimum wage to increase from $15.00 per hour
to $15.24 per hour, effective January 1, 2021.
Erin Chazer provided public comment in support of the hourly minimum wage.
Councilmember Matsumoto stated she brought forth the minimum wage to Council for approval
and was now concerned about the small businesses. However, after careful consideration she was in
favor of supporting the increase.
Vice Mayor Addiego reminded Council that they waived fire inspection fees for businesses this
year, and he was in favor of supporting the increase.
Councilmember Nicolas stated that small businesses would be affected by this increase, but it was
the Council's responsibility to keep their promise to the people.
Councilmember Nagales stated that the community was in great need, as seen through the various
food drives and programs. He was in favor of supporting the increase.
Mayor Garbarino shared that the food prices were increasing, and people on fixed income were
struggling. He stated he favored supporting the increase and thanked the South San Francisco
Chamber of Commerce for their letter.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 6
13. Report regarding Resolution No. 157-2020 approving agreements for plan check, inspection,
and administrative services with CSG Consultants, Inc., West Coast Code Consultants, Inc.
and 4Leaf, Inc. in an amount not exceed $2,000,000 per year of a thirty month period for
each firm. (Phillip Perry, Chief Building Official).
Chief Building Official Perry presented the report and provided background information on the
agreements for plan check, inspection, and administrative services with the various consultants. On
August 12, 2020, staff issued the Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was published on the
City’s website and social media. The City received nine responses and determined that all met the
City’s minimum standards for requisite experience, qualifications, and reso urces to provide the
required services.
On September 23, 2020, an external oral board reviewed the proposals and interviewed the nine
qualified consultants. Consultants were scored based on their project understanding, expertise with
plan review and inspection services, experience with the biotechnology industry, document
management practices, on-line plan reviewability, example projects, administrative services, on-
call staffing ability, and cost proposal. The oral board recommended the City award contracts to
the three top-scoring firms: CSG Consultants, WC3 Consultants and 4Leaf. By splitting the
co nsultant work between the top-scoring consultants, staff would have a greater flexibility in
assigning consultant resources.
Cyrus Kianpour, President of CSC Consultants, thanked the Council for the opportunity to continue
a business relationship with the City of South San Francisco.
Councilmember Nagales inquired about the process of assigning projects to various consultants.
Chief Building Official Perr y provided an overview of the process.
Councilmember Matsumoto requested clarification on the term length of the contracts. Chief
Building Official provided clarification on the terms of the contracts.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No.
157-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
14. Report regarding Resolution No. 158-2020 approving a Transfer of Development Rights
Agreement between the City of South San Francisco and KR Oyster Point I, LLC for the
transfer of development rights for certain properties in the Oyster Point Specific Plan Area.
(Alex Greenwood, ECD Director)
Economic and Commu nity Development Director Greenwood introduced the item and presented the
report. In May 2017, the development rights and obligations for Oyster Point were transferred to
Kilroy Realty Corporation, through their subsidiary KR Oyster Point I, LLC (“Kilroy”). Kilroy has
completed much of the first infrastructure phase, including the landfill cap repair, remediation,
grading, and other improvements. In addition, Kilroy is on track to complete the first phase of
development by Fall 2021, including a 508,000 sq. ft. of office/R&D space, the future home Stripe
and Cytokinetics.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 7
In order to meet the space needs of Stripe and other potential tenants, Kilroy needs to construct
additional atriums, service areas, and campus amenities that were not contemplated in the original
designs and that would potentially require the R&D campus, by the end of Phase IV, to exceed the
2.25 million sq. ft. approved for the Oyster Point project. In the long term, Kilroy seeks to request
additional development capacity through the General Plan Update process. However, the new
General Plan will not be approved for 12-15 months and, due to Kilroy’s current situation in
securing Stripe and other tenants, Kilroy needs to ensure the additional 150,000 sq. ft. as quickly as
possible.
Vice Mayor Addiego expressed his concerns with accommodating the developer and indicated it
would be best to see the General Plan play out. Economic and Community Development Director
Greenwood provided further clarification on the transfer agreement.
Councilmember Matsumoto stated she would like the city to diversify and use the $2.5 million
funds from Kilroy to restore Sign Hill.
City Attorney Woodruff stated that Council could approve the resolution tonight with a revision in
the agreement to direct funds for improvements to Sign Hill.
Councilmember Nagales inquired where the additional funds would come from to repair Sign Hill.
City Manager Futrell stated it would be around two million to repair but that given the outcome of
the insurance it would be best to add repairs to Sign Hill and any other park repairs.
Councilmember Nicolas expressed her concerns with Stripe as a tenant since they had offered
employees to relocate out of state. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood
stated that Stripe had restructured incentives so that their employees are not all living in San
Francisco. Matt Griffin, a representative from Kilroy, stated the company had provided incentives
for employees that wanted to move out of state but assured Council that Strip e intends to have full
occupancy.
Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No.
158-2020 with changes, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and
Nagales, and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: Vice Mayor Addiego; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
15. Report regarding Resolution No. 159-2020 approving a consulting services agreement with
Wilsey Ham of San Mateo, California for design services of the Harbor Master Spit Project
(Project No. pf2002) in an amount not to exceed $461,655, authorizing the City Manager to
execute the agreement, and authorizing a total design budget of $508,000. (Matthew Ruble,
Principal Engineer).
Principal Engineer Ruble presented the report and provided background information on the Har bor
Master Spit (HMS) Project. On July 24, 2020, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for design
services of the HMS Project on the c ity’s contract procurement software ProcureNow. On August
28, 2020, the city received proposals from BKF and Wilsey Ha m. Staff convened a panel to review
the submitted proposals and interviewed the firms. The panel found both firms to be responsive to
the RFP requirements and qualified to perform the scope of work but ranked Wilsey Ham better
qualified. Wilsey Ham has demonstrated that they have the staff availability and the expertise for
the design of the HMS Project.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 8
Councilmember Matsumoto inquired who was responsible for monitoring the disadvantaged
business enterprise program. Principal Engineer Ruble stated that the project was funded from local
funds and did not have the requirement.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Matsumoto : to approve Resolution No.
159-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
16. Report regarding Resolution No. 160-2020 approving the Second Amendment for BART
Permit (W-20.0-001-SSF, Bike Path/Linear Park) for the use of BART property adjacent to
Centennial Trail and at the site of Phase II of the Community Civic Campus. (Jacob
Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist introduced the report and provided background information on
the Comprehensive Agreement between Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and the City of South San
Francisco relating to the BART/SFO Airport Extension. Approval of this amendment is necessary
to continue the development of the Community Civic Campus Phase II. South San Francisco and
BART staff view this ame ndment as mutually beneficial to both agencies. BART will no longer
carry the burden of maintenance for their surface property, and South San Francisco will be allowed
to activate and use this central 8 acres of open space.
Motion— Councilmember Nicolas/Second Councilmember Matsumoto : to approve Resolution No.
160-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
17. Report regarding Resolution No. 161-2020 approving a consulting services agreement with
VERDE DESIGN, INC. of Santa Clara, California for the Orange Memorial Park Sports
Field Project (Project No. pk1402) in an amount not to exceed $751,535, authorizing the
City Manager to execute the agreement, and authorizing a total budget of $839,188, and
approving Budget Amendment 21.025. (Philip Vitale, Deputy Director of Capital Projects)
Deputy Director of Capital Projects Vitale presented the report and provided background
information on the Orange Memorial Park Sports Field Project. On August 3, 2020, staff issued a
Request for Proposals (RFP) on the ProcureNow website and one firm, Verde Design, responded. A
panel of city staff reviewed Verde Design’s proposal and interviewed them on October 6, 20 20. The
interview panel rated Verde and found their qualifications and experience applicable to the city’s
project. The Verde team has over 20 years of experience assisting other municipalities with
providing program services on similar sports field projects, specializing in synthetic turf projects.
Councilmember Nagales expressed his excitement for the project and wanted to have continued
conversations with the baseball and soccer leagues.
Mayor Garbarino requested clarification on the synthetic turf design and requested a snack shack in
the design. Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist provided clarification on turf design.
Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No.
161-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: No ne; ABSTAIN: None.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 9
18. Report regarding Resolution No. 162-2020 awarding a construction contract to
“SWINERTON BUILDERS” of San Francisco, California for the COMMUNITY CIVIC
CAMPUS: PHASE II LIBRARY, PARKS & RECREATION AND COMMUNITY
THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (LPR) (Project No. pf1707; Bid No. 2645) in an amount
not to exceed $91,372,971.00 and authorizing a total project budget of $101,000,000.00.
(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist presented the report and pro vided background information on
the Community Civic Campus. On April 6, 2020, a Request for Prequalification for General
Contractors for the Community Civic Campus: Phase II Library, Parks & Recreation and
Community Theater/Council Chamber (LPR) Project was released. Six (6) general contractors
responded to the Request for Prequalification due on May 1, 2020. Kitchell CEM, acting as the
city’s project manager, with City staff, scored and evaluated each prequalification packet, as
submitted, against minimum shortlisting criteria and weighted criteria to arrive at a final list of
qualified general contractors that may submit a bid for Civic Campus: Phase II LPR Project.
On October 23, 2020, staff received and publicly opened the four responsive bids from Hen sel
Phelps Construction Co., Skanska USA Building Inc., Swinerton Builders, and Webcor
Construction LP dba Webcor. After further review of submissions, staff determined the lowest
responsible bidder was SWINERTON BUILDERS of San Francisco, California. A po st bid-
interview was held on October 28, 2020, between SWINERTON BUILDERS and Kitchell CEM to
review their bid and ensure the contractor understood the scope of work and project requirements.
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.
Mayor Garbarino thanked city staff and all the consultants for all their hard work on getting this
project where it is today.
Councilmember Nagales congratulated staff and in quired about the timeline for the project. Director
of Capital Projects Gilchrist stated that a 28 -months construction period was expected.
Councilmember Nicolas inquired whether there would be an overlap between Swinerton's two
projects with the city. D irector of Capital Projects Gilchrist stated that Swinerton was a larger
company that could handle both projects without delays.
Motion— Mayor Garbarino/Second Councilmember Matsumoto: to approve Resolution No. 162 -
2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilme mbers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
19. Report regarding the adoption of an ordinance establishing the Public Art Requirement as
part of new non-residential construction. (Heather Enders, Management Analyst II)
Management Analyst II Enders presented the report and provided background information on the
ordinance to establish the Public Art Requirement. On October 28, 2020, Council voted to introduce
and waive further reading of the ordinance to establish a Public Art requirement on new non-
residential development within the City of South San Francisco. The establishment of the Public Art
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 10
Requirement program would promote the general welfare through balancing the community’s
physical growth and revitalization and its cultural and artistic resources.
The Council discussed whether the ordinance should apply to small projects and whether the value
of the public art requirement should be capped. The Council did not direct any cha nges with regard
to those issues and introduced the ordinance as proposed. Upon further review of those issues, staff
recommends two changes to the ordinance: (1) that the requirement not apply to projects with
construction costs of less than $1 million, a nd (2) that for projects with construction costs of more
than $1 billion, the requirement apply only to the first $1 billion of construction costs. The City
Council could increase or decrease the “floor” or the “ceiling” that staff recommends. The changes
are highlighted in the attached ordinance.
Vice Mayor Addiego expressed his support for the ordina nce and was comfortable with approving
the ordinance as it was introduced two weeks ago.
Councilmember Matsumoto thanked everyone for their support with g etting the ordinance approved
and requested that residential development projects not be exempt from contributing. She also
requested that in addition to the City Manager reviewing and managing the funds, that the Cultural
Arts Commission be included. Councilmember Matsumoto requested that the Council be provided a
quarterly or annual report of the funds and would like the Council to have the opportunity to
provide comment on the public art projects in addition to the Cultural Arts Commission.
Councilmember Nicolas requested clarification from Councilmember Matsumoto that Council
would like the opportunity to comment but not approve. Councilmember Matsumoto confirmed that
she would like Council to provide comment but does not want to take away the decisions from the
Cultural Arts Commission.
Vice Mayor Addiego expressed concerns that the potential funds would be a significant amount and
would like more than the opportunity to comment on the public art projects. He requested projects
be subject to approval by Council. City Manager Futrell suggested using the same process as for the
Planning Commission projects when the Council calls projects up for review.
City Attorney Woodruff provided background information on legal issues arisen by controversial art
projects and requested clarification on the specific amendments.
City Attorney Woodruff suggested approving the proposed ordinance and amending it in the future
to include residential projects. He provided an overview of the changes requested by
Councilmember Matsumoto.
The consensus from Council was to re-induce the ordinance with the changes outlined by City
Attorney Woodruff.
Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Vice Mayor Addiego: to r eintroduce the ordinance
with changes, by roll call vote: AYES: Co uncilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice
Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMNTS
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 9, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 11
Councilmember Nicolas inquired whether the city had the technology to st op drones due to public
safety issues. City Manager Futrell stated he would do some research and come by to Council with
an update.
ADJOURNED TO THE REGULAR MEETING ON NOVEMBER 24, 2020.
Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting in memory of Mrs. Maria
Gotangco at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Approved by:
Cindy Avila Mark Addiego
Assistant City Clerk Mayor
Approved by the City Council: / /
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garbarino called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales, and Nicolas,
Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Garbarino.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS – comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Members of the public wishing to participate were encouraged to submit public comments in
writing in advance of the meeting to all-cc@ssf.net by 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, November 18,
2020.
None.
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Hotel Site at Oyster Point (APN 015-010-970 and more particularly
described as Parcel 6 on Parcel Map 17-0002)
Agency negotiators: Ernesto Lucero, Economic Development Coordinator; Alex
Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Development; and Nell Selander,
Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development
Negotiating parties: Ensemble Investments, LLC
Under negotiation: Price and Terms of City property disposition
Time entered Closed Session: 5:32 p.m.
Meeting resumed: 5:55 p.m.
Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Garbarino: Direction given. No reportable action.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 5:56 p.m.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020
5:30 p.m.
Teleconference via Zoom
City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California
Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 and
COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 2
Respectfully submitted by: Approved:
Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego
City Clerk Mayor
Approved: / /
CALL TO ORDER Mayor Garbarino called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nagales, and Nicolas,
Vice Mayor Addiego, and Mayor Garbarino.
AGENDA REVIEW
No changes.
REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS – comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Members of the public wishing to participate were encouraged to submit public comments in
writing in advance of the meeting to all-cc@ssf.net by 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 18,
2020.
The following individuals provided public comment:
• Gita Dev – Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
• Liliana Rivera
• Marcela Rivera
• Mary Buxton – Sierra Club
• Katherine Tse
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
1. Report regarding the General Plan Update Preferred Land Use Alternative (Lisa Costa
Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
Project Administrator Costa-Sanders introduced consultant Eric Yurkovich with Raimi +
Associates. Mr. Yurkovich provided an overview of the General Plan. He indicated that the city is
undertaking a comprehensive update to the General Plan, which will serve as a forward-looking
document providing the blueprint for the city's vision through the year 2040. The General Plan will
address future land use, growth, all modes of transportation, housing, safety, conservation, open
space and parks, noise, public health and social equity, sustainability, sea-level rise, and economic
development.
The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on August 19, 2020, to
review the General Plan Land Use Alternatives. Councilmembers and Commissioners provided
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Teleconference via Zoom
City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California
Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20 and
COVID-19 pandemic protocols.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 2
direction to staff on the land-use alternatives to prepare the 2040 General Plan Preferred Land Use
Alternative (Preferred Alternative). Based on the input received from the public and the joint study
session, the project team prepared Preferred Alternative.
The preferred plan includes an estimated increase of 18,500 housing units and 47,600 employment
growth city-wide over the 20-year planning horizon. The majority of housing and commercial
growth is planned to occur in the Lindenville and East of 101 sub-areas, with some change in the
Downtown and El Camino Real sub-areas and minimal growth (mostly ADUs) in the residential
neighborhoods. Mr. Yurkovich indicated that the Preferred Alternative was presented in three
separate venues in October 2020.
The Planning Commission provided broad support for the proposed land use vision, voting
unanimously to recommend that the City Council accept the Preferred Alternative. Staff proposed
one revision to the Preferred Alternative recommended for acceptance by the Planning Commission,
revising the proposed designation of the 180 El Camino Real site from "High-Density Mixed-Use'
to "El Camino Mixed Use High." The revision would allow for the development of high-density
residential on the site but would not require it, allowing for maximum flexibility in the site's
potential redevelopment. Also, the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements
thereof are considered a "project" under CEQA and subject to environmental review. (CEQA
Guidelines § 15378 (a)(1)).
Councilmember Matsumoto requested clarification on the designation of "El Camino Mixed Use
High." Mr. Yurkovich provided an overview of the space and clarified the process.
The following individuals submitted public comments via email. The comments were read into the
record by Assistant City Clerk Avila, disseminated to the City Council, and uploaded to the website:
• Ryan McNamara – Blake|Griggs Properties
• Pranay Mowji – The Amin Group
• Mike Amin – SICON, LLC
• Daniel Perez – Community member
• Celeste Perez – Community member
• Elvira Tapia – Community member
• Daniel Perez – Community member
• Katherine Tse – Community member
• Dolores Piper – received after established deadline and not read into the record
The following individuals provided public comments:
• Gita Dev – Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter
• Leslie Flint – San Mateo County National Audubon Society
• Kenneth Abreu – Member of the Sierra Club
• Ryan McNamara – Blake|Griggs Properties
• Olga Perez – Community member
• Russell Lee – Community member
• Susan Desjardin – Member of the Sierra Club
Councilmember Matsumoto requested that City Manager Futrell apprise the public of the city's
efforts addressing Sea Level Rise. City Attorney Woodruff indicated that a brief reply to public
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2020
MINUTES PAGE 3
comment to provide information was permissible. City Manager Futrell provided an overview of the
city's efforts and current status, including future funding.
Vice Mayor Addiego requested an update on the next steps and the jobs/housing imbalance. Senior
Planner Gross provided an overview of the General Plan's next steps by staff and consultants and an
overview of the jobs/housing imbalance. The staff will bring general Plan policy discussions to the
City Council in spring. City Manager Futrell provided an update of the city's efforts to address
future development and mass transit use. Councilmember Matsumoto inquired about the city's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Senior Planner Gross indicated that it is
unknown at this time.
Motion— Councilmember Nicolas/Second Councilmember Matsumoto: to accept the Preferred
Alternative and authorize the preparation of required Environmental Analysis including an
environmental impact report (EIR) by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas
and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None;
ABSTAIN: None.
2. Extend the Term of the Community Advisory Committee members for the General
Plan update for an additional two years, expiring on December 17, 2022 (Lisa
Costa-Sanders, Project Administrator, and Billy Gross, Senior Planner)
Project Administrator Costa-Sanders presented the report and requested that the City Council
extend the terms of the Community Advisory Committee members for the General Plan for an
additional two years, expiring on December 17, 2022.
Vice Mayor Addiego suggested that staff re-advertise a community member's recruitment to the
General Plan Community Advisory Committee for District 2 (Westborough) and District 5 (Old
Town). Councilmember Nagales indicated that Parks and Recreation Commissioner Camacho
represents District 2. Eric Yurkovich with Raimi + Associates, provided an overview of the
committee's input process.
Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to extend the term of the
Community Advisory Committee members for the General Plan for an additional two years,
expiring on December 17, 2022, and recruiting for the appointment of a resident representative for
District 5 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor
Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None.
ADJOURNMENT
Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Approved:
Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego
City Clerk Mayor
Approved: / /
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-976 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:3.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,800 in grant funding from the United Way of the
Bay Area to support the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program at Project Read and amending the Library
Department’s Fiscal Year 2020 -2021 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.030.(Valerie Sommer,
Library Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,800 in grant
funding from United Way of the Bay Area (UWBA)to support the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
(VITA)Program at Project Read and amending the Library Department’s 2020-2021 (FY20-21)
Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.030.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On November 24,2020,Project Read was awarded $8,800 from UWBA to support its IRS VITA site in
preparing 2020 tax returns.Funds will be used to assist low income tax payers in South San Francisco and
surrounding cities to file their income tax returns free of charge.Services will be available in English,
Mandarin,and Spanish.This year’s services will limit one-on-one contact and rely on virtual and telephone
appointments, with filers delivering the necessary paperwork to Project Read beforehand.
During the 2019 Tax Season Project Read provided VITA assistance to 280 households.In the last three filing
seasons,Project Read’s VITA site has prepared 978 tax returns resulting in over $900,000 in refunds for the
community.
FISCAL IMPACT
Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current FY 20-21 Operating Budget.Receipt of
these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Support of Project Read’s VITA program will provide enhanced programming for low-income families in our
community.The strengthening of programs is an action item in the City Strategic Plan under Priority #2:
Quality of Life.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to provide Volunteer Income Tax Assistance through Project
Read.It is recommended that the City Council accept $8,800 in grant funding and amend the Library
Department’s FY 20-21 operating budget.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-977 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:3a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $8,800 in grant funding from the United Way of the Bay Area to
support the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program at Project Read and amending the Library Department’s
Fiscal Year 2020 - 2021 Operating Budget via Budget Amendment 21.030.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Library Department established Project Read to assist
adults and their families in reaching educational goals; and
WHEREAS,United Way Bay Area awarded a grant to the City to fund Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
(VITA) programming at Project Read; and
WHEREAS,in the last three tax filing seasons,VITA programming has prepared 978 tax returns for low-
income community members, resulting in $900,000 in refunds; and
WHEREAS,grant funds will be used to amend the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 operating budget of the Library
Department.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby accepts $8,800 in grant funding from United Way Bay Area to fund VITA programming at
Project Read, and approves Budget Amendment 21.030.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-985 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:4.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding from the County of San
Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment
21.032. (Adam Elsholz, Assistant Library Director)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in
grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support COVID-19 outreach throughout South San
Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.032.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Library Department has been awarded $10,000 in funding from the County of San Mateo to support
COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco over the next several months.This funding is in addition
to the $19,500 grant accepted by City Council at the October 28,2020 City Council meeting.Funds will be
used to continue providing accurate information about the prevention of COVID-19 in a variety of languages,
including Chinese,English,Spanish and Tagalog,with special focus on hard-to-reach and vulnerable residents.
Library staff will use available tools and outlets,online and in person,to promote life-saving information and
resources to our community.Activities will consist of:phone banking;distributing information,masks and
other critical supplies;heavy promotion in our social media channels;and integration into outreach and
programs the city is already doing, such as curbside pick-up at the libraries and virtual programs.
FISCAL IMPACT
Grant funds will be used to amend the Library Department’s current FY 2020-21 Operating Budget per Budget
Amendment 21.032. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2:Quality of Life,by
providing accurate and important information about preventing the spread of COVID-19 in our community.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will enable the Library to distribute critical information regarding COVID-19.It is
recommended that the City Council accept $10,000 in grant funding and approve Budget Amendment 21.032.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-986 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:4a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $10,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo to support
COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.032.
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco approved $19,500 in grant funding to support
COVID-19 outreach at the October 28, 2020 City Council meeting; and
WHEREAS,the County of San Mateo has awarded the City $10,000 in additional grant funding to support
COVID-19 outreach throughout South San Francisco; and
WHEREAS,according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,COVID-19 is a virus in humans
causing respiratory illness which can be spread from person-to-person; and
WHEREAS,funding from the County of San Mateo will be used by Library staff to distribute accurate,life-
saving information and resources to help the prevention of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS,information about the prevention of COVID-19 will be available in a variety of languages,
including Chinese,English,Spanish and Tagalog,with special focus on hard-to-reach and vulnerable residents;
and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco desires to accept grant funding in the amount
of $10,000 from the County of San Mateo to support outreach and distribution of critical information to help
the prevention of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget of the
Library Department via Budget Amendment 21.032.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
accept $10,000 in grant funding from the County of San Mateo and approve Budget Amendment 21.032 to
amend the Library Department’s FY 2020-2021 Operating Budget in order to reflect an increase of $10,000.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-990 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:5.
Report regarding a resolution approving the second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with
Baden Developments LLC for 432 Baden (Julie Barnard, Economic Development Coordinator).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the South San Francisco City Council (“Council”)adopt a resolution approving
the second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”)with Baden Developments LLC for
the sale of 432 Baden Avenue.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In September 2018,Baden Development,LLC (then Sierra Investment Group)(“Developer”)purchased 428
Baden Avenue,for development of a small multi-family housing project.During the entitlement process for 428
Baden Avenue,the developer approached the City with a proposal to purchase the Successor Agency owned,
adjacent site,432 Baden (or “the Property”),in order to assemble land for a larger housing project.For a
complete background on the developer selection process,please refer to the staff report for the City Council
meeting on January 22, 2020, see Attachment 1.
By assembling 428 and 432 Baden,the developer was be able to pursue a project with better design and more
housing units,including 11%Below Market Rate (“BMR”)units at the Very Low Income (“VLI”)level.On
September 23,2019,Developer provided the City with a Letter of Intent (“LOI”)to purchase the Site,see
Attachment 1.On October 9,2019,the City Council considered the LOI and agreed that the site had a far
greater value if assembled with 428 Baden rather than disposing of it as a stand-alone site.The City Council
accepted the offer price of $1,100,000,(which was $80,000 more than the appraised value of $1,020,000),and
directed staff to negotiate a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”)with the developer.The purchase price was
confirmed by the Countywide San Mateo County Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”)on February 10,2020.
The PSA was executed on February 19, 2020.
The Planning Commission approved the entitlements for 36 rental residential units which include three BMR
units at the 50%or below (otherwise known as VLI)level at the August 9,2020 meeting.Attachment 1
indicates the San Mateo County AMI levels for 2020.
Due to the impacts of COVID-19 (“the pandemic”)and the Shelter in Place (“SIP”)order,the Developer
initially experienced some delays to their due diligence contingency period,and further required additional time
to investigate some small issues relating to their Density Bonus concessions and or waivers.The PSA allows
for administrative extensions at the City Manager’s discretion,typically for six months at a time.Staff executed
the First Amendment which extended the due diligence period by six months (to October 18,2020)and the
Close of Escrow from August 17,2020 to February 16,2021.Attachment 2 provides the PSA as well as the
previously approved extensions.
The developer was able to meet their due diligence contingency period but has continued to experience some
delays due to the effects of the pandemic.They require an additional extension to close escrow.The associated
second amendment extends the PSA by 90 days,with a proposed Close of Escrow date no later than May 17,
2021.Due to the impacts of the pandemic and delays that may be experienced with utility service providers,City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-990 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:5.
2021.Due to the impacts of the pandemic and delays that may be experienced with utility service providers,
financing,or permitting,staff recommend two additional 90 day extensions at a fee of $15,000 each.The
amendment provides for this.
NEXT STEPS
The Developer has completed their Construction Drawings (“CDs”)which have been submitted for building
permits. They should receive their first round of comments by January 14, 2021.
FISCAL IMPACT
Baden Developments provided a deposit that recovers the City staff costs and the City Attorney costs.
Additionally,the City will receive $15,000 for each future extension request made by the developer.There is no
expense to the City’s General Fund.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the South San Francisco City Council (“Council”)adopt a resolution approving the
second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”)with Baden Developments LLC for the sale of
432 Baden Avenue.
Attachments:
1.January 22, 2020 City Council meeting staff report - 432 Baden Ave PSA
2.San Mateo County AMI levels (2020)
3.Purchase and Sale Agreement and extensions
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 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 #:19-1011 Agenda Date:1/22/2020
Version:1 Item #:6.
Report regarding a resolution approving a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Baden Developments LLC for the
sale of 432 Baden Avenue for $1,100,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement,and a
resolution making findings and determining that the disposition of the City of South San Francisco-owned
property located at 432 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core conforms with the adopted South San
Francisco General Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402)(Julie
Barnard, Economic Development Coordinator).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the South San Francisco City Council (“Council”)adopt a resolution approving a
Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”)with Baden Developments LLC for the sale of 432 Baden Avenue
for $1,100,000 and adopt a resolution making findings and determining that the disposition of the City of
South San Francisco-owned property located at 432 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core
conforms with the adopted South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with provisions of State
Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402).
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On January 8,1997,the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Board (“Agency)approved Resolution 1-
97 authorizing the execution of a Purchase and Sale Agreement for 432 Baden Avenue (“the Site”).This
property was acquired for the development of a public parking lot to serve the 400 block of Grand Avenue,in
the Historic Downtown Business District and Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project Area.The residential
property that existed on the site was demolished and a new Agency surface parking lot was constructed.The
Agency appraised the property and negotiated a final purchase price of $270,000.
Pursuant to the City of South San Francisco’s (“City”)Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”)the
site was designated ‘For Sale.’At the time the LRPMP was approved in 2015,the estimated value of the site
was $560,000.
The Property is very small,approximately 6,900 square feet or 0.16 acres,and is used as a parking lot,which
generates less than $10,000 per year in revenue for the City’s Parking Place District and no property taxes.
In September 2018,Baden Development,LLC (then Sierra Investment Group)(“Developer”)purchased the
adjacent property,428 Baden Avenue,for development of a small multi-family housing project.During the
entitlement process for 428 Baden Avenue,the developer approached the City with a proposal to purchase the
Site in order to assemble land for a larger housing project.
Typically,the City would undergo a competitive bid process for the sale of properties.However,because the
adjacent property owner made an offer on the Property with the intent to develop a project that is determined to
be the highest and best use of the assembled properties,the City has considered the proposal exclusively in
order to determine whether or not a better offer might be made on the open market.In this case,this sole offer
with the site assembly would provide a housing project with more housing units (rather than being developed
individually)and higher property taxes,further,the price offer is above the appraised value.It is highly unlikely
that the City would receive a price offer and project that is more competitive if the Property were sold on theCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/17/2020Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-1011 Agenda Date:1/22/2020
Version:1 Item #:6.
that the City would receive a price offer and project that is more competitive if the Property were sold on the
open market.
By assembling 428 and 432 Baden,the developer would be able to pursue a project with better design and more
housing units,including 10%Below Market Rate (“BMR”)units at the very low income level.On September
23,2019,Developer provided the City with a Letter of Intent (“LOI”)to purchase the Site,see Attachment 1.
On October 9,2019,the City Council considered the LOI and agreed that the site had a far greater value if
assembled with 428 Baden rather than disposing of it as a stand-alone site.The City Council provisionally
accepted the offer price of $1,100,000,subject to an appraisal confirming the property value and directed staff
to negotiate a Purchase and Sale Agreement (“PSA”) with the developer.
Following Council’s direction,staff commissioned an appraisal by Colliers International Valuation and
Advisory Services (the “Appraisal”).The Appraisal,see Attachment 2,valued the property at $1,020,000,or
$80,000 less than Baden Development’s offer.
Staff and the Developer negotiated a Purchase and Sale Agreement with (in addition to the purchase price)
includes the following key terms:
·City review of the financing plan and construction contract;
·Assignment of the PSA must be approved by Council;
·Escrow to open when building permits are submitted and escrow to close when building permits are
ready to be issued; and
·Parking lot to remain open for public use until close of escrow.
Subsequent to Council’s provisional acceptance of the $1,100,000 purchase price,the Developer submitted a
Planning application to construct 36 residential units across the two sites.This infill housing project utilizes the
State Density Bonus and provides three BMR units.Pursuant to redevelopment law,final approval of the sale
price of the Property must also be approved by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency of South San
Francisco.
The Planning application was deemed complete on October 29,2019 and will appear before the Design Review
Board, Planning Commission and the Housing Subcommittee for review and approval later this year.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
In accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt.Code Section 65402),prior to disposition of real
property owned by the City,the Planning Commission as the planning agency for the City is required to find
such disposition is in conformity with the adopted general plan.
The General Plan Land Use Designation for the 432 Baden property is Downtown Residential Core,which
includes specific policies related to development within the Downtown in an effort to “Promote infill
development, intensification, and reuse of currently underutilized sites”.
The proposed sale of the property and the entitlements that will ensue for this project will provide for higher
density residential than what is currently allowed but will still be compatible in scale with the remaining
Downtown residential districts.The proposed project will provide a mix of housing opportunities and continue
to conform to the General Plan Land Use Policies.
On January 16,2020,at its regular meeting,the Planning Commission adopted a resolution that made findings
that determined that the disposition of the City of South San Francisco-owned property located at 432 Baden
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/17/2020Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-1011 Agenda Date:1/22/2020
Version:1 Item #:6.
that determined that the disposition of the City of South San Francisco-owned property located at 432 Baden
Avenue,in the Downtown Residential Core is in conformity with the South San Francisco adopted General
Plan in accordance with provisions of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed construction of 36 residential units at 428 and 432 Baden Avenue is considered an infill housing
project given its size and location,and will be subject to further environmental review and determination
pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act,Pub.Resources Code §21000,et seq.(“CEQA”)as a part of
the planning entitlements approval process.
FISCAL IMPACT
At the outset of negotiations with the Developer,staff collected a $25,000 cost recovery deposit to cover staff
time,City Attorney time as well as any other third party assistance (the appraisal,for example).Therefore there
is no impact to the General Fund.
Once the property is sold,the sale proceeds will be distributed to the taxing entities with the City’s share being
16.7% or $183,700.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the South San Francisco City Council adopt a resolution approving a Purchase and Sale
Agreement with Baden Developments LLC for the sale of 432 Baden Avenue for $1,100,000 and authorize the
City Manager to execute the agreement,and to adopt a resolution making findings and determining that the
disposition of the City of South San Francisco-owned property located at 432 Baden Avenue in the Downtown
Residential Core conforms with the adopted South San Francisco General Plan in accordance with provisions
of State Planning Law (Govt. Code Section 65402).
Attachments:
1.Developer Letter of Intent (September 23, 2019)
2.432 Baden Avenue Appraisal (November 25, 2019)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/17/2020Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
revised 04/27/2020
For HUD-funded programs, use the Federal Income Schedule. For State or locally-funded programs, you may use
the State Income Schedule. For programs funded with both federal and state funds, use the more stringent income levels.
Please verify the income and rent figures in use for specific programs.
San Mateo County Income Limits (based on Federal Income Limits for SMC)
Effective 4/27/2020 - Area median Income $174,000 (based on household of 4)
Income Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Extremely Low (30% AMI) *36,540$ 41,760$ 46,980$ 52,200$ 56,400$ 60,570$ 64,740$ 68,910$
Very Low (50% AMI) *60,900$ 69,600$ 78,300$ 87,000$ 94,000$ 100,950$ 107,900$ 114,850$
Low (80% AMI) *97,440$ 111,360$ 125,280$ 139,200$ 150,400$ 161,520$ 172,640$ 183,760$
Median (100% AMI)121,800$ 139,200$ 156,600$ 174,000$ 188,000$ 201,900$ 215,800$ 229,700$
Moderate (120% AMI)146,160$ 167,040$ 187,920$ 208,800$ 225,600$ 242,280$ 258,960$ 275,640$
NOTES
*2020 State Income limits provided by State of California Department of Housing and Community Development TCAC
2020 San Mateo County Income Limits
as determined by HUD - effective June 28, 2019
Income Limits by Family Size ($)
- 1 -
219\3220028.3
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW
INSTRUCTIONS (“this Agreement”) is entered into as of February 19, 2020 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, (“Seller”) and
Baden Development, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer
are collectively referred to herein as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Seller is owner of certain real property with an address of 432 Baden Avenue, South
San Francisco, California, also known as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 012-321-
160 and as more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein
(“Property”).
B. The former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“RDA”)
purchased the Property on April 16, 1997.
C. On, June 29, 2011 the legislature of the State of California (the “State”) adopted
Assembly Bill x1 26 (“AB 26”), which amended provisions of the Redevelopment Law, and the
California Supreme Court decision in California Redevelopment Association, et al. v. Ana
Matosantos, et al., upheld AB 26 (together with AB 1484, the “Dissolution Law”), and the RDA
was dissolved on February 1, 2012.
D. Pursuant to the Dissolution Law, the South San Francisco Successor Agency
(“Agency”) prepared a Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which was approved
by a resolution of the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of South San Francisco (“Oversight Board”) on November 19, 2013, and on May 21,
2015, the Oversight Board approved the Amended Long Range Property Management Plan
(“LRPMP”), which was approved by the California Department of Finance (“DOF”) on October
1, 2015.
E. Pursuant to the LRPMP and Dissolution Law, the Agency’s transfer of real property
assets to the City for disposition consistent with the LRPMP is subject to entering into a Master
Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation by all Taxing Entities.
F. The City and Taxing Entities entered into an Amended and Restated Master
Agreement for Taxing Entity Compensation, dated October 18, 2016 (“Master Compensation
Agreement”), which governs the distribution of any net proceeds received from the sale of the
Property, as defined herein.
G. The Property was transferred from the Agency to the City pursuant to a grant deed
recorded on May 16, 2017.
2
H. Buyer agrees to purchase the Property, and Seller agrees to sell the Property to
Buyer, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy
of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, Seller and Buyer hereby agree as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS AND EXHIBITS. The Recitals set
forth above and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement are each incorporated into the body of this
Agreement as if set forth in full.
2. PURCHASE AND SALE.
2.1 Agreement to Buy and Sell. Subject to the terms and conditions set
forth herein, Seller agrees to sell the Property to Buyer, and Buyer hereby agrees to acquire the
Property from Seller.
2.2 Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property to be paid by
Buyer to Seller (the “Purchase Price”) is one million one hundred thousand dollars
($1,100,000.00). The Purchase Price shall be paid in cash at the Closing to the Seller.
3. ESCROW.
3.1 Escrow Account. Seller has opened an interest-bearing escrow account
(the “Escrow”) maintained by North American Title Company in San Mateo (the “Escrow
Holder”), with interest accruing to the benefit of Buyer. Escrow Holder shall perform all escrow
and title services in connection with this Agreement.
3.2 Opening of Escrow. Within seven (7) business days after the Effective
Date, the Parties will deposit into Escrow the fully executed Agreement, or executed counterparts
thereto. The date that is the later of the following to occur shall be deemed the “Opening of
Escrow”:
(a) the date that such fully executed Agreement is received by Escrow
Holder.
(b) the date that Buyer submits Developer’s Financing Plan (as defined
in Section 5.2(e) below) to Seller for review.
(c) the date that Buyer submits an application for building permits to
develop the Property to Seller for review.
3.3 Buyer’s Deposit. Within three (3) business days after the Effective Date,
Buyer shall deposit thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) with Seller, to be held in trust pursuant to
this Agreement (“Initial Deposit”). Within three (3) business days after the Opening of Escrow,
Seller shall deposit the Initial Deposit into Escrow with Escrow Holder on behalf of Buyer. If
Buyer issues an Approval Notice (as defined in Section 3.4 below), Buyer shall deposit an
additional seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) in Escrow (the “Additional Deposit”). The
3
Initial Deposit and Additional Deposit are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the
“Deposits.” The Deposits shall be applied toward the Purchase Price in the event of Closing.
3.4 Satisfaction of Due Diligence Contingency. Buyer shall have the right, in
its sole discretion, to terminate this Agreement for any reason prior to the expiration of the Due
Diligence Contingency Period (as defined in Section 5(a) below) by providing written notice
thereof and to receive a refund of the Deposits. Buyer hereby agrees to provide written notice to
Seller prior to the expiration of the Due Diligence Contingency Period if Buyer approves all due
diligence items (“Approval Notice”). If Buyer provides a termination notice to Seller before
11:59 p.m. on the last day of the Due Diligence Contingency Period, this Agreement shall
terminate, and all amounts deposited by Buyer into escrow (except the Independent
Consideration), together with interest thereon, if any, will be returned to Buyer, and neither party
shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder except those which expressly survive the
termination hereof. If Buyer fails to deliver the Approval Notice to Seller prior to 11:59 p.m. on
the last day of the Due Diligence Contingency Period, it will be conclusively presumed that Buyer
has disapproved all such items, matters or documents, and this Agreement shall terminate and the
Deposits shall be refunded to Buyer.
3.5 Independent Consideration. As independent consideration for Seller’s
entering into this Agreement to sell the Property to Buyer, Buyer shall deliver the sum of one
hundred dollars ($100.00) to Seller through Escrow (“Independent Consideration”). In the event
that Buyer terminates this Agreement in accordance with Section 3.4 above, Seller shall retain the
Independent Consideration; in the event that Buyer does not terminate this Agreement as aforesaid,
the Independent Consideration shall be applied to the Purchase Price at Closing.
4. PROPERTY DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
4.1 Condition of Title/Preliminary Title Report. Escrow Holder shall deliver
a Preliminary Title Report for the Property (the “Preliminary Report”) to Buyer within three (3)
days after the Effective Date. Buyer shall have until the end of the Due Diligence Contingency
Period to approve the condition of title to the Property. If Buyer delivers the Approval Notice,
Buyer agrees to take title to the Property subject to the following “Permitted Exceptions”:
(a) standard printed exceptions in the Preliminary Report; (b) general and special real property
taxes and assessments constituting a lien not yet due and payable; and (c) the Schedule B
exceptions to the title referenced in the Approval Notice. In no event shall any monetary liens be
deemed a Permitted Exception. Buyer shall provide any objections to the condition of title to
Seller in writing prior to the Due Diligence Contingency Period.
4.2 Environmental Condition of Property. Seller has provided Buyer with all
documents reasonably known to Seller pertaining to the environmental condition of the Property.
At Closing, the Buyer agrees to take title of the Property in AS- IS WHERE-IS condition with no
environmental remediation work required by or indemnities from the Seller or the Agency. Seller,
at Buyer’s expense, agrees to cooperate with Buyer to obtain regulatory approval of any necessary
environmental work for the Property. Buyer explicitly acknowledges that Buyer will be
responsible to manage and complete any remediation work for the Property after Closing. After
4
Closing, Seller shall have no further obligations with respect to environmental and/or natural
hazards remediation costs.
4.3 Environmental and Natural Hazards Disclosure. California Health & Safety
Code section 25359.7 requires owners of non-residential real property who know, or have
reasonable cause to believe, that any release of hazardous substances are located on or beneath the
real property to provide written notice of same to the buyer of real property. Other applicable laws
require Seller to provide certain disclosures regarding natural hazards affecting the Property.
Pursuant to Section 4.2, Seller agrees to make any necessary disclosures required by law.
5. CLOSING AND PAYMENT OF PURCHASE PRICE.
5.1 Closing. The closing (the “Closing” or “Close of Escrow”) will occur no
later than one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the Effective Date (“Closing Date”) or
such other date that the Parties agree in writing.
5.2 Buyer’s Conditions to Closing. Buyer's obligation to purchase the Property
is subject to the satisfaction of all of the following conditions or Buyer's written waiver thereof (in
Buyer’s sole discretion) on or before the Closing Date:
(a) Buyer has approved the condition of the Property. Buyer will have
sixty (60) calendar days from the Effective Date (the “Due Diligence Contingency Period”) to
complete physical inspections of the Property and due diligence related to the purchase of the
Property. Seller shall provide to Buyer copies of all reasonably available and known documents
relating to the ownership and operation of the Property, including but not limited to plans, permits
and reports (environmental, structural, mechanical, engineering and land surveys) that Seller has
in its possession not later than two (2) business days following the execution and delivery of this
Agreement. All physical inspections must be coordinated with Seller’s representative. Buyer
hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Seller harmless for any damage to the Property caused (but
not merely revealed) by Buyer’s inspections.
(b) Seller has performed all obligations to be performed by Seller
pursuant to this Agreement.
(c) Seller’s representations and warranties herein are true and correct in
all material respects as of the Closing Date.
(d) The Title Company is irrevocably committed to issue an ALTA
standard coverage title insurance policy to Buyer, effective as of the Closing Date, insuring title to
Buyer in the full amount of the Purchase Price.
(e) Seller shall have approved Buyer’s financing plan for the
development of the Property, which shall include a proforma reasonably acceptable to Seller and
proof of construction loan necessary to reasonably complete the development of the Property (the
“Developer’s Financing Plan”).
5
(f) Seller shall have approved the construction contract for Buyer’s
development of the Property (the “Construction Contract”).
(g) Seller shall have approved the merger of the Property with the
adjacent lot located at 428 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California (the “Adjacent Lot”).
(h) Buyer and Seller shall have executed an Affordable Housing
Agreement ( “AHA”) for the Property on commercially reasonable terms and which shall include
the following provisions: (1) Below Market Rate units shall be constructed by Buyer to meet or
exceed South San Francisco Municipal Code Chapter 20.380 requirements; (2) Seller shall approve
any proposed assignment of the AHA or disposition of the Property prior to completion of the
development of the Property, and Seller’s approval of the same, shall not be unreasonably withheld
or delayed, it being acknowledged that the City Council would need to review and approve of any
such proposed assignment.
5.3 Seller’s Conditions to Closing. The Close of Escrow and Seller’s obligation
to sell and convey the Property to Buyer are subject to the satisfaction of the following conditions
or Seller’s written waiver (in Seller’s sole discretion) of such conditions on or before the Closing
Date:
(a) Buyer shall have submitted Developer’s Financing Plan to Seller for
approval.
(b) Buyer shall have obtained Seller’s approval of a Construction
Contract for development of the Property by Buyer.
(c) Buyer shall have taken all necessary actions for the issuance of
building permits from Seller necessary to enable to development of the Property.
(d) Buyer shall have taken all necessary actions to obtain the approval
of the merger of the Property with the Adjacent Lot and such approval shall be ready to be recorded
promptly following the Closing.
(e) Buyer has performed all obligations to be performed by Buyer
pursuant to this Agreement before Closing Date.
(f) Buyer's representations and warranties set forth herein are true and
correct in all material respects as of the Closing Date.
5.4 Conveyance of Title. Seller will deliver marketable fee simple title to Buyer
at the Closing, subject only to the Permitted Exceptions. The Property will be conveyed by Seller
to Buyer in an “as is” condition, with no warranty, express or implied, by Seller as to the physical
condition including, but not limited to, the soil, its geology, or the presence of known or unknown
faults or Hazardous Materials or hazardous waste (as defined by Section 12); provided, however,
that the foregoing shall not relieve Seller from disclosure of any such conditions of which Seller
has actual knowledge.
6
5.5 Deliveries at Closing.
(a) Deliveries by Seller. Seller shall deposit into the Escrow for
delivery to Buyer at Closing: (i) a grant deed, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
B (“Grant Deed”); (ii) an affidavit or qualifying statement which satisfies the requirements of
paragraph 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, any regulations thereunder
(the “Non-Foreign Affidavit”); (iii) a California Franchise Tax Board form 590 (the “California
Certificate”) to satisfy the requirements of California Revenue and Taxation Code Section
18805(b) and 26131.
(b) Deliveries by Buyer. No less than one (1) business day prior to the
close of escrow, Buyer shall deposit into escrow immediately available funds in the amount, which
together with the Independent Consideration and the Deposits is equal to: (i) the Purchase Price as
adjusted by any prorations between the Parties; (ii) the escrow fees and recording fees; and (iii) the
cost of the Title Policy.
(c) Closing. Upon Closing, Escrow Holder shall: (i) record the Grant
Deed; (ii) disburse to Seller the Purchase Price, less Seller’s share of any escrow fees, costs and
expenses; (iii) deliver to Buyer the Non-Foreign Affidavit, the California Certificate and the
original recorded Grant Deed; (iv) pay any commissions and other expenses payable through
escrow; and (vi) distribute to itself the payment of escrow fees and expenses required hereunder.
(d) Closing Costs. Buyer will pay all escrow fees (including the costs
of preparing documents and instruments), and recording fees. Buyer will also pay title insurance
and title report costs. Seller will pay all transfer taxes and governmental conveyance fees, where
applicable.
(e) Pro-Rations. At the close of escrow, the Escrow Agent shall make
the following prorations: (i) property taxes will be prorated as of the close of escrow based upon
the most recent tax bill available, including any property taxes which may be assessed after the
close of escrow but which pertain to the period prior to the transfer of title to the Property to Buyer,
regardless of when or to whom notice thereof is delivered; and (ii) any bond or assessment that
constitutes a lien on the Property at the close of escrow will be assumed by Buyer. Seller does not
pay ad valorem taxes.
5.6 Post-Closing Obligations. The following obligations shall survive the Close
of Escrow:
(a) Permits. Buyer shall take all necessary actions for construction
permits to be issued to Buyer for the development of the Property within ten (10) business days
following the Close of Escrow.
(b) Commence Work. Buyer shall commence work to develop the
Property within forty-five (45) days of the Close of Escrow.
(c) Lot Merger. Buyer shall record the merger of the Property with the
Adjacent Lot within ten (10) business days of the Close of Escrow.
7
6. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS.
6.1 Seller’s Representations, Warranties and Covenants. In addition to the
representations, warranties and covenants of Seller contained in other sections of this Agreement,
Seller hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Buyer that the statements below in this Section
6.1 are each true and correct as of the Closing Date provided however, if to Seller’s actual
knowledge any such statement becomes untrue prior to Closing, Seller will notify Buyer in writing
and Buyer will have three (3) business days thereafter to determine if Buyer wishes to proceed
with Closing or terminate this Agreement and receive a refund of the Deposits. If Buyer
determines it does not wish to proceed, then the terms of Section 3.4 will apply.
(a) Authority. Seller is a municipal corporation, lawfully formed, in
existence and in good standing under the laws of the State of California. Seller has the full right,
capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This
Agreement has been duly executed by Seller, and upon delivery to and execution by Buyer is a
valid and binding agreement of Seller.
(b) Encumbrances. Seller has not alienated, encumbered, transferred,
mortgaged, assigned, pledged, or otherwise conveyed its interest in the Property or any portion
thereof, nor entered into any Agreement to do so, and there are no liens, encumbrances, mortgages,
covenants, conditions, reservations, restrictions, easements or other matters affecting the Property,
except as disclosed in the Preliminary Report. Seller will not, directly or indirectly, alienate,
encumber, transfer, mortgage, assign, pledge, or otherwise convey its interest prior to the Close of
Escrow, as long as this Agreement is in force.
(c) There are no agreements affecting the Property except those which
have been disclosed by Seller. There are no agreements which will be binding on the Buyer or the
Property after the Close of Escrow, which cannot be terminated on thirty (30) days prior written
notice.
(d) Conflicts and Pending Actions. There is no agreement to which
Seller is a party or, to Seller’s knowledge, binding on Seller, which is in conflict with this
Agreement. There is no action, suit, arbitration, unsatisfied order or judgment, governmental
investigation or proceeding pending or, to Seller’s knowledge, threatened against the Property or
the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.
(f) Lease. There are no leases of space in the Property, subleases,
licenses, franchise agreements or other agreements to occupy or utilize all or any portion of the
Property that will be in force after the Closing. At Closing, Seller shall deliver the Property to
Buyer vacant of any occupants.
(g) Condemnation. No condemnation proceedings relating to the
Property are pending or, to Seller’s knowledge, threatened.
(h) Foreign Person; OFAC. Seller is not a “foreign person” within the
meaning of Section 1445(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Seller
8
represents and warrants that (a) Seller and, to Seller’s actual knowledge, each person or entity
owning an interest in Seller is (i) not currently identified on the Specially Designated Nationals
and Blocked Persons List maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Department of the
Treasury (“OFAC”) and/or on any other similar list maintained by OFAC pursuant to any
authorizing statute, executive order or regulation (collectively, the “List”), and (ii) not a person or
entity with whom a citizen of the United States is prohibited to engage in transactions by any trade
embargo, economic sanction, or other prohibition of United States law, regulation, or Executive
Order of the President of the United States, and (iii) not an Embargoed Person (as hereinafter
defined), (b) to Seller’s actual knowledge, none of the funds or other assets of Seller constitute
property of, or are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by any Embargoed Person, and (c) to
Seller’s actual knowledge, no Embargoed Person has any interest of any nature whatsoever in
Seller (whether directly or indirectly). The term “Embargoed Person” means any person, entity or
government subject to trade restrictions under U.S. law, including but not limited to, the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. §1701 et seq., The Trading with the
Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 1 et seq., and any Executive Orders or regulations promulgated
thereunder.
(i) Compliance. Seller has not received any written notice from any
governmental authority that the Property is not in material compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations (including environmental and zoning laws and regulations), other than such violations
as have been fully cured. To Seller’s knowledge, neither Seller nor the Property are in default or
breach of any material obligation under any encumbrances, covenants or easement agreements
recorded against the Property.
(j) Hazardous Materials. Except as otherwise disclosed to Buyer by
Seller (including in any materials delivered or made available to Buyer), Seller has received no
written notice from any local, state or national governmental entity or agency of any asbestos, lead
or other Hazardous Materials existing or potentially existing with respect to the Property. As used
herein, “Hazardous Material” means any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or
material, pollutant or contaminant, as defined for purposes of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq.), as amended,
or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), as amended, or
any other laws, or any substance which is toxic, explosive, corrosive, flammable, infectious,
radioactive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, or otherwise hazardous, or any substance which contains
gasoline, diesel fuel or other petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), or radon
gas, urea formaldehyde, asbestos or lead.
(k) Purchase Options. There are no outstanding rights of first refusal,
rights of first offer, purchase options or similar purchase rights with respect to the Property.
(l) Management Agreements. There are no management agreements,
leasing agreements, brokerage agreements or similar agreements which affect the Property and
will survive Closing.
(m) Taxes. To Seller’s knowledge, there are no impositions of new
special assessments with respect to the Property.
9
The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and
the performance of all covenants of Seller contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent
to Buyer’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder. The foregoing representations and
warranties shall survive the expiration, termination, or close of escrow of this Agreement and shall
not be deemed merged into the deed upon closing.
6.2 Buyer’s Representations and Warranties. In addition to the representations,
warranties and covenants of Buyer contained in other sections of this Agreement, Buyer hereby
represents, warrants and covenants to Seller that the statements below in this Section 6.2 are each
true as of the Effective Date, and, if to Buyer’s actual knowledge any such statement becomes
untrue prior to Closing, Buyer shall so notify Seller in writing and Seller shall have at least three
(3) business days thereafter to determine if Seller wishes to proceed with Closing.
(a) Buyer is a California limited liability company. Buyer has the full
right, capacity, power and authority to enter into and carry out the terms of this Agreement. This
Agreement has been duly executed by Buyer, and upon delivery to and execution by Seller shall
be a valid and binding agreement of Buyer.
(b) Buyer is not bankrupt or insolvent under any applicable federal or
state standard, has not filed for protection or relief under any applicable bankruptcy or creditor
protection statute, and has not been threatened by creditors with an involuntary application of any
applicable bankruptcy or creditor protection statute.
(c) Pending Actions. There is no action, suit, arbitration, unsatisfied
order or judgment, government investigation or proceeding pending against Buyer which, if
adversely determined, could individually or in the aggregate materially interfere with the
consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Agreement.
(d) ERISA. Buyer is not acquiring the Property with the assets of an
employee benefit plan as defined in Section 3(3) of ERISA.
(e) Foreign Person; OFAC. Buyer is not a “foreign person” within the
meaning of Section 1445(f)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. Buyer and, to
Buyer’s actual knowledge, each person or entity owning an interest in Buyer is (i) not currently
identified on the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List maintained by the
OFAC and/or on any other similar List, (ii) not a person or entity with whom a citizen of the United
States is prohibited to engage in transactions by any trade embargo, economic sanction, or other
prohibition of United States law, regulation, or Executive Order of the President of the United
States, and (iii) not an “Embargoed Person,” to Buyer’s actual knowledge, none of the funds or
other assets of Buyer constitute property of, or are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by
any Embargoed Person, and to Buyer’s actual knowledge, no Embargoed Person has any interest
of any nature whatsoever in Buyer (whether directly or indirectly).
The truth and accuracy of each of the representations and warranties, and
the performance of all covenants of Buyer contained in this Agreement are conditions precedent
to Seller’s obligation to proceed with the Closing hereunder.
10
6.3 Property Sold, “AS IS”. Buyer specifically acknowledges that the Seller is
selling the Property on an “AS IS”, “WHERE IS” and “WITH ALL FAULTS” basis and that,
subject to Seller's representations, warranties, covenants and obligations set forth in this
Agreement, and all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein, and any obligations arising
under applicable law, and any document or instrument executed and delivered in connection with
Closing, Buyer is not relying on any representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever, express
or implied, from Seller, or its employees, appointed or elected officials, agents, or brokers as to
any matters concerning the Property. Subject to Seller's representations, warranties, covenants and
obligations set forth in this Agreement, and all exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein,
and any obligations arising under applicable law, and any document or instrument executed and
delivered in connection with Closing, Seller makes no representations or warranties as to any
matters concerning the Property, including without limitation: (i) the quality, nature, adequacy
and physical condition of the Property, (ii) the quality, nature, adequacy, and physical condition
of soils, geology and any groundwater, (iii) the existence, quality, nature, adequacy and physical
condition of utilities serving the Property, (iv) the development potential of the Property, and the
Property's use, habitability, merchantability, or fitness, suitability, value or adequacy of the
property for any particular purpose, (v) except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the zoning
or other legal status of the Property or any other public or private restrictions on use of the Property,
(vi) the compliance of the Property or its operation with any Environmental Laws, covenants,
conditions and restrictions of any governmental or quasi-governmental entity or of any other
person or entity, (vii) the presence or removal of Hazardous Materials, substances or wastes on,
under or about the Property or the adjoining or neighboring property; (viii) the quality of any labor
and materials used in any improvements on the Property, (ix) the condition of title to the Property,
(x) the leases, service contracts, or other agreements affecting the Property, or (xi) the economics
of the operation of the Property.
7. REMEDIES In the event of a breach or default under this Agreement by Seller, if
such breach or default occurs prior to Close of Escrow, Buyer reserves the right to either (a) seek
specific performance from Seller or (b) to do any of the following: (i) to waive the breach or
default and proceed to close as provided herein; (ii) to extend the time for performance and the
Closing Date until Seller is able to perform; or (iii) to terminate this Agreement upon written notice
to Seller, whereupon Seller shall cause Escrow Holder to return to Buyer any and all sums placed
into the Escrow by Buyer, and except for the rights and obligations expressly provided to survive
termination of this Agreement, neither party shall have any further obligations or liabilities
hereunder. IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OR DEFAULT HEREUNDER BY BUYER AND
THE CLOSING DOES NOT OCCUR DUE TO SUCH DEFAULT, SELLER’S SOLE REMEDY
SHALL BE TO RETAIN THE DEPOSITS AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES. THE PARTIES
AGREE THAT IN SUCH INSTANCE, THE DEPOSITS REPRESENT A REASONABLE
APPROXIMATION OF SELLER’S DAMAGES AND ARE NOT INTENDED AS A
FORFEITURE OR PENALTY BUT RATHER AN ENFORCEABLE LIQUIDATED
DAMAGES PROVISION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1671, ET
SEQ. IN NO EVENT SHALL EITHER PARTY BE ENTITLED TO LOST PROFITS OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE OTHER PARTY’S BREACH OF
THIS AGREEMENT.
12
claims), interest, or losses, including reasonable attorneys’ and paralegals’ fees and expenses
(including without limitation any such fees and expenses incurred in enforcing this Agreement or
collecting any sums due hereunder), together with all other costs and expenses of any kind or
nature (collectively, the “Costs”) that arise directly or indirectly from or in connection with the
presence, suspected presence, release, or suspected release, of any Hazardous Materials in, on or
under the Property or in or into the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about,
around, above, under or within the Property, or any portion thereof, except those Costs that arise
solely as a result of actions by Seller, or Seller’s agents, employees, or contractors. The
indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall specifically apply to and include claims or
actions brought by or on behalf of employees of Buyer or any of its predecessors in interest and
Buyer hereby expressly waives any immunity to which Buyer may otherwise be entitled under any
industrial or worker’s compensation laws. In the event the Seller suffers or incurs any Costs, Buyer
shall pay to Seller the total of all such Costs suffered or incurred by the Seller upon demand
therefore by Seller. The indemnification provided pursuant to this Section shall include, without
limitation, all loss or damage sustained by the Seller due to any Hazardous Materials: (a) that are
present or suspected by a governmental agency having jurisdiction to be present in the Property or
in the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water at, on, about, above, under, or within the
Property (or any portion thereof) or to have emanated from the Property, or (b) that migrate, flow,
percolate, diffuse, or in any way move onto, into, or under the air, soil, soil gas, groundwater, or
surface water at, on, about, around, above, under, or within the Property (or any portion thereof)
after the date of this Agreement as a result of Seller’s or its predecessors’ activities on the Property,
or those of Seller’s agents, employees, or contractors. The provisions of this Section 10 shall
survive the termination of this Agreement and the Close of Escrow.
11. RELEASE BY BUYER. Effective upon the Close of Escrow, except with respect
to the representations and warranties of Seller under Section 6.1 of this Agreement, Buyer waives
releases, remises, acquits and forever discharges Seller, and its officers, directors, board members,
managers, employees and agents, and any other person acting on behalf of Seller, from any and all
claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses and compensation
whatsoever, direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, which Buyer now has
or which may arise in the future on account of or in any way arising from or in connection with
the physical condition of the Property or any law or regulation applicable thereto including,
without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any federal, state or local law, ordinance or
regulation pertaining to Hazardous Materials. This Section 11 shall survive the termination of this
Agreement and the Close of Escrow.
BUYER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT BUYER IS FAMILIAR WITH SECTION 1542 OF THE
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE, WHICH PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS THAT
THE CREDITOR OR RELEASING PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OR
SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE AND THAT, IF KNOWN BY HIM OR
HER, WOULD HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER
SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR OR RELEASED PARTY.
14
party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs (including the service
of process, filing fees, court and court reporter costs, investigative fees, expert witness fees, and
the costs of any bonds, whether taxable or not) and shall include the right to recover such fees and
costs incurred in any appeal or efforts to collect or otherwise enforce any judgment in its favor in
addition to any other remedy it may obtain or be awarded. Any judgment or final order issued in
any legal proceeding shall include reimbursement for all such attorneys’ fees and costs. In any
legal proceeding, the “prevailing party” shall mean the party determined by the court to most nearly
prevail and not necessarily the party in whose favor a judgment is rendered.
13.2 Interpretation. This Agreement has been negotiated at arm’s length and
each party has been represented by independent legal counsel in this transaction and this
Agreement has been reviewed and revised by counsel to each of the Parties. Accordingly, each
party hereby waives any benefit under any rule of law (including Section 1654 of the California
Civil Code) or legal decision that would require interpretation of any ambiguities in this
Agreement against the drafting party.
13.3 Survival. All indemnities, covenants, representations and warranties
contained in this Agreement shall survive Close of Escrow.
13.4 Successors. Except as provided to the contrary in this Agreement, this
Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their successors and
assigns.
13.5 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13.6 Integrated Agreement; Modifications. This Agreement contains all the
agreements of the Parties concerning the subject hereof any cannot be amended or modified except
by a written instrument executed and delivered by the parties. There are no representations,
agreements, arrangements or understandings, either oral or written, between or among the parties
hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. In
addition there are no representations, agreements, arrangements or understandings, either oral or
written, between or among the Parties upon which any party is relying upon in entering this
Agreement that are not fully expressed herein.
13.7 Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement is determined to
be illegal, unenforceable, or invalid in whole or in part for any reason, such illegal, unenforceable,
or invalid provisions or part thereof shall be stricken from this Agreement, any such provision
shall not be affected by the legality, enforceability, or validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
If any provision or part thereof of this Agreement is stricken in accordance with the provisions of
this Section, then the stricken provision shall be replaced, to the extent possible, with a legal,
enforceable and valid provision this is in keeping with the intent of the Parties as expressed herein.
13.8 Notices. Any delivery of this Agreement, notice, modification of this
Agreement, collateral or additional agreement, demand, disclosure, request, consent, approval,
waiver, declaration or other communication that either party desires or is required to give to the
other party or any other person shall be in writing. Any such communication may be served
15
personally, or by nationally recognized overnight delivery service (i.e., Federal Express) which
provides a receipt of delivery, or sent by prepaid, first class mail, return receipt requested to the
party’s address as set forth below, or by fax or electronic mail, in each case, sent to the intended
addressee at the address set forth below, or to such other address or to the attention of such other
person as the addressee shall have designated by written notice sent in accordance herewith, and
shall be deemed to have been given either at the time of first attempted delivery at the address and
in the manner provided herein, or, in the case of electronic mail for fax, as of the date of the
electronic mail or fax:
To Buyer: 311 9th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Attn: Mr. Victor Lo
Phone: 415-297-0709
Email: victor@sierrainvestments.com
With Copy To: Schinner & Shain, LLP
96 Jessie Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attn: R. Ryan Shain, Esq.
Phone: 310-913-4582
Email: shain@schinner.com
To Seller: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: City Manager, Mike Futrell
Email: mike.futrell@ssf.net
Telephone No.: (650) 829 6620
Fax (650) 829-6609
With Copy To: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: Project Manager, Julie Barnard
Email: Julie.barnard@ssf.net
Telephone No.: (650) 829 6629
With Copy To: Meyers Nave
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Attn: Sky Woodruff
Email: sky@meyersnave.com
To Escrow Holder: Katie Berggren
North American Title Company
66 Bovet Rd, Suite 200
San Mateo, CA 94402
16
Phone: 650-343-6282
Email: kberggren@nat.com
Any party may change its address by notice to the other party. Each party shall
make an ordinary, good faith effort to ensure that it will accept or receive notices that are given in
accordance with this section and that any person to be given notice actually receives such notice.
13.9 Time. Time is of the essence to the performance of each and every
obligation under this Agreement.
13.10 Days of Week. If any date for exercise of any right, giving of any
notice, or performance of any provision of this Agreement falls on a Saturday, Sunday or holiday,
the time for performance will be extended to 11:59 p.m. on the next business day.
13.11 Reasonable Consent and Approval. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement, whenever a party is required or permitted to give its consent or approval under
this Agreement, such consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. If a party
is required or permitted to give its consent or approval in its sole and absolute discretion or if such
consent or approval may be unreasonably withheld, such consent or approval may be unreasonably
withheld but shall not be unreasonably delayed.
13.12 Further Assurances. The Parties shall at their own cost and expense
execute and deliver such further documents and instruments and shall take such other actions as
may be reasonably required or appropriate to carry out the intent and purposes of this Agreement.
13.13 Waivers. Any waiver by any party shall be in writing and shall not
be construed as a continuing waiver. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure to take
action on account of any default by any party. Consent by any party to any act or omission by
another party shall not be construed to be consent to any other subsequent act or omission or to
waive the requirement for consent to be obtained in any future or other instance.
13.14 Signatures/Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by
electronic or facsimile signature. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument. Any one of such completely executed counterparts shall be sufficient proof of
this Agreement.
13.15 Date and Delivery of Agreement. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in this Agreement, the parties intend that this Agreement shall be deemed
effective, and delivered for all purposes under this Agreement, and for the calculation of any
statutory time periods based on the date an agreement between parties is effective, executed, or
delivered, as of the Effective Date.
13.16 Representation on Authority of Parties. Each person signing this
Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized and has legal capacity to
execute and deliver this Agreement. Each party represents and warrants to the other that the
execution and delivery of the Agreement and the performance of such party’s obligations
17
hereunder have been duly authorized and that the Agreement is a valid and legal agreement binding
on such party and enforceable in accordance with its terms.
13.17 Possession. At Closing, Seller shall deliver sole and exclusive
possession of the Property to Buyer.
13.18 Approvals. Whenever this Agreement calls for Seller approval,
consent, extension or waiver, the written approval, consent, or waiver of the Seller’s Executive
Director or his or her designee(s) shall constitute the approval, consent, extension or waiver of the
Seller, without further authorization required from the Seller’s Council. The Seller hereby
authorizes the City Manager and his or her designee(s) to deliver any such approvals, consents, or
extensions or waivers as are required by this Agreement, or that do not otherwise reduce Seller’s
rights under this Agreement, and to waive requirements under this Agreement, on behalf of the
Seller.
13.19 Merger, Survival. The provisions of this Agreement shall not merge
with the delivery of the Deed or any other instrument delivered at Closing, but shall, except as
otherwise provided in this Agreement, survive the Closing.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
219\3220028.3
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit A Legal Description
Exhibit B Grant Deed
Exhibit C Permitted Exceptions
Exhibit D Form of Affordable Housing Agreement
Exhibit E Form of Completion Guaranty
219\3220028.3
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, City of South Su.
Francisco, and described as Lot 8 in Block 117, as shown on that certain map entitled "SOUI'H
SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO CO. CAL PLAT. NO. 1”, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California, on March 1, 1892 in Book “B” of Maps at
page(s) 6, and a copy entered in Book 2 of Maps at Page 52.
AP. No.: 012-321-160 JPN 012 032 321 16 A
219\3220028.3
Exhibit B
GRANT DEED
Recording Requested By and
When Recorded Return To:
Attention:
APN: ___________________
(Space above this line for Recorder’s use)
GRANT DEED
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s):
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX IS $__________________ computed on full value of
property conveyed, or computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at
time of sale.
_______________________________
Signature of Declarant
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,
_______________________ _____________________________, a ____________________
(“Grantor”) hereby grants to _____________________________, a _________________
(“Grantee”), the real property located in the City of __________, County of __________, State
of __________, described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
GRANTOR:
_______________________________, a _______________________________
By: _______________________________
Its: _______________________________
Date: _______________________________
219\3220028.3
[Exhibit A and notarial acknowledgement to be attached]
219\3220028.3
Exhibit C
PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS
Page 1
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
330 Primrose Road, Suite 502
Burlingame, California 94010
Office Phone: (650)696-1725
Office Fax: (650)319-8138
Escrow Officer Email: aross@nat.com
North American Title Company, Inc. Our Order No.: 1597187
330 Primrose Road, Suite 502
Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Address: 432 Baden Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attention: Annette Ross
______________________________________________________________________________
Preliminary Report Dated as of September 20, 2018 at 7:30 A.M.
In response to the above referenced application for a Policy of Title Insurance,
North American Title Insurance Company
Hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of
Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss
which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception
below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy
forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and limitations on covered risks of said Policy or Policies
are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The Policy to be issued may contain an Arbitration Clause. When the amount
of insurance is less than that set forth in the Arbitration Clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the
option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the Parties. Limitations on covered risks
applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a deductible amount
and a maximum dollar limit of liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the Policy
forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set
forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you
with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and
should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the
condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the
issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed
prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: ALTA Extended Loan Policy and
America First Homeowner’s Policy
Please note that the America First Homeowner's Policy (CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) can only be issued on transactions
involving individuals as purchasers and residential 1-4 properties. Any indication that the America First Homeowner's Policy
(CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) will be issued in a transaction that does not meet these criteria is hereby revised to state
that the policy contemplated is a Standard Coverage Policy.
David Simmons, Title Officer
Page 2
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
SCHEDULE A
1. The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this report is:
Fee simple.
2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a municipal corporation
3. The Land referred to in this report is situated in the City of South San Francisco State of California, County
of San Mateo, and is described as follows:
See attached Legal Description
Page 3
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as
follows:
LOT 8 IN BLOCK 117, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "SOUTH SAN FRANCI SCO SAN
MATEO CO. CAL. PLAT. NO. 1", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 1, 1892 IN BOOK "B" OF MAPS AT PAGE(S) 6, AND A
COPY ENTERED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS AT PAGE 52.
APN: 012-321-160-9
Page 4
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in the policy form
designated on the face page of this report would be as follows:
1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2018-2019.
First Installment: $4.67 OPEN
Penalty: If paid after December 10th $0.46
Second Installment: $4.67 OPEN
Penalty: If paid after April 10th $40.46
Tax Rate Area: 13-020
A.P. No.: 012-321-160-9
2. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75
of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
3. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded January 21, 1907 in
Book 114 of Deeds, Page 164 , but deleting any covenant, condition, or restriction indicating a
preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial
status, disability, handicap, national origin, genetic information, gender, gender identity, gender
expression, source of income (as defined in California Government Code § 12955(p)) or ancestry, to
the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violation 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) or California
Government Code § 12955. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants
in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial
status.
4. Right of Way over the herein described property, as granted in Deed:
From : South San Francisco Land and Improvement Company, a corporation
To : Louise Fourcane
Dated: October 24, 1906
Recorded : January 21, 1907
Book/Reel 114 of Deeds at Page/image 164, Records of San Mateo County, California.
Reserves Right of Way for public utilities.
5. A lease dated June 30, 1992, executed by Mark Giovanzana as lessor and Mr. and Mrs. Richard
Camponuevo as lessee, recorded July 01, 1992 as Instrument No. 92104388 of Official Records.
6. We find no open deeds of trust, and will require the Open Loans Affidavit form to be submitted for
review prior to close.
7. With respect to City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, a corporation:
a. A certificate of good standing of recent date issued by the Secretary of State of the corporation's
state of domicile.
b. A certified copy of a resolution of the Board of Directors authorizing the contemplated transaction
and designating which corporate officers shall have the power to execute on behalf of the
corporation.
c. Other requirements which the Company may impose following its review of the material required
herein and other information which the Company may require.
Page 5
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
8. This transaction may be subject to the current FinCEN Geographic Targeting Order affecting sale
transactions. This issuing agent may be required by federal law to collect certain additional
information from the proposed insureds regarding this purchase of real property. United States Code
Title 31 Section 5326 authorizes the U.S. Department of Treasury to collect information about certain
transactions in specified geographic areas in order to carry out the purposed or prevent evasions of
the Bank Secrecy Act..
********** END OF REPORT **********
Page 6
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
_____________________________________________________________________________________
* * * * * N O T E S * * * * *
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. NOTICE OF RECORDING PROCEDURE
Pursuant to Cal. Revenue & Tax Code §480.3, all Deeds and other Documents that reflect a change in
ownership must be accompanied by a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report to be completed by
the transferee. If this special report is not presented at the time of recording, an additional recording
fee of $20.00, as required by law, will be charged. Preliminary Change in Ownership forms,
instructions on how to complete them, and a nonexclusive list of documents that are affected by this
change, are available from the County Recorder's Office or the Office of the County Assessor.
Effective January 1, 2018, Cal. Government Code §27388.1 imposes an additional fee of $75.00 to be
paid at the time of recording for every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted
by law to record, except those expressly exempted from payment.
2. GOOD FUNDS LAW
Under Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, North American Title Company, Inc. may
only make funds available for disbursement in accordance with the following rules:
Same day availability. Disbursement on the date of deposit is allowed only when funds are deposited
to North American Title Company, Inc. by Cash or Electronic Transfer (Wire). Cash will be accepted
only under special circumstances and upon approval by management.
Next business day availability. If funds are deposited to North American Title Company, Inc. by
cashier's checks, certified checks or teller's checks, disbursement may be on the next business day
following deposit. A “teller's check” is one drawn by an insured financial institution against another
insured financial institution (e.g., a savings and loan funding with a check drawn against a FDIC
insured bank).
Second business day availability. If the deposit is made by checks other than those described in
paragraphs 1 and 2 above, disbursement may occur on the day when funds must be made available
to depositors under Federal Reserve Regulation CC. In most cases, these checks will be available on
the second business day following deposit. (For further details, consult California Insurance Code
Section 12413, et seq. and Regulation CC).
These are the minimum periods before funds will be made available. North American Title Company,
Inc. is not obligated to disburse funds at the expiration of the time periods above, and expressly
reserves the right to require additional time before disbursing on deposited funds. Close of escrow
and final disbursement will not be made based on deposits in the form of personal checks, corporate
checks, credit union checks, money market checks, travelers checks and official checks until
confirmation of final clearance of the funds.
North American Title Company, Inc. will not be responsible for accruals of interest or other charges
resulting from compliance with the disbursement restrictions imposed by state law.
3. North American Title Company, Inc.'s charges for recording the transaction documents include
charges for services performed by North American Title Company, Inc., in addition to an estimate of
payments to be made to governmental agencies.
4. Note: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is
less than the certain dollar amount set forth in any applicable arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters
Page 7
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the
parties. If you desire to review the terms of the policy, including any arbitration clause that may be
included, contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtain a sample of the policy
jacket for the policy that is to be issued in connection with your transaction.
5. The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. North American
Title Company, Inc. expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from
reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by
the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached.
Page 8
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
Escrow No.: 55913-1597187-18
CERTIFICATION OF TRUST PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA PROBATE CODE SECTION 18100.5
I/We, __________________________________________________________________________, trustee(s) confirm the
following facts:
1. The _________________________________________________________ (Name of Trust) is currently in existence and
was created on: ____________________________ (Date of Creation of Trust).
2. The settlor(s) of the trust are as follows: _________________________________________________
3. The currently acting trustee(s) of the trust is/are: __________________________________________
4. The power of the trustee(s) include: ____________________________________________________
(a) The powers to sell, convey and exchange [ ] YES [ ] NO (check one).
(b) The power to borrow money and encumber the trust property with a deed of trust or mortgage
[ ] YES [ ] NO (check one).
5. The trust is (a) revocable [ ] (b) irrevocable [ ] (check the applicable box) and the following party(ies) if any is/are
identified as having the power to revoke the trust:
6. The trust (a) does [ ] (b) does not [ ] have multiple trustees (check the applicable box). If the trust has multiple
trustees, the signatures of all the trustees or of any ___________ of the trustees is required to exercise the powers of the
trust.
7. The trust identification number is as follows: __________________________________________
(Social Security no./Employer ID)
8. Title to trust assets shall Be taken in the following fashion: _________________________________________
The undersigned trustee(s) hereby declare(s) that the trust has not been revoked, modified, or amended in any manner
which would cause the representations contained herein to be incorrect. The certification is being signed by all of the
currently acting trustees and is being executed in conformity with the provisions of California Probate Code Section
18100.5, Chapter 530, Statues of 1993.
Date: _____________________________
_________________________________________ __________________________________________
_________________________________________ __________________________________________
Document date: ___________________________
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.
STATE OF ____________________ )SS
COUNTY OF ____________________ )
On _________________________________, before me, _______________________________________, Notary Public,
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.
Signature
__________________________________
This area for official notarial seal
Page 9
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT DISCLOSURE
REFERRING PARTY: North American Title Company, North American Title Company,
Inc., North American Title Company of Colorado, North American Title Agency,
LLC, North American Title, LLC, North American Title Agency, Inc., North
American Title Company, LLC, or North American National Title Solutions, LLC,
as applicable (“NAT”)
This is to give notice that NAT has a business relationship with North American Title Insurance
Company (“NATIC”) and North American Advantage Insurance Services, LLC (“NAAIS”). NAT, NATIC
and NAAIS, directly or indirectly, are wholly owned subsidiaries of North American Title Group, LLC
(“NATG”), which is ultimately owned by Lennar Corporation.
Set forth below are the estimated charges or range of charges for the settlement services provided by
NATIC and NAAIS. You are NOT required to use NATIC or NAAIS as a condition for closing your
transaction and obtaining insurance.
THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER SETTLEMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AVAILABLE WITH
SIMILAR SERVICES. YOU ARE FREE TO SHOP AROUND TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE
RECEIVING THE BEST SERVICES AND THE BEST RATE FOR THESE SERVICES.
Title Insurance Fees
NAT provides closing services and title insurance through numerous title insurance
underwriters, one of which is NATIC. If NATIC is selected as the title insurer, the following
fees apply:
10% - 40% of costs for lender’s and/or owner’s title insurance, as applicable,
depending on the property state, and as shown on the Loan Estimate and/or
Closing Disclosure provided by your lender.
Contact your local NAT representative for a more detailed title insurance quote based on
your specific transaction.
Page 10
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
Insurance
NAAIS is the insurance agent that provides, among other products, homeowner’s/hazard
and flood insurance. Set forth below is the estimated range of charges by NAAIS for the
settlement services listed.
Settlement Service Range of Charges - Annual Premium
Hazard Insurance .2% - 2.5% of Home Price
Flood Insurance .1% - .5% of Home Price
NOTE:
The above is a premium range for hazard and flood insurance. If enhancements to the standard
policy such as increased limits, scheduled articles, and/or earthquake coverage are required, the
premium may increase. Actual quote and acceptance by NAAIS is subject to NAAIS’s application of
its underwriting guidelines, including but not limited to verification of your credit score and previous
loss history.
Of course, the cost of your insurance may vary due to many factors including, without limitation,
the size, location and cost of your home.
Page 11
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
OPEN LOANS AFFIDAVIT
Order Number: 55913-1597187-18 Escrow Number: 55913-1597187-18
__________________________________________________________ of legal age, hereby declares and
swears, under penalty of perjury that the following information, declarations, representations and answers are
true, correct and complete:
1. I am the current owner of the property in this transaction which has an address of:
432 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080
2. That the following is a complete and comprehensive list of all open loans taken out against said land:
(If no open loans, please write NONE on the 1st Current Lender Line and initial).
1.) Current Lender: ____________________ Loan Balance $_____________
Original Lender: ____________________ Original Loan Amount: $_____________
Are you in default of this Loan: ☐
YES ☐
NO IF YES, how long ( ) MONTHS
2.) Current Lender: ____________________ Loan Balance $_____________
Original Lender: ____________________ Original Loan Amount: $_____________
Are you in default of this Loan: ☐
YES ☐
NO IF YES, how long ( ) MONTHS
3.) Current Lender: ____________________ Loan Balance $_____________
Original Lender: ____________________ Original Loan Amount: $_____________
Are you in default of this Loan: ☐
YES ☐
NO IF YES, how long ( ) MONTHS
4.) Current Lender: ____________________ Loan Balance $_____________
Original Lender: ____________________ Original Loan Amount: $_____________
Are you in default of this Loan: ☐
YES ☐
NO IF YES, how long ( ) MONTHS
3. I understand and acknowledge that this Affidavit is made for the protection and benefit of North American Title Company
and for all other parties hereafter dealing with or who may acquire an interest in said Property and for the purpose of inducing
North American Title Company (including its affiliates and underwriters) to insure title to said Property. I am fully aware and
know that North American Title Company will rely on this Affidavit and would not insure title without it. We also hereby agre e
to indemnify and hold North American Title Company harmless and to become fully financially responsible for any loss that
may occur to North American Title Company or any other parties if any of the information, declarations, representations and
answers turn out to not be true, correct and/or complete, whether by accidental omission or actual deceit and/or fraud.
Dated: ________________
BY: _________________________ BY: _________________________
Page 12
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
NORTH AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, INC.
330 Primrose Road, Suite 502, Burlingame, CA 94010
(650)696-1725 Fax: (650)319-8138 Email: ca038southburlingameshared@nat.com
Closing Protection Letters can be ordered directly by emailing cacpl@nat.com
with your title order number and property address.
Attention:
Your Ref:
Our Order No.: 55913-1597187-18
LENDERS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Dated as of September 20, 2018 AT 7:30 A.M.
Title Officer: David Simmons
The above numbered report (including any supplements or amendments thereto) is hereby modified and/or
supplemented in order to reflect the following additional items relating to the issuance of an American Land
Title Association loan form policy of Title Insurance:
Our ALTA Loan Policy, when issued, will contain Endorsement Nos. 100 and 116.
There is located on said land a Single Family Residence
Known as: 432 Baden Avenue
City of South San Francisco
County of San Mateo
State of California.
According to the public records, there has been no conveyance of the land within a period of twenty-four months
prior to the date of this report, except as follows:
A document recorded May 16, 2017 as Instrument No. 2017-042167 of Official Records.
From: The Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco, a public entity
To: City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation
Page 13
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
Privacy Policy Rev. 05/22/2018
North American Title Group Family of Companies
FACTS WHAT DOES NORTH AMERICAN TITLE GROUP, LLC FAMILY OF COMPANIES DO WITH YOUR
PERSONAL INFORMATION?
Why? Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives
consumers the right to limit some, but not all, sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you
how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully
to understand what we do.
What? The types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product or service you
have with us. This information can include:
Social Security number and income
Transaction history and payment history
Purchase history and account balances
How? All financial companies need to share customers’ personal information to run their everyday
business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their
customers’ personal information, the reasons North American Title Group, LLC Family of
Companies (“NATG”) chooses to share, and whether you can limit this sharing.
Reasons we can share your personal information Does NATG
share?
Can you limit
this sharing?
For our everyday business purposes
Such as to process your transactions, maintain your account(s), respond to
court orders and legal investigations, or report to credit bureaus
Yes No
For our marketing purposes
To offer our products and services to you
Yes No
For joint marketing with other financial companies No We don’t share
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes
Information about your transactions and experiences
Yes No
For our affiliates’ everyday business purposes
Information about your creditworthiness
No We don’t share
For our affiliates to market to you Yes Yes
For nonaffiliates to market to you No We don’t share
To limit our sharing Visit the following webpage for full instructions and a link to the Opt Out
process via our NATTRACK system: www.nat.com/Opt-Out OR
Mail the form below
Please note:
If you are a new customer, we can begin sharing your information 30 days from the
date we sent this notice. When you are no longer our customer, we continue to share
your information as described in this notice.
However, you can contact us at any time to limit our sharing.
Questions? Call 1 (844) 654-5408
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail-in Form
If you have a joint
account, your
choice(s) will apply to
everyone on your
account unless you
mark below.
Apply my choices
only to me.
Mark any/all you want to limit:
Do not allow your affiliates to use my personal information to market to me.
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Account #
Mail To: North American Title Group, LLC Family of Companies
ATTN: General Counsel
760 Northwest 107th Avenue, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33172
Page 14
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
Page 2
Who we are
Who is providing this notice? North American Title Group, LLC Family of Companies (identified
below), which offers title insurance and settlement services and
property and casualty insurance
What we do
How does NATG protect my personal
information?
To protect your personal information from unauthorized access and
use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These
measures include computer safeguards and secure files and buildings.
How does NATG collect my personal
information?
We collect your personal information, for example, when you
Apply for insurance;
Apply for financing;
Give us your contact information
Provide your mortgage information
Show your government-issued ID
We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit
bureaus, affiliates, or other companies.
Why can’t I limit all sharing? Federal law gives you the right to limit only
Sharing for affiliates’ everyday business purposes –
information about your creditworthiness
Affiliates from using your information to market to you
Sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you
State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to
limit sharing.
What happens when I limit sharing
for an account I hold jointly with
someone else?
Your choices will apply to everyone on your account – unless you tell us
otherwise.
Definitions
Affiliates Companies related by common ownership or control. They can be
financial and nonfinancial companies.
Our affiliates include companies with a Lennar name; financial
companies such as Eagle Home Mortgage, Eagle Home
Mortgage of California, CalAtlantic Mortgage, Inc., and Rialto
Capital Management; and nonfinancial companies, such as
Lennar Corporation, Lennar Multifamily Companies, Lennar
Commercial, Lennar Homes USA, Lennar Family of Builders,
CalAtlantic Homes, Lennar Sales Corp., SPH Title, Inc.,
Sunstreet Energy Group, Five Point Communities, WCI
Communities, LLC, Watermark Realty Referral, Inc., and WCI
Realty, Inc.
Nonaffiliates Companies not related by common ownership or control. They can be
financial and nonfinancial companies.
Nonaffiliates we share with can include collection agencies, IT
service providers, companies that perform marketing services
on our behalf, and consumer reporting agencies.
Joint marketing A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that
together market financial products or services to you.
NATG doesn’t jointly market.
The North American Title Group, LLC Family of Companies consists of the following entities:
North American Title Company
North American Title Company, Inc.
North American Title Company of Colorado
North American Title Insurance Company
North American Services, LLC
North American Title Agency, Inc.
CalAtlantic Title, Inc.
CalAtlantic Title of Maryland, Inc.
North American Abstract Agency
NASSA, LLC
North American Title, LLC
North American Advantage Insurance Services, LLC
North American National Title Solutions, LLC
North American Title Agency, LLC
CalAtlantic Title Atlanta, LLC
CalAtlantic Title Charleston, LLC
Page 15
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Exhibit A (Rev. 05-06-16)
CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, co sts, attorneys' fees or expenses
which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning
laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character,
dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or
area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws,
ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance
resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in t he public records at Date of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage
any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not dis closed in writing to
the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate
or interest insured by this policy.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any
subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evi denced by the insured mortgage
and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the tr ansaction creating the interest of
the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:
1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by
the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such
agency or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspec tion of the land or which may
be asserted by persons in possession thereof.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not
shown by the public records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to
water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.
CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)
EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:
1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.
2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclu sion does not limit
the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.
3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.
4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records;
b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date;
c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.
5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.
6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and
b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.
This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.
7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or
similar creditors' rights laws.
8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows:
For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.
Page 16
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:
Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500
(whichever is less)
$10,000
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000
(whichever is less)
$25,000
Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000
(whichever is less)
$25,000
Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500
(whichever is less)
$5,000
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, c osts, attorneys' fees, or expenses
that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating
to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclus ion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to
the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under C overed Risk 11, 13, or 14);
or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the
state where the Land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage
and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.
6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the
Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.
7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the
date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclus ions from Coverage, the
Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
[Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,[ t[or T]his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or
expenses, that arise by reason of:
[PART I
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclu sions from Coverage, the
Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or ass essments on real property or
by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not s hown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be
asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete
land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to
water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. ]
PART II
In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Compa ny insures against loss or damage
sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:]
2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, c osts, attorneys' fees, or expenses
that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and
zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 5.
Page 17
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 6.
1. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
2. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to
the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured
under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the
coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid
value for the Title.
3. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as
shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.
4. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date
of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclus ions from Coverage, the
Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that ari se by reason of:
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the
Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or
by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proc eedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspecti on of the Land or that may be
asserted by persons in possession of the Land.
3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land
survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) wate r rights, claims or title to water,
whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.
7. [Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R's, etc. shown here.]
ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY - ASSESSMENTS PRIORITY (04-02-15)
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, co sts, attorneys' fees or expenses
which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and
zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1 (a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided
under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5 , 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to
the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18,
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.
4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the
state where the Land is situated.
5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evi denced by the Insured Mortgage
and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in
Covered Risk 26.
6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modificat ions made after the Insured has
Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or
limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.
7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This
Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.
8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable
building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.
9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the
Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.
10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.
11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.
Page 18
Rev. NAT 8/15/15 Order No. 55913-1597187-18
219\3220028.3
Exhibit D
FORM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Attn: City Manager
EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEES PER
GOVERNMENT CODE §§6103, 27383
Space above this line for Recorder’s use.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT
AND
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
for 432 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco
by and between
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
and
BADEN DEVELOPMENT LLC
219\3220028.3
This Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
(this “Agreement”) is entered into effective as of _____________, 2020 (“Effective Date”) by
and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation (“City”) and
_______________________, a California corporation {INSERT NEW ENTITY IF
APPLICABLE AT CLOSING} (“Owner”). City and Owner are hereinafter collectively referred
to as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. Owner owns that certain real property located in the City of South San Francisco at
432 Baden Avenue, known as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 012-321-160 and more
particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Property”).
B. In accordance with that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement executed by and
between the Parties and dated as of ____________ (the “PSA”), Owner will re-develop the
Property into a high-density, residential apartment building (the “Project”). Capitalized terms
used and not defined in this Agreement have the meaning ascribed to them in the PSA.
C. As a condition to its agreement to provide the City Grants, the City requires the
Property to be subject to the terms, conditions and restrictions set forth herein, specifically, the
City requires that for a period of not less than fifty-five (55) years, three (3) of the residential units
in the Project be rented at Affordable Rents to Eligible Households.
D. The Parties have agreed to enter into and record this Agreement in order to satisfy the
conditions described in the foregoing Recitals. The purpose of this Agreement is to regulate and
restrict the occupancy and rents of the Project’s Restricted Units for the benefit of the occupants of the
Project. The Parties intend the covenants set forth in this Agreement to run with the land and to be
binding upon Owner and Owner’s successors and assigns for the full term of this Agreement.
E. Chapter 20.380 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code sets forth the
requirements for Inclusionary Housing (“Inclusionary Housing Ordinance”)
F. The Developer is planning to construct thirty six (36) rental units on the Project
Property (the “Project”) and has submitted site development plan for the Project.
G.
H. The Developer is required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to set aside ten
percent (10%) of new housing as low- and moderate-income level housing.
I. The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance requires the Developer’s plans and the City’s
conditions regarding inclusionary housing be set forth in an Affordable Housing Agreement.
J. This Affordable Housing Agreement is required as a condition of future discretionary
permits for development of the Project Property and shall be recorded against the Project Property;
K. 432 Baden is located in the Residential Core District and the Project allows for 30 The
Developer will utilize the State Density Bonus of 35% for the Project by providing 11.5%
219\3220028.3
of the units targeting Very Low Income households (“VLI”).
J. The base density for the Project’s 14,000 sf (0.32 acre) lot is 80 du/acre, which allows for
26 units. The 35% density bonus to the base allowable 26 units returns a yield of 36 units.
The project will provide 11.5% of the base density of 26 units or 3 units as VLI targeted.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows.
AGREEMENT
1. Definitions. The following terms have the meanings set forth in this Section wherever used
in this Agreement or the attached exhibits.
“Actual Household Size" means the actual number of persons in the applicable household.
“Adjusted for Family Size Appropriate for the Unit” shall be determined consistent
with Section 50052.5(h) of the California Health and Safety Code and applicable federal rules (if
any) and as defined below:
Studio – 1 person
One Bedroom – 1.5 people
Two Bedroom – 3 people
Three Bedroom – 4.5 people
"Affordable Rent" means the following amounts, less a utility allowance and such other
adjustments as required pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law: (i) for units that are
restricted for rental to households with incomes of not more than eight y percent (80%) of AMI
(“80% Units”), a monthly rent that does not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of
eighty percent (80%) of AMI, Adjusted for Family Size Appropriate for the Unit, and (ii) for units
that are restricted for rental to households with incomes of not more than one hundred twenty
percent (120%) of AMI (“120% Units”), a monthly rent that does not exceed one-twelfth of thirty
percent (30%) of one hundred twenty percent (120%) of Area Median Income, Adjusted for Family
Size Appropriate for the Unit.
"Area Median Income " or "AMI " means the median income for San Mateo County,
California, adjusted for Actual Household Size, as determined by the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 and as published from time to time by the State of California Department of Housing
and Community Development (“HCD”) in Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Code of
Regulations or successor provision published p ursuant to California Health and Safety Code
Section 50093(c).
“Claims ” is defined in Section 10 .
219\3220028.3
"Eligible Household" means a household for which gross household income does not
exceed the applicable maximum income level for a Restricted Unit as specified in Section 2.1 and
Exhibit B.
“Indemnitees” is defined in Section 10.
“Very Low-Income” means an annual gross household income that is less than or equal
to the qualifying limits for households of Very Low-Income adjusted for actual household size, as
determined periodically by HUD on the basis of gross annual household income and published by
HCD in the Regulations for San Mateo County. If HUD ceases to make such determination, "Very
Low-Income" shall be defined as not greater than 50% of Area Median Income adjusted for actual
household size, as published by HCD in the Regulations. If both HCD and HUD cease to make
such determinations, City in its reasonable discretion may designate another definition of "Very
Low-Income" used by any other federal or state agency so long as such definition is no more
restrictive than that set forth herein.
“Regulations ” means Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations.
“Rent -Restricted ” means a dwelling unit for which t he gross rent charged for such
unit does not exceed the Affordable Rent, as adjusted for assumed household size in
accordance with the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”)
guidelines.
"Restricted Unit" means a dwelling unit which is reserved for occupancy at an Affordable
Rent by a household of not more than a specified household income in accordance with and as set
forth in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 and Exhibit B.
2. Use and Affordability Restrictions. Owner hereby covenants and agrees, for itself and its
successors and assigns, that the Property shall be used solely for the operation of a mixed-use,
multifamily rental housing development in compliance with the DA and the requirements set forth
herein. Owner represents and warrants that it has not entered into any agreement that would restrict
or compromise its ability to comply with the occupancy and affordability restrictions set forth in this
Agreement, and Owner covenants that it shall not enter into any agreement that is inconsistent with
such restrictions without the express written consent of City.
2.1 Affordability Requirements.
2.1.1 Property. For a term of fifty-five (55) years commencing upon the date of
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, not less than three (3) of the residential
units of the Project shall be both Rent Restricted (as defined below) and occupied (or if vacant,
available for occupancy), available at Affordable Rents to Eligible Households with income no
greater than 50% of Area Median Income. The three (3) residential units are allocated across unit
type as specified in Exhibit B.
2.1.2 Recertification. In the event that recertification of Eligible Household
incomes indicates that the number of Restricted Units actually occupied by Eligible Households
falls below the number reserved for each income group as specified in this Section 2.1 and Exhibit
219\3220028.3
B, Owner shall rectify the condition by renting the next avai lable dwelling unit(s) in the Project
to Eligible Household(s) until the required income mix is achieved.
2.2 Rents for Restricted Units . Rents for Restricted Units shall be limited to
Affordable Rents for households of the applicable income limit in acc ordance with Section 2.1
and Exhibit B. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Eligible Household qualifying for a Restricted
Unit shall be denied continued occupancy of a unit in the Project because, after admission, such
Eligible Household's adjusted income increases to exceed the qualifying limit for such Restricted
Unit. A household which at initial occupancy qualifies in a particular income category shall be
treated as continuing to be of such income category so long as the household’s gross income does
not exceed 140% of the applicable income limit. In the event the gross household income of a
household that qualified at the applicable income limit at initial occupancy exceeds the applicable
income limit for a unit, that unit will continue to be considere d as satisfying the applicable income
limit if the unit remains Rent-Restricted.
If upon recertification of Eligible Household incomes, Owner determines that a Eligible
Household has a household income exceeding the maximum qualifying income for such Eligible
Household’s unit, the Eligible Household shall be permitted to continue to occupy the unit, and
upon expiration of the Eligible Household's lease and upon sixty (60) days’ written notice, Owner
may increase the rent for such unit to the fair market rent, and Owner shall rent the next available
unit to a Eligible Household whose household income does not exceed the applicable income limit
in order to achieve the affordability requirements of this Agreement.
2.3 Unit Sizes, Design and Location. The Restricted Units shall be of comparable
design quality as unrestricted units in the Project. Eligible Households of Restricted Units shall
have access to all common facilities of the Project equal to that of Eligible Households of units in
the Project that are not Restricted Units. The Restricted Units shall be allocated among affordability
categories as set forth in Exhibit B.
2.4 City Grant Funds. Owner shall ensure that all City Grant Funds are used for the
construction of affordable units in a manner consistent with the applicable City Grant Funds
requirements, which at a minimum, requires residential rental units assisted For with funds from
the City’s low- and moderate-income housing fund to remain affordable for the longest feasible
time.
2.5 No Condominium Conversion. Owner shall not convert the residential units in the
Project to condominium or cooperative ownership or sell condominium or cooperative rights to the
residential portion of the Project or any part thereof unless Owner obtains the City's consent and
meets the affordability requirements of Section 2.1. City’s prior written consent shall be required
with respect to the sale or condominium conversion of the retail/commercial portion of the
Project or any part thereof.
2.6 Non-Discrimination; Compliance with Fair Housing Laws.
2.6.1 Preferences. In order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable
housing within the City for City residents and employees of businesses located within the City, to
the extent permitted b y law and consistent with the program regulations for funding sources used
219\3220028.3
for development of the Project, at initial lease up, Owner shall give a preference in the rental of
the residential units in the Project to Eligible Households that include at least one member who
lives or works in the City of South San Francisco. If there are fewer Eligible Households than the
number of such units, the units will be made available to the general public. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, in the event of a conflict between this provision and the provisions of Section 42 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the provisions of such Section 42 shall control.
2.6.2 Fair Housing. Owner shall comply with state and federal fair housing laws
in the marketing and rental of the units in the Project. Owner shall accept as Eligible Households,
on the same basis as all other prospective Eligible Households, persons who are recipients of
federal certificates or vouchers for rent subsidies pursuant to the existing Section 8 program or any
successor thereto.
2.6.3 Non-Discrimination. Owner shall not restrict the rental, sale, lease,
sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, or any portion thereof, on
the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, ancestry,
or national origin of any person. Owner covenants for itself and all persons claiming under or
through it, and this Agreement is made and accepted upon and subject to the condition that there
shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or group of persons on account of
any basis listed in subdivision (a) or (d) of Section 12955 of the Government Code, as those bases
are defined in Sections 12926, 12926.1, subdivision (m) and paragraph (1) of subdivision (p) of
Section 12955, and Section 12955.2 of the Government Code, in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer,
use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property or part thereof, nor shall Owner or any person
claiming under or through Owner establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy
of Eligible Households, lessees, sub-Eligible Households, sublessees or vendees in, of, or for the
Property or part thereof. Owner shall include such provision in all deeds, leases, contracts and
other instruments executed by Owner, and shall enforce the same diligently and in good faith.
3. Reporting Requirements.
3.1. Eligible Household Certification. Owner or Owner’s authorized agent shall obtain
from each household prior to initial occupancy of each Restricted Unit, and on every anniversary
thereafter, a written certificate containing all of the following in such format and with such
supporting documentation as City may reasonably require:
(a) The identity of each household member; and
(b) The total gross household income;
Owner shall retain such certificates for not less than three (3) years, and upon City’s
request, shall make the certificates available for City inspection.
3.2 Annual Report; Inspections. By not later than April 30th of each year during the
term of this Agreement, Owner shall submit an annual report (“Annual Report”) to the City in
form satisfactory to City, together with a certification that the Project is in compliance with the
requirements of this Agreement. The Annual Report shall, at a minimum, include the following
219\3220028.3
information for each dwelling unit in the Project: (i) unit number; (ii) number of bedrooms; (iii)
current rent and other charges; (iv) dates of any vacancies during the previous year; (v) number of
people residing in the unit; (vi) total gross household income of residents; (vii) documentation of
source of household income; and (viii) the information required by Section 3.1.
Owner shall include with the Annual Report, an income recertification for each household,
documentation verifying Eligible Household eligibility, and such additional information as City
may reasonably request from time to time in order to demonstrate compliance with this Agreement.
The Annual Report shall conform to the format requested by City; provided however, during such
time that the Project is subject to a regulatory agreement restricting occupancy and/or rents
pursuant to requirements imposed in connection with the use of state or federal low -income
housing tax credits, Owner may satisfy the requirements of this Section by providing City with a
copy of compliance reports required in connection with such financing.
3.3 On-site Inspection. Owner shall permit representatives of City to enter and inspect the
Property and the Project during reasonable business hours in order to monitor compliance with this
Agreement upon 48-hours advance notice of such visit to Owner or to Owner's management agent.
3.4 Additional Information. Owner shall provide any additional information reasonably
requested by City. The City shall have the right to examine and make copies of all books, records, or
other documents of the Owner which pertain to the Project.
3.5 Records. The Owner shall maintain complete, accurate and current records pertaining
to the Development, and shall permit any duly authorized representative of the City to inspect records,
including records pertaining to income and household size of Eligible Households. All Eligible
Household lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Project shall at all times be kept separate
and identifiable from any other business of the Owner and shall be maintained in a reasonable condition
for proper audit and subject to examination during business hours by representatives of the City. The
Owner shall retain copies of all materials obtained or produced with respect to occupancy of the Units
for a period of at least three (3) years, and for any period during which there is an audit undertaken by
the City pursuant to the DA.
4. Term of Agreement.
4.1 Term of Restrictions. Unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties, upon
the 55th anniversary of issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for the residential portion of
the Project, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further force or effect.
4.2 Effectiveness Succeeds Conveyance of Property and Repayment of Loan. This
Agreement shall remain effective and fully binding for the full term hereof, as such may be extended
pursuant to Section 4.1, regardless of any sale, assignment, transfer, or conveyance of the Property
or the Project or any part thereof or interest therein.
4.3 Reconveyance. Upon the expiration of this Agreement, the Parties agree to execute
and record appropriate instruments to release and discharge this Agreement; provided, however,
the execution and recordation of such instruments shall not be necessary or a prerequisite to
evidence the expiration of this Agreement, or to evidence the release and discharge of this
Agreement as a matter of title.
219\3220028.3
5. Binding Upon Successors; Covenants to Run with the Land . Owner hereby subjects
its interest in the Property and the Project to the covenants and restrictions set forth in this
Agreement. The Parties hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set
forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the heirs, administrators, executors, successors in interest, transferees, and assigns
of the Parties, regardless of any sale, assignment, conveyance or transfer of the Property, the Project
or any part thereof or interest therein. Any successor-in-interest to Owner, including without
limitation any purchaser, transferee or lessee of the Property or the Project (other than the Eligible
Households of the individual dwelling units or retail/commercial space within the Project) shall be
subject to all of the duties and obligations imposed hereby for the full term of this Agreement. Each
and every contract, deed, ground lease or other instrument affecting or conveying the Property or the
Project or any part thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered and accepted
subject to the covenants, restrictions, duties and obligations set forth herein, regardless of whether
such covenants, restrictions, duties and obligations are set forth in such contract, deed, ground lease
or other instrument. If any such contract, deed, ground lease or other instrument has been executed
prior to the date hereof, Owner hereby covenants to obtain and deliver to City an instrument in
recordable form signed by the parties to such contract, deed, ground lease or other instrument
pursuant to which such parties acknowledge and accept this Agreement and agree to be bound
hereby.
Owner agrees for itself and for its successors that in the event that a court of competent
jurisdiction determines that the covenants herein do not run with the land, such covenants shall be
enforced as equitable servitudes against the Property and the Project in favor of City.
6. Property Management; Repair and Maintenance; Marketing.
6.1 Management Responsibilities. Owner, or Owner’s designee, shall be responsible
for all management functions with respect to the Property and the Project, including without
limitation the selection of Eligible Households , certi fication and recertification of household
income and eligibility, evictions, collection of rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping,
routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. City shall have no
responsibility for management or maintenance of the Property or the Project.
6.2 Repair, Maintenance and Security. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Owner,
or Owner’s designee, shall at its own expense, maintain the Property and the Project in good
physical condition, in good repair, and in decent, safe, sanitary, habitable and tenantable living
conditions in conformity with all applicable state, federal, and local laws, ordinances, codes, and
regulations. Without limiting the foregoing, Owner agrees to maintain the Project and the Property
(including without limitation, the residential units, common areas, meeting rooms, landscaping,
driveways, parking areas and walkways) in a condition free of all waste, nuisance, debris,
unmaintained landscaping, graffiti, disrepair, abandoned vehicles/appliances, and illegal activity,
and shall take all reasonable steps to prevent the same from occurring on the Property or at the
Project. Owner shall prevent and/or re ctify any physical deterioration of the Property and the
Project and shall make all repairs, renewals and replacements necessary to keep the Property
and the improvements located thereon in good condition and repair. Owner shall provide
adequate security services for occupants of the Project.
219\3220028.3
6.2.1 City’s Right to Perform Maintenance. In the event that Owner breaches any
of the covenants contained in Section 6.2, and such default continues for a period of thirty (30) days
after written notice from City (with respect to graffiti, debris, and waste material) or thirty (30) days
after written notice from City (with respect to landscaping, building improvements and general
maintenance), then City, in addition to any other remedy it may have under this Agreement or at
law or in equity, shall have the right, but not the obligation, to enter upon the Property and perform
all acts and work necessary to protect, maintain, and preserve the improvements and the landscaped
areas on the Property.
6.2.2 Costs. All costs expended by City in connection with the foregoing Section
6.2.1, shall be paid by Owner to City upon demand. All such sums remaining unpaid thirty (30)
days following delivery of City’s invoice therefor shall bear interest at the lesser of 8% per annum
or the highest rate permitted by applicable law. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth
in this Section, City agrees that it will provide Owner with not less than thirty (30) days’ written
notice prior to undertaking any work for which Owner will incur a financial obligation.
6.3 Marketing and Management Plan. Within 180 days following the Effective Date
of this Agreement, Owner shall submit for City review and approval, a plan for marketing and
managing the Property ("Marketing and Management Plan" or “Plan”). The Marketing and
Management Plan shall address in detail how Owner plans to market the Restricted Units to
prospective Eligible Households in accordance with fair housing laws and this Agreement, Owner’s
Eligible Household selection criteria, and how Owner plans to certify the eligibility of Eligible
Households. The Plan shall also describe the management team and shall address how the Owner
and the management entity plan to manage and maintain the Property and the Project. The Plan
shall include the proposed management agreement and the form of rental agreement that Owner
proposes to enter into with Project Eligible Households. Owner shall abide by the terms of the
Marketing and Management Plan in marketing, managing, and maintaining the Property and the
Project, and throughout the term of this Agreement.
6.4 Approval of Amendments. If City has not responded to any submission of the
Management and Marketing Plan, the proposed management entity, or a proposed amendment or
change to any of the foregoing within thirty (30) days following City’s receipt of such plan, proposal
or amendment, the plan, proposal or amendment shall be deemed approved by City.
6.5 Fees, Taxes, and Other Levies. Owner shall be responsible for payment of all fees,
assessments, taxes, charges, liens and levies applicable to the Property or the Project, including
without limitation possessory interest taxes, if applicable, imposed by any public entity, and shall
pay such charges prior to delinquency. However, Owner shall not be required to pay any such
charge so long as (a) Owner is contesting such charge in good faith and by appropriate
proceedings, (b) Owner maintains reserves adequate to pay any contested liabilities, and (c) on
final determination of the proceeding or contest, Owner immediately pays or discharges any
decision or judgment rendered against it, together with all costs, charges and interest. Nothing
in this Section 6.6 is intended to prohibit Owner from applying for any exemption from property
taxes and fees that may be available to the owners of low-income housing.
219\3220028.3
6.6 Insurance Coverage. Throughout the term of this Agreement Owner shall comply
with the insurance requirements set forth in the DA, and shall, at Owner’s expense, maintain in full
force and effect insurance coverage as specified in the DA.
6.7 Property Damage or Destruction. If any part of the Project is damaged or destroyed,
Owner shall repair or restore the same, consistent with the occupancy and rent restriction
requirements set forth in this Agreement. Such work shall be commenced as soon as
reasonably practicable after the damage or loss occurs and shall be completed within one year
thereafter or as soon as reasonably practicable, provided that insurance proceeds are available to
be applied to such repairs or restoration within such period and the repair or restoration is
financially feasible. During such time that lenders or low -income housing tax credit investors
providing financing for the Project impose requirements that differ from the requirements of this
Section the requirements of such lenders and investors shall prevail.
7. Recordation; Subordination. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of
San Mateo County. Owner hereby represents, warrants and covenants that with the exception of
easements of record, absent the written consent of City, this Agreement shall not be subordinated in
priority to any lien (other than those pertaining to taxes or assessments), encumbrance, or other
interest in the Property or the Project. If at the time this Agreement is recorded, any interest, lien,
or encumbrance has been recorded against the Project in position superior to this Agreement, upon
the request of City, Owner hereby covenants and agrees to promptly undertake all action necessary
to clear such matter from title or to subordinate such interest to this Agreement consistent with the
intent of and in accordance with this Section 7, and to provide such evidence thereof as City may
reasonably request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City agrees that pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33334.14(a)(4), the City will not withhold consent to reasonable requests for
subordination of this Agreement to deeds of trust provided for the benefit of lenders identified in
the Financing Plan approved in connection with the DA, provided that the instruments effecting
such subordination include reasonable protections to the City in the event of default consistent
with the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 33334.14(a)(4), including without
limitation, extended notice and cure rights.
8. Transfer and Encumbrance.
8.1 Restrictions on Transfer and Encumbrance. Upon issuance of a final certificate of
occupancy for the Project, or any portion thereof, Owner may freely transfer or assign all or any
portion of its interests, rights or obligations in the Property, or under this Agreement, to any third
party, and, as this Agreement “runs with the land” this Agreement shall be binding on Owner’s
successors and assigns for the full term of this Agreement.
219\3220028.3
Prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, or any portion thereof, Owner
may transfer or assign all or any portion of its interest, right or obligations in the Property only as
set forth in the DA, and with City’s prior written consent, which consent City shall not withhold
provided that (1) the Project is and shall continue to be operated in compliance with this
Agreement; (2) the transferee expressly assumes all obligations of Owner imposed by this
Agreement; (3) the transferee executes all documents reasonably requested by the City with respect
to the assumption of the Owner’s obligations under this Agreement, and upon City’s and/or
Agency’s request, delivers to the City an opinion of its counsel to the effect that such document
and this Agreement are valid, binding and enforceable obligations of such transferee; and (4) either
(A) the transferee has at least three years’ experience in the ownership, operation and management
of low-income multifamily rental housing projects of similar size to that of the Project, without
any record of material violations of nondiscrimination provisions or other state or federal laws or
regulations applicable to such projects, or (B) the transferee agrees to retain a property
management firm with the experience and record described in sub-clause (A).
Consent to any proposed Transfer may be given by the City’s City Manager unless the City
Manager, in his or her discretion, refers the matter of approval to the City’s governing board. If a
proposed Transfer has not been approved by City in writing within thirty (30) days following
City’s receipt of written request by Owner, it shall be deemed rejected.
Owner shall reimburse City for all City costs, including but not limited to reasonable
attorneys’ fees, incurred in reviewing instruments and other legal documents proposed to effect a
Transfer under this Agreement and in reviewing the qualifications and financial resources of a
proposed successor, assignee, or transferee within ten (10) days following City’s delivery of an
invoice detailing such costs.
8.3 Encumbrances. Owner agrees to use best efforts to ensure that all deeds of trust or
other security instruments and any applicable subordination agreement recorded against the
Property, the Project or part thereof for the benefit of a lender (“Lender”) shall contain each of
the following provisions: (i) Lender shall use its best efforts to provide to City a copy of any notice
of default issued to Owner concurrently with provision of such notice to Owner; and, (ii) City shall
219\3220028.3
have the reasonable right, but not the obligation, to cure any default by Owner within the same
period of time provided to Owner for such cure extended by an additional 90 days. Owner agrees
to provide to City a copy of any notice of default Owner receives from any Lender within thirty
(30) business days following Owner’s receipt thereof.
8.4 Mortgagee Protection. No violation of any provision contained herein shall defeat
or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value upon
all or any portion of the Project or the Property, and the purchaser at any trustee’s sale or
foreclosure sale shall not be liable for any violation of any provision hereof occurring prior to the
acquisition of title by such purchaser. Such purchaser shall be bound by and subject to this
Agreement from and after such trustee’s sale or foreclosure sale. Promptly upon determining that
a violation of this Agreement has occurred, City shall give written notice to the holders of record
of any mortgages or deeds of trust encumbering the Project or the Property that such violation has
occurred.
9. Default and Remedies.
9.1 Events of Default. The occurrence of any one or more of the following events shall
constitute an event of default hereunder ("Event of Default"):
(a) The occurrence of a Transfer in violation of Section 8 hereof;
(b) Owner’s failure to maintain insurance on the Property and the Project as
required hereunder, and the failure of Owner to cure such default within thirty (30) days of written
notice from City;
(c) Subject to Owner’s right to contest the following charges, Owner’s failure
to pay taxes or assessments due on the Property or the Project or failure to pay any other charge
that may result in a lien on the Property or the Project, and Owner’s failure to cure such default
within sixty (60) days of delinquency;
(d) A default arises under any loan secured by a mortgage, deed of trust or other
security instrument recorded against the Property and remains uncured beyond any applicable cure
period such that the holder of such security instrument has the right to accelerate repayment of
such loan;
(e) Owner’s default in the performance of any material term, provision or
covenant under this Agreement (other than an obligation enumerated in this Subsection 9.1), and
unless such provision specifies a shorter cure period for such default, the continuation of such
default for thirty (30) days in the event of a monetary default or sixty (60) days in the event of a
non-monetary default following the date upon which City shall have given written notice of the
default to Owner, or if the nature of any such non-monetary default is such that it cannot be cured
within 60 days, Owner’s failure to commence to cure the default within thirty (60) days and
thereafter prosecute the curing of such default with due diligence and in good faith.
9.2 Remedies. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Default and its continuation beyond
any applicable cure period, City may proceed with any of the following remedies:
219\3220028.3
A. Bring an action for equitable relief seeking the specific performance of the terms and
conditions of this Agreement, and/or enjoining, abating, or preventing any violation
of such terms and conditions, and/or seeking declaratory relief;
B. For violations of obligations with respect to rents for Restricted Units, impose as
liquidated damages a charge in an amount equal to the actual amount collected in
excess of the Affordable Rent;
C. Pursue any other remedy allowed at law or in equity.
Each of the remedies provided herein is cumulative and not exclusive. The City may
exercise from time to time any rights and remedies available to it under applicable law or in equity,
in addition to, and not in lieu of, any rights and remedies expressly provided in this Agreement.
10. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Owner shall indemnify, defend (with
counsel approved by City) and hold City and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials,
employees, agents, and representatives (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and
against all liability, loss, cost, expense (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of
litigation), claim, demand, action, suit, judicial or administrative proceeding, penalty, deficiency,
fine, order, and damage (all of the foregoing collectively “Claims”) arising directly or indirectly,
in whole or in part, as a result of or in connection with Owner’s construction, management, or
operation of the Property and the Project or any failure to perform any obligation as and when
required by this Agreement. Owner’s indemnification obligations under this Section 10 shall not
extend to Claims resulting solely from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
The provisions of this Section 10 shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this
Agreement. It is further agreed that City do not and shall not waive any rights against Owner that
they may have by reason of this indemnity and hold harmless agreement because of the acceptance
by, or the deposit with City by Owner, of any of the insurance policies described in this Agreement
or the DA.
11. Miscellaneous.
11.1 Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by a written
instrument signed by both Parties.
11.2 No Waiver. Any waiver by City of any term or provision of this Agreement must be
in writing. No waiver shall be implied from any delay or failure by City to take action on any
breach or default hereunder or to pursue any remedy allowed under this Agreement or applicable
law. No failure or delay by City at any time to require strict performance by Owner of any
provision of this Agreement or to exercise any election contained herein or any right, power or
remedy hereunder shall be construed as a waiver of any other provision or any succeeding breach
of the same or any other provision hereof or a relinquishment for the future of such election.
11.3 Notices. Except as otherwise specified herein, all notices to be sent pursuant to this
Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective addresses specified
219\3220028.3
below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice delivered to the other
parties in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by:
(i) personal delivery, in which case notice is effective upon delivery;
(ii) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall
be deemed delivered upon receipt if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt; or
(iii) nationally recognized overnight courier, with charges prepaid or charged to the
sender’s account, in which case notice is effective on delivery if delivery is con firmed by
the delivery service.
If to City, to: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Attn: City Manager
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 877-8500
With a Copy to: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Attn: ECD Director
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 829-6622
Email: alex.greenwood@ssf.net
With a Copy to: Meyers Nave
Attn: Sky Woodruff
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel (510) 808-2000
Email sky@meyersnave.com
If to Developer: 311 9th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
Attn: Mr. Victor Lo
Phone: 415-297-0709
Email: victor@sierrainvestments.com
11.4 Further Assurances. The Parties shall execute, acknowledge and deliver to the
other such other documents and instruments, and take such other actions, as either shall reasonably
request as may be necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement.
11.5 Parties Not Co-Venturers. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall
establish the Parties as partners, co-venturers, or principal and agent with one another.
219\3220028.3
11.6 Action by the City. Except as may be otherwise specifically provided herein,
whenever any approval, notice, direction, consent or request by the City is required or permitted
under this Agreement, such action shall be in writing, and such action may be given, made or taken
by the City Manager or by any person who shall have been designated by the City Manager,
without further approval by the governing board of the City at the discretion of the City Manager.
11.7 Non-Liability of City Officials, Employees and Agents. No member, official,
employee or agent of the City shall be personally liable to Owner or any successor in interest, in
the event of any default or breach by the City, or for any amount of money which may become
due to Owner or its successor or for any obligation of City under this Agreement.
11.8 Headings; Construction. The headings of the sections and paragraphs of this
Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. The
language of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair meaning and not
strictly for or against any Party.
11.9 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this
Agreement.
11.10 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.
11.11 Attorneys' Fees and Costs . If any legal or administrative action is brought to
interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in such action.
11.12 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity, legality, and enforceability of
the remaining provisions shall not be affected or impaired thereby.
11.13 Entire Agreement; Exhibits. This Agreement, together with the DA, and the other
City Documents and Agency Documents contains the entire agreement of Parties with respect to
the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements between the Parties
with respect thereto. Exhibits A and B, attached hereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
11.14 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of
which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
219\3220028.3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Affordable Housing Regulatory
Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants as of the date first written above.
CITY
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a municipal corporation
By: __________________________________
Name:________________________________
Title:_________________________________
ATTEST:
By: _________________________________
Krista Martinelli, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _________________________________
Jason Rosenberg, City Attorney
OWNER
ROEM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
By: ______________________________
Its: _______________________________
SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED.
219\3220028.3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
On , 20__, 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.
Signature _______________________________ (Seal)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
On , 20__, 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.
219\3220028.3
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.
Signature _______________________________ (Seal)
219\3220028.3
Exhibit A
432 BADEN AVENUE
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property situated in the State of California, County of San Mateo, City of South Su.
Francisco, and described as Lot 8 in Block 117, as shown on that certain map entitled "SOUI'H
SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO CO. CAL PLAT. NO. 1”, filed in the office of the County
Recorder of San Mateo County, State of California, on March 1, 1892 in Book “B” of Maps at
page(s) 6, and a copy entered in Book 2 of Maps at Page 52.
AP. No.: 012-321-160 JPN 012 032 321 16 A
219\3220028.3
Exhibit B
Number of Units by Unit Size and Targeted Area Median Income (AMI) Levels
432 Baden Avenue Property
Maximum
Household
Income
30-60% AMI Up to 60%
AMI
60% - 80%
AMI
80% -120%
AMI
Total
Studio
1-Bedroom
2-Bedroom
3-Bedroom
Total
219\3220028.3
Exhibit E
FORM OF COMPLETION GUARANTY
THIS COMPLETION GUARANTY (the “Guaranty”) is made this ___day of
_____________________, 2020 by and between THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a
municipal corporation (“City”) and ____________________________________(“Guarantor”).
RECITALS
A. On _______, _______________________________, a _________ (“Developer”)
acquired the real property commonly known as 432 Baden Avenue, South San
Francisco, California (the “Property”) from the City pursuant to that certain
Purchase and Sale Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions dated ____________,
2020 (the “PSA”).
B. As set forth in the PSA, Developer is to construct a 36 residential unit project, three
(3) of which are required to be below market rate units (“Project”).
C. As a condition precedent to transferring the Property to Developer, the City requires
Guarantor to execute and deliver this Guaranty Guarantying the lien-free
completion of the Project pursuant to, and in accordance with, the PSA, and
providing for the performance of other covenants contained herein.
GUARANTY AND AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the agreements set forth below,
Guarantor hereby agrees as follows:
1. Guaranty. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, Guarantor
unconditionally and irrevocably guarantees the full and timely performance of Developer’s
obligations under the DA, to construct and complete the Project in accordance with the DA, free
and clear of all mechanics liens.
2. Remedies. If Developer fails to timely perform an of its obligations under the PSA with
respect to the construction and completion of the Project, after expiration of any applicable notice
and cure periods, the City, prior to exercising any of its remedies hereunder, shall demand (by
written notice) that Guarantor perform the same on Developer’s behalf. If, within thirty (30) days
after receiving such demand, Guarantor advises the City in writing that Guarantor will commence
and diligently proceed to cure all defaults of Developer under the DA, which by their nature are
capable of being cured by Guarantor, then the PSA shall remain in full force and effect, and the
City shall perform for the benefit of the Guarantor any unperformed obligations of the City under
the DA. If Guarantor fails to respond to City’s written notice, or fails to perform as herein above
provided, the City shall have the following remedies in addition to other remedies expressly
provided herein:
219\3220028.3
(a) From time to time and without first being required to exhaust any or all
security held by the City, if any, to require performance by the Guarantor of any
obligation to be performed on the part of the Guarantor pursuant to the terms hereof, by
action at law or in equity or both. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the City
from pursuing any remedies under any other agreement, against any person other than the
Guarantor.
(b) If Guarantor does not timely perform its obligations under this Guaranty, the
City, at City’s option, shall have the right to perform any obligation required to be
performed by Guarantor under this Guaranty, which City reasonably deems necessary,
and expend such sums as City reasonably deems proper in order so to complete such
obligation. The amount of any and all reasonable expenditures made by City shall be
immediately due and payable by Guarantor to City, notwithstanding City’s pursuit of any
other rights or remedies.
3. Termination. This Guaranty shall terminate and be of no further force or effect upon
the occurrence of either (i) upon issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project, or
(ii) termination of the PSA by either City or Developer in accordance with its own terms.
4. Interest. Any sums required to be paid by the Guarantor to the City pursuant to the
terms hereof that are not paid within thirty (30) days of the date due, shall bear interest at the
prime rate announced by the Bank of America plus three percent (3%), from the date said sums
shall have become due until the date said sums are paid.
5. Consideration. Guarantor acknowledges that the undertakings given hereunder are
given in consideration of the City's conveyance of the Property to Developer pursuant to the PSA
and City’s performance under the DA, and that the City would not convey the Property were it
not for Guarantor’s execution and delivery of this Guaranty.
6. No Waiver, Extension or Modification. No failure on the part of the City to pursue any
remedy hereunder shall constitute a waiver on its part of the right to pursue said remedy on the
basis of the same or a subsequent breach. No extension, modification, amendment or renewal of
the PSA shall serve to waive the provisions hereof or discharge the Guarantor from any
obligation herein contained, in whole or in part, except to the extent expressly approved by the
City by written instrument signed by the City, specifying the nature and the extent of the
intended waiver and discharge of the Guarantor.
7. Covenant of Guarantor. Guarantor shall promptly advise the City in writing of any
material adverse change in the business or financial condition of Guarantor.
8. Guaranty Independent; Waiver of Exoneration.
(a) Guarantor agrees that the obligations hereunder are independent of and in addition to the
undertakings of the Developer pursuant to the DA, any other Guarantees given in
connection with the DA, and other obligations of the Guarantor to the City.
219\3220028.3
(b) Guarantor agrees that the validity of this Guaranty shall continue and the obligations of
Guarantor hereunder shall in no way be terminated, affected, diminished or impaired by
reason of any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, assignment for the
benefit of creditors, receivership or trusteeship affecting the Developer or its partners,
parents, principals, or members whether or not notice is given to the Guarantor, or by any
other circumstances or condition that may grant or result in a discharge, limitation or
reduction of liability of the Developer or its partners, parents, principals, members or of a
surety or a guarantor.
(c) Guarantor waives all rights and remedies accorded by applicable law to guarantors and
agrees not to assert or take advantage of any such rights or remedies including but not
limited to any right to require the City to, after expiration of applicable notice and cure
periods to Developer, (1) proceed against the Developer, any partner or member of the
Developer or any other person, (2) proceed against or exhaust any security held by the
City, or (3) pursue any remedy in the power of the City whatsoever. If Guarantor is liable
pursuant to this Guaranty, Guarantor waives any defense arising by reason of any
disability or other defense of the Developer or any partner or member of the Developer,
or any of their parents, principals, or affiliated entities or by reason of the cessation from
any cause whatsoever of the liability of the Developer or any member or partner of the
Developer, or any of their parents, principals, or affiliated entities other than the full
discharge and performance of all of Developer’s obligations under the DA. Guarantor,
except as expressly set forth herein, waives any defense it may acquire by reason of the
City's election of any remedy against it or the Developer, or both, even though the
Guarantors’ right of subrogation may be impaired thereby or extinguished under the
antideficiency statutes of the State of California. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, Guarantor waives (a) any defense that may arise by reason of the lack of
authority or of any other person or persons or the failure of City to file or enforce a claim
against the estate (in administration, bankruptcy, or any other proceeding) of any other
person or persons; (b) demand, protest and notice of any kind including but not limited to
notice of any kind (except for the notice required in Sections 2 and 10 hereof or under the
DA) including but not limited to notice of the existence, creation or incurring of any new
or additional indebtedness or obligation or of any action or nonaction on the part of
Developer, City, any endorser or creditor of Developer or Guarantor or on the part of any
other person whomsoever under this or any other instrument in connection with any
obligation or evidence of indebtedness held by City as collateral or in connection with
any obligations the performance of which are hereby Guaranty; (c) any defense based
upon any statute or rule of law which provides that the obligation of a surety must be
neither larger in amount nor in other respects more burdensome than that of the principal;
(d) any duty on the part of City to disclose to Guarantor any facts City may now or hereafter
know about Developer, regardless of whether City has reason to believe that any such
facts materially increase the risk beyond that which Guarantor intended to assume or has
reason to believe that such facts are unknown to Guarantor; (e) any defense arising
because of City's election, in any proceeding instituted under the federal Bankruptcy
Code, of the application of Section 1111(b)(2) of the Federal Bankruptcy Code; and (f)
any defense based on any borrowing or grant of a security interest under Section 364 of
219\3220028.3
the Federal Bankruptcy Code. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing or any
other provision hereof, Guarantor hereby expressly waives any and all benefits which
might otherwise be available to Guarantor under California Civil Code Sections 2809,
2810, 2819, 2839, 2845, 2849, 2850, 2899, and 3433 and California Code of Civil
Procedure Sections 580(a), 580(b), 580(d), and 726.
(e) Until termination of this Guaranty (as set forth in Section 3), Guarantor shall have no
right of subrogation, and waives any right to enforce any remedy that the City now has or
may hereafter have against the Developer or any member of Developer, or any other
person, and waives the benefit of, and any right to participate in, any security now or
hereafter held by City from the Developer.
9. Continued Existence; No Transfer or Assignment.
(a) Guarantor does hereby further agree that as long as this Guaranty is in effect, it will
not dispose of all or substantially all of its assets without the express written approval
of the City, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) The obligations of Guarantor under this Guaranty may not be assigned or transferred
without, in each case, the express written approval of the City, which approval shall
be within the sole and absolute discretion of the City.
10. Notices. City shall provide Guarantor with all written notices delivered to Developer
pursuant to the PSA at the same time such notice is delivered to Developer. Guarantor shall not
be liable under this Guaranty unless and until it has received such notice. The Guarantor shall
have the right to perform any and all of Developer’s obligations under the DA.
11. Miscellaneous.
(a) This Guaranty shall inure to the benefit of City and its successors and assigns and
shall bind the heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors
and assigns of Guarantor.
(b) This Guaranty shall be governed by and shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
(c) Time is of the essence hereof.
(d) If any term, provision, covenant or condition hereof or any application thereof should
be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, all
terms, provisions, covenants and conditions hereof and all applications thereof not
held invalid, void or unenforceable shall continue in full force and effect and shall in
no way be affected, impaired or invalidated thereby.
(e) Guarantor assumes the responsibility for keeping informed of (1) the financial
condition of Developer, (2) any change in the management or control of Developer,
219\3220028.3
and (3) all other circumstances bearing upon the risk of nonperformance by
Developer of its obligations under the DA.
(f) This Guaranty shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed
and heard in the Superior Court of San Mateo County, California.
(g) Any notice or communication required hereunder between City or Guarantor must be
in writing, and may be given either personally, by e-mail (with original forwarded by
regular U.S. Mail), by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested), or by
Federal Express or other similar courier promising overnight delivery. If personally
delivered, a notice shall be deemed to have been given when delivered to the party to
whom it is addressed. If given by email transmission, a notice or communication shall
be deemed to have been given and received upon actual physical receipt of the entire
document by the receiving party. Notices transmitted after 5:00 p.m. on a normal
business day or on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday shall be deemed to have been given
and received on the next normal business day. If given by registered or certified mail,
such notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on
the first to occur of: (i) actual receipt by any of the addressees designated below as
the party to whom notices are to be sent, or (ii) five (5) days after a registered or
certified letter containing such notice, properly addressed, with postage prepaid, is
deposited in the United States mail. If given by Federal Express or similar courier, a
notice or communication shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date
delivered as shown on a receipt issued by the courier. Any party hereto may at any
time, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other party hereto, designate any
other address in substitution of the address to which such notice or communication
shall be given. Such notices or communications shall be given to the parties at their
addresses set forth below:
If to City, to: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Attn: City Manager
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 877-8500
Fax: (650) 829-6609
With a Copy to: City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
Attn: ECD Director
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone: (650) 829-6622
alex.greenwood@ssf.net
219\3220028.3
With a Copy to: Meyers Nave
Attn: Sky Woodruff
555 12th Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel (510) 808-2000
Email sky@meyersnave.com
If to Guarantor:
With Copies to:
(h) In any legal action or other proceeding brought by either party to enforce or interpret a
provision of this Guaranty, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
and any other costs incurred in that proceeding in addition to any other relief to which
it is entitled.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Guaranty as of the day and year
first above written.
GUARANTOR
By:_____________________________ Name: __________________________
Its______________________________
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-991 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:5a.
Resolution approving the second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Baden Developments
LLC for the sale of 432 Baden Avenue.
WHEREAS,a certain real property located at 432 Baden Avenue (the “Property”),South San Francisco,
California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-321-160)is owned by the City of South San Francisco (“the City”);
and,
WHEREAS,on June 29,2011,the Legislature of the State of California (“State”)adopted Assembly Bill x1 26
(“AB 26”),which amended provisions of the State’s Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code
sections 33000 et seq.)(“Dissolution Law”),pursuant to which the former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco (“City”) was dissolved on February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS,the City elected to become the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”); and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(2)(C),property shall not be transferred to
a successor agency,city,county or city and county,unless a Long Range Property Management Plan
(“LRPMP”)has been approved by the Oversight Board and the California Department of Finance (“DOF”);
and
WHEREAS,in accordance with the Dissolution Law,the Successor Agency prepared a LRPMP,which was
approved by a resolution of the Oversight Board for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the
City of South San Francisco (“Oversight Board”)on May 21,2015,and was approved by the DOF on October
1, 2015; and
WHEREAS,consistent with the Dissolution Law and the LRPMP,certain real properties located in the City of
South San Francisco,that were previously owned by the former Redevelopment Agency,were transferred to the
Successor Agency (“Agency Properties”); and
WHEREAS,on October 18,2016,the City entered into an Amended and Restated Master Agreement for
Taxing Entity Compensation (“Compensation Agreement”)with the various local agencies who receive shares
of property tax revenues from the former redevelopment project area (“Taxing Entities”),which provides that
upon approval by the Oversight Board of the sale price,and consistent with the LRPMP,the proceeds from the
sale of any of the Agency Properties will be distributed to the Taxing Entities in accordance with their
proportionate contributions to the Real Property Tax Trust Fund for the former Redevelopment Agency; and
WHEREAS, the former Redevelopment Agency purchased the Property in 1997; and,
WHEREAS,the LRPMP,prepared by the Successor Agency and approved by the Oversight Board for the
Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Oversight Board”),
designated 432 Baden Avenue,County Assessor's Parcel Number 012-321-160 (“Property”),to be sold,with
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-991 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:5a.
the proceeds of the sale distributed to the taxing entities; and,
WHEREAS,consistent with the LRPMP and the Oversight Board resolution,the Successor Agency executed
and recorded a grant deed on May 16,2017,transferring the Agency Properties,including the Property to the
City; and,
WHEREAS, the LRPMP designated the site in the ‘For Sale’ disposition category; and,
WHEREAS, Baden Developments LLC (“Developer”) own the adjacent property, 428 Baden Avenue; and,
WHEREAS,on September 23,2019,Developer provided the City with a Letter of Intent (“LOI”)for the
purchase of the Property for $1,100,000 (“Purchase Price”); and,
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“Seller”)and Baden Developments LLC (“Buyer”)entered into
that certain Purchase And Sale Agreement And Joint Escrow Instructions (“PSA”)dated February 19,2020,
and;
WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer certain entered into the First Amendment to the PSA (collectively,“the
Agreements”)on April 9,2020 which extended the due diligence period and Close of Escrow by six months;
and,
WHEREAS,Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreements to extend the Closing Date by 90 days through
the Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Second Amendment”); and,
WHEREAS,the Second Amendment provides the Buyer with three additional 90 day administrative extensions
for a fee of $15,000 each; and,
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
resolve as follows:
1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2.The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into and execute on behalf of the City Council the
Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement,in substantially the same form attached hereto as
Exhibit A;and to make any non-material revisions,amendments or modifications deemed necessary to carry
out the intent of this Resolution.
3.The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any other necessary documents related to the sale of
the Property,and to take any and all other actions necessary to implement this intent of this Resolution,subject
to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
*****
Exhibit A: Second Amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement for 432 Baden Avenue
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND
SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
(432 Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California)
This Second Amendment to Purchase And Sale Agreement And Joint
Escrow Instructions (this "Amendment") is made effective as of December 21, 2020
(“Effective Date”) by and between the City of South San Francisco, a municipal
corporation (“Seller”) and Baden Development, LLC, a California limited liability
company (“Buyer”). Seller and Buyer are sometimes collectively referred to herein as “the
parties.”
RECITALS
A. Seller and Buyer entered into that certain Purchase And Sale Agreement
And Joint Escrow Instructions dated February 19, 2020 and that certain First Amendment
to Purchase and Sale Agreement And Joint Escrow Instructions dated April 9, 2020
(together, the “Agreement”) with respect to that certain real property located at 432
Baden Avenue, South San Francisco, California (Assessor’s Parcel Number 012-321-
160) and other associated assets as more particularly described in the Agreement
(collectively, the “Property”);
B. Seller and Buyer desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Closing
Date as more particularly provided herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and incorporating all of the above as
though set forth in full herein and in consideration of all the recitals, conditions and
agreements contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Amendment to Agreement. The parties amend the Agreement as
follows:
a. The Closing Date shall be delayed until May 17, 2021.
b. The Closing Date may be further delayed if requested by Buyer with the
written consent of the City Manager acting on behalf of Seller. City
Manager may delay the Closing Date threetwo times by up to 90 days
each time. Any additional delay of the Closing Date shall require approval
of the City Council., provided that Buyer shall pay Seller a fee of
$15,000.00 for each such additional delay of the Closing Date.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
(432 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA)
Page 2 of 3
2. General Provisions. Each party has received independent legal advice
from its attorneys with respect to the advisability of executing this Amendment and the
meaning of the provisions hereof. The provisions of this Amendment shall be construed
as to the fair meaning and not for or against any party based upon any attribution of such
party as the sole source of the language in question. Except as expressly amended pursuant
to this Amendment, the terms and provisions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified
and shall continue in full force and effect, and Buyer and Seller hereby ratify and affirm
all their respective rights and obligations under the Agreement. Any capitalized terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Agreement. In the event of
any conflict between this Amendment and the Agreement, this Amendment shall govern.
The terms and provisions of this Amendment, together with the Agreement, shall constitute
all of the terms and provisions to which Buyer and Seller have agreed with respect to the
transaction governed hereby, and there are no other terms and provisions, oral or written,
that apply to the Agreement and/or the Property other than as set forth in the Agreement as
modified by this Amendment. The provisions of this Amendment shall apply to, be binding
upon, and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and to their respective successors and
assigns. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, all of which shall
constitute an original, and all of which together shall constitute a single instrument.
Counterparts of this Amendment executed and delivered by facsimile, email or other means
of electronic delivery shall constitute originals for all purposes.
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS
(432 BADEN AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA)
Page 3 of 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
Effective Date.
SELLER:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
By: _______________________________
Mike Futrell
City Manager
ATTEST:
By: _______________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
Sky Woodruff
City Attorney
BUYER:
Baden Development, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: _______________________________
Victor Lo
Title: Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: _______________________________
R. Ryan Shain
Counsel for Buyer
3656474.1
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1013 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:6.
Report regarding a resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery funds allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget in the amount of
$16,951 to support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to
adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment
#21.033. (Josh Richardson, Parks Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for
the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)funds allocated through the State of
California in their Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (FY 20-21)budget in the amount of $16,951 to support beverage
container recycling programs in City parks and authorize the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal
Year 2020-2021 (FY 20-21) revenue budget upon receipt of funds.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for
CalRecycle funds allocated through the State of California.CalRecycle administers a program to provide and
support statewide opportunities for beverage container recycling.The goal of this program is to reach and
maintain an 80 percent recycling rate for all California refund value beverage containers (aluminum,glass,
plastic and bi-metal).Projects implemented by cities and counties will assist in reaching and maintaining this
goal.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 14581(a)(3)(A)of the California Beverage Container Recycling and
Litter Reduction Act,CalRecycle is distributing $10,500,000 in FY20-21 to eligible cities and counties
specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities.Payments are calculated annually per
capita using the California Department of Finance’s population statistics.The application deadline to receive
the funding,which is a non-competitive payment program as opposed to a competitive grant program,is
January 19, 2021.
For the past several years,the City has taken advantage of this funding source to enhance our support of
recycling programs.The Parks and Recreation Department has purchased multi-stream waste receptacles which
are placed in our City parks and facilities.The proposed purchase for this year would be to install multi-stream
waste receptacles in City parks,including Orange Memorial Park,Alta Loma Park,Irish Town Green and
Centennial Way Trail.
FUNDING
Funds received from the CalRecycle program will allow for the purchase of waste receptacles which enhance
the City’s ability to collect and recycle beverage containers.There will be no need to increase the Parks and
Recreation Department’s budget for expenditures.Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing
or matching funding.Adopting this resolution will authorize the Finance Director to amend the FY20-21
revenue budget upon receipt of funds from CalRecycle. Payments will be distributed in June-July 2021.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1013 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:6.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
The CalRecycle program funds supports Strategic Plan Priority #2: Build and Maintain a Sustainable City by
providing additional infrastructure for recycling beverage containers in City parks.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of an application for
CalRecycle funds allocated through the State of California in the amount of $16,951 to support beverage
container recycling programs and authorize the Finance Director to amend the FY 20-21 revenue budget upon
receipt of funds.Receipt of these funds will enable the Parks and Recreation Department to provide enhanced
recycling opportunities in City parks, to the benefit of the community and the environment.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 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 #:20-1014 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:6a.
Resolution approving the filing of an application for Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery funds
allocated through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2020-2021 budget in the amount of $16,951 to
support beverage container recycling programs in City parks and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the
City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment 21.033.
WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq.,14581,and 42023.1(g),the Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)has established various payment programs to make
payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Public Resources Code section 14581(a)(3)(A)of the California Beverage Container
Recycling and Litter Reduction Act,CalRecycle is distributing $10,500,000 in Fiscal Year 2020-2021 to
eligible cities and counties specifically for beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and
WHEREAS,in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the
administration of the payment programs; and
WHEREAS,CalRecycle’s procedures for administering the payment program to support beverage container
recycling require,among other things,an applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain
authorizations related to the administration of the payment program; and
WHEREAS,City Council now desires to authorize the filing of an application for CalRecycle funds allocated
through the State of California in their Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget to support beverage container recycling
programs in City parks.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application to CalRecycle for any funds to support beverage
container recycling programs in City parks.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager,or his/her designee,is hereby authorized as Signature
Authority to execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council authorizes the Finance Director,or his/her designee,to adjust
the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 revenue budget upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment 21.033.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this authorization is effective until rescinded by the Signature Authority or
this governing body.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1014 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:6a.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 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 #:20-1015 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7.
Report regarding a resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and the need to continue
emergency repairs in response to the Sign Hill Diamond Fire.(Greg Mediati,Deputy Director of Parks and
Recreation)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution determining the continued existence of an
emergency and the need to continue emergency repairs in response to the Sign Hill Diamond Fire.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On October 16,2020 at 11:54 a.m.,a fire ignited on Sign Hill originating on the western section of the iconic
letters.This was the third day of a regional Red Flag Warning with elevated temperatures,reduced humidity,
and a steady easterly wind.The wind pushed the fire quickly to the west across the southern face of the hill
through the grasses before spreading into the nearby tree groves.The incident commander realized the fire
would grow quickly and structures would be threatened.Additional resources were immediately called to the
scene to assist.
In total,five alarms of fire apparatus from South San Francisco and nearby agencies responded to the
emergency.Additionally,an agreement with California Forestry and Fire Department (CalFire)was utilized and
provided the City with their associated aircraft,hand crews and wildland firefighting equipment for the
incident.The fire burned for nearly three hours before being fully declared under control.Fire crews remained
on site for over two days to ensure all hot spots were extinguished and embers would not reignite.Fortunately,
the fire was kept to 16 acres and only caused minor property damage to three homes on Mountain Road,and no
one was injured,thanks to the fuel load reduction and fire break work completed in recent years and the fire
fighters great efforts.
Immediately after the fire,the City Manager’s Office,Parks and Recreation Department,Fire Department and
Public Works/Engineering staff met to discuss next steps to prepare the hill for the winter months.On October
22,2020,City Parks and Recreation staff completed a walkthrough and prepared an assessment of the state of
the Sign Hill environment and trails to evaluate the scale of fire damage.Based on staff’s assessment,two
phases of work were established -short term work to winterize the hill,remove hazards,and make it safe to
reopen,and longer term work to expand on the ongoing fuel load reduction and maintain firebreaks on Sign
Hill.
Due to the emergent nature of the short term work to prepare Sign Hill for wet weather,and potential debris
flows,falling trees,or the potential for future fire due to the buildup of fuel in the form of dead trees and brush,
it was determined an emergency declaration was needed to expedite the work.
At the November 24,2020 Regular City Council Meeting,the City Council adopted a resolution determining
the existence of an emergency as a result of the Diamond Fire,and authorized emergency repairs.These repairs
largely include the removal of more than 1,500 trees directly impacted by the Diamond Fire for a contract total
not to exceed $900,000.Additionally,the City has executed a contract with Acacia Environmental ConstructionCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1015 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7.
not to exceed $900,000.Additionally,the City has executed a contract with Acacia Environmental Construction
to perform immediate slope stabilization and erosion mitigation work on newly exposed and vulnerable sloped
areas for a contract total not to exceed $110,559.
For historical context,it should be noted that on September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution
delegating authority to the City Manager to order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts
pursuant to the provisions and restrictions of Public Contract Code Section 22050.
Tree Removals
Davey Tree Experts began their work on December 3,2020 focusing on the area near the Ridge Trail known as
Seubert Grove.The tree work needing to be performed on the hill will take numerous months due to the
location and terrain where many of these trees are located.The trees that are being removed are largely being
chipped on site to help with slope stabilization or are safely stockpiled for use in restoration efforts on the hill.
Some tree trunks of twelve inches or greater in diameter may be left on the ground perpendicular to the slope of
the hill.The smaller brush is being removed so as not to serve as potential fuel for the next fire season.This
work is in accordance with CalFire forestry guidance.
Once work in this area is completed,Davey Tree Experts will move to the other portions of the Ridge Trail and
Iris Trail that were damaged in the fire.When these areas are made safe,the Parks Division will re-open trails
on the hill and tree work will shift focus to trees adjacent to residences on the hill in a preventative effort for the
dry season in 2021.
Tree work is expected to continue through March 2021,until bird nesting season,and will resume in late
summer after bird nesting season ends,consistent with the Migratory Bird Act which provides protections to
bird habitat.
A notice to all residents adjacent to work areas on Sign Hill was mailed in early December communicating the
ongoing work on Sign Hill.Additionally,staff has shared project updates to the public by way of a press
release,the City’s construction coordination newsletter,the citywide e-newsletter,the Parks and Recreation
Department’s e-newsletter,and on social media.Additional print outreach is planned in the next city newsletter
mailer.Staff has also spoken directly with stakeholders,including the Seubert Family,whose father,Al,
generously volunteered thousands of hours to plant and care for trees on Sign Hill.Unfortunately,many of
these trees were killed by the fire.
Erosion Control
Acacia Environmental Construction was contracted to perform the erosion control efforts on December 11,
2020.Staff met with Acacia’s project team on December 14 to discuss the project’s priorities and phases of
work.Erosion control work began on December 28,2020,and consists of installation of check dams in
drainage areas and culverts,fiber waddle installation on steep slopes,and hydro-seeding barren areas of the hill
with a native seed blend,which in addition to the slope stabilization efforts will help re-establish the hill’s
native grassland ecosystem.Additionally,tree stumps and root mass from felled trees will be left in place to
help with slope stabilization. Mulch from removed trees is also being spread to lessen rain impacts.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1015 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7.
Emergency Continuation
Continuation of this emergency is necessary to continue the aforementioned work in response to the Diamond
Fire and safely re-open the park as soon as possible.Terminating the work now would leave hundreds of
hazardous trees in immediate proximity to paths of travel,and would halt efforts to mitigate any erosion
concerns that winter storms could exacerbate.
As required by Public Contract Code section 22050(c)(1), this emergency tree removal and erosion control
project will be placed back on future regular City Council meeting agendas for the Council to review this
emergency action and determine whether there is a need to continue the action, until such emergency repairs
have been completed and the project terminated. Given that the section 22050 requires the City Council
determine the continuance of the emergency by “a four-fifths vote,” and that presently there are only four
members of the City Council with Councilmember Nicolas having recused herself previously, a unanimous
vote of the three remaining members of the City Council is necessary to declare the continuance of the
emergency. Adoption of the associated resolution authorizes the continuance of the emergency repair work to
address the response to the Diamond Fire and related repairs.
CONCLUSION
Approving the resolution and adopting the findings will authorize the continuation of emergency repair work to
address the hazardous conditions as a result of the Diamond Fire on Sign Hill.Staff recommends that the City
Council determines that the emergency continues to exist and the emergency action,undertaken pursuant to the
City Manager’s delegated authority, remains necessary.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1016 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7a.
Resolution determining the continued existence of an emergency and authorizing procurement for emergency
remediation work relating to fire damage on Sign Hill in South San Francisco
WHEREAS,on September 12,2018,the City Council adopted a resolution delegating authority to the City
Manager to order any emergency action and enter into necessary contracts pursuant to the provisions and
restrictions of California Public Contract Code Section 22050; and
WHEREAS,on October 16,2020,a multi-alarm grass fire broke out on the western section of the iconic letters
at Sign Hill in South San Francisco,where multiple recreational trails are located and frequently used by the
public; and
WHEREAS,the wind pushed the fire quickly to the west across the southern face of the hill through the grasses
and spread into the nearby tree groves, killing hundreds of trees which now pose a public safety hazard; and
WHEREAS, the fire burned over 16 acres of land and damaged a significant number of trees and trails; and
WHEREAS,although the fire has been contained,the damaged trees have since become a falling hazard and
trails remain severely damaged or destroyed,creating an extremely dangerous condition for the public and
rendering the Sign Hill trails unsafe for trail users, and also required them to be closed to the public; and
WHEREAS,at the November 24,2020 Regular City Council Meeting,the City Council adopted a resolution
determining the existence of an emergency as a result of the Diamond Fire,and authorized emergency repairs
including removal of more than 1,500 trees directly impacted by the wildfire; and
WHEREAS,in order to remediate such dangerous conditions,City staff retained consultants and contractors to
assess the scope of the damage,recommend corrective action,and undertake or contract for a substantial
amount of tree removal and trail repair/remediation work in order to restore the trails and other features of Sign
Hill to a safe condition as quickly as possible, and to subsequently re-open them to the public; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to the aforementioned delegated authority,the City solicited for and executed a contract
with Davey Tree Expert Company,for the emergency removal of more than 1,500 damaged or hazardous trees
for a contract total not to exceed $900,000; and
WHEREAS,in December 2020,the City solicited for and executed a contract with Acacia Environmental
Construction,for the emergency mitigation of potential erosion hazards within fire damaged areas on Sign Hill;
and
WHEREAS,the dead trees and exposed slopes remain in a precarious and dangerous condition for the public
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1016 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7a.
and additional emergency mitigation work is still needed to eliminate the dangerous conditions.
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
A.The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
B.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 20168,public interest and necessity
demand the immediate commencement of the above-described work at Sign Hill in South San Francisco and
the expenditure of public money for such work to safeguard life, health and property.
C.Pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22050 and the authority delegated by the
City Council on September 12,2018,and based on substantial evidence presented by the circumstances of the
Sign Hill fire and City staff’s assessments,including but not limited to those from the City’s Fire,Police,and
Parks &Recreation Departments,the staff report prepared concerning this resolution,and as set forth in this
resolution,the City Manager would continue to be authorized to order emergency tree removal,trail repair and
related work for the hazardous and threatening conditions at Sign Hill in South San Francisco.
D.Terminating the above-described emergency work and let the remaining work at Sign Hill to
competitive bidding would jeopardize public health,safety and welfare;risk additional damage to public and
private property;and result in the public incurring additional expense,including,but not limited to,additional
expense due to delay and further damage,due to the dangerous conditions of the falling trees and damage to
trails and other features of the Sign Hill area and such work is necessary to respond to the emergency
conditions at Sign Hill.Therefore,it remains that competitive bidding of such work would not produce an
advantage for the public.
E.Based on evidence presented in the record,the above-described emergency work continues to be
statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15269, subparagraphs (b) and (c).
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby does resolve,by at
least a four-fifths vote, as follows:
1.The above recitals and findings are true and correct and hereby declared to be findings of the City
Council of the City of South San Francisco.
2.The emergency conditions at Sign Hill in South San Francisco continue to exist and threaten public
health,welfare and safety;thus,emergency repair work continues to be necessary to address the hazardous and
threatening conditions of the falling trees and destructed trail improvements.The emergency work described in
this resolution continues to be exempt from California Public Contract Code competitive bidding requirements
pursuant to California Public Contract Code Sections 20168 and 22050.
3.The City Council continues to authorize City staff to procure contracts for the emergency work
described in this resolution and the City Manager to execute such contracts on behalf of the City,as approved to
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1016 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:7a.
form by the City Attorney, and to take any other related action necessary to further the intent of this Resolution.
4.City staff is directed,in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22050(c)(1),to place
on future regular agendas of the City Council an item concerning the emergency work authorized pursuant to
this resolution so that the City Council may determine,by at least a four-fifths vote,whether there is a need to
continue the emergency work described above or whether such work may be terminated.
5.This resolution shall become effective immediately.
6.Each portion of this resolution is severable.Should any portion of this resolution be adjudged to be
invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction,then the remaining resolution portions shall be
and continue in full force and effect,except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid.The
City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section,subsection,clause,
sentence,phrase and other portion thereof,irrespective of the fact that one or more section,subsection,clause
sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1003 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:8.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consulting
Services Agreement between the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO with KITCHELL CEM,of
Sacramento,California for Program and Construction Management Services to the Community Civic Campus
project in an amount not to exceed $862,307 for consulting services.(Jacob Gilchrist,Director of Capital
Projects)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute the
First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with KITCHELL CEM for Program and
Construction Management Services in an amount not to exceed $862,307.00 for consulting services
related to the Community Civic Campus Project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On June 10,2016,staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ)for Program Management Services for the
Measure W Community Civic Campus project.The City entered into an agreement with KITCHELL CEM
(“Kitchell”)on November 9,2016 for Program and Construction Management services.Said agreement is
currently expiring on June 30, 2021.
Kitchell’s scope of services is divided into two phases:a pre-construction/design/bid phase and a construction
phase.Work for the first phase began shortly after contract award in 2016 and hit an early milestone on January
24,2018 when the Master Architect (SmithGroup Architects)was selected to lead the design efforts for the
Civic Campus project.Following this milestone,Kitchell worked diligently to manage various consultant
contracts during the initial pre-construction/design/bid phase.The primary goal within the first phase was to
position the City into a favorable bid environment and adhere as closely as possible to the program budget.
Kitchell managed the bidding for both Phase I -Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center (“Police”)and Phase
II -Library,Parks &Recreation and Community Theater /Council Chamber (“LPR”).Both projects were
successfully bid with Phase I coming in very close to budget and Phase II able to capitalize on a very favorable
bid market.
Tasks completed by Kitchell under the first phase included:
-Generating, tracking and maintaining program level budget management.
-Generating, tracking and maintaining program level master schedule.
-Leading the efforts for consultant procurement such as:
1.Master Architect
2.Geotechnical Engineering
3.Environmental Analysis
4.Permit Assistance (with outside agencies such as Caltrans)
5.Cost Estimating Services
6.Other Consultants including General Contractor Pre-Qualification
-Managing the work progress of all project consultants and reviewing work products to ensure
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1003 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:8.
compliance with contract documents.
-Coordination with permitting agencies for needed construction approval/permits.
-As previously stated,generating contractor bid strategy and managing the bid process for both
Phase I and Phase II of Civic Campus project.
Under the second phase of Kitchell’s contract,the construction phase,Kitchell is responsible for the day to day
management of the General Contractor for both phases of the Civic Campus project.The Police project Notice
to Proceed (“NTP”)was issued on February 20,2020 and the LPR Notice to Proceed was issued on December
21, 2020. Construction duration for the two projects is expected to be 18 months and 28 months respectively.
Kitchell continues to manage the current tasks under the second phase of their contract:
-Reviewing and processing construction Change Orders
-Facilitating Owner/Architect/Contractor meetings
-Managing and advising staff on the construction budget and schedule
-Managing all project documents including requests for information,submittals,proposal
requests, and payment applications
-Coordinating with permitting agencies
-Coordinating communication between the contractors,consultants,and city staff from Police,
Library, and Parks and Recreation
Per this amendment request,the term of the Agreement shall extend through June 30,2023,an extension of 24
months from the original contract,to reflect the current Community Civic Campus project schedule.This
extension will allow adequate time to complete the construction of both Civic Campus projects.It is important
to note that the services provided by Kitchell have been provided on a Time and Materials basis.Only time
spent on the project is charged to the City.This time extension aligns the Program and Construction
Management services agreement with the current construction schedules for both Police and LPR.The Police
project is tracking to a Fall 2021 completion while the LPR project is tracking to a Spring 2023 completion.
The 24-month schedule extension is attributed to three factors:
1.Master Project Schedule Reconciliation.When SmithGroup was hired their initial task was to confirm
the Master Project Schedule.In Spring 2018,SmithGroup recommended extending the planning and
design phase from 12 months to 24 months in order to match the overall scale of the projects and to
spend an appropriate amount of time addressing the needs of the community.
2.Design Review.Later,in early 2019,the design period was extended by 6 months to accommodate
design changes based on Council feedback and a better understanding of the project site complexities,
particularly the shoring of El Camino Real and working around the BART tube.
3.Construction Complexity.At the same time in early 2019,Kitchell and SmithGroup recommended
extending the LPR construction period by 6 months to account for the aforementioned site complexities.
In summary,from Spring 2018 through early 2019,the project schedule was increased from 56 months to 80
months,an increase of 24 months,or 43%beyond the original 2016 project schedule.The requested additional
services fee of $862,307.00 represents an increase of approximately 16%over the original contract value.The
increased cost is a reflection of the increased project complexity and schedule that was not anticipated at the
time of the original time of the consultant contract award in 2016.
In the LPR budget summary presented to City Council on November 9,2020 with the award of contract to
Swinerton Builders,the additional $862,307.00 necessary for this Program and Construction Management
services extension was included in the $101,000,000.00 project budget.As such,this increase to Kitchell results
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 3
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1003 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:8.
services extension was included in the $101,000,000.00 project budget.As such,this increase to Kitchell results
in no net budget increase to the Community Civic Campus project budget.
The City agreed to pay Kitchell a sum not to exceed $5,377,557.00 under the original Agreement entered into
on November 9,2016 to provide program and project specific pre-construction,design,public outreach,
bidding,construction administration and closeout of the Civic Campus project.This first amendment would
extend the services through June 30, 2023 and increase the not to exceed number as summarized below:
Description Date Amount
Original Agreement 11/9/2016 $5,377,557.00
1st Amendment $ 862,307.00
TOTAL:$6,239,864.00
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the LPR construction budget approved on November 9, 2020 by City Council.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan.It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing
quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consulting
Services Agreement with KITCHELL CEM for Program and Construction Management Services to extend
contract expiration date to June 30,2023 and increase contract amount by an amount not to exceed
$862,307.00.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 3 of 3
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1004 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:8a.
Resolution amending an existing consulting services agreement with Kitchell CEM for Program and
Construction Management Services on the Civic Campus projects in an amount not to exceed $862,307.00.
WHEREAS,on November 9,2016,the City Council awarded a Consulting Services Agreement to Kitchell
CEM of Sacramento,California (“Consultant”)for Program and Construction Management Services for the
Community Civic Campus Project in the amount of $5,377,557.00; and
WHEREAS,Kitchell has performed satisfactorily on the Civic Campus project and has provided deliverables
and services as outlined in Agreement; and
WHEREAS,the Project was separated into two phases;Phase 1:Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center
(“Police”) and Phase 2: Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater / Council Chamber (“LPR”); and
WHEREAS,the original schedule included 14.5 months for the design of LPR which due to design changes
increased by a total of 6 months; and
WHEREAS,the original assumed construction phase duration had a single phase,two projects bidding at the
same time with a construction duration of 22 months.Revised assumptions added 6 months to construction
duration for a total of 28 months of construction; and
WHEREAS,the original project delivery assumed a single phase,with two projects with construction starting
concurrently. Current plan has an approximate 11-month lag between the start dates of each project; and
WHEREAS,to allow this work to proceed,staff recommends approving a First Amendment to the existing
consultant services agreement with Consultant for the Civic Campus projects in an amount not to exceed
$862,307.00; and
WHEREAS,the agreement expiration date is extended through June 30,2023 to align with current projected
Civic Campus project completion; and
WHEREAS,Kitchell will provide services on a Time and Materials basis with only billing for services
rendered; and
WHEREAS,funding for the Project is included in the City of South San Francisco Capital Improvements
Program (“CIP”) and sufficient funds are available to cover the amendment cost; and
WHEREAS,amendment amount was included in the LPR project budget presented to City Council on
November 9, 2020 totaling a project total amount of $101,000,000.00.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1004 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:8a.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby authorizes the First Amendment attached herewith as “Exhibit A”of the existing consulting
services agreement with Kitchell CEM of Sacramento,California in an amount not to exceed $862,307.00 and
authorizing a total not to exceed contract amount of $6,239,864.00.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the First amendment will extend the term of the consulting services
agreement from June 30, 2021 to June 30, 2023.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the agreement
amendments and any other related on behalf of the City upon timely submission of Kitchell’s signed contract
amendment and all other required documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco authorizes the Finance
Department to establish the Project Budget consistent with the information contained in the staff report.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH
SAN FRANCISCO AND KITCHELL CEM
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Consulting Services
agreement is made at South San Francisco, California, as of January 13, 2021 by and between the
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO (“City”), a municipal corporation, and KITCHELL CEM
(“Consultant”), (sometimes referred together as the “Parties”) who agree as follows:
RECITALS
A.On November 9, 2016, City and Consultant entered that certain Consulting Services Agreement
(“Agreement”) whereby Consultant agreed to Program and Construction Management Services. A
true and correct copy of the Agreement and its exhibits is attached as Exhibit A.
B.City and Consultant now desire to amend the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Consultant
hereby agree as follows:
1.All terms which are defined in the Agreement shall have the same meaning when used in this
Amendment, unless specifically provided herein to the contrary.
2.Section 1: Term. The June 30, 2016 end date for the term of services identified in Section 1.1
of the Agreement is hereby replaced with June 30, 2023.
3.Section 2: Compensation. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended by the amount of
$862,307.00 such that the City agrees to pay Contractor a sum not to exceed totaling
$6,239,864.00, with the understanding that up to $3,392,920.01 has already been paid to
Consultant.
Original Contract Amount: $5,377,557.00
Amendment #1: $ 862,307.00
Total Contract Amount: $6,239,864.00
Consultant agrees that this is the City’s total contribution for payment of costs under the
Agreement unless additional payments are authorized in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement and said terms of payment are mutually agreed to by and between the parties in
writing.
4.Scope of Services. The Scope of services as identified in Agreement remain unchanged as part
of this Amendment.
All other terms, conditions and provisions in the Agreement remain in full force and effect. If there
is a conflict between the terms of this Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of the Agreement
will control unless specifically modified by this Amendment.
[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]
Exhibit A
Dated:
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT
By: By:
Mike Futrell
City Manager
Approved as to Form:
By:
City Attorney
Attested:
By:
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1009 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:9.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the City and County of San Francisco acting through its Public Utilities Commission for the SFPUC
Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Well Site Access and approving a future access easement on
South San Francisco owned property.(Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”)with the City and County of San Francisco acting through its
Public Utilities Commission for the SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Well Site
Access and approving a future access easement on South San Francisco owned property.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”)owns and operates a regional water system that serves
San Francisco and twenty-seven (27)wholesale water customers,including South San Francisco.The
SFPUC’s wholesale water customers are located in San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties.
SFPUC developed a Water System Improvement Program with the goals of increasing the system’s ability to
withstand major seismic events and prolonged droughts and reliably meeting future water demands.As part of
program,SFPUC instituted the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project,which includes,among
other improvements,the installation of recovery wells,well stations,pumps,and piping to permit groundwater
extraction and transmission to help protect against drought.
In 2017,SFPUC constructed a groundwater test well site on property SFPUC owns adjacent to South San
Francisco property located near Antoinette Lane,north of the future Civic Campus Phase 2:Library,Parks &
Recreation and Community Theater / Council Chamber project.
The only viable access route for SFPUC to the Well Site requires passage over two adjacent parcels in South
San Francisco.South San Francisco owns one of the adjacent parcels (South San Francisco property identified
as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel No.093-331-070,now referred to as the Campus Parcel (“Campus
Parcel”),and depicted on Attachment 2,and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”)owns the second
adjacent parcel.The location of the Well Site and the current and proposed access routes are depicted on the
attached Attachment 1.
As part of this Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”),City staff is willing to provide access over the Campus
Parcel to SFPUC but was reluctant to memorialize a permanent access easement until after the City approved
the preliminary Campus Project design plans and moved further with the SSF PUC Site Development project
located at 1051 Mission Road.The City agreed to provide SFPUC with informal interim access during the
Civic Campus Project planning/design and construction phases with terms and conditions identified in the
MOA (Exhibit A attached to Resolution).
SFPUC desires to obtain permanent access easements across portions of South San Francisco property and
portions of BART property.South San Francisco and SFPUC have been working cooperatively to identify andCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1009 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:9.
portions of BART property.South San Francisco and SFPUC have been working cooperatively to identify and
memorialize a permanent access easement across a portion of South San Francisco’s property.Concurrently,
SFPUC has been working with BART to identify and memorialize a permanent access easement across a
portion of BART’s property.
Because design plans for the Campus Project and the SSF PUC Site Development Project are both subject to
modification,City cannot agree to a specific location for a permanent access easement for SFPUC at this time.
City staff desires to work with SFPUC to establish and maintain interim access during construction of the Civic
Campus Project,construction of which is anticipated to start during the first calendar quarter of 2021 with a
total construction duration of approximately twenty-eight (28)months.City staff will provide a twelve (12)-
foot wide temporary access road to the Well Site.This temporary access road will also serve as access route to
BART for their facilities north of the Civic Campus project.
Upon completion of the Campus Project,the Parties intend that SFPUC will be granted an easement that will
provide permanent access to the Well Site across South San Francisco property.In the event there are design
changes to either or both of the Campus Project and SSF PUC Site Development Project,the easement access
route may be adjusted.The easement may cross both the South San Francisco property and 1051 Mission Road
property. The final route of easement shall be reasonably acceptable to SFPUC.
FISCAL IMPACT
City staff in connection with the construction of Civic Campus Phase 2:Library,Parks &Recreation and
Community Theater /Council Chamber will construct,repair,and maintain a temporary access road to provide
access required to both SFPUC and BART facilities throughout the Civic Campus construction.As part of this
MOA,SFPUC shall reimburse South San Francisco a yet to be determined portion of the total estimated costs
to construct and maintain the temporary access road.At the conclusion of the Civic Campus construction,City
of South San Francisco shall grant a permanent access easement to serve both BART and SFPUC facilities in
locations generally depicted on the attached Attachment 1.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan. It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing
quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety.
CONCLUSION
Approval of the associated resolution will approve the Memorandum of Agreement and authorize the City
Manager to execute the Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco acting through its Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC).Execution of the Agreement will allow the City to obtain a reimbursement for a
portion of the cost to construct and maintain the temporary access road scheduled to be built as part of the Civic
Campus Phase 2: Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater / Council Chamber Project.
Attachment:
1.Phased Access Route to SFPUC Well Site
2.Parcel Location Map
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEOAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
EL CAMINO REAL
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
01
BART ACCESS - PHASE 1
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 1
SFPUC
BART
TEMPORARY
GRAVEL ROAD
TEMPORARY
GATE
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 1
BART
EXISTING ROAD
BART
JUNCTION BOX
Attachment 1
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEOAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
02
BART ACCESS - PHASE 2
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 2
BART
TEMPORARY
GRAVEL ROAD
TEMPORARY
GATE
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 2
SFPUC
BART
EL CAMINO REAL
BART
JUNCTION BOX
OAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEDRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
03
BART ACCESS - PHASE 3
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 3
BART
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
ROAD PHASE 3A
PERMANENT
GATE
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 3
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
FINAL
CONDITION
TEMPORARY
GATE PHASE 3A
SFPUC
BART
EL CAMINO REAL
BART
JUNCTION BOX
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEDRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
04
BART ACCESS - PARCELS
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
EL CAMINO REAL
1051 MISSION RD.FUTURE OAK AVE. R.O.W.BART PROPERTY
SSF PARCEL
CAMPUS PARCEL
CAMPUS PARCEL
SFPUC W
e
l
l
S
i
t
e
Attachment 2
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1010 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:9a.
Resolution approving the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the City and County of
San Francisco acting through its Public Utilities Commission for the SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage
and Recovery Well Site Access and approving a future access easement on South San Francisco owned
property.
WHEREAS,a Memorandum of Agreement is being requested by City and County of San Francisco acting
through its Public Utilities Commission for the SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Well Site
Access; and
WHEREAS,City of South San Francisco shall construct and maintain a temporary access road as part of the
Civic Campus Phase 2: Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater / Council Chamber; and
WHEREAS,temporary access road shall provide access to SFPUC and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)to
facilities located north of the Civic Campus Phase 2:Library,Parks &Recreation and Community Theater /
Council Chamber project; and
WHEREAS,City staff will continue to work with SFPUC to finalize access easement on or before June 1,
2023; and shall record such easement on or before December 1, 2023; and
WHEREAS,a contribution to the total cost of temporary access road construction and maintenance cost will be
provided by SFPUC (Total estimated cost of the road is $264,000); and
WHEREAS, SFPUC temporary road reimbursement amount is yet to be determined; and
WHEREAS,there are sufficient funds in the Fiscal Year 2020-21 budget to cover the $264,000.00 cost of
temporary access road; and
WHEREAS,cost of temporary road construction and maintenance are included in the Civic Campus Phase 2:
Library, Parks & Recreation and Community Theater / Council Chamber (pf2103) project budget;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
approves a Memorandum of Agreement,attached as Exhibit A,with the City and County of San Francisco
acting through its Public Utilities Commission for the execution of a Memorandum of Agreement related to
Well Site access.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of
Agreement with the City and County of San Francisco acting through its Public Utilities Commission for the
execution of a future access easement,and make minor modifications to the Memorandum of Agreement,
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1010 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:9a.
subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes the City Manager to take any other action
consistent with the intent of this resolution.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
1
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
between the
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
acting through its
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION,
and the
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
(SFPUC Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Well Site Access)
This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), dated for reference purposes
only , 2021, is made by and between the CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, a California municipal corporation (“San Francisco”) acting by and through its
Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”), and the CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, a
California municipal corporation (“South San Francisco”). San Francisco and South San
Francisco are sometimes referred to collectively in this Agreement as the “Parties” and
individually as a “Party.”
RECITALS
A. San Francisco, acting by and through the SFPUC, owns and operates a regional
water system that serves San Francisco and twenty-seven (27) wholesale water customers,
including the South San Francisco. The SFPUC’s wholesale water customers are located in San
Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties.
B. The SFPUC developed a Water System Improvement Program (“WSIP”) with the
goals of increasing the system’s ability to withstand major seismic events and prolonged droughts
and reliably meeting future water demands. As part of WSIP, the SFPUC instituted the Regional
Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (“Project”), which includes, among other
improvements, the installation of recovery wells, well stations, pumps, and piping to permit
groundwater extraction and transmission to help protect against drought.
C. In 2017, the SFPUC constructed a groundwater test well site on real property San
Francisco owns in fee adjacent to South San Francisco property located near Antoinette Lane in
the City of South San Francisco (“Well Site”).
D. The only viable access route for San Francisco to the Well Site requires passage
over two adjacent parcels in South San Francisco. South San Francisco owns one of the adjacent
parcels, and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) owns the second adjacent parcel. The
location of the Well Site and the current and proposed access routes (collectively, the “Phased
Access Routes”) are depicted on the attached Exhibit A.
E. San Francisco desires to obtain permanent access easements across portions of
South San Francisco property and portions of BART property. South San Francisco and San
Francisco have been working cooperatively to identify and memorialize a permanent access
easement across a portion of South San Francisco’s property. Concurrently, San Francisco has
2
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
been working with BART to identify and memorialize a permanent access easement across a
portion of BART’s property.
F. In a meeting on August 29, 2018, the SFPUC presented South San Francisco with
a written offer to purchase a permanent access easement across South San Francisco property
identified as San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel No. 093-331-070, now referred to as the
Campus Parcel(“Campus Parcel”), and depicted on the attached Exhibit B. During presentation
of the offer, South San Francisco notified San Francisco of South San Francisco’s plans to develop
the Campus Parcel with a new Community Civic Campus (“Campus Project”). South San
Francisco was willing to provide access over the Campus Parcel to San Francisco but was reluctant
to memorialize a permanent access easement until after South San Francisco approved the
preliminary Campus Project design plans. South San Francisco agreed to provide San Francisco
with informal interim access during the Campus Project planning and design phases.
G. The South San Francisco City Council has approved the sale and development of
an adjacent South San Francisco-owned 5.9-acre parcel identified as San Mateo County Assessor
as Parcel Number 093-312-060 (designated by South San Francisco as the “PUC Parcel”, but
referred to hereafter as “1051 Mission Road” to avoid confusion) to real estate developers SSF
PUC Housing Partners, LLC (together “Developer”), also depicted on the attached Exhibit B.
Developer desires to construct housing and mixed-use developments (“Developer’s Project”) on
1051 Mission Road consistent with the approved development application.
H. South San Francisco has approved the preliminary design plans for its Campus
Project and desires to work with San Francisco to establish and maintain interim access during
construction of the Campus Project and Developer’s Project.
I. Because design plans for the Campus Project and the Developer’s Project are both
subject to modification, South San Francisco cannot agree to a specific location for a permanent
access easement for San Francisco at this time. South San Francisco desires to work with San
Francisco to establish and maintain interim access during construction of the Campus Project,
construction of which is anticipated to start during the first calendar quarter of 2021 with a total
Campus Project construction duration of approximately twenty-eight (28) months. Upon
completion of the Campus Project, the Parties intend that San Francisco will be granted an
easement that will provide permanent access to the Well Site across South San Francisco property
but, if required by design changes to either or both of the Campus Project and Developer’s Project,
such easement may cross both the South San Francisco property and 1051 Mission Road. The
final route of such easement shall be reasonably acceptable to San Francisco.
J. Based on the June 10, 2019 plans for the Developer’s Project, the SFPUC’s Well
Site access route crosses portions of South San Francisco property and BART property near the
extension of Oak Avenue. This is the SFPUC’s preferred access route. If the final access route
deviates from the June 10, 2019 plans, San Francisco may require a permanent access easement
across portions of the 1051 Mission Road parcel.
K. If the Developer acquires the 1051 Mission Road parcel, South San Francisco shall
make reasonable efforts to include a condition precedent in a separate agreement with the
Developer that will provide, among other things, that Developer shall grant a permanent access
easement to San Francisco to the Well Site across 1051 Mission Road.
3
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
L. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, South San Francisco is
willing to grant San Francisco a temporary license and a permanent access easement to San
Francisco for access to the Well Site pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the foregoing and other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, San
Francisco and South San Francisco hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. EFFECTIVE DATE; TERM.
The term (the “Term”) of this Agreement shall commence on the date that this Agreement
is mutually executed and delivered by the Parties (“Effective Date”) and continue in effect
thereafter until the earlier of (a) nine (9) years after full execution of this Agreement or (b) the
date this Agreement is earlier terminated in accordance with its terms.
Execution and delivery of this Agreement is subject to the approval of the City of South
San Francisco’s City Council, the SFPUC’s Commission, and, if required, San Francisco’s Board
of Supervisors and Mayor.
2. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSTRUCTION OF CAMPUS PROJECT.
2.1. Construction Schedule and Interim Access to Well Site
Until the effective date of a Permanent Access Easement (defined in Section 3
[Permanent Access Easement] below) granted to San Francisco as contemplated by Section 3
[Permanent Access Easement] below, commencing on the Effective Date, South San Francisco
shall provide to San Francisco a mutually acceptable twelve (12)-foot wide temporary access road
(“Temporary Access Road”) to the Well Site that meets the minimum specifications agreed to by
the Parties (“Specifications”) and stated in the attached Exhibit C. San Francisco has consulted
with South San Francisco in San Francisco’s preparation of the Specifications and their
incorporation into South San Francisco’s construction contract(s). South San Francisco
acknowledges that it has reviewed and approves the Specifications. Initially, and until further
notice from South San Francisco, San Francisco may use the current (Phase 1) route as the
Temporary Access Road. By at least thirty (30) days’ prior written notice to San Francisco, South
San Francisco may relocate the Temporary Access Road during Campus Project construction;
provided that any new location for the Temporary Access Road continues to provide for San
Francisco’s uninterrupted access to the Well Site, complies with the Specifications, and both
Parties agree in writing to its new location. To the extent South San Francisco is required to
construct, repair, or maintain a Temporary Access Road or, in connection with the Permanent
Access Easement, a permanent access road, the Temporary Access Road and such permanent road
shall meet the Specifications. Provided that this Agreement remains in effect, San Francisco shall
reimburse South San Francisco for a yet to be determined portion of the total estimated costs not
to exceed $264,000 for the construction of the Temporary Access Road and the permanent access
road serving both BART and SFPUC facilities in locations generally depicted on the attached
Exhibit A, and to be memorialized in a cost sharing agreement to be agreed upon by all Parties on
or before construction of Campus Project commences.
4
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
3. PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT.
South San Francisco shall notify San Francisco on or before June 1 2023, that, by
December 1, 2023, South San Francisco shall either (a) provide a recorded twelve (12)-foot wide
permanent access easement (“Permanent Access Easement”) that is reasonably acceptable to San
Francisco across South San Francisco property to the Well Site, or (b) because of design changes
in either or both of the Campus Project and the Developer’s Project, grant to San Francisco, or
cause San Francisco to be granted, a recorded Permanent Access Easement to the Well Site that is
reasonably acceptable to San Francisco, a portion of which proposed easement shall cross South
San Francisco property and a portion of which will cross 1051 Mission Road. Such notice shall
specify the route and dimensions of the proposed easement. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt
of such notice, San Francisco shall give South San Francisco written notice that it either approves
of the placement and design of the proposed easement or disapproves of such placement and design
with an explanation of the basis of its disapproval. If San Francisco disapproves of the proposed
easement, the Parties shall diligently meet and confer promptly thereafter to resolve the dispute so
that San Francisco receives on or before December 1, 2023, a Permanent Access Easement to the
Well Site reasonably acceptable to San Francisco.
4. NECESSARY APPROVALS.
If either Party breaches a material term of this Agreement without the other Party’s fault
and does not cure the breach within thirty (30) calendar days ’ notice by the non-breaching Party
specifying such breach, the non-breaching Party may terminate this Agreement without any
penalty or liability of either Party to the other; provided, however, if more than thirty (30) days are
reasonably required for such cure, the non-breaching Party shall not have the right to terminate
this Agreement on account of such breach if the other Party promptly commences the cure within
such thirty (30)-day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
5. MISCELLANEOUS
5.1. Notices.
Any notice, consent ,or approval required or permitted to be given under this Agreement
shall be in writing and shall be given by (a) hand delivery, against receipt, (b) reliable next-
business-day courier service that provides confirmation of delivery, or (c) United States registered
or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, to the address(es) set forth below or to
such other address as either Party may from time to time specify in writing to the other upon five
(5) days’ prior written notice in the manner provided above. The Parties’ initial addresses are:
San Francisco:
To: General Manager
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
5
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
and: Real Estate Director
Real Estate Services Division
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
25 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Dina Brasil
Right of Way Manager
Real Estate Services Division
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
and: Judy Chin
SFPUC Project Construction Manager
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
South San Francisco:
To: City of South San Francisco
Attn: Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects
550 North Canal Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
A properly addressed notice transmitted by one of the foregoing methods shall be deemed received
upon the confirmed date of delivery, attempted delivery, or rejected delivery, whichever occurs
first. Any e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or facsimile numbers provided by one Party to the
other shall be for convenience of communication only; neither Party may give official or binding
notice orally or by e-mail or facsimile. The effective time of a notice shall not be affected by the
receipt, prior to receipt of the original, of an oral notice or an e-mail or telefacsimile copy of the
notice.
5.2. Risk of Non-Appropriation of Funds.
This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of San Francisco’s Charter.
San Francisco shall have no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of
appropriations for new or other agreements. South San Francisco acknowledges that San Francisco
budget decisions are subject to the discretion of its Mayor and Board of Supervisors. South San
Francisco assumes all risk of possible non-appropriation or non-certification of funds, and such
assumption is part of the consideration for this Agreement.
5.3. Certification of Controller.
The terms of this Agreement shall be governed by and subject to the budgetary and f iscal
provisions of San Francisco’s Charter. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this
Agreement, there shall be no obligation for the payment or expenditure of money by San Francisco
under this Agreement unless the San Francisco’s Controller first certifies, pursuant to Section
6
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
3.105 of San Francisco’s Charter, that there is a valid appropriation from which the expenditure
may be made and that unencumbered funds are available from the appropriation to pay the
expenditure. Without limiting the foregoing, if in any fiscal year of San Francisco after the fiscal
year in which the term of this Agreement commences, sufficient funds for the funding of
construction costs and any other payments required under this Agreement are not appropriated,
then San Francisco may terminate this Agreement, without penalty, liability or expense of any
kind to San Francisco, as of the last date on which sufficient funds are appropriated. San Francisco
shall use its reasonable efforts to give South San Francisco r easonable advance notice of such
termination.
5.4. Severability.
If any provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or
circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or
the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which
it is invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this
Agreement shall be valid and be enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law, provided that
the remainder of this Agreement can be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the Parties.
5.5. Good Faith.
Each Party shall use all reasonable efforts and work wholeheartedly and in good faith for
the expedited completion of the objectives of this Agreement and the satisfactory performance of
its terms.
5.6. Sole Benefit.
This Agreement is for the sole benefit of the Parties and shall not be construed as granting
rights to any person other than the Parties or imposing obligations on a Party to any person other
than the other Party to this Agreement.
5.7. Governing Law.
This Agreement is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
5.8. Amendment; Waiver.
Neither this Agreement nor any term or provision hereof may be changed or amended,
except by a written instrument signed by both Parties. Any waiver by San Francisco or South San
Francisco of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement must be in writing, and
a waiver of one breach shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same
or any other term, covenant, or condition.
5.9. Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be
deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
7
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
5.10. Recitals and Exhibits.
The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement.
The attached exhibits referred to herein are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.
5.11. Integration.
This Agreement represents the entire understanding of the Parties as to those matters
contained in this Agreement. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect
with respect to those matters covered in this Agreement.
5.12. Tropical Hardwood and Virgin Redwood Ban.
Pursuant to Section 804(b) of the San Francisco Environment Code, San Francisco urges
contractors not to import, purchase, obtain, or use for any purpose, any tropical hardwood, tropical
hardwood wood product, virgin redwood, or virgin redwood wood product. Except as expressly
permitted by the application of Sections 802(b) and 803(b) of the San Francisco Environment
Code, neither South San Francisco nor any of its contractors shall include in the Specifications or
in any other work performed by or on behalf of South San Francisco pursuant to or in connection
with this Agreement any items that are tropical hardwood, tropical hardwood wood products,
virgin redwood, or virgin redwood wood products.
5.13. Nondiscrimination.
In the performance of this Agreement, South San Francisco shall not discriminate against
any employee, subcontractor, applicant for employment with South San Francisco, or against any
person seeking accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, services, or membership in all
business, social, or other establishments or organizations, on the basis of the fact or perception of
a person’s race, color, creed, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, height, weight, sex, sexual
orientation, gender identity, domestic partner status, marital status, disability or Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome or HIV status (AIDS/HIV status), or association with members of such
protected classes, or in retaliation for opposition to discrimination against such classes.
5.14. Governing Law.
This Agreement is made under and shall be governed by the laws of the State of California
and San Francisco’s Charter.
5.15. Notification of Limitations on Contributions.
Through its execution of this Agreement, South San Francisco acknowledges that it is
familiar with Section 1.126 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code,
which prohibits any person who contracts with San Francisco for the selling or leasing of any land
or building to or from San Francisco whenever such transaction would require the approval by a
San Francisco elective officer, the board on which that San Francisco elective officer serves, or a
board on which an appointee of that individual serves, from making any campaign contribution to
(a) a San Francisco elective officer, (b) a candidate for the office held by such individual, or (c) a
committee controlled by such individual or candidate, at any time from the commencement of
negotiations for the contract until the later of either the termination of negotiations for such
8
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
contract or six months after the date the contract is approved. South San Francisco acknowledges
that the foregoing restriction applies only if the contract or a combination or series of contracts
approved by the same individual or board in a fiscal year have a total anticipated or actual value
of $50,000 or more. South San Francisco further acknowledges that the prohibition on
contributions applies to South San Francisco; each member of South San Francisco Council, and
South San Francisco’s chief executive officers; any contractor or subcontractor listed in this
Agreement; and any committee that is sponsored or controlled by South San Francisco.
Additionally, South San Francisco acknowledges that South San Francisco must inform each of
the persons described in the preceding sentence of the prohibitions contained in Section 1.126.
South San Francisco further agrees to provide to San Francisco the names of each person, entity,
or committee described above. The requirements of this Section shall apply only to the six (6)-
month period following the Parties’ execution and delivery of this Agreement.
5.16. Disclosure.
South San Francisco understands and agrees that San Francisco’s Sunshine Ordinance (San
Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 67) and the State Public Records Law (Gov’t Code Section
6250 et seq.) apply to this Agreement and any and all records, information, and materials submitted
to San Francisco in connection with this Agreement. Accordingly, any and all such records,
information and materials may be subject to public disclosure in accordance with San Francisco’s
Sunshine Ordinance and the State Public Records Law. South San Francisco hereby authorizes
San Francisco to disclose any records, information and materials submitted to San Francisco in
connection with this Agreement.
5.17. Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence in all matters relating to this Agreement.
5.18. Attorneys’ Fees.
If either Party commences an action against the other or a dispute arises under this
Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
from the other Party. For purposes hereof and for purposes of the indemnifications set forth herein,
San Francisco ‘s reasonable attorneys’ fees shall be based on the fees regularly charged by private
attorneys in San Francisco with comparable experience notwithstanding San Francisco ‘s use of
its own attorneys.
5.19. Cooperative Drafting; Interpretation; Captions.
This Agreement has been drafted through a cooperative effort of both Parties, and both
Parties have had an opportunity to have the Agreement reviewed and revised by legal counsel. No
Party shall be considered the drafter of this Agreement, and no presumpti on or rule that an
ambiguity shall be construed against the Party drafting the clause shall apply to the interpretation
or enforcement of this Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement shall be construed as a whole
according to their common meaning and not strictly for or against any Party in order to achieve
the objectives and purposes of the Parties. Any caption preceding the text of any section,
paragraph, or subsection or in the table of contents is included only for convenience of reference
and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement.
9
Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
5.20. Further Assurances.
The Parties shall execute and acknowledge such other and further documents as may be
necessary or reasonably required to carry out the mutual intent of the Parties as expressed in this
Agreement.
5.21. Corrections of Technical Errors.
If by reason of inadvertence, and contrary to the intention of the Parties, errors are made in
this Agreement, then the Parties by mutual agreement may correct such error by written
memorandum executed by them without the necessity of a formal amendment of this Agreement.
5.22. Necessary Approvals.
This Agreement is subject to the approval of South San Francisco’s City Council, the
SFPUC Commission approval, and, if required, the approval of San Francisco’s Board of
Supervisors and Mayor, each at its sole and absolute discretion.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
10 Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Memorandum of Agreement by
their duly authorized representatives.
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Michael Carlin
Acting General Manager
Public Utilities Commission
Dated: , 2021
Authorized by San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, Resolution No. 14-0127
By:
Commission Secretary
Adopted August 12, 2014
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dennis Herrera, City Attorney
By:
Richard Handel
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO,
a California municipal corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
Dated: , 2021
Authorized by
Resolution No.
By:
Name:
Title:
Adopted , 2021
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Meyers Nave, City Attorney
By:
Sky Woodruff
EXHIBITS:
A - Well Site and Phased Access Route Location Map
B - Parcel Location Map
C - Specifications for Temporary Access Road
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEOAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
EL CAMINO REAL
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
01
BART ACCESS - PHASE 1
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 1
SFPUC
BART
TEMPORARY
GRAVEL ROAD
TEMPORARY
GATE
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 1
BART
EXISTING ROAD
BART
JUNCTION BOX
Exhibit A
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEOAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
DRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
02
BART ACCESS - PHASE 2
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 2
BART
TEMPORARY
GRAVEL ROAD
TEMPORARY
GATE
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 2
SFPUC
BART
EL CAMINO REAL
BART
JUNCTION BOX
OAK AVE
RIGHT OF
WAY
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEDRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
03
BART ACCESS - PHASE 3
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
SFPUC / BART
ACCESS PHASE 3
BART
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
ROAD PHASE 3A
PERMANENT
GATE
HATCH ACCESS
PHASE 3
BART ACCESS
HATCHES
FINAL
CONDITION
TEMPORARY
GATE PHASE 3A
SFPUC
BART
EL CAMINO REAL
BART
JUNCTION BOX
EVEVEVEVEVEVCPFELECPCPCPCPFEEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FSTSTSTSTEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FEV-FLEDRAWING TITLE
DRAWING NUMBER
04
BART ACCESS - PARCELS
DRAWING SCALE
DATE
2020-06-30
1"=60'
0'60'30'
TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH
EL CAMINO REAL
1051 MISSION RD.FUTURE OAK AVE. R.O.W.BART PROPERTY
SSF PARCEL
CAMPUS PARCEL
CAMPUS PARCEL
SFPUC W
e
l
l
S
i
t
e
Exhibit B
C-1 Groundwater Recovery Project MOA SSF (12-23-20).docx
EXHIBIT C
SPECIFICATIONS FOR TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD
[To be attached]
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1007 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:10.
Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,070 in grant funding from Peninsula Clean
Energy (PCE)to support the City Manager’s office communications outreach relating to climate action
throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.034.(Katie Donner,Library Assistant
II)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,070 in
grant funding from PCE to support the City Manager’s office outreach relating to climate action
throughout South San Francisco and approving Budget Amendment 21.034.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The City Manager’s office has been awarded $15,070 in grant funding from PCE for developing outreach
materials and a marketing campaign to educate South San Francisco residents about the benefits of Peninsula
Clean Energy (PCE)programs,and to encourage residents to enroll.Benefits include cleaner and less expensive
energy rates,and increased participation will help meet PCE’s local climate action goals.Through this special
grant opportunity,the City Manager’s office will send mailers to residents about discount programs,make short
informational promotional videos in multiple languages,create email blasts,and post flyers around South San
Francisco and on the website.A main focus of the campaign is to educate residents who have opted out of PCE
to opt back into PCE and to learn about the perks and benefits that PCE offers,not only for them,but for the
planet as well.The City Manager’s office will partner with PCE and various departments across the City to
promote and educate about PCE and clean, less expensive energy.
FISCAL IMPACT
Grant funds will be used to amend the current Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget via Budget
Amendment 21.034. Receipt of these funds does not commit the City to ongoing funding.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Acceptance of this grant will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2: Quality of Life, by
providing accurate and important information about clean air and climate action in our community and the
planet.
CONCLUSION
Receipt of these funds will enable the City Manager’s office to distribute critical information regarding
Peninsula Clean Energy services this year.It is recommended that City Council accept $15,070 in grant funding
and approve Budget Amendment 21.034.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1008 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:10a.
Resolution authorizing the acceptance of $15,070 in grant funding from Peninsula Clean Energy to support the
City Manager’s Office outreach relating to climate action throughout South San Francisco and approving
Budget Amendment 21.034.
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (“City”)Strategic Plan includes a goal of improving quality of
life; and
WHEREAS,Peninsula Clean Energy (“PCE”)has awarded the City $15,070 in grant funding to support
outreach materials and campaigns to educate City residents about enrolling into PCE programs; and
WHEREAS,funding from PCE will help support programs and outreach campaigns to educate residents about
PCE programs, including cleaner and less expensive energy rates, PCE’s local climate action goals, etc.; and
WHEREAS,the City Manager’s office will partner with PCE and various city departments to promote and
educate residents about PCE and its cleaner, and less expensive energy; and
WHEREAS,City Council wishes to accept grant funding in the amount of $15,070 from Peninsula Clean
Energy to support the City Manager’s office outreach campaigns for clean and less expensive energy; and
WHEREAS,the grant funds will be used to amend the current Fiscal Year (FY)2020-2021 Operating Budget
via Budget Amendment 21.034.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
authorize the acceptance of $15,070 in grant funding from Peninsula Clean Energy to support outreach
materials and campaigns to educate City residents about enrolling into Peninsula Clean Energy programs.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council approves Budget Amendment 21.034 to amend the City
Manager’s office FY 2020-2021 Operating Budget.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1036 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:11.
Report regarding a resolution approving a consulting services agreement to provide Geotechnical,Special
Inspection and Material Testing services with Ninyo and Moore,Geotechnical &Environmental Sciences
Consultants of Alameda,California for the CIVIC CAMPUS:PHASE II LIBRARY,PARKS &RECREATION
AND COMMUNITY THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (LPR)(Project No.pf2103)in an amount not to
exceed $500,000.00 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.(Jacob Gilchrist,Director of
Capital Projects)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving a consulting services agreement
for Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material Testing services with Ninyo and Moore,Geotechnical
&Environmental Sciences of Alameda,California for the CIVIC CAMPUS:PHASE II LIBRARY,
PARKS &RECREATION AND COMMUNITY THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (“LPR”)(Project
No.pf2103)in an amount not to exceed $500,000.00 authorizing the City Manager to execute the
agreement.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
On October 23,2020,staff received bids for Phase II:Library,Parks &Recreation and Community Theater /
Council Chamber (“LPR”)project.On November 9,2020,City Council awarded the construction contract to
Swinerton Builders.Following the selection of the General Contractor,staff proceeded with the process of
selecting a consultant for Geotechnical, Special Inspection and Material Testing services.
Staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP)for Special Inspection,Testing and Geotechnical Inspection services
on November 20,2020.The RFP was available on the City of South San Francisco e-Procurement
(ProcureNow)portal.Staff contacted over 40 consultants from the City of South Francisco prequalified list of
firms known to have qualifications necessary to provide such services.The RFP was also advertised in San
Mateo Daily Journal to comply with public contract code requirements.There were two addenda issued to
clarify the questions submitted by the interested consultants.
Staff received twelve proposals on the due date of December 4,2020.Ten of the consulting firms were
prequalified and had worked with the City of South San Francisco in the past.Two firms,Proposal from Bragg
Engineering and Krazan &Associates were removed from the qualifying pool as they did not comply with the
RFP requirements and provided incomplete information.
Selection of inspection services is not solely based on price,but on the firm’s expertise,experience,
understanding of the project and references from other agencies who have worked with the firms.To evaluate
the proposals on a level playing field,all consultants provided responses to a fixed scope of work based on the
assumed hours required to inspect the project throughout construction.
After reviewing the submitted proposals,staff and the team from our construction manager Kitchell determined
that Ninyo &Moore is the best valued consultant amongst the pool of respondents.Exhibit D shows the side by
side comparison of fees by task for all 10 qualifying firms.Ninyo and Moore’s fee is the lowest of the 10
qualifying firms.While Ninyo and Moore’s projected fee is in the range of $320,000,staff recommendsCity of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1036 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:11.
qualifying firms.While Ninyo and Moore’s projected fee is in the range of $320,000,staff recommends
awarding a time and materials contract not to exceed $500,000 since the projected fee is based on an assumed
inspection schedule but the ultimate schedule will be dictated by the work flow of the general contractor.Ninyo
and Moore has a long relationship of working with the City of South Francisco on various projects,including
the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center,and they are the geotechnical engineer of record for the Civic
Campus Phase II project.
Ninyo &Moore will work in concert with the City of South San Francisco Building Department to ensure that
the facility is built per contract documents and more importantly complies with all applicable building codes.
The City has prepared a consulting service agreement for the consultant for an initial term of January 13,2021,
to June 30, 2023, matching the project construction schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for inspection services is included in the $101,000,000.00 budget for Civic Campus Phase II presented
and approved by Council on November 9, 2020.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan.It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing
quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a consulting
services agreement for Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material Testing with Ninyo and Moore based on
their qualifications, experience, references and understanding of the project.
Attachments:
1.Special Inspection and Testing Agreement
2.Special Inspection and Testing Schedule
3.Special Inspection Agency Recognition List
4.Special Inspection and Geotechnical Service Cost Worksheet
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT
To permit applicants of projects requiring special inspection and/or testing per Section 1701 of the California Building Code
(CBC).
Project Name/Address: Building Permit #
BEFORE A PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED: The owner, or the registered design professional in responsible charge acting as the
owner’s agent, shall complete two (2) copies of this agreement and the attached structural tests and inspections schedule
including the required acknowledgements. A preconstruction conference with the parties involved may be required to review
the special inspection requirements and procedures.
APPROVAL OF SPECIAL INSPECTORS: Each special inspector shall be approved by the building division prior to
performing any duties. Each special inspector shall submit his/her qualifications to the building division and is subject to a
personal interview for prequalification. Special inspectors shall display approved identification, as stipulated by the building
division, when performing the function of a special inspector.
Special inspection and testing shall meet the minimum requirements of CBC Section 1701. The following conditions are also
applicable:
A. Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector
1. Observe work
The special inspector shall observe the work for conformance with the building division approved (stamped) design
drawings and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the CBC. Architect/Engineer reviewed shop
drawings and/or placing drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection.
Special inspections are to be performed on a continuous basis; meaning that the special inspector is on site in the general
area at all times observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior approval by
the building division based on the separate written plan reviewed and approved by the building division and the project
engineer or architect.
2. Report nonconforming items
The special inspector shall bring nonconforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor and note all such items
in the daily report. If any item is not resolved in a timely manner or is about to be incorporated in the work, the special
inspector shall immediately notify the building division by telephone or in person, notify the engineer or architect and post
a discrepancy notice.
3. Furnish daily reports
On request, each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special inspection record and the daily report form for
each day’s inspections to remain at the jobsite with the contractor for review by the building division’s inspector.
4. Furnish weekly reports
The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish weekly reports of tests and inspections directly to the building
division, project engineer or architect, and others as designated. These reports must include the following:
a. Description of daily inspections’ and tests made with applicable locations:
b. Listing of all nonconforming items;
c. Report on how nonconforming items were resolved and unresolved as applicable; and
d. Itemized changes authorized by the architect, engineer and building division if not included in
nonconformance items.
5. Furnish final report
The special inspector or inspection agency shall submit a final signed report to the building division stating that all items
requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported and, to the best of his/her knowledge, in conformance
with the approved design drawings, specifications, approved change orders and the applicable workmanship provisions of
the CBC. Items not in conformance, unresolved items or any discrepancies in inspection coverage (i.e. missed inspections,
periodic inspections when continuous was required, etc.) shall be specifically itemized in this report.
B. Contractor Responsibilities
1. Notify the special inspector
The contractor is responsible for notifying the special inspector or agency regarding individual inspections for items
listed on the attached schedule and as noted on the building division approved plan. Adequate notice shall be provided
so that the special inspector has time to become familiar with the project.
2. Provide access to approved plans
The contractor is responsible for providing the special inspector access to approved plans at the jobsite.
3. Retain special inspection records
The contractor is also responsible for retaining at the jobsite all special inspection records submitted by the special
inspector, and providing these records for review by the building division’s inspector upon request.
C. Building Division Responsibilities
1. Approve Special Inspection
The building division shall approve all special inspectors and special inspection requirements.
2. Monitor special inspection
Work requiring special inspection and the performance of special inspectors shall be monitored by the building
division’s inspector. The building division inspector’s approval must obtained prior to placement of concrete or
other similar activities in addition to that of the special inspector.
3. Issue Certificate of Occupancy
The building division may issue a Certificate of Occupancy after all inspection reports and the final report have been
submitted and accepted.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I have read and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement.
Owner:
By:
Date:
Contractor:
By:
Date:
Special Inspector
Or Inspection Agency:
By:
Date:
Project Engineer/Architect:
By:
Date:
ACCEPTED FOR THE SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BUILDING DIVISION
By:
Date:
Allen Nudel, SE 11/21/2019
Jacob Gilchrist 8/6/2020
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND TESTING SCHEDULE
Project Name Building Permit #
Project Address Testing/Inspection Agency or Special Inspector
Reinforced Concrete, Gunite, Grout and Mortar: Masonry:
Sample and Test (list specific members below)
Shop Material Identification
Welding Inspection Shop Field
Ultrasonic Inspection Shop Field
High-strength Bolting Inspection Shop Field
A325 N X
A490 N X
F
F
Precast/Prestressed Concrete:
Metal Deck Welding Inspection
Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection
Metal Stud Welding Inspection
Concrete Insert Welding Inspection
Fireproofing:
Masonry:
Special Inspection Stresses Used
Preliminary Acceptance Tests (Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)
Placement Inspection of Units
Additional Instructions or Other Tests and Inspections:
Form completed by:
Placement Inspection
Density Tests
Thickness Tests
Inspect Batching
Insulating Concrete:
Sample and Test
Placement Inspection
Unit Weights
Fill Material:
Acceptance Tests
Placement Inspection
Field Density
Structural Wood:
Shear Wall Nailing Inspection
Inspection of Glu-lam Fabrication
Inspection of Truss Joist Fabrication
Sample and Test Components
Title: _
Date: _
Concrete Gunite Grout Mortar
Aggregate Tests
Reinforcing Tests
Mix Designs
Reinforcing Placement
Batch Plant Inspection
Inspect Placing
Cast Sample
Pick-up Samples
Compression Tests
Piles Post-Tens Pre-Tens Cladding
Aggregate Tests
Reinforcing Tests
Tendon Tests
Mix Designs
Reinforcing Placement
Insert Placement
Concrete Batching
Concrete Placement
Installation Inspection
Cast Sample
Pick-up Samples
Compression Tests
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x x x
x
x
x
x
x
STRUCTURAL STEEL
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
xx xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
Special inspection of soils, driven deep foundation elements, and cast-in-place deep foundation
elements shall comply with the requirements of CBC Tables 1705.6, 1705.7, and 1705.8,
respectively.
Special Inspection Agency Recognition List
Agency HQ Address Phone/Fax RC PC SM SS1 FP URM
A1 Inspection Services 1754 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
(415)621-8001
(415)358-4409
X X X X X X
Achievement Engineering Corp. 2455 Autumnvale Dr,
Unit E San Jose, CA
(408) 217-9174
(408) 217-9632
X X X X X X
Apex Testing Laboratories, Inc. 3450 Third Street, #3E
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415)550-9800
(415)550-9880
X X X X X
Applied Materials Engineering 980 41st Street
Oakland, CA 94608
(510) 420-8190
(510) 420-8186
X X X X X X
Bagg Engineers 138 Charcot Avenue
San Jose, CA 95131
(650)852-9133x121
(650)852-9138
X X X X X X
Berlogar Stevens & Associates 5587 Sunol Boulevard
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 484-0220
(925) 846-9645
X X
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. 1871 The Alameda, #200
San Jose, CA 95126
(408) 296-5515
(408) 296-8114
X X X X X X
B.S.K. Associates 1181 Quarry Lane, #300
Pleasanton, CA 94566
(925) 462-4000
(925) 462-6283
X X X X X X
Capex Engineering Inc. 44356 S. Grimmer Boulevard
Fremont, CA 94538
(510) 668-1815
(510) 490-8690
X X X X X X
Consolidated Engineering Labs 2001 Crow Canyon Road Ste. 100
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 314-7100
(925) 855-7140
X X X X X X
Construction Materials Testing, Inc. 2278-F Pike Court
Concord, CA 94520-1252
(925) 825-2840
(925) 682-7953
X X X X X X
Construction Testing Services 2174 Rheem Drive, Suite A
Pleasanton, CA 94588
(925) 462-5151
(925) 462-5183
X X X X X X
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. 242 W. Larch Road Suite F
Tracy, CA 95376
(800) 576-2271
(209) 839-2895
X X X X X X
Dynamic Consultants, Inc. 425 Fairchild Drive
Mountain View, CA 94043
(650) 967-6982
(650) 967-6955
X X X X X X
Earth Systems Pacific (formerly ES
Geotechnologies)
446 South Hillview Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035
(408) 934-9302
(408) 946-4569
X X X X X X
ENGEO Incorporated 2010 Crow Canyon Place Suite 250
San Ramon, CA 94583
(925) 866-9000
(888) 279-2698
X X X X X X
Forsythe Engineering Consultants 1760 Industrial Way, Suite 1
Napa, CA 94558
(707) 259-1292
(707) 259-1393
X X X
Fugro (formerly Montgomery Watson
Harza)
1000 Broadway, Suite 440
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 568-4001
(510) 568-2205
X X X X X X
Geissler Engineering 235 Montgomery St., Suite 1011 San
Francisco, CA 94104
(415)760-5636 X X X
HP Inspections, Inc.
690 Sunol St., Bldg. H
San Jose, CA 95126
(408)288-8460
(408)271-0902
X
X
X
X
X
Inspection Services Inc. 1798 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94703
(415) 243-3265
(415) 243-3266
X X X X X X
KC Engineering Co. 865 Cotting Lane, Suite A
Vacaville, CA 95688
(707) 447-4025
(707) 447-4143
X X X
Kleinfelder Inc. 2601 Barrington Court
Hayward, CA 94545
(925) 484-1700
(510) 887-5932
X X X X X X
Korbmacher Engineering, Inc. 480 Preston Court. Suite B
Livermore, CA 94577
(925) 454-9033
(925) 454-9564
X
Krazan and Associates, Inc. 6711 Sierra Court, Suite B
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 307-1160
(925) 307-1161
X X X X X X
Nicholas Engineering Consultants 6743 Dublin Boulevard #15
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 829-8090
(925) 829-0235
X X X X X X
Ninyo & Moore 2149 O’Toole Avenue, Suite 30
San Jose , CA 95131
(408) 435-9000
X X X X X X
Norcon, LLC 1661 Tennesse St. #201 (415)710-1155 X X X X X
PSC Associates, Inc. 1485 Bayshore Blvd., #104
San Francisco, CA 94124
(415) 330-6100
(415) 330-6363
X X X X X X
PSI 365 Victor Street Suite C
Salinas, CA 93907
(831) 757-3536
831) 757-6265
X X X X X X
RES Engineers, Inc. 1260 D Missouri Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415)822-4625
(415)822-8925
X X X X X X
RMA Group (formerly Terrasearch Inc.) 6296 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite A
San Jose, CA 95119
(408) 362-4920
(408) 362-4926
X X X X X X
Signet Testing Laboratories 3121 Diablo Avenue
Hayward, CA 94545
(510) 887-8484
(510) 783-4295
X X X X X X
Smith-Emery Company P.O. Box 880550, Hunters Pt. San
Francisco, CA 94188
(415) 642-7326
(415) 642-7055
X X X X X X
Terracon 5075 Commercial Circle, Ste. E
Concord, CA 94520
(925) 348-9057
(925) 989-6689
X X X X X X
Testing Engineers, Inc. 2811 Teagarden Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
(510) 835-3142
(510) 834-3777
X X X X X X
Triangle Engineering 1388 Haight Street # 172
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 626-6972
(415) 626-6972
X
Twining Laboratories, Inc. 2527 Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 268-7021
(559) 268-7126
X X X X X X
Valley Inspection Services 326 Woodrow Avenue
Vallejo, CA 94571
(707) 552-7037
(707) 552-7022
X X X
Key: RC = Reinforced Concrete PC = Prestressed/Post-tensioned Concrete SM = Structural Masonry
SS = Structural Steel Welding/Bolting FP = Spray Applied Fireproofing URM = Unreinforced Masonry Push/Torque Test Only
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE COST WORKSHEET
Test Lab: Test Lab:
Date: Date:
RFP: Special Inspections and Geotechnical Service
a. Earthwork Observation 100 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 11,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 9,500.00$
b. Pile/Pier Observation 260 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 28,600.00$ 260 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 24,700.00$
c. Pile Testing Observation 60 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 6,600.00$ 60 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 5,700.00$
d. Technician Earthwork Observation & Compaction Testing 400 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 34,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 92.00$ per hr. = 36,800.00$
e. Sample Pick-up 40 hrs @ 40.00$ per hr. = 1,600.00$ 40 hrs @ 25.00$ per hr. = 1,000.00$
f. Nuclear Density Gauge Usage 400 hrs @ 12.00$ per hr. = 4,800.00$ 400 hrs @ 5.00$ per hr. = 2,000.00$
g. Travel Allowance (round trip) 100 trips @ 85.00$ per trip. =8,500.00$ 100 trips @ -$ per trip. = Included
a. Proctor Density with Rock Correction, D1557, D698 12 tests @ 260.00$ per test. =3,120.00$ 12 tests @ 295.00$ per test. = 3,540.00$
b. Atterberg Limits, D4318, CT204 9 tests @ 140.00$ per test. =1,260.00$ 9 tests @ 170.00$ per test. = 1,530.00$
c. Sieve Analysis of Soil with 200 Wash, C136 9 tests @ 90.00$ per test. =810.00$ 9 tests @ 175.00$ per test. = 1,575.00$
d. Sand Equivalent, CT217 9 tests @ 90.00$ per test. =810.00$ 9 tests @ 100.00$ per test. = 900.00$
e. Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C136 9 tests @ 95.00$ per test. =855.00$ 9 tests @ 135.00$ per test. = 1,215.00$
f. Sieve Analysis, Fine (include wash, C136) 9 tests @ 95.00$ per test. =855.00$ 9 tests @ 135.00$ per test. = 1,215.00$
g. Sampling of all listed soils/base materials 32 hrs @ 40.00$ per hr. = 1,280.00$ 32 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 2,720.00$
a. Sampling for each Concrete placement 60 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 60 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 4,500.00$
b. Concrete Moisture Slump Test – JOBSITE 30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included
c. Concrete Materials Batch Plant Inspections 30 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 2,700.00$ 30 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 2,250.00$
d. Concrete Placement Inspection 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$ 150 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 11,850.00$
e. Concrete Cylinder Compression Tests (4 per set) 20 sets @ 80.00$ ea. set = 1,600.00$ 20 sets @ 76.00$ ea. set = 1,520.00$
a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE) 60 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 5,100.00$ 60 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 4,500.00$
b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE) 60 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 5,100.00$ 60 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 4,500.00$
a. Sampling for Testing of Reinforcing Steel 40 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 40 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 3,000.00$
b. Testing of Reinforcing Steel (Tensile and Bend) 30 ea @ 55.00$ per ea. =1,650.00$ 30 ea @ 75.00$ per ea. = 2,250.00$
c. ID & Tag Loads of Reinforcing Steel 60 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 5,100.00$ 60 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 4,500.00$
d. Reinforcing Placement 160 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 14,400.00$ 160 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 12,640.00$
a. Sample and Test
b. Identify all materials (shop material identification) 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$ 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$
c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$ 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$
d. Welding Inspection (Shop) 250 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 19,750.00$ 250 hrs @ 74.00$ per hr. = 18,500.00$
e. Welding Inspection (Field) 250 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 22,500.00$ 250 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 19,750.00$
f. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop) 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 200 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 15,800.00$
g. Ultrasonic Testing (Field) 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 200 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 15,800.00$
h. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Shop) 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$
i. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field) 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$ 150 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 11,850.00$
j, Metal Deck Welding Inspection 150 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 150 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 11,850.00$
k. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection 200 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 18,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 15,800.00$
l. Metal Stud Welding Inspection 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$ 150 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 11,850.00$
m. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection 100 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$
a. Special Inspection Stresses Used 100 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 7,900.00$
b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests 10 ea @ 90.00$ per ea. =900.00$ 10 ea @ 145.00$ per ea. = 1,450.00$
(Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms) 20 ea @ 60.00$ per ea. =1,200.00$ 20 ea @ 39.00$ per ea. = 780.00$
d. Placement Inspection of Units 200 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 18,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 79.00$ per hr. = 15,800.00$
a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures 800.00$ 800.00$
b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination 23,790.00$ 22,654.45$
c. Preparation of Test Reports -$ NO CHARGE
d. Final Verified Report 500.00$ 500.00$
e. Attendance of pre-construction meeting $133/hour 266.00$ NO CHARGE
Other Charges (Please explain)
(Average per ea cost)
(Average per hr cost)
(BASE BID)
Numbers with Original RFP Hrs is 319,746.00
7% of Fee Estimate of $323,635 = 22,654.45
PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
RANKING - BASED ON PRICE (APPLE TO APPLES)
7% Project Engineering and Management Fee - Review
services for inspection and testing quality assurance and
quality control. Includes budget support and cost control with
documentation resource support
PROJECT: Civic Campus Phase 2: LPR
FOR: City of South San Francisco
PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING
REINFORCING STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL
LABORATORY TESTING
CONCRETE
SUPERVISION & REPORTS
MASONRY
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
f.
g.
Consolidated Engineering Laboratories Ninyo & Moore
Friday, December 4, 2020Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
346,589.45$ 319,746.00$
1,656.00$ 1,807.10$
63.30$ 73.37$
(1) (2)
Proposal Base Bid says $289,686.00
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
Date Printed: 12/30/2020
1 of 5
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE COST WORKSHEET
RFP: Special Inspections and Geotechnical Service
a. Earthwork Observation
b. Pile/Pier Observation
c. Pile Testing Observation
d. Technician Earthwork Observation & Compaction Testing
e. Sample Pick-up
f. Nuclear Density Gauge Usage
g. Travel Allowance (round trip)
a. Proctor Density with Rock Correction, D1557, D698
b. Atterberg Limits, D4318, CT204
c. Sieve Analysis of Soil with 200 Wash, C136
d. Sand Equivalent, CT217
e. Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C136
f. Sieve Analysis, Fine (include wash, C136)
g. Sampling of all listed soils/base materials
a. Sampling for each Concrete placement
b. Concrete Moisture Slump Test – JOBSITE
c. Concrete Materials Batch Plant Inspections
d. Concrete Placement Inspection
e. Concrete Cylinder Compression Tests (4 per set)
a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE)
b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE)
a. Sampling for Testing of Reinforcing Steel
b. Testing of Reinforcing Steel (Tensile and Bend)
c. ID & Tag Loads of Reinforcing Steel
d. Reinforcing Placement
a. Sample and Test
b. Identify all materials (shop material identification)
c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs
d. Welding Inspection (Shop)
e. Welding Inspection (Field)
f. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop)
g. Ultrasonic Testing (Field)
h. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Shop)
i. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field)
j, Metal Deck Welding Inspection
k. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection
l. Metal Stud Welding Inspection
m. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection
a. Special Inspection Stresses Used
b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests
(Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)
d. Placement Inspection of Units
a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures
b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination
c. Preparation of Test Reports
d. Final Verified Report
e. Attendance of pre-construction meeting
Other Charges (Please explain)
(Average per ea cost)
(Average per hr cost)
(BASE BID)
PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
RANKING - BASED ON PRICE (APPLE TO APPLES)
PROJECT: Civic Campus Phase 2: LPR
FOR: City of South San Francisco
PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING
REINFORCING STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL
LABORATORY TESTING
CONCRETE
SUPERVISION & REPORTS
MASONRY
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
f.
g.
Test Lab: Test Lab:
Date: Date:
100 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 8,590.00$
260 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 23,400.00$ 260 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 22,334.00$
60 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 5,400.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 5,154.00$
400 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 36,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 34,360.00$
40 hrs @ 50.00$ per hr. = 2,000.00$ 40 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 1,400.00$
400 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 36,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 34,360.00$
100 trips @ 150.00$ per trip. = 15,000.00$ 100 trips @ -$ per trip. = Included
12 tests @ 150.00$ per test. = 1,800.00$ 12 tests @ 250.00$ per test. = 3,000.00$
9 tests @ 200.00$ per test. = 1,800.00$ 9 tests @ 125.00$ per test. = 1,125.00$
9 tests @ 150.00$ per test. = 1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 85.00$ per test. = 765.00$
9 tests @ 150.00$ per test. = 1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 95.00$ per test. = 855.00$
9 tests @ 100.00$ per test. = 900.00$ 9 tests @ 75.00$ per test. = 675.00$
9 tests @ 150.00$ per test. = 1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 85.00$ per test. = 765.00$
32 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 2,880.00$ 32 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 2,748.80$
60 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 4,920.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 5,154.00$
30 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 2,460.00$ 30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included
30 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 2,460.00$ 30 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 2,577.00$
150 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 12,300.00$ 150 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 12,885.00$
20 sets @ 40.00$ ea. set = 800.00$ 20 sets @ 80.00$ ea. set = 1,600.00$
60 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 4,920.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 5,154.00$
60 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 4,920.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 5,154.00$
40 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 3,280.00$ 40 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 3,436.00$
30 ea @ 125.00$ per ea. = 3,750.00$ 30 ea @ 70.00$ per ea. = 2,100.00$
60 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 4,920.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 5,154.00$
160 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 13,120.00$ 160 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 13,744.00$
100 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 3,500.00$ 100 hrs @ 49.50$ per hr. = 4,950.00$
100 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 3,500.00$ 100 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 8,590.00$
250 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 8,750.00$ 250 hrs @ 49.50$ per hr. = 12,375.00$
250 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 20,500.00$ 250 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 21,475.00$
200 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 7,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 49.50$ per hr. = 9,900.00$
200 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 16,400.00$ 200 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 17,180.00$
100 hrs @ 35.00$ per hr. = 3,500.00$ 100 hrs @ 49.50$ per hr. = 4,950.00$
150 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 12,300.00$ 150 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 12,885.00$
150 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 12,300.00$ 150 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 12,885.00$
200 hrs @ 45.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 17,180.00$
150 hrs @ 60.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$ 150 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 12,885.00$
100 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 8,200.00$ 100 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 8,590.00$
100 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 8,200.00$ 100 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 8,590.00$
10 ea @ 100.00$ per ea. = 1,000.00$ 10 ea @ 115.00$ per ea. = 1,150.00$
20 ea @ 40.00$ per ea. = 800.00$ 20 ea @ 20.00$ per ea. = 400.00$
200 hrs @ 82.00$ per hr. = 16,400.00$ 200 hrs @ 85.90$ per hr. = 17,180.00$
1,600.00$ 200.00$
4,600.00$ 24,125.21$
4,100.00$ -$
270.00$ 295.00$
NO CHARGE NO CHARGE
Shop base rate of $35/hour apples to Gayle only for
concurrent work based on Gayle's current schedule.
No contingency is budgeted by CTS for uncontrollable
Steel shop inspections based on fabrication at Gayle in
City should budget for this. Quantities provided by the city.
See attached fee schedule for all rates and basis of
charges
347,000.00$
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
Smith-Emery
Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
795.00$
72.73$
Construction Testing Services, Inc.
Friday, December 4, 2020
(4)(3)
1,708.01$
368,875.01$
76.49$
Base bid on proposal says $368771.01
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
Date Printed: 12/30/2020
2 of 5
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE COST WORKSHEET
RFP: Special Inspections and Geotechnical Service
a. Earthwork Observation
b. Pile/Pier Observation
c. Pile Testing Observation
d. Technician Earthwork Observation & Compaction Testing
e. Sample Pick-up
f. Nuclear Density Gauge Usage
g. Travel Allowance (round trip)
a. Proctor Density with Rock Correction, D1557, D698
b. Atterberg Limits, D4318, CT204
c. Sieve Analysis of Soil with 200 Wash, C136
d. Sand Equivalent, CT217
e. Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C136
f. Sieve Analysis, Fine (include wash, C136)
g. Sampling of all listed soils/base materials
a. Sampling for each Concrete placement
b. Concrete Moisture Slump Test – JOBSITE
c. Concrete Materials Batch Plant Inspections
d. Concrete Placement Inspection
e. Concrete Cylinder Compression Tests (4 per set)
a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE)
b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE)
a. Sampling for Testing of Reinforcing Steel
b. Testing of Reinforcing Steel (Tensile and Bend)
c. ID & Tag Loads of Reinforcing Steel
d. Reinforcing Placement
a. Sample and Test
b. Identify all materials (shop material identification)
c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs
d. Welding Inspection (Shop)
e. Welding Inspection (Field)
f. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop)
g. Ultrasonic Testing (Field)
h. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Shop)
i. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field)
j, Metal Deck Welding Inspection
k. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection
l. Metal Stud Welding Inspection
m. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection
a. Special Inspection Stresses Used
b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests
(Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)
d. Placement Inspection of Units
a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures
b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination
c. Preparation of Test Reports
d. Final Verified Report
e. Attendance of pre-construction meeting
Other Charges (Please explain)
(Average per ea cost)
(Average per hr cost)
(BASE BID)
PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
RANKING - BASED ON PRICE (APPLE TO APPLES)
PROJECT: Civic Campus Phase 2: LPR
FOR: City of South San Francisco
PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING
REINFORCING STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL
LABORATORY TESTING
CONCRETE
SUPERVISION & REPORTS
MASONRY
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
f.
g.
Test Lab: Test Lab:
Date: Date:
100 hrs @ 250.00$ per hr. = 25,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 8,500.00$
260 hrs @ 120.00$ per hr. = 31,200.00$ 260 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 22,100.00$
60 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 60 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 5,100.00$
400 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 36,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 34,000.00$
40 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 3,600.00$ 40 hrs @ 50.00$ per hr. = 2,000.00$
400 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 36,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 34,000.00$
100 trips @ 50.00$ per trip. = 5,000.00$ 100 trips @ 75.00$ per trip. = 7,500.00$
12 tests@ 250.00$ per test. =3,000.00$ 12 tests @ 160.00$ per test. =1,920.00$
9 tests@ 150.00$ per test. =1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 143.00$ per test. =1,287.00$
9 tests@ 150.00$ per test. =1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 203.00$ per test. =1,827.00$
9 tests@ 150.00$ per test. =1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 110.00$ per test. =990.00$
9 tests@ 150.00$ per test. =1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 93.00$ per test. =837.00$
9 tests@ 150.00$ per test. =1,350.00$ 9 tests @ 110.00$ per test. =990.00$
32 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 2,880.00$ 32 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 2,080.00$
60 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 60 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 4,800.00$
30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 30 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 2,400.00$
30 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 2,700.00$ 30 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 2,400.00$
150 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 14,700.00$ 150 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 12,000.00$
20 sets @ 100.00$ ea. set = 2,000.00$ 20 sets @ 100.00$ ea. set = 2,000.00$
60 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 5,400.00$ 60 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 4,800.00$
60 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 5,400.00$ 60 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 4,800.00$
40 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 3,600.00$ 40 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 2,600.00$
30 ea @ 150.00$ per ea. = 4,500.00$ 30 ea @ 65.00$ per ea. = 1,950.00$
60 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 60 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 3,900.00$
160 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 15,680.00$ 160 hrs @ 85.00$ per hr. = 13,600.00$
100 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 9,800.00$ 100 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 6,500.00$
100 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 100 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 6,500.00$
250 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 24,500.00$ 250 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 16,250.00$
250 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 24,500.00$ 250 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 23,750.00$
200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$ 200 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 16,000.00$
200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$ 200 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 19,000.00$
100 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$ 100 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 6,500.00$
150 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 14,700.00$ 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$
150 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 14,700.00$ 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$
200 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 2,352.00$ 200 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 18,000.00$
150 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 14,700.00$ 150 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 13,500.00$
100 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 9,800.00$ 100 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 9,000.00$
100 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 100 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 9,500.00$
10 ea @ 150.00$ per ea. = 1,500.00$ 10 ea @ 150.00$ per ea. = 1,500.00$
20 ea @ 30.00$ per ea. = 600.00$ 20 ea @ 40.00$ per ea. = 800.00$
200 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 19,600.00$ 200 hrs @ 95 per hr. = 19,000.00$
1,000.00$ 600.00$
20,000.00$ 14,951.24$
8,000.00$ 1,000.00$
500.00$ 1,000.00$
NO CHARGE NO CHARGE
** reduced reinforcing steel welding inspection to 24
hours total assuming that all other hours are correctly
designated and within budget
2,065.33$
75.60$
375,662.00$
(5) (6)
Achievement Engineering Corps.
Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
1,253.35$
79.66$
Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
Apex Testing Laboratories
388,732.24$
Date Printed: 12/30/2020
3 of 5
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE COST WORKSHEET
RFP: Special Inspections and Geotechnical Service
a. Earthwork Observation
b. Pile/Pier Observation
c. Pile Testing Observation
d. Technician Earthwork Observation & Compaction Testing
e. Sample Pick-up
f. Nuclear Density Gauge Usage
g. Travel Allowance (round trip)
a. Proctor Density with Rock Correction, D1557, D698
b. Atterberg Limits, D4318, CT204
c. Sieve Analysis of Soil with 200 Wash, C136
d. Sand Equivalent, CT217
e. Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C136
f. Sieve Analysis, Fine (include wash, C136)
g. Sampling of all listed soils/base materials
a. Sampling for each Concrete placement
b. Concrete Moisture Slump Test – JOBSITE
c. Concrete Materials Batch Plant Inspections
d. Concrete Placement Inspection
e. Concrete Cylinder Compression Tests (4 per set)
a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE)
b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE)
a. Sampling for Testing of Reinforcing Steel
b. Testing of Reinforcing Steel (Tensile and Bend)
c. ID & Tag Loads of Reinforcing Steel
d. Reinforcing Placement
a. Sample and Test
b. Identify all materials (shop material identification)
c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs
d. Welding Inspection (Shop)
e. Welding Inspection (Field)
f. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop)
g. Ultrasonic Testing (Field)
h. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Shop)
i. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field)
j, Metal Deck Welding Inspection
k. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection
l. Metal Stud Welding Inspection
m. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection
a. Special Inspection Stresses Used
b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests
(Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)
d. Placement Inspection of Units
a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures
b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination
c. Preparation of Test Reports
d. Final Verified Report
e. Attendance of pre-construction meeting
Other Charges (Please explain)
(Average per ea cost)
(Average per hr cost)
(BASE BID)
PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
RANKING - BASED ON PRICE (APPLE TO APPLES)
PROJECT: Civic Campus Phase 2: LPR
FOR: City of South San Francisco
PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING
REINFORCING STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL
LABORATORY TESTING
CONCRETE
SUPERVISION & REPORTS
MASONRY
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
f.
g.
Test Lab: Test Lab:
Date: Date:
100 hrs @ 125.00$ per hr. = 12,500.00$ 100 hrs @ ###### per hr. = 10,200.00$
260 hrs @ 125.00$ per hr. = 32,500.00$ 260 hrs @ 99.00$ per hr. = 25,740.00$
60 hrs @ 125.00$ per hr. = 7,500.00$ 60 hrs @ ###### per hr. = 9,900.00$
400 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 40,000.00$ 400 hrs @ ###### per hr. = 40,800.00$
40 hrs @ 50.00$ per hr. = 2,000.00$ 40 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 3,600.00$
400 hrs @ 15.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 400 hrs @ 20.00$ per hr. = 8,000.00$
100 trips @ -$ per trip. = Included 100 trips @ 85.00$ per trip. = 8,500.00$
120 samples 60 7,200.00$
12 tests @ 368.00$ per test. =4,416.00$ 12 tests @ ######per test. =3,900.00$
9 tests @ 285.00$ per test. =2,565.00$ 9 tests @ ######per test. =2,610.00$
9 tests @ 158.00$ per test. =1,422.00$ 9 tests @ ######per test. =1,575.00$
9 tests @ 212.00$ per test. =1,908.00$ 9 tests @ ######per test. =1,755.00$
9 tests @ 158.00$ per test. =1,422.00$ 9 tests @ ######per test. =2,925.00$
9 tests @ 158.00$ per test. =1,422.00$ 9 tests @ ######per test. =2,925.00$
32 hrs @ 80.00$ per hr. = 2,560.00$ 32 hrs @ 92.00$ per hr. = 2,944.00$
60 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 60 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 5,820.00$
30 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 3,000.00$ 30 hrs @ 10.00$ per hr. = 300.00$
30 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 3,000.00$ 30 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 2,910.00$
150 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 15,000.00$ 150 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 14,550.00$
200 sets @ 44.00$ ea. set = 8,800.00$ 20 sets @ ###### ea. set = 2,500.00$
200 samples 23 4,600.00$
60 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 60 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 5,820.00$
60 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 60 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 5,820.00$
60 10 600.00$
40 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 4,000.00$ 40 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 3,880.00$
30 ea @ 150.00$ per ea. = 4,500.00$ 30 ea @ ###### per ea. = 4,350.00$
60 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 6,000.00$ 60 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 5,820.00$
160 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 16,000.00$ 160 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 15,520.00$
100 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 10,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 9,700.00$
100 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 10,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 9,700.00$
250 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 18,750.00$ 250 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 24,250.00$
250 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 25,000.00$ 250 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 24,250.00$
200 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 15,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 99.00$ per hr. = 19,800.00$
200 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 20,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 99.00$ per hr. = 19,800.00$
100 hrs @ 75.00$ per hr. = 7,500.00$ 100 hrs @ 92.00$ per hr. = 9,200.00$
150 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 15,000.00$ 150 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 14,550.00$
150 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 15,000.00$ 150 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 14,550.00$
100 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 10,000.00$ 200 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 19,400.00$
150 hrs @ -$ per hr. = Included 150 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 14,550.00$
100 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 10,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 9,700.00$
-$ 400 10 4,000.00$
40 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = 4,000.00$ 100 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 9,700.00$
10 ea @ 228.00$ per ea. = 2,280.00$ 10 ea @ ###### per ea. = 2,250.00$
20 ea @ 64.00$ per ea. = 1,280.00$ 20 ea @ 95.00$ per ea. = 1,900.00$
0 hrs @ 100.00$ per hr. = Included 200 hrs @ 97.00$ per hr. = 19,400.00$
2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
18,631.25$ 5,000.00$
12,000.00$
500.00$ 500.00$
NO CHARGE NO CHARGE
(8)(7)
Signet Testing Labs
Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
1,454.00$
93.77$
Project Administration fee of 7% will be added to all
invoices to cover project administration costs related
to office project coordination, electronic reporting
including smart tablets, photos, review of daily….
A minimum of one-half hour per $5000 in invoiced
service per week will be charged to review daily field
reports, prepare and update non-
conformance/exception tracking records, and
preparation of weekly summary report
NOT TO EXCEED
1,639.73$
91.50$
RES Engineers, Inc.
Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
391,256.25$ 439,464.00$
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
Date Printed: 12/30/2020
4 of 5
SPECIAL INSPECTION AND GEOTECHNICAL SERVICE COST WORKSHEET
RFP: Special Inspections and Geotechnical Service
a. Earthwork Observation
b. Pile/Pier Observation
c. Pile Testing Observation
d. Technician Earthwork Observation & Compaction Testing
e. Sample Pick-up
f. Nuclear Density Gauge Usage
g. Travel Allowance (round trip)
a. Proctor Density with Rock Correction, D1557, D698
b. Atterberg Limits, D4318, CT204
c. Sieve Analysis of Soil with 200 Wash, C136
d. Sand Equivalent, CT217
e. Sieve Analysis, Coarse Aggregate, C136
f. Sieve Analysis, Fine (include wash, C136)
g. Sampling of all listed soils/base materials
a. Sampling for each Concrete placement
b. Concrete Moisture Slump Test – JOBSITE
c. Concrete Materials Batch Plant Inspections
d. Concrete Placement Inspection
e. Concrete Cylinder Compression Tests (4 per set)
a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE)
b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE)
a. Sampling for Testing of Reinforcing Steel
b. Testing of Reinforcing Steel (Tensile and Bend)
c. ID & Tag Loads of Reinforcing Steel
d. Reinforcing Placement
a. Sample and Test
b. Identify all materials (shop material identification)
c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs
d. Welding Inspection (Shop)
e. Welding Inspection (Field)
f. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop)
g. Ultrasonic Testing (Field)
h. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Shop)
i. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field)
j, Metal Deck Welding Inspection
k. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection
l. Metal Stud Welding Inspection
m. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection
a. Special Inspection Stresses Used
b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests
(Masonry Units, Wall Prisms)
c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms)
d. Placement Inspection of Units
a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures
b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination
c. Preparation of Test Reports
d. Final Verified Report
e. Attendance of pre-construction meeting
Other Charges (Please explain)
(Average per ea cost)
(Average per hr cost)
(BASE BID)
PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION
RANKING - BASED ON PRICE (APPLE TO APPLES)
PROJECT: Civic Campus Phase 2: LPR
FOR: City of South San Francisco
PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING
REINFORCING STEEL
STRUCTURAL STEEL
LABORATORY TESTING
CONCRETE
SUPERVISION & REPORTS
MASONRY
Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for
other services that may be available. Schedule shall
include hourly charges for personnel.
f.
g.
Test Lab: Test Lab:
Date: Date:
100 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 60 hrs @ 104.00$ per hr. = 6,240.00$
260 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 120 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 13,200.00$
60 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 16 hrs @ 104.00$ per hr. = 1,664.00$
400 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 140 hrs @ 104.00$ per hr. = 14,560.00$
48 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 4,560.00$ 30 hrs @ 65.00$ per hr. = 1,950.00$
400 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 400 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
126 trips @ 80.00$ per trip. = 10,080.00$ 100 trips @ -$ per trip. = -$
12 tests @ per test. = -$ 12 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
9 tests @ per test. = -$ 9 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
9 tests @ per test. = -$ 9 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
9 tests @ per test. = -$ 9 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
9 tests @ per test. = -$ 9 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
9 tests @ per test. = -$ 9 tests @ -$ per test. = -$
32 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 32 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
60 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 24 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 2,352.00$
30 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
30 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 30 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
128 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 12,160.00$ 72 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 7,920.00$
80 sets @ 45.00$ ea. set = 3,600.00$ 28 sets @ 100.00$ ea. set = 2,800.00$
60 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 60 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
60 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 8 hrs @ 98.00$ per hr. = 784.00$
40 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 40 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
30 ea @ per ea. = -$ 30 ea @ -$ per ea. = -$
60 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 60 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
65 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 6,175.00$ 160 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
100 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 20 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 1,800.00$
100 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 100 hrs @ 95.00$ per hr. = 9,500.00$
160 hrs @ 105.00$ per hr. = 16,800.00$ 880 hrs @ 90.00$ per hr. = 79,200.00$
240 hrs @ 105.00$ per hr. = 25,200.00$ 800 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 88,000.00$
200 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
200 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
40 hrs @ 105.00$ per hr. = 4,200.00$ 32 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 3,520.00$
150 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 150 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
150 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 150 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
200 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 200 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
150 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 150 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
100 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 100 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
100 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 100 hrs @ -$ per hr. = -$
10 ea @ per ea. = -$ 3 ea @ 150.00$ per ea. = 450.00$
20 45.00$ 900.00$
16 ea @ 50.00$ per ea. = 800.00$ 6 ea @ 35.00$ per ea. = 210.00$
200 hrs @ per hr. = -$ 48 hrs @ 110.00$ per hr. = 5,280.00$
-$ -$
3,000.00$ -$
-$ -$
350.00$ -$
NO CHARGE NO CHARGE
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEED
Krazan & Associates Bagg Engineering
Tuesday, December 1, 2020Friday, December 4, 2020
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEEDNOT TO EXCEED
(9)
19.00$ 503.57$
239,430.00$ 87,825.00$
46.60$ 100.00$
(10)
** Consultant not considered, proposal did not meet
RFP requirements **
** Consultant not considered, proposal did not meet RFP
requirements **
Proposal not considered, did not meet RFP
requirements Proposal not considered, did not meet RFP requirements
NOT TO EXCEED
NOT TO EXCEEDNOT TO EXCEED
Date Printed: 12/30/2020
5 of 5
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1037 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:11a.
Resolution approving a consulting services agreement for Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material
Testing services with Ninyo and Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences (“Ninyo &Moore”)
consultant of Alameda,California for the CIVIC CAMPUS:PHASE II LIBRARY,PARKS &RECREATION
AND COMMUNITY THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBER (“LPR”)(Project No.pf2103)in an amount not to
exceed $500,000, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement.
WHEREAS,City of South San Francisco solicited proposals for Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material
Testing services on November, 20, 2020; and
WHEREAS,City of South San Francisco received a total of twelve proposals from consultants in the area with
ten of them being previously pre-qualified by the Building Department; and
WHEREAS,City staff reviewed proposals and determined that Ninyo &Moore,Geotechnical and
Environmental Sciences (“Ninyo &Moore”)consultant provided the best value to the City for Geotechnical,
Special Inspection and Material Testing services; and
WHEREAS,Ninyo &Moore shall provide Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material Testing services to
the LPR project; and
WHEREAS,Ninyo &Moore shall proceed on a Time and Materials basis with rates identified on Exhibit A
with a Not-to-Exceed amount of $500,000.00 for inspection and material testing including geotechnical
services; and
WHEREAS,Ninyo &Moore will coordinate and comply with City of South San Francisco Building
Department and other authorities having jurisdiction on inspection requirements applicable to the construction
of LPR; and
WHEREAS,funding for the inspection services is included in the City of South San Francisco Capital
Improvements Program (“CIP”) and sufficient funds are available to cover cost; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1037 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:11a.
WHEREAS,inspection and material costs was included in the LPR project budget presented to City Council on
November 9, 2020 totaling a project total amount of $101,000,000.00.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City
Council hereby approves a consulting services agreement for Geotechnical,Special Inspection and Material
Testing services,attached herewith as Exhibit A,with Ninyo and Moore of Alameda,California in an amount
not to exceed $500,000.00,conditioned on the timely execution of the consulting services agreement and
submission of all required documents,including but not limited to,certificates of insurance and endorsements,
in accordance with the Project documents.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco 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 Ninyo and Moore signed contract and
all other documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to take any other required actions
consistent with the intent of this resolution, that do not materially increase the City’s obligations.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND
NINYO & MOORE GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES CONSULTANTS
THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco
(“City”) and Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants (“Consultant”) (together
sometimes referred to as the “Parties”) as of January 13, 2021 (the “Effective Date”).
Section 1. SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Consultant
shall provide to City the services described in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit A, at the time and place and in the manner specified therein. In the event of a conflict in or
inconsistency between the terms of this Agreement and Exhibit A, the Agreement shall prevail.
1.1 Term of Services. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall
end on June 30, 2023, the date of completion specified in Exhibit A, and Consultant shall
complete the work described in Exhibit A on or before that date, unless the term of the
Agreement is otherwise terminated or extended, as provided for in Section 8. The time
provided to Consultant to complete the services required by this Agreement shall not affect
the City’s right to terminate the Agreement, as provided for in Section 8.
1.2 Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work required by this Agreement
in a substantial, first-class manner and shall conform to the standards of quality normally
observed by a person practicing in Consultant's profession.
1.3 Assignment of Personnel. Consultant shall assign only competent personnel to perform
services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time
during the term of this Agreement, desires the reassignment of any such persons, Consultant
shall, immediately upon receiving notice from City of such desire of City, reassign such
person or persons.
1.4 Time. Consultant shall devote such time to the performance of services pursuant to this
Agreement as may be reasonably necessary to meet the standard of performance provided
in Sections 1.1 and 1.2 above and to satisfy Consultant’s obligations hereunder.
Section 2. COMPENSATION. City hereby agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. ($500,000.00) notwithstanding any contrary indications that may be
contained in Consultant’s proposal, for services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred under this
Agreement. In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and Consultant’s proposal, attached as Exhibit
A, or Consultant’s compensation schedule, attached as Exhibit B, regarding the amount of compensation,
the Agreement shall prevail. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at
the time and in the manner set forth herein. The payments specified below shall be the only payments from
City to Consultant for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall submit all invoices to
City in the manner specified herein. Except as specifically authorized by City in writing, Consultant shall not
bill City for duplicate services performed by more than one person.
Consultant and City acknowledge and agree that compensation paid by City to Consultant under this
Agreement is based upon Consultant’s estimated costs of providing the services required hereunder,
Exhibit A
including salaries and benefits of employees and subcontractors of Consultant. Consequently, the Parties
further agree that compensation hereunder is intended to include the costs of contributions to any pensions
and/or annuities to which Consultant and its employees, agents, and subcontractors may be eligible. City
therefore has no responsibility for such contributions beyond compensation required under this Agreement.
2.1 Invoices. Consultant shall submit invoices, not more often than once per month during the
term of this Agreement, based on the cost for all services performed and reimbursable costs
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain all the following information:
Serial identifications of progress bills (i.e., Progress Bill No. 1 for the first invoice,
etc.);
The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
A task summary containing the original contract amount, the amount of prior billings,
the total due this period, the balance available under the Agreement, and the
percentage of completion;
At City’s option, for each work item in each task, a copy of the applicable time entries
or time sheets shall be submitted showing the name of the person doing the work,
the hours spent by each person, a brief description of the work, and each
reimbursable expense;
The total number of hours of work performed under the Agreement by each
employee, agent, and subcontractor of Consultant performing services hereunder;
Consultant shall give separate notice to the City when the total number of hours
worked by Consultant and any individual employee, agent, or subcontractor of
Consultant reaches or exceeds eight hundred (800) hours within a twelve (12)-
month period under this Agreement and any other agreement between Consultant
and City. Such notice shall include an estimate of the time necessary to complete
work described in Exhibit A and the estimate of time necessary to complete work
under any other agreement between Consultant and City, if applicable.
The amount and purpose of actual expenditures for which reimbursement is sought;
The Consultant’s signature.
2.2 Monthly Payment. City shall make monthly payments, based on invoices received, for
services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized reimbursable costs incurred. City shall
have thirty (30) days from the receipt of an invoice that complies with all of the requirements
above to pay Consultant. Each invoice shall include all expenses and actives performed
during the invoice period for which Consultant expects to receive payment.
2.3 Final Payment. City shall pay the five percent (5%) of the total sum due pursuant to this
Agreement within sixty (60) days after completion of the services and submittal to City of a
final invoice, if all services required have been satisfactorily performed.
2.4 Total Payment. City shall pay for the services to be rendered by Consultant pursuant to
this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any expense or cost whatsoever
incurred by Consultant in rendering services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall make
no payment for any extra, further, or additional service pursuant to this Agreement. In no
event shall Consultant submit any invoice for an amount in excess of the maximum amount
of compensation provided above either for a task or for the entire Agreement, unless the
Agreement is modified prior to the submission of such an invoice by a properly executed
change order or amendment.
2.5 Hourly Fees. Fees for work performed by Consultant on an hourly basis shall not exceed
the amounts shown on the compensation schedule attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit B.
2.6 Reimbursable Expenses. The following constitute reimbursable expenses authorized by
this Agreement (travel (mileage, toll, and other applicable travel cost). Reimbursable
expenses shall not exceed EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($8,500.00).
Expenses not listed above are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable expenses are included
in the total amount of compensation provided under Section 2 of this Agreement that shall
not be exceeded.
2.7 Payment of Taxes; Tax Withholding. Consultant is solely responsible for the payment of
employment taxes incurred under this Agreement and any similar federal or state taxes. To
be exempt from tax withholding, Consultant must provide City with a valid California
Franchise Tax Board form 590 (“Form 590”), as may be amended and such Form 590 shall
be attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit (N/A). Unless Consultant provides
City with a valid Form 590 or other valid, written evidence of an exemption or waiver from
withholding, City may withhold California taxes from payments to Consultant as required by
law. Consultant shall obtain, and maintain on file for three (3) years after the termination of
this Agreement, Form 590s (or other written evidence of exemptions or waivers) from all
subcontractors. Consultant accepts sole responsibility for withholding taxes from any non-
California resident subcontractor and shall submit written documentation of compliance with
Consultant’s withholding duty to City upon request.
2.8 Payment upon Termination. In the event that the City or Consultant terminates this
Agreement pursuant to Section 8, the City shall compensate the Consultant for all
outstanding costs and reimbursable expenses incurred for work satisfactorily completed as
of the date of written notice of termination. Consultant shall maintain adequate logs and
timesheets to verify costs incurred to that date.
2.9 Authorization to Perform Services. The Consultant is not authorized to perform any
services or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of
authorization from the Contract Administrator.
2.10 False Claims Act. Presenting a false or fraudulent claim for payment, including a change
order, is a violation of the California False Claims Act and may result in treble damages and
a fine of five thousand ($5,000) to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation.
2.11 Prevailing Wage. Where applicable, the wages to be paid for a day's work to all classes of
laborers, workmen, or mechanics on the work contemplated by this Agreement, shall be not
less than the prevailing rate for a day’s work in the same trade or occupation in the locality
within the state where the work hereby contemplates to be performed as determined by the
Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the Director’s authority under Labor Code Section
1770, et seq. Each laborer, worker or mechanic employed by Consultant or by any
subcontractor shall receive the wages herein provided for. The Consultant shall pay two
hundred dollars ($200), or whatever amount may be set by Labor Code Section 1775, as
may be amended, per day penalty for each worker paid less than prevailing rate of per diem
wages. The difference between the prevailing rate of per diem wages and the wage paid to
each worker shall be paid by the Consultant to each worker.
An error on the part of an awarding body does not relieve the Consultant from responsibility
for payment of the prevailing rate of per diem wages and penalties pursuant to Labor Code
Sections 1770 1775. The City will not recognize any claim for additional compensation
because of the payment by the Consultant for any wage rate in excess of prevailing wage
rate set forth. The possibility of wage increases is one of the elements to be considered by
the Consultant.
a. Posting of Schedule of Prevailing Wage Rates and Deductions. If the schedule of
prevailing wage rates is not attached hereto pursuant to Labor Code Section 1773.2, the
Consultant shall post at appropriate conspicuous points at the site of the project a schedule
showing all determined prevailing wage rates for the various classes of laborers and
mechanics to be engaged in work on the project under this contract and all deductions, if
any, required by law to be made from unpaid wages actually earned by the laborers and
mechanics so engaged.
b. Payroll Records. Each Consultant and subcontractor shall keep an accurate payroll
record, showing the name, address, social security number, work week, and the actual per
diem wages paid to each journeyman, apprentice, worker, or other employee employed by
the Consultant in connection with the public work. Such records shall be certified and
submitted weekly as required by Labor Code Section 1776.”
Section 3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth herein, Consultant shall, at its sole cost
and expense, provide all facilities and equipment that may be necessary to perform the services required by
this Agreement. City shall make available to Consultant only the facilities and equipment listed in this section,
and only under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be
reasonably necessary for Consultant’s use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and
the information in possession of the City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing those facilities shall
be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility that may involve
incurring any direct expense, including but not limited to computer, long-distance telephone or other
communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities.
Section 4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Before beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant, at its own cost and expense, unless otherwise specified below, shall procure the types and
amounts of insurance listed below against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property that may
arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant and its agents,
representatives, employees, and subcontractors. Consistent with the following provisions, Consultant shall
provide proof satisfactory to City of such insurance that meets the requirements of this section and under
forms of insurance satisfactory in all respects, and that such insurance is in effect prior to beginning work to
the City. Consultant shall maintain the insurance policies required by this section throughout the term of this
Agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in the Consultant's bid. Consultant shall not allow
any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until Consultant has obtained all insurance required
herein for the subcontractor(s). Consultant shall maintain all required insurance listed herein for the duration
of this Agreement.
4.1 Workers’ Compensation. Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, maintain Statutory
Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for any and all
persons employed directly or indirectly by Consultant. The Statutory Workers’
Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance shall be provided with limits of
not less than $1,000,000 per accident. In the alternative, Consultant may rely on a self-
insurance program to meet those requirements, but only if the program of self-insurance
complies fully with the provisions of the California Labor Code. Determination of whether a
self-insurance program meets the standards of the Labor Code shall be solely in the
discretion of the Contract Administrator, as defined in Section 10.9. The insurer, if insurance
is provided, or the Consultant, if a program of self-insurance is provided, shall waive all rights
of subrogation against the City and its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for loss
arising from work performed under this Agreement.
4.2 Commercial General and Automobile Liability Insurance.
4.2.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain
commercial general and automobile liability insurance for the term of this Agreement
in an amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence,
combined single limit coverage for risks associated with the work contemplated by
this Agreement. If a Commercial General Liability Insurance or an Automobile
Liability form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this
Agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required
occurrence limit. Such coverage shall include but shall not be limited to, protection
against claims arising from bodily and personal injury, including death resulting
therefrom, and damage to property resulting from activities contemplated under this
Agreement, including the use of owned and non-owned automobiles.
4.2.2 Minimum scope of coverage. Commercial general coverage shall be at least as
broad as Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability occurrence form
CG 0001 or GL 0002 (most recent editions) covering comprehensive General
Liability Insurance and Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form
Comprehensive General Liability on an “occurrence” basis. Automobile coverage
shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Automobile Liability form CA
0001 (most recent edition). No endorsement shall be attached limiting the coverage.
4.2.3 Additional requirements. Each of the following shall be included in the insurance
coverage or added as a certified endorsement to the policy:
a. The Insurance shall cover on an occurrence or an accident basis, and not
on a claims-made basis.
b. Any failure of Consultant to comply with reporting provisions of the policy
shall not affect coverage provided to City and its officers, employees,
agents, and volunteers.
4.3 Professional Liability Insurance.
4.3.1 General requirements. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall maintain for
the period covered by this Agreement professional liability insurance for licensed
professionals performing work pursuant to this Agreement in an amount not less
than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) covering the licensed professionals’
errors and omissions. Any deductible or self-insured retention shall not exceed ONE
HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($150,000) per claim.
4.3.2 Claims-made limitations. The following provisions shall apply if the professional
liability coverage is written on a claims-made form:
a. The retroactive date of the policy must be shown and must be before the
date of the Agreement.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided
for at least five (5) years after completion of the Agreement or the work, so
long as commercially available at reasonable rates.
c. If coverage is canceled or not renewed and it is not replaced with another
claims-made policy form with a retroactive date that precedes the date of
this Agreement, Consultant shall purchase an extended period coverage
for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work under this
Agreement or the work. The City shall have the right to exercise, at the
Consultant’s sole cost and expense, any extended reporting provisions of
the policy, if the Consultant cancels or does not renew the coverage.
d. A copy of the claim reporting requirements must be submitted to the City
for review prior to the commencement of any work under this Agreement.
4.3.3 Additional Requirements. A certified endorsement to include contractual liability
shall be included in the policy
4.4 All Policies Requirements.
4.4.1 Acceptability of insurers. All insurance required by this section is to be placed
with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VII.
4.4.2 Verification of coverage. Prior to beginning any work under this Agreement,
Consultant shall furnish City with complete copies of all policies delivered to
Consultant by the insurer, including complete copies of all endorsements attached
to those policies. All copies of policies and certified endorsements shall show the
signature of a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. If
the City does not receive the required insurance documents prior to the Consultant
beginning work, this shall not waive the Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The
City reserves the right to require complete copies of all required insurance policies
at any time.
4.4.3 Notice of Reduction in or Cancellation of Coverage. A certified endorsement
shall be attached to all insurance obtained pursuant to this Agreement stating that
coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, or reduced in
coverage or in limits, except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified
mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. In the event that any
coverage required by this section is reduced, limited, cancelled, or materially
affected in any other manner, Consultant shall provide written notice to City at
Consultant’s earliest possible opportunity and in no case later than ten (10) working
days after Consultant is notified of the change in coverage.
4.4.4 Additional insured; primary insurance. City and its officers, employees, agents,
and volunteers shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to each of the
following: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Consultant,
including the City’s general supervision of Consultant; products and completed
operations of Consultant, as applicable; premises owned, occupied, or used by
Consultant; and automobiles owned, leased, or used by the Consultant in the course
of providing services pursuant to this Agreement. The coverage shall contain no
special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City or its officers,
employees, agents, or volunteers.
A certified endorsement must be attached to all policies stating that coverage is
primary insurance with respect to the City and its officers, officials, employees and
volunteers, and that no insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City shall be
called upon to contribute to a loss under the coverage.
4.4.5 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Consultant shall disclose to and obtain
the approval of City for the self-insured retentions and deductibles before beginning
any of the services or work called for by any term of this Agreement. Further, if the
Consultant’s insurance policy includes a self-insured retention that must be paid by
a named insured as a precondition of the insurer’s liability, or which has the effect
of providing that payments of the self-insured retention by others, including
additional insureds or insurers do not serve to satisfy the self-insured retention, such
provisions must be modified by special endorsement so as to not apply to the
additional insured coverage required by this agreement so as to not prevent any of
the parties to this agreement from satisfying or paying the self-insured retention
required to be paid as a precondition to the insurer’s liability. Additionally, the
certificates of insurance must note whether the policy does or does not include any
self-insured retention and also must disclose the deductible.
During the period covered by this Agreement, only upon the prior express written
authorization of Contract Administrator, Consultant may increase such deductibles
or self-insured retentions with respect to City, its officers, employees, agents, and
volunteers. The Contract Administrator may condition approval of an increase in
deductible or self-insured retention levels with a requirement that Consultant
procure a bond, guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration, and defense expenses that is satisfactory in all respects to each of
them.
4.4.6 Subcontractors. Consultant shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates and certified endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
4.4.7 Wasting Policy. No insurance policy required by Section 4 shall include a “wasting”
policy limit.
4.4.8 Variation. The City may approve a variation in the foregoing insurance
requirements, upon a determination that the coverage, scope, limits, and forms of
such insurance are either not commercially available, or that the City’s interests are
otherwise fully protected.
4.5 Remedies. In addition to any other remedies City may have if Consultant fails to provide or
maintain any insurance policies or policy endorsements to the extent and within the time
herein required, City may, at its sole option exercise any of the following remedies, which
are alternatives to other remedies City may have and are not the exclusive remedy for
Consultant’s breach:
a.Obtain such insurance and deduct and retain the amount of the premiums for such
insurance from any sums due under the Agreement;
b.Order Consultant to stop work under this Agreement or withhold any payment that
becomes due to Consultant hereunder, or both stop work and withhold any payment,
until Consultant demonstrates compliance with the requirements hereof; and/or
c.Terminate this Agreement.
Section 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND CONSULTANT’S RESPONSIBILITIES. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, Consultant shall, to the fullest extent allowed by law, with respect to all Services performed
in connection with this Agreement, indemnify, defend with counsel selected by the City, and hold harmless
the City and its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all losses,
liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of any personal injury, bodily injury,
loss of life, or damage to property, or any violation of any federal, state, or municipal law or ordinance
(“Claims”), to the extent caused, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by the willful misconduct or negligent
acts or omissions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractors, or agents. The foregoing obligation of
Consultant shall not apply when (1) the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law arises wholly
from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers
and (2) the actions of Consultant or its employees, subcontractor, or agents have contributed in no part to
the injury, loss of life, damage to property, or violation of law.
5.1 Insurance Not in Place of Indemnity. Acceptance by City of insurance certificates and
endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability
under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold
harmless clause shall apply to any damages or claims for damages whether or not such
insurance policies shall have been determined to apply. By execution of this Agreement,
Consultant acknowledges and agrees to the provisions of this Section and that it is a
material element of consideration.
5.2 PERS Liability. In the event that Consultant or any employee, agent, or subcontractor of
Consultant providing services under this Agreement is determined by a court of competent
jurisdiction or the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) to be eligible for
enrollment in PERS as an employee of City, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold
harmless City for the payment of any employee and/or employer contributions for PERS
benefits on behalf of Consultant or its employees, agents, or subcontractors, as well as for
the payment of any penalties and interest on such contributions, which would otherwise be
the responsibility of City.
5.3 Third Party Claims. With respect to third party claims against the Consultant, the
Consultant waives any and all rights of any type of express or implied indemnity against the
Indemnitees.
Section 6. STATUS OF CONSULTANT.
6.1 Independent Contractor. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. City shall have the right
to control Consultant only insofar as the results of Consultant's services rendered pursuant
to this Agreement and assignment of personnel pursuant to Subparagraph 1.3; however,
otherwise City shall not have the right to control the means by which Consultant
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other
City, state, or federal policy, rule, regulation, law, or ordinance to the contrary, Consultant
and any of its employees, agents, and subcontractors providing services under this
Agreement shall not qualify for or become entitled to, and hereby agree to waive any and all
claims to, any compensation, benefit, or any incident of employment by City, including but
not limited to eligibility to enroll in the California Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) as an employee of City and entitlement to any contribution to be paid by City for
employer contributions and/or employee contributions for PERS benefits.
6.2 Consultant Not an Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no
authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent
to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
Section 7. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
7.1 Governing Law. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement.
7.2 Compliance with Applicable Laws. Consultant and any subcontractors shall comply with
all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the performance of the work
hereunder. Consultant’s failure to comply with such law(s) or regulation(s) shall constitute
a breach of contract.
7.3 Other Governmental Regulations. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by
fiscal assistance from another governmental entity, Consultant and any subcontractors shall
comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such
fiscal assistance program.
7.4 Licenses and Permits. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its
employees, agents, and any subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications, and
approvals, including from City, of whatsoever nature that are legally required to practice their
respective professions. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant and its
employees, agents, any subcontractors shall, at their sole cost and expense, keep in effect
at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals that are
legally required to practice their respective professions. In addition to the foregoing,
Consultant and any subcontractors shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement valid Business Licenses from City.
7.5 Nondiscrimination and Equal Opportunity. Consultant shall not discriminate, on the
basis of a person’s race, religion, color, national origin, age, physical or mental handicap or
disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, or sexual orientation, against any employee,
applicant for employment, subcontractor, bidder for a subcontract, or participant in, recipient
of, or applicant for any services or programs provided by Consultant under this Agreement.
Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, policies, rules, and
requirements related to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination in employment, contracting,
and the provision of any services that are the subject of this Agreement, including but not
limited to the satisfaction of any positive obligations required of Consultant thereby.
Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by
the Contract Administrator or this Agreement.
Section 8. TERMINATION AND MODIFICATION.
8.1 Termination. City may cancel this Agreement at any time and without cause upon written
notification to Consultant.
Consultant may cancel this Agreement for cause upon thirty (30) days’ written notice to City
and shall include in such notice the reasons for cancellation.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services
performed to the effective date of notice of termination; City, however, may condition
payment of such compensation upon Consultant delivering to City all materials described in
Section 9.1.
8.2 Extension. City may, in its sole and exclusive discretion, extend the end date of this
Agreement beyond that provided for in Subsection 1.1. Any such extension shall require
Consultant to execute a written amendment to this Agreement, as provided for herein.
Consultant understands and agrees that, if City grants such an extension, City shall have no
obligation to provide Consultant with compensation beyond the maximum amount provided
for in this Agreement. Similarly, unless authorized by the Contract Administrator, City shall
have no obligation to reimburse Consultant for any otherwise reimbursable expenses
incurred during the extension period.
8.3 Amendments. The Parties may amend this Agreement only by a writing signed by all the
Parties.
8.4 Assignment and Subcontracting. City and Consultant recognize and agree that this
Agreement contemplates personal performance by Consultant and is based upon a
determination of Consultant’s unique personal competence, experience, and specialized
personal knowledge. Moreover, a substantial inducement to City for entering into this
Agreement was and is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant.
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any interest therein without the prior written
approval of the Contract Administrator. Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any
portion of the performance contemplated and provided for herein, other than to the
subcontractors noted in the proposal, without prior written approval of the Contract
Administrator.
8.5 Survival. All obligations arising prior to the termination of this Agreement and all provisions
of this Agreement allocating liability between City and Consultant shall survive the
termination of this Agreement.
8.6 Options upon Breach by Consultant. If Consultant materially breaches any of the terms
of this Agreement, City’s remedies shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
8.6.1 Immediately terminate the Agreement;
8.6.2 Retain the plans, specifications, drawings, reports, design documents, and any
other work product prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement;
8.6.3 Retain a different consultant to complete the work described in Exhibit A not finished
by Consultant; or
8.6.4 Charge Consultant the difference between the costs to complete the work described
in Exhibit A that is unfinished at the time of breach and the amount that City would
have paid Consultant pursuant to Section 2 if Consultant had completed the work.
Section 9. KEEPING AND STATUS OF RECORDS.
9.1 Records Created as Part of Consultant’s Performance. All reports, data, maps, models,
charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda, plans, studies, specifications, records,
files, or any other documents or materials, in electronic or any other form, that Consultant
prepares or obtains pursuant to this Agreement and that relate to the matters covered
hereunder shall be the property of the City. Consultant hereby agrees to deliver those
documents to the City upon termination of the Agreement. It is understood and agreed that
the documents and other materials, including but not limited to those described above,
prepared pursuant to this Agreement are prepared specifically for the City and are not
necessarily suitable for any future or other use. City and Consultant agree that, until final
approval by City, all data, plans, specifications, reports and other documents are confidential
and will not be released to third parties without prior written consent of both Parties except
as required by law.
9.2 Consultant’s Books and Records. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books
of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents
evidencing or relating to charges for services or expenditures and disbursements charged
to the City under this Agreement for a minimum of three (3) years, or for any longer period
required by law, from the date of final payment to the Consultant to this Agreement.
9.3 Inspection and Audit of Records. Any records or documents that Section 9.2 of this
Agreement requires Consultant to maintain shall be made available for inspection, audit,
and/or copying at any time during regular business hours, upon oral or written request of the
City. Under California Government Code Section 8546.7, if the amount of public funds
expended under this Agreement exceeds ten thousand ($10,000.00), the Agreement shall
be subject to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of City or as part
of any audit of the City, for a period of three (3) years after final payment under the
Agreement.
9.4 Records Submitted in Response to an Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals. All
responses to a Request for Proposals (RFP) or invitation to bid issued by the City become
the exclusive property of the City. At such time as the City selects a bid, all proposals
received become a matter of public record, and shall be regarded as public records, with the
exception of those elements in each proposal that are defined by Consultant and plainly
marked as “Confidential,” "Business Secret" or “Trade Secret."
The City shall not be liable or in any way responsible for the disclosure of any such proposal
or portions thereof, if Consultant has not plainly marked it as a "Trade Secret" or "Business
Secret," or if disclosure is required under the Public Records Act.
Although the California Public Records Act recognizes that certain confidential trade secret
information may be protected from disclosure, the City may not be in a position to establish
that the information that a prospective bidder submits is a trade secret. If a request is made
for information marked "Trade Secret" or "Business Secret," and the requester takes legal
action seeking release of the materials it believes does not constitute trade secret
information, by submitting a proposal, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless the City, its agents and employees, from any judgment, fines, penalties, and award
of attorneys’ fees awarded against the City in favor of the party requesting the information,
and any and all costs connected with that defense. This obligation to indemnify survives the
City's award of the contract. Consultant agrees that this indemnification survives as long as
the trade secret information is in the City's possession, which includes a minimum retention
period for such documents.
Section 10 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
10.1 Attorneys’ Fees. If a Party to this Agreement brings any action, including arbitration or an
action for declaratory relief, to enforce or interpret the provision of this Agreement, the
prevailing Party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees in addition to any other relief
to which that Party may be entitled. The court may set such fees in the same action or in a
separate action brought for that purpose.
10.2 Venue. In the event that either Party brings any action against the other under this
Agreement, the Parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state
courts of California in the County of San Mateo or in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.
10.3 Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
Agreement is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the provisions of this Agreement not so
adjudged shall remain in full force and effect. The invalidity in whole or in part of any
provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this
Agreement.
10.4 No Implied Waiver of Breach. The waiver of any breach of a specific provision of this
Agreement does not constitute a waiver of any other breach of that term or any other term
of this Agreement.
10.5 Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Parties.
10.6 Use of Recycled Products. Consultant shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies
and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost
than virgin paper.
10.7 Conflict of Interest. Consultant may serve other clients, but none whose activities within
the corporate limits of City or whose business, regardless of location, would place Consultant
in a “conflict of interest,” as that term is defined in the Political Reform Act, codified at
California Government Code Section 81000, et seq.
Consultant shall not employ any City official in the work performed pursuant to this
Agreement. No officer or employee of City shall have any financial interest in this Agreement
that would violate California Government Code Sections 1090, et seq.
Consultant hereby warrants that it is not now, nor has it been in the previous twelve (12)
months, an employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City. If Consultant was an
employee, agent, appointee, or official of the City in the previous twelve (12) months,
Consultant warrants that it did not participate in any manner in the forming of this Agreement.
Consultant understands that, if this Agreement is made in violation of Government Code
§1090, et seq., the entire Agreement is void and Consultant will not be entitled to any
compensation for services performed pursuant to this Agreement, including reimbursement
of expenses, and Consultant will be required to reimburse the City for any sums paid to the
Consultant. Consultant understands that, in addition to the foregoing, it may be subject to
criminal prosecution for a violation of Government Code § 1090 and, if applicable, will be
disqualified from holding public office in the State of California.
10.8 Solicitation. Consultant agrees not to solicit business at any meeting, focus group, or
interview related to this Agreement, either orally or through any written materials.
10.9 Contract Administration. This Agreement shall be administered by Kitchell CEM
("Contract Administrator"). All correspondence shall be directed to or through the Contract
Administrator or his or her designee.
10.10 Notices. All notices and other communications which are required or may be given under
this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given (i) when
received if personally delivered; (ii) when received if transmitted by telecopy, if received
during normal business hours on a business day (or if not, the next business day after
delivery) provided that such facsimile is legible and that at the time such facsimile is sent the
sending Party receives written confirmation of receipt; (iii) if sent for next day delivery to a
domestic address by recognized overnight delivery service (e.g., Federal Express); and (iv)
upon receipt, if sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. In each case
notice shall be sent to the respective Parties as follows:
Consultant
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
2020 Challenger Drive, Suite 103
Alameda, CA 94501
City
City Clerk
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
10.11 Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the
first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of
construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional
responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled
"Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility," as in the
following example.
_________________________________________
Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with
report/design responsibility.
10.12 Integration. This Agreement, including the scope of work attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibits A, B represents the entire and integrated agreement between City and
Consultant and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either
written or oral pertaining to the matters herein.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Scope of Services
Compensation Schedule
10.13 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and/or by facsimile or
other electronic means, and when each Party has signed and delivered at least one such
counterpart, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and, when taken together with
other signed counterpart, shall constitute one Agreement, which shall be binding upon and
effective as to all Parties.
10.14 Construction. The headings in this Agreement are for the purpose of reference only and
shall not limit or otherwise affect any of the terms of this Agreement. The parties have had
an equal opportunity to participate in the drafting of this Agreement; therefore any
construction as against the drafting party shall not apply to this Agreement.
10.15 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made solely for the benefit of the Parties
hereto with no intent to benefit any non-signatory third parties.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSULTANT
____________________________ ______________________________
City Manager
Attest:
____________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
____________________________
City Attorney
2729964.1
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
A. Scope of Services – Geotechnical / Soil Engineering:
The Engineer shall provide geotechnical consultation, inspection / testing during construction and materials’
testing and special inspection services as required, including without limitation the following (see attachment
C for the required testing):
1.Provide technical consultation during construction to respond to requests for information pertaining
to geotechnical issues.
2.Provide technical consultation during construction including review of submittals related to
geotechnical issues and respond to requests for information.
3.Project management to include client liaison, work scheduling, quality control review of test results,
and distribution of field reports.
4.Observe excavations to evaluate the subsurface conditions exposed for consistency with the findings
and recommendations in a geotechnical report.
5.Perform laboratory tests on imported fill and aggregate base to evaluate conformance with
specifications.
6.Perform laboratory tests to evaluate the reference density of subgrade, fill, and aggregate base.
7.Observe preparation and testing of subgrade and placement of fill during site grading, installation of
underground utilities, and installing aggregate base, and foundation excavations.
8.Perform field density tests to evaluate compaction of fill, subgrade, and aggregate base.
9.Prepare daily field reports documenting the work observed.
10.Review laboratory test results, field inspection reports, and compaction test results for conformance
with geotechnical recommendations.
11.Observation of pier drilling and pile construction.
12.Observation of pile testing performed by contractor.
13.Review and evaluation of pile test results for conformance with geotechnical recommendations.
14.Preparation of a summary report documenting geotechnical observations during foundation
construction, the results of pile testing, and conclusions regarding compliance with the plans and
specifications.
15.Prepare a summary report documenting geotechnical observations during earthwork operations, the
results of the compactions testing, and conclusions regarding conformance with project
specifications.
B.Scope of Services – Special Inspection and Testing:
The Engineer shall provide consultation, inspection / testing during construction and materials’ testing
and special inspection services as required, including without limitation the following (see attachment C
for the required testing):
1.Inspection and testing of structural steel erection including metal decking and shop fabrication.
2.Visual inspection of structural steel welding and bolting.
3.Non-destructive testing of structural steel welding.
4.Visual inspection of light gauge steel welding.
5.Visual inspection of welding of miscellaneous metals.
6.Masonry installation inspection.
7.Embedded anchors inspection.
8.Visual inspection and non-destructive testing at fabrication facilities for structural steel and
miscellaneous metals.
9.Asphalt sampling, testing and inspection.
10.Intermittent batch plan inspection.
11.Inspection of in-place mock-ups.
12.Pre-cast concrete inspection and attachment to structure.
C.Scope of Services – General Requirements:
1.The ENGINEER shall have access to the PROJECT site at all times. Services will be scheduled
and coordinated by the City’s Construction Manager.
2.The ENGINEER will endeavor to secure compliance by the Contractor with the contract
requirements, but does not guarantee the performance of their contracts.
3.The ENGINEER, as part of his/her basic services, shall advise the CITY of any deficiencies in
construction of the PROJECT.
4.The ENGINEER shall advise the CITY to reject work which does not conform to the Construction
Documents. Construction Documents include but are not limited to: The Agreement between
Owner and Contractor (hereinafter “Construction Agreement”), Conditions of the Contract
(General, Special and other Conditions), Drawings, Specifications, Addenda issued prior to
execution of the Contract, other documents listed in the Construction Agreement and Modifications
issued after execution of the Construction Agreement.
5. The ENGINEER shall not issue orders to Contractor that might commit the CITY to extra expenses
without first obtaining the written approval of the CITY.
6. The ENGINEER shall provide written evaluation of the performance of the Contractor under the
requirements of the Construction Documents when requested by the CITY.
7. The ENGINEER shall be responsible for gathering information and processing forms required by
applicable governing authorities, such as building departments, OPSC, and DSA, in a timely
manner and ensure proper PROJECT close-out, if necessary.
8. If work requested by the Architect pursuant to this Article involves additional charge, prior written
approval of the CITY shall be obtained before proceeding.
9. The ENGINEER shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and
ordinances that are applicable to the PROJECT.
Duties and Responsibilities of the Special Inspector
1. Observe Work
The special inspector shall observe the work for conformance with the building division approved
(stamped) design drawings and specifications and applicable workmanship provisions of the
California Building Code (CBC). Architect/Engineer reviewed shop drawings and/or placing
drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special inspections are to be performed on a
continuous basis; meaning that the special inspector is on site in the general area at all times
observing the work requiring special inspection. Periodic inspections, if any, must have prior
approval by the building division based on the separate written plan reviewed and approved by the
building division and the project engineer or architect.
2. Report Nonconforming Items
The special inspector shall bring nonconforming items to the immediate attention of the contractor
and note all such items in the daily report. If any item is not resolved in a timely manner or is about
to be incorporated in the work, the special inspector shall immediately notify the building division
by telephone or in person, notify the engineer or architect and post a discrepancy notice.
3. Furnish Daily Report
On request, each special inspector shall complete and sign both the special inspection record and
the daily report form for each day’s inspections to remain at the jobsite with the contractor for
review by the building division’s inspector.
4. Furnish Weekly Reports
The special inspector or inspection agency shall furnish weekly reports of tests and inspections
directly to the building division, project engineer or architect, and others as designated. These
reports must include the following:
a.Description of daily inspections’ and tests made with applicable locations;
b.Listing of all nonconforming items;
c.Report on how nonconforming items were resolved and unresolved as applicable; and
d.Itemized changes authorized by the architect, engineer and building division if not included
in nonconformance items
5.Furnish Final Report
The special inspector or inspection agency shall submit a final signed report to the building division
stating that all items requiring special inspection and testing were fulfilled and reported and, to the
best of his/her knowledge, in conformance with the approved design drawings, specifications,
approved change orders and the applicable workmanship provisions of the CBC. Items not in
conformance, unresolved items or any discrepancies in inspection coverage (i.e. missed
inspections, periodic inspections when continuous was required, etc.) shall be specifically itemized
in this report.
D. Other Requirements:
1.The ENGINEER’s services shall be performed in a manner which is consistent with professional
skill and care and the orderly progress of the work. The ENGINEER represents that ENGINEER
will follow the standards of ENGINEER’s profession in performing all services under this
AGREEMENT.
2.All work shall be performed by qualified personnel under the supervision of a Registered
Professional Engineer. All reports shall bear the seal of a Registered Professional Engineer.
3.The ENGINEER shall make a written record of all meetings, conferences, discussions and
decisions made between or among the CITY, ENGINEER, Architect or Contractor during all
phases of the PROJECT and concerning any material condition in the requirements, scope,
performance and/or sequence of the work. The ENGINEER shall provide a copy of such record
to the CITY.
EXHIBIT B
COMPENSATION SCHEDULE
Consultant to bill on a Time and Materials basis with rates as identified within the Inspection Cost
Worksheet and those rates included in the “Schedule of Fees” provided at the time of proposal.
Contract Summary
Base Services: $289,686.00
Additional Inspection Services: $210,314.00
GRAND TOTAL – NOT TO EXCEED: $500,000.00
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-954 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:12.
Report on a resolution approving the Annual Development Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report (AB
1600) for the Fiscal Year 2019-20.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer
Capacity Charge Report for the Fiscal Year 2019-20 and make findings as required by the Mitigation Fee
Act.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
State law (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.)authorizes the City to collect impact fees from new
development to fund public facilities that are needed due to further growth.In FY19-20,City administered nine
impact fee programs and one sewer capacity charge.These programs support new development’s share of
certain capital infrastructure projects.The impact fees are charged based upon a pro-rata share of the cost of the
recent improvements.The sewer capacity charge is a cost recovery charge based on the proportional benefit to
the person or property being charged.It is associated with providing collection and treatment capacity through
the existing infrastructure available and future capital projects.
Government Code Section 66000 et seq.requires the City to review the status of collected impact fees and
sewer capacity charges annually.The impact fee and sewer capacity charge report for fiscal year ending June
30, 2020 (“AB 1600 Report”) is provided as Exhibit A to the resolution associated with this staff report.
A summary of each fund’s ending balances as of June 30, 2020, is as follows:
·Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee: $65,912
·Commercial Linkage Fee (Affordable Housing): $4,957,462
·Childcare Impact Fee: $6,185,209
·Park Land Acquisition Fee: $868,732
·Park Construction Fee: $2,275,065
·Public Safety Impact Fee: $1,420,078
·Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee: $78,634
Note:The ending balance includes a loan balance of $3,635,152 from the former Redevelopment
Agency,now the Successor Agency.The former RDA advanced funds to complete the interchange
before all impact fees had been collected.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-954 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:12.
·Traffic Impact Fee: $25,015,746
Note:For FY 19-20,Traffic Impact Fees are only to be used to fund new development’s share for new
and expanded roadway and intersection improvements in the east of 101 plan area.
·Sewer Impact Fee: $5,407,840
·Sewer Capacity Charges: $8,149,748
The AB 1600 Report also shows the planned projects using the various impact fees or sewer capacity charges
contemplated for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact related this report as the purpose of this report is to comply with annual
government reporting requirements.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
Adoption of the resolution supports the City’s strategy on financial stability.
CONCLUSION
Adoption of the resolution will meet the reporting requirements of Government Code Section 66000 et seq.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 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 #:20-955 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:12a.
Resolution approving the Annual Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20.
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.),the City is required
to annually report certain information regarding the collection of development impact fees; and
WHEREAS,under the Mitigation Fee Act,the City is also required to make certain findings every five (5)
years regarding unexpended impact fees and summarize those findings in the annual report (“Report”); and
WHEREAS,the Report for Fiscal year 2019-20 identifies any unexpended impact fee programs for which
findings are required; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Government Code section 66013,the City is also required to annually report certain
information in connection with the collection of Sewer Capacity Charges; and
WHEREAS,the Report for Fiscal year 2019-20,attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A,contains
both the annual reporting information for the City’s development impact fee programs and also contains a
section with the necessary annual information for Sewer Capacity Charges; and
WHEREAS,the Report has been made available at City Hall for at least fifteen (15)days prior to this Council
meeting and was distributed to all Councilmembers in advance of said meeting.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby
approves the Report for Fiscal Year 2019-20,attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A,as required
by Government Section 66006.
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1
Annual Impact Fee Report
For the City of South San Francisco
For Fiscal Year 2019-20
This report contains information on the City of South San Francisco’s development impact fees
for the Fiscal Year 2019-20. The annual reporting requirements are in Government Code section
66000 et seq. Please note that this annual report is not a budget document but rather meets reporting
requirements. The report does not intend to represent a full picture of currently planned projects.
It only reports project information, revenues, and expenditures for the Fiscal Year 2019-20.
Government Code Section 66006 requires agencies to outline the status of development impact
fees. Government Code Section 66001 requires local agencies to submit five-year financial reports.
The annual report is available to the public within 180 days after the last day of the fiscal year.
The report is presented to the public agency (the City Council) at least 15 days after it is made
available to the public.
This report summarizes each of the development impact fee programs. Requirements under
Government Code Section 66006 are:
1. A brief description of the fee program.
2. The amount of the fee.
3. Beginning and ending balances of the fee program.
4. Amount of fees collected, interest earned, and transfers/loans.
5. An identification of each public improvement. The expenditures on each project. The
total percentage of the cost of the public improvement is funded with development impact
fees.
6. A description of each interfund transfer or loan. The date the loan will be repaid, the rate
of interest, and a description of the public improvement.
7.The estimated date when projects will begin if enough revenues are available to construct
the project.
8. The number of refunds made to property owners.
This report also summarizes five-year reporting information for the Oyster Point Interchange
Impact Fee program as required under Government Code Section 66001:
1. The purpose of the fee expenditure.
2. The reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose used.
Exhibit A
2
3. All sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete
improvements.
4. The approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (3) above are
deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
This report also contains information on the City of South San Francisco’s sewer capacity charges.
Government Code Section 66013 requires agencies to submit annual reports on the status of sewer
capacity charges. The public must have access to the report within 180 days after the last day of
each fiscal year. This report summarizes the following information for the sewer capacity charges:
1. A description of the charges deposited in the fund.
2. The beginning and ending balance of the fund and the interest earned from investment
in the fund.
3. The amount collected in that fiscal year.
4. An identification of all the following:
a. Each public improvement on which charges were expended and the amount
of the expenditure for each improvement, including the percentage of the total cost
of the public improvement that was funded with those charges if more than one
source of funding was used.
b. Each public improvement on which charges were expended that was completed
during that fiscal year.
c. Each public improvement that is anticipated to be undertaken in the following
fiscal year.
5. A description of each interfund transfer or loan from the capital facilities fund, the
date the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest. In the case of an interfund transfer, the
report identifies the public improvements on which the money is or will be expended.
More detailed information on the various fee programs is available. Nexus studies, master plans,
capital improvement programs, and budgets are all made public on the City's website.
The City does not earmark impact fees for any specific project as revenues come in. Nexus studies
outline capital improvement projects. Nexus studies examples may include future sewer
infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and other capital facilities. This report is accurate as
of the time of publication. Any proposed plans are subject to change based on City Council action.
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citywide Impact Fee Program
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Fund (Fund 822)
Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................5
Financial Reporting ..................................................................................................6
Commercial Linkage Impact Fee
Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................7
Financial Reporting ..................................................................................................8
Childcare Impact Fee Fund (Fund 830)
Overview and Required Findings ............................................................................9
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................10
Park Land Acquisition Fee (Fund 805)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................11
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................12
Park Construction Fee (Fund 806)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................13
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................14
Public Safety Impact Fee Fund (Fund 821)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................15
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................16
Plan Area Impact Fee Programs
Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Fund (Fund 840)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................17
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................19
Sewer Impact Fee Fund (Fund 810)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................20
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................21
Traffic Impact Fee Fund (Fund 820)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................22
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................23
4
Other Reportable Citywide Charges
Sewer Capacity Charge Fund (Fund 730)
Overview and Required Findings ..........................................................................24
Financial Reporting ................................................................................................25
Fee Schedules........................................................................................................................26
5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program
The City Council adopted this nexus study for the citywide impact fee program in 2017. The study
identified the need to support the Bicycle Master Plan adopted by the City in February 2011 by
Resolution 23-2011. The General Plan establishes that maintaining bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure requires funding sources. The Bicycle Master Plan recommends the completion of
the City’s existing network of bicycle paths, lanes, and routes.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The purpose of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program is to establish funding for
completion of the City’s existing network of bicycle paths. Additional daily trips due to
development projects place more demands on bicycle and pedestrian infrastructures in the city.
2. Refer to page 26 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Impact Fee.
3. Refer to page 6 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Impact Fee.
4. See page 6 of this report for Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fees collected, and interest earned.
5. There have been no projects completed during the Fiscal Year 2019-20 using the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Impact Fee funding.
6. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the discretion
of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated.
7. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
8. There were no potential refunds to property owners.
6
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee Program (Fund 822)
This citywide development impact fee program funds bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Development projects generate additional daily trips that place more demands on bicycle and
pedestrian infrastructures in the city.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $51,273
Additions
Bicycle and pedestrian impact fees collected $12,438
Interest earned 2,200
Total additions 14,638
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Total disbursements 0
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $65,912
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year
2020/21. 0
Remaining balance after planned projects $65,912
7
Commercial Linkage Fee Program
The nexus study for this citywide impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2018 by
Resolution 123-2018. The study justified the need to provide sufficient funding for affordable
housing, and established a nexus between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of
commercial development within the City. The impact fee program supports the City of South San
Francisco’s adopted 2015-2023 Housing Element, which includes the goal of promoting the
provision of housing by both the private and public sectors for all income groups in the community.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The purpose of the Commercial Linkage Impact Fee program is to provide funding for
affordable housing for employees who work in the City as a result of new commercial
development.
2. Refer to page 26 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Commercial
Linkage Impact Fee.
3. Refer to page 8 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the
Commercial Linkage Impact Fee.
4. See page 8 of this report for the amount of Commercial Linkage Impact Fees that have
been collected and interest earned.
5. There have been no projects completed during the Fiscal Year 2019-20 using the
Commercial Linkage Impact Fee funding.
6. The approximate date for funding and execution of projects will be determined, at the
discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated.
7. There was an interfund transfer to reconcile the distinction between the affordable housing
in-lieu fund (205) and the newly established commercial linkage fund (823).
8. There were no potential refunds to property owners.
8
Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Program (Fund 823)
The Commercial Linkage Fee (CLF) Ordinance (No. 1560-2018) was adopted by the City Council
on August 22, 2018, establishing a fee on certain commercial development to generate local
funding for affordable housing.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $0
Additions
Commercial linkage impact fees collected $96,233
Interest earned 174,029
Transfers in from Fund 205
(Affordable Housing In-Lieu) 4,687,200
Total additions $4,957,462
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Total disbursements 0
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $4,957,462
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Predevelopment Loan to Bridge Housing for 158
BMR Units at the PUC Site 2,000,000 100%
Total planned projects (2,000,000)
Remaining balance after planned projects $2,957,462
9
Childcare Impact Fee Program
The City Council adopted the nexus study for this citywide impact fee program in 2001. The study
identified the need for new and expanded child care facilities in the City. Updates since 2001 to
this fee program have included a periodic inflation change. The fee program includes a 5%
administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded facilities included in the nexus
study totaled $43.9 million. The nexus study identified new development’s share of the cost as
24.6% of the total new and expanded facilities cost. Development impact fee revenue was
estimated at $11.3 million, which includes administrative costs of 5% of total fee revenue. Existing
development’s share of the cost is $33.1 million (75.4% of new facilities) which must be funded
with other funding sources. Other funding sources may include the City’s General Fund, grants,
developer contributions, and Community Development Block Grants.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The purpose of the Childcare Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share
of funding for new and expanded childcare facilities required at build-out of the City.
2. Refer to page 26 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Childcare
Impact Fee.
3. Refer to page 10 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the
Childcare Impact Fee.
4. See page 10 of this report for the amount of the Childcare Impact Fees that have been
collected, and interest earned.
5. There was one project worked on during Fiscal Year 2019-20 using the Childcare Impact
Fee funding.
6. The approximate date for funding and constructing future facilities will be determined, at
the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds for facility construction
have accumulated.
7. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
8. There are no potential refunds to property owners.
10
Childcare Impact Fee (Fund 830)
This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of new and
expanded childcare facilities to serve the City.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $5,536,728
Additions
Childcare impact fees collected $455,544
Interest earned 209,914
Total additions 665,458
Disbursements % Fee Funded
City administration 2,745 100%
Projects
Appropriate funds to Childcare operating expense
for Relocation and Installation of Portable classroom
at Ponderosa School 14,232 100%
Total disbursements (16,977)
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $6,185,209
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
New preschool facility design and construction
(pf2101) 5,500,000 100%
Total planned projects (5,500,000)
Remaining balance after planned projects $685,209
11
Park Land Acquisition Fee
The City Council adopted the nexus study for this impact fee program in 2017. Ordinance 1520-
2016 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.67, adopting the parkland acquisition fee
and park construction fee to generate funding for parks in South San Francisco. The General Plan,
the Parks + Recreation Master Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan each lay out specific park
requirements. The current need is three acres of park land per one thousand future residents and
one half of an acre per one thousand new employees is the current need. This fee differs from the
City’s Quimby Act fee in Section 19.24.040 et seq of the Municipal Code. The Quimby Act allows
for the imposition of land dedication requirements and in-lieu fees for residential subdivisions.
The Act does not apply to other types of residential development projects or commercial
development projects.
The Park Land Acquisition Fee is applied to residential and non-residential development projects
to support the demands for parks and recreation spaces generated by new residents of residential
development projects and new employees of non-residential development projects. The nexus
study calculated the fee for park land acquisition based on the number of residents generated by
each new type of residential unit and the number of employees per 1,000 square feet in non-
residential development projects. The City adopted the Park Land Acquisition Fee under the
authority of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The purpose of the Park Land Acquisition Fee fund is to provide new development’s share
of funding for acquiring new parks and recreation spaces at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 new
residents in multifamily development projects and 0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees in
commercial development projects.
2. Refer to page 26 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee.
3. Refer to page 12 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this
fee.
4. Refer to page 12 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interest earned.
5. There have been no projects completed during Fiscal Year 2019-20 using the Park Land
Acquisition fee funding.
6. The approximate date for funding and acquiring park land will be determined, at the
discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds have accumulated.
7. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
8. There are no potential refunds to property owners.
12
Park Land Acquisition Fee (Fund 805)
This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for acquiring
new park and recreation spaces.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $365,934
Additions
Park land acquisition fees collected $478,826
Interest earned 23,972
Total additions 502,798
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Total disbursements 0
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $868,732
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Transit Village Park feasibility study (pk2101) 60,000 100%
Total planned projects (60,000)
Remaining balance after planned projects $808,732
13
Park Construction Fee
The nexus study for this impact fee program was adopted by the City Council in 2017. Ordinance
1520-2016 amended the Municipal Code to include Chapter 8.67 adopting the parkland acquisition
fee and park construction fee. The purpose of the Park Construction Fee is to provide funding for
the construction of park facilities and improvements. The General Plan, the Parks & Recreation
Master Plan, and the East of 101 Area Plan call for 3 acres of parkland and facilities per 1,000 new
residents and ½ an acre of parkland and facilities per 1,000 new employees. The City incurs the
costs of administering the fee program and preparing analyses and reports related to it.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The purpose of the Park Construction Fee fund is to provide new development’s share of
funding developing new parks and recreation spaces at a rate of 3 acres per 1,000 new
residents in multifamily development projects and 0.5 acres per 1,000 new employees in
commercial development projects.
2. Refer to page 27 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee.
3. Refer to page 14 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this
fee.
4. Refer to page 14 of this report for the number of fees collected and interest earned.
5. During Fiscal Year 2019-20, there were no funds used from the Park Construction Fee
fund. There is one project planned for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
6. The approximate date for further funding and developing park land and recreation facilities
will be determined, at the discretion of the City Council, when adequate additional funds
have accumulated.
7. There was one interfund transfer. There was a misclassification of $1,000,000 of in-lieu
fees deposited into fund 806, which staff reclassified into the correct account (209). The
balance sheet will show $1,000,000 of revenues (meant for fund 209) and $1,000,000 of
expenditures (transferred to fund 209). This is the reclassification of those funds into the
correct account.
8. There are no potential refunds to property owners.
14
Park Construction Fee (Fund 806)
This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share for developing
new park and recreation spaces.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $2,116,515
Additions
Park construction fees collected $1,021,992
Interest earned 136,559
Total additions 1,158,551
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Misclassification of funds transfer to fund 209 1,000,000
Total disbursements (1,000,000)
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $2,275,065
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Sellick Park Renovation Project (pk1803)
100,000 100%
Total planned projects
(100,000)
Remaining balance after planned projects $2,175,065
15
Public Safety Impact Fee Program
The City Council adopted the nexus study for this citywide impact fee program in 2012. The study
identified the need for new and expanded public safety capital facility and equipment to support
new development projects. This fee program also includes an annual inflation adjustment. The
fee program includes a 2% administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded public
safety equipment and facilities included in the nexus study totaled $40.4 million. The nexus study
identified new development’s share of the cost at $10.4 million (25.6% of the total new and
expanded equipment and facilities cost). Existing development’s share of the cost is $30.0 million
(74.4% of new equipment and facilities) which must be funded with other funding sources such as
the City’s General Fund, grants, or developer contributions.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. The Public Safety Impact Fee is collected to provide new development’s share of funding
for new and expanded public safety capital facility and equipment required at build out of
the City.
2. Refer to page 27 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee.
3. Refer to page 16 of this report for the beginning and ending balance for the account of this
fee.
4. Refer to page 16 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interested earned.
5. One project utilized the Public Safety Impact Fee fund in FY 2019-20. Refer to page 16 of
this report for identification of public improvement on which fees were expended, the
amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost
of the public improvement that was funded with the fees.
6. The approximate date for further funding and constructing facilities and procuring future
equipment identified in the nexus study will be determined when adequate additional funds
have accumulated.
7. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
8. There are no potential refunds to property owners.
16
Public Safety Impact Fee (Fund 821)
This citywide development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of new and
expanded capital facility and equipment to serve the City.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $1,301,230
Additions
Public Safety impact fees collected – Fire $302,113
Public Safety impact fees collected - Police 127,835
Interest earned 49,471
Total additions 479,419
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Fire Station 64 dorm and bathroom remodel
(pf1805) 360,571 27.65%
Total disbursements (360,571)
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $1,420,078
Planned projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Civic Campus Phase I (Police Station) 1,000,000 1.79%
Routine Handgun Replacement Project 67,000 100%
Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center (pf2003) 57,615 100%
Total planned projects (1,124,615)
Remaining balance after planned projects $295,463
17
Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Program
The City Council adopted this plan area fee program on May 23, 1984, using a February 1983
Feasibility Study prepared by Nolte and Associates in conjunction with Resolution No. 71-84
which created the “Oyster Point Contribution Formula.” The 1983 Feasibility Study identified the
need for the Oyster Point Interchange project, which was, at that time, referred to as the grade
separation project.
Updates to the fee program since 1984 include the following:
1. An ongoing inflation adjustment.
2. June 26, 1996, fee program changes via Resolution No. 102-96 included adjustments for:
a. the inflationary index that reduced the fee by approximately 22%,
b. the project description which increased the scope of the project to include the
Terrabay hook ramps and the southbound off-ramp flyover, and the use of more
current trip generation rates.
3. October 9, 1996 fee program change via Resolution No. 152-96 that added additional land
uses with their associated trip generation rates.
The Feasibility Study identified new development’s share of the grade separation project cost at
64.8% and existing development’s share of the cost at 35.2%. The grade separation was completed
and funded in 1995 and is not part of this annual report. The increased scope portion of the project,
added in 1996, was identified as being 100% the responsibility of new development. Of this
additional scope, the flyover, estimated to cost $6.4 million, was completed in 2005, and the hook
ramps, estimated to cost $15 million, were completed in October 2006. Additional work relating
to property transfers and gaining final Caltrans project acceptance is ongoing.
Required 5-Year Findings for Unexpended Funds/Annual Reporting Requirements
1. The purpose of the Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Program is to provide new
development’s share of funding for this project required at build-out of the plan area.
2. Refer to page 19 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for this
fee.
3. Refer to page 19 of this report for fees collected and interest earned.
4. The reasonable relationship between the Oyster Point interchange impact fee and the
purpose for which it is charged is demonstrated in the 1983 Feasibility Study by Nolte and
Associates, and in the fee program updates in Resolution No. 102-96 and Resolution No.
152-96. As of June 30, 2020, there continues to be a need for Oyster Point Interchange
Impact fees due to further developments in that area of South San Francisco.
18
5. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated for Oyster Point Interchange projects can
be found in the updates adopted via Resolution No. 102-96 and Resolution No. 152-96.
Additional working relating to property transfers and gaining final Caltrans project
acceptance is ongoing.
6. Buildout in the Oyster Point Interchange area is ongoing due to further developments in
South San Francisco. The City’s buildout is assumed to occur over a 20-year period, which
is consistent with the General Plan.
7. There are currently no planned projects for Oyster Point Interchange impact fees.
8. The fund has one loan from the former Redevelopment Agency. Please refer to page 19 of
this report. The amount owed as of June 30, 2020, is approximately $3.6 million. Since
the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency in 2012, the interest rate charged by the
Successor Agency is 0%. The loan is repaid as new impact fee revenue is received. Given
that the amount of future impact fee revenue is unknown, the repayment date is unknown.
There were no other interfund transfers or loans.
9. There are no potential refunds of Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fees to property owners.
10. Refer to page 28 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the Oyster Point
Interchange Impact Fee.
19
Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee (Fund 840)
This plan area development impact fee program funds new development’s fair share of the Oyster
Point Interchange project.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $72,256
Additions
Fees collected $1,195,993
Interest earned 20,384
Total additions 1,216,377
Disbursements % Fee Funded
Repayment of RDA Loan 1,210,000 100%
Total disbursements (1,210,000)
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $78,634
Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
There are no planned projects for Fiscal Year
2020/21. 0
Remaining Balance After Planned Projects $78,634
Loans to Oyster Point Interchange Fee Fund from
Successor Agency to RDA
Due Date and
Interest Rate
Balance, July 1, 2019
4,845,152 None & 0%
Less payment during fiscal year 1,210,000
Balance, June 30, 2020 (3,635,152)
Fees available (future fees required) for current
and completed projects $(3,556,518)
20
Sewer Impact Fee Program
The 2002 nexus study for this fee was adopted by the City Council in 2002. The study identified
the need for new and rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area located
east of US 101 in the City of South San Francisco. This fee program also includes an annual
inflation adjustment. The estimated cost of the 20 new and expanded sewer projects included in
the study totaled $21.4 million. The study identified new development’s share of the cost of the
required facilities at $15.5 million (72.4% of the total new and expanded facilities cost) while
existing development’s share of the cost (existing deficiency) is $5.9 million (27.6% of new
facilities). New development’s share of the cost, $15.5 million, was increased to include some
master planning costs ($425,000) and some CEQA reviewing costs ($600,000) for a total cost to
new development of $16,425,000. Of that amount, $12,429,000 was to be sewer impact fee funded
and $4,066,000 was to be funded directly by developer contributions. Of the twenty total projects
listed in the nexus study, eleven projects are either fully or partially funded with the sewer impact
fee funds, four are existing development’s responsibility, four are to be funded by developer
contributions, and one is to be funded with a combination of developer contributions and revenues
from existing development. Existing development’s share will be funded with the sewer charges
appearing on property tax bills as a direct levy.
Annual Reporting Information
1. The purpose of the Sewer Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of
funding for new and rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area
located east of US 101 at build-out of the plan area.
2. Refer to page 28 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee.
3. Refer to page 21 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for this
fee.
4. Refer to page 21 of this report for the amount of fees collected, and interest earned.
5. There was one project that was partially funded in FY 2019-20 using the Sewer Impact Fee
program funding, refer to page 21 of this report for an identification of public improvement
on which fees were expended, the amount of the expenditures on each improvement,
including the total percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with
the fees.
6. The approximate date for funding and constructing additional future facilities and
infrastructure will be determined when adequate additional funds have accumulated.
7. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
8. There are no potential refunds of Sewer Impact Fees to property owners.
21
Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 810)
This plan area development impact fee program funds new development's fair share of new and
rehabilitated sewer collection and treatment facilities to serve the area located east of US 101 in
the City.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $4,436,134
Additions
Fees collected $1,317,358
Interest earned 174,089
Net Fee Credit Permits 0
Total additions 1,491,447
Disbursements % Fee Funded
City administration 2,745 100%
Pump Station #2 Upgrade (ss1702) 516,996 42.30%
Total Disbursements (519,741)
Remaining balance as of June 30, 2020 $5,407,840
Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Pump Station #14 upgrade (ss1902) 4,000,000 100%
Total planned projects (4,000,000)
Remaining Balance After Planned Projects $1,407,840
22
Traffic Impact Fee Program
The 2001 nexus study for this plan area fee was adopted by the City Council in 2002. The study
identified the need for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements to serve the area
located east of US 101 in the City of South San Francisco. The study was updated on May 6, 2005,
and on July 19, 2007. This fee program includes an annual inflation adjustment and a 2.5%
administrative fee. The estimated cost of the new and expanded facilities included in the 2007
study totaled $38.5 million ($32.4 million in net cost after accounting for fees already received).
There are 26 road improvements listed in the 2007 study and two studies for a total of 28 projects.
The study determined that new development would be responsible for 100% of the cost of the 28
projects.
Annual Reporting Information
1. The purpose of the Traffic Impact Fee Program is to provide new development’s share of
funding for new and expanded roadway and intersection improvements to serve the area
located east of US 101 at build-out of the plan area.
2. See page 28 of this report for the fee schedule outlining the amount of the fee.
3. See page 23 of this report for beginning and ending balance of the account for this fee.
4. See page 23 of this report for the amount of fees collected and interest earned.
9. There were eight projects that were either partially or wholly funded in FY 2019-20. Refer
to page 23 of this report for an identification of public improvement on which fees were
expended, the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with the fees.
5. The remaining nexus study projects will be programmed in future years’ CIP budgets at
the discretion of the City Council.
6. There were no interfund transfers or loans.
7. There are no potential refunds of Traffic Impact Fees to property owners.
23
Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 820)
This plan area development impact fee program funds new development's fair share of new and
expanded roadway and intersection improvements east of US 101 to serve the City of South San
Francisco.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $20,593,457
Additions
Fees collected $4,244,426
Interest earned 814,074
Total additions $5,058,500
Disbursements % Fee Funded
City administration 2,745 100%
N. Access Rd. Bike + Ped Improvements (st1806) 75,973 17.18%
Caltrain Station to E. Grand Bike Gap Closure (st2003) 1,267 28.96%
South Airport Blvd. Improvements (st2004) 5,305 100%
Traffic Impact Fees Study (tr1013) 46,437 100%
E. Grand, Gateway & Forbes Intersection (tr1602) 10,840 100%
E. 101 Traffic Model Update (tr1702) 2,466 100%
Adaptive Traffic Control System (tr1901) 488,826 100%
E.101 Traffic Signal IDEA Grant (tr1902) 2,354 23.98%
Total disbursements (636,211)
Remaining Balance as of June 30, 2020 $25,015,746
Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
South Airport Bridge Replacement (st1301) 1,500,000 100%
Grand Ave. & Airport Blvd. Intersection Improvements
(st1801) 1,525,000 50%
N. Access Rd. Bike & Ped Improvements (st1806) (60,000) 17.18%
Caltrain to E. Grand Bike Gap Closure (st2003) 1,100,000 28.96%
S. Airport/Belle Aire Improvements (st2004) 368,000 100%
Oyster Point and E. Grand Ave. Corridor Improvements
(tr1602) 620,000 100%
Adaptive Traffic Control System (tr1901) 600,000 100%
E. Traffic Signal IDEA Grant (tr1902) 198,000 100%
Hillside and Lincoln Traffic Improvements (tr1906) 1,500,000 95.23%
Utah and Harbor Intersection Improvements (tr2101) 250,000 100%
DNA Way at E. Grand Ave. and Allerton Ave. at E. Grand Ave.
Signalized Intersection (tr2102) 3,500,000 100%
Total planned projects (11,101,000)
Remaining balance after planned projects $13,914,746
24
Sewer Capacity Charge Program
The original analysis was adopted by the City Council in 2000 and annual updates included a
preset adjustment to the charges based on borrowing costs. The most current Sewer Capacity
Charge Analysis by Bartle Wells & Associates is dated August 26, 2009 and was adopted by the
City Council in April of 2010 to be effective in Fiscal Year 2010-11. This analysis identifies the
need for sewer collection and treatment capacity in the City of South San Francisco. There are two
components to the Sewer Capacity Charge: the capital assets valuation charge and the capital
improvements charge. The capital assets charge accounts for the existing value of the sewer
collection and treatment system which is calculated using the depreciated replacement cost of the
system’s assets. The capital assets charge (also called a “buy-in” fee) assigns a value to the benefit
that new development receives from the availability of sewer capacity (which existing
development has maintained over the years through the sewer rates). The total depreciated
replacement value is $161.6 million, of which 37.2 percent is new development’s fair-share, or
$60.1 million. The second component is the charge for future improvements to the system
identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The total cost of these future improvements
is $84.6 million, the fair-share allocation to new development is 37.2 percent of that amount, or
$29.8 million. The total fair-share is $90 million. These funds may be used for capital
improvements to maintain capacity in the system.
Annual Reporting Information:
1. Refer to page 25 of this report for the beginning and ending balance of the account for the
sewer capacity fund, the amount of charges collected, and the interest earned from
investment of moneys in the fund.
2. There were two projects that were worked on in FY 2019-20 using the sewer capacity
charge program. Refer to page 25 of this report for an identification of the public
improvement on which charges were expended, the amount of the expenditures on each
improvement.
3. Refer to page 25 of this report for an identification of public improvements anticipated to
be undertaken in the next fiscal year.
4. The sewer capacity charges do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the
facilities for which the fee is charged (see Cal. Gov. Code § 66013, subd. (a)).
5. The sewer capacity charge’s accounting and reporting requirements are being met, i.e., the
revenues are kept in a separate fund and the City provides annual reports on the use of the
funds collected (see Cal. Gov. Code §§ 66013, subds. (c) and (d)).
6. There were not any interfund transfers or loans.
25
Sewer Capacity Charges (Fund 730)
This fee program funds the cost associated with providing collection and treatment capacity to new
development, both through the existing infrastructure provided, and through future capital projects
not funded by other sources.
Beginning balance, July 1, 2019 $12,323,558
Additions
Fees collected $2,035,408
Interest earned 261,987
Total additions 2,297,395
Disbursements % Fee Funded
City administration 2,745 100%
Pump Station #2 upgrades (ss1702) 705,217 12.9%
WQCP Wet Weather & Digester Improvements (ss1301) 5,763,243 57.70%
Total disbursements (6,471,205)
Remaining Balance as of June 30, 2020 $8,149,748
Planned Projects for Fiscal Year 2020/21 % Fee Funded
Pump Station #2 Upgrade (ss1702) 5,645,283 42.30%
Total planned projects (5,645,283)
Remaining balance after planned projects $2,504,465
26
Bicycle and Pedestrian Impact Fee for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Land Use Cost per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet
(SQFT)
Residential
Single-Family $243 per unit
Multi-Family $170 per unit
Mobile Home $127 per unit
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Retail $.36 per SQFT
Hotel / Visitor Services $.24 / visitor SF
Office / R&D $.09 per SQFT
Industrial $.12 per SQFT
Commercial Linkage Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Gross Square Feet Commercial Floor Area Minus Existing Floor Area × Current Fee Amount for
Applicable Land use Category where the Land Use Fee is:
$5.20 per sf for Hotel
$2.60 per sf for restaurant and retail
$15.60 per sf for medical and R&D
Childcare Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Land Use per Unit or per Gross Sq. Ft. (GSF)
Residential
Low Density $1,979 per unit
Medium Density $1,858 per unit
High Density $1,851 per unit
Other Residential $1.28 per GSF
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Retail $0.68 per GSF
Hotel / Visitor Services $0.18 per GSF
Office / R&D $0.57 per GSF
Other Non-Residential $0.54 per GSF
Park Land Acquisition Fee for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Land Use per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet (SQFT)
Residential
Single-Family $2,976 per unit
Duplex to Four-plex $2,571 per unit
5 to 19 $2,183 per unit
20 to 49 $1,759 per unit
27
50+ $1,535 per unit
Mobile Home $2,286 per unit
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Retail $0 per 1,000 SQFT
Hotel / Visitor Services $0 per 1,000 SQFT
Office / R&D $0 per 1,000 SQFT
Industrial $0 per 1,000 SQFT
Park Construction Fee for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Land Use per Unit or 1,000 Square Feet (SQFT)
Residential
Single-Family $26,148 per unit
Duplex to Four-plex $22,586 per unit
5 to 19 $19,175 per unit
20 to 49 $15,462 per unit
50+ $13,491 per unit
Mobile Home $20,085 per unit
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Retail $1,257 per 1,000 SQFT
Hotel / Visitor Services $1,196 per 1,000 SQFT
Office / R&D $1,116 per 1,000 SQFT
Industrial $528 per 1,000 SQFT
Public Safety Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Land Use per Unit or per Square Foot (SF)
Residential
Low Density $1,285 per unit
Medium Density $810 per unit
High Density $563 per unit
Commercial/Industrial
Commercial / Retail $0.44 per SF
Hotel / Visitor $0.42 per SF
Office / R&D $0.44 per SF
Industrial $0.18 per SF
Oyster Point Interchange Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
The impact fee is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle trips by $154 and by the
percentage increase in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) as published in the Engineering News-
Record (ENR) from the date of adoption, when the CCI was 6,552.16, to the current effective CCI.
Vehicle Trips are based on average daily traffic (ADT). The rates shown below are based on 1,000
gross square feet of land use.
28
The ENR CCI published in April is used to calculate monthly increases. The CCI for April 2018
and 2019 were 12,014.72 and 12,322.23, respectively, resulting in a percentage increase of 2.56%.
Land Use ADT Trip Rate per 1,000 GSF
General Industrial 5.46
Manufacturing 3.99
Warehousing 4.50
Hotel 10.50
General Office Building 12.30
Research & Development (R&D) 5.30
Restaurant (Dinner House/High Turn-over) 56.30 / 164.40
General Commercial 48.00
OPI Impact Fee: = (Development Area, SF /1000 SF) X ($ 154.00) X (Monthly ENR-CCI) /
(6552.16)
Sewer Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
The generation rate for all land use is 400 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of building area.
New Sewer Impact Fee = ($4.92/Gallon) X (1.0256) = ($5.05/Gallon)
Traffic Impact Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2019-20
Area of Building x Land Use Fee where the Land Use Fee is:
R&D/office = $6.21 per building sq. ft.
Hotel = $1,443.26 per room
Commercial/retail = $25.71 per building sq. ft.
Sewer Capacity Charge for Fiscal Year 2019-20
The fee is updated each calendar year. The fee is currently $ 5,010.97 per EDU. An EDU, or
Equivalent Dwelling Unit, is the amount and strength of sewage equivalent to that discharged by
a single-family residence. EDU = (0.00347 x Q) + (0.362 x BOD) + (0.589 x TSS). Q = gallons
per day of sewage to be discharged; BOD = pounds per day of biochemical oxygen demand to be
discharged; TSS = pounds per day of total suspended solids to be discharged.
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
Report regarding a resolution approving the draft response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report titled,
“Second Units:Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods”(Nell Selander,Deputy Director,Economic &
Community Development Department).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the draft response to the Grand Jury
Report, “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods.”
BACKGROUND
On October 28,2020,the 2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury filed a report titled “Second Units:
Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods”(the “Report”),which is included as Attachment 1 to this staff
report.The Report includes eight findings regarding second unit construction throughout San Mateo County,as
well as four recommendations intended to encourage second unit construction.The City of South San Francisco
is required to respond to the Report within 90 days of its filing, or by January 26, 2021.
The City’s response must include a statement as to whether or not the City agrees or disagrees with each
finding,as well as a response to each recommendation.Responses to recommendations must state whether the
recommendation has been implemented,will be implemented,requires further study,or will not be
implemented. These statements must be accompanied by a detailed explanation.
Immediately below is a brief background of second units in South San Francisco,to provide Council and the
public with context for responding to the Report.Following,in the Discussion portion of this staff report,is
staff’s proposed response to the Report’s findings and recommendations.
Second Units in South San Francisco
The South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC)regulates second units in Section 20.350.035 and refers to
such units as accessory dwelling units (ADUs)and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).An ADU is an
attached,detached,or converted residential unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or
more persons and is located on a lot with an existing or proposed single or multi-unit dwelling.A JADU is a
residential unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-unit dwelling.
Section 20.350.035 regulates the development of these secondary dwelling units with regard to location,
development standards, parking requirements, and deed restrictions.
New State Legislation Accelerates ADU Construction
In 2017,the State legislature passed a sweeping slate of housing legislation that,among other things,intended
to ease restrictions on ADU construction.Subsequent State legislation has made ADU construction even easier.
South San Francisco property owners have responded -increasing ADU construction substantially in the past
several years.Broadly,ADUs and JADUs are now permitted on any single-unit dwelling lot.Attachment 2
includes a chart showing the rapid rise in ADU construction in South San Francisco since 2017.Further,the
consultant preparing the City’s new General Plan projects nearly 4,000 ADUs are likely to be added in South
San Francisco in the next 20 years.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
Although the State legislature in 2020 was largely focused on COVID-response,new housing legislation was
adopted,including revisions to the State Government Code regulating ADUs and JADUs that became effective
January 1,2021.These most recent changes will allow an ADU and JADU on a lot with an existing single-
family dwelling unit in any configuration provided that the JADU is created entirely within an existing single-
unit dwelling. Staff will bring forward the required Zoning Text Amendment to implement this new State law.
Fees Paid by Property Owners Constructing ADUs and JADUs
Of recent consideration to staff have been the fees paid by property owners building ADUs.State law has
limited which fees may be charged,and how much.What follows is a brief explanation of current fees charged
for ADU construction in South San Francisco, as well as fees Council could choose to charge in the future.
Building permit fees,engineering fees,and school fees make up the typical fees paid by property owners
building new ADUs.
·The building permit fee is approximately 10%of the project valuation and includes plan check and
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing review.
·Engineering fees for sewer video/encroachment are required on most ADUs.The fee to review the video
is $76.00 and the Compliance Certificate is $77.00.
·School fees are required for any ADU over 499 square feet and are payable directly to the school district
at $3.79 per square foot.
As noted above,a video sewer inspection is required in most cases.Should the sewer fail this video inspection,
the cost to replace the sewer averages from $5,000 to $15,000.An encroachment permit is required for this
construction, with an average permit fee of $325, $152 per hour inspection fee, and a deposit of $1,000.
Finally,in cases where a new ADU is built along with a new single-or multi-unit dwelling,then the City’s
sewer capacity charge applies,as well.These ADUs are required to have a new or separate utility connection,
including a separate sewer lateral, between the ADU and the utility.
The City currently does not charge any additional development impact fees for new ADUs,but per State
Government Code,can choose to require development impact fees for any ADUs over 750 square feet.The fees
for these ADUs would be calculated in proportion to the square footage of the primary residence.
DISCUSSION
Planning,Building,Housing,and Code Enforcement staff met in November and December to discuss the
Grand Jury Report and the City’s response to it.Housing and Planning staff also joined two 21 Elements
meetings to discuss a coordinated response to the Report,and any subsequent,collaborative implementation of
its recommendations.(21 Elements is a working group made up of Planning and Housing staff from all 21
jurisdictions in San Mateo County that is funded by C/CAG and all of the participating jurisdictions.)Staff will
continue to collaborate with 21 Elements on implementation of recommendations from the Report.
Included as Exhibit A to the resolution associated with this staff report is a draft letter in response to the Grand
Jury Report.The responses to the Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations discussed below are all included
verbatim in the draft letter.Staff have provided the responses here,in the body of the staff report,for ease of
reading.
Response to Grand Jury Findings:
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
Finding 1:The number of jobs in San Mateo County has grown beyond the number of new housing units
available. More housing is needed and Second Units are one solution.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 2:From 2016 to 2020,the number of Second Units constructed annually within the County
dramatically increased by 450%(823)after related State laws were enacted in 2017.Effective January 1,2020,
several additional new State laws were enacted in order to make the construction of new Second Units easier
for homeowners.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 3:There are about 155,000 single-family homes in San Mateo County with only 4,000 Second Units
on those properties, so there is a potential for thousands of new Second Units.
Response:The City partially agrees with this finding.The City would like to clarify that the 4,000 units
cited in this statistic are permitted Second Units.An unknown number of unpermitted Second Units also
exist.
Finding 4:The County has an unknown but large number of non-permitted Second Units.The new 2020 State
laws are intended to make it easier for those units to be made safer,and potentially to be brought up to
permitting standards.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 5:Barriers to building new Second Units and for upgrading non-permitted Second Units include:a
lack of knowledge by homeowners as to potential lenders in financing the construction of a Second Unit and a
lack of lenders in the region that have indicated their willingness to engage in such financing,homeowners’
difficulty in finding contractors willing to work on “small”projects such as Second Units,and the need to
recruit and train more inspectors.
Response:The City agrees in part with this finding.A lack of homeowner awareness of financing and
construction options are obstacles to Second Unit construction.Building a Second Unit is expensive,
averaging around $200,000 for a new detached ADU,which may present a barrier for many
homeowners in South San Francisco.The City disagrees with the Grand Jury’s finding that the need to
recruit and train more inspectors poses a barrier to new Second Unit construction.In South San
Francisco,the Building Division is usually able to inspect a project within 48 hours of a request.
Likewise,Code Enforcement is also generally able to conduct most inspections within 48 hours.The
City is not aware of any instance of the timeline for a building inspection constituting a hardship.
Finding 6:DOH and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County have co-sponsored
and coordinated the “21 Elements Project”which aids all jurisdictions in the County to work together on
addressing their housing needs, including the development of Second Units.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 7:The San Mateo County Department of Housing is updating its website and marketing plan that
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
Finding 7:The San Mateo County Department of Housing is updating its website and marketing plan that
focuses on Second Units.
Response:The City agrees in part with this finding.While it is true that the County is updating its
website and marketing plans focused on Second Units,it is Home for All that is responsible for both of
these tasks.Home for All is a County initiative co-chaired by Supervisors Don Horsley and Carole
Groom and administratively supported by staff from multiple County departments.
Finding 8:The City of San Jose has developed a Second Unit initiative that is worth examining closely and
possibly emulating. (See Appendix D).
Response:The City partially agrees with this finding.City Planning staff have reviewed the City of San
Jose’s Second Unit initiative,and while it is certainly worth examining and emulating,it is likely
infeasible for a city the size of South San Francisco.San Jose’s initiative includes a dedicated,full-time
staff member who shepherds homeowners through the ADU permitting process.Although having a
dedicated staff member solely focused on ADUs may not be possible for South San Francisco,the City
will begin a new ADU pilot program in 2021 with Hello Housing.The pilot is funded through a
Development Agreement with Genentech.This pilot program will provide many of those services San
Jose’s dedicated staff provides to a fixed number of homeowners.
Response to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Recommendation 1:The County and its cities should continue to develop or enhance existing outreach to
homeowners about the new laws that simplify and streamline the construction and permitting of Second Units
including but not limited to the following:
·posting relevant information on their websites regarding the process for the construction and permitting
of Second Units including materials such as checklists and flowcharts;
·increasing social media and other outreach regarding the above-referenced resources;
·offering workshops (live or online)regarding the process for the construction and permitting of Second
Units at least quarterly.
Response: This recommendation has been partially implemented. The City currently has resources
online for those seeking to build ADUs and JADUs, which can be found at www.ssf.net/ADUs
<http://www.ssf.net/ADUs>. These resources include a simplified handout with all of the critical
information someone seeking to build an ADU would need. This handout is included as Attachment 3.
The City also has hard-copy brochures prepared by 21 Elements and Home for All that discuss the
benefits of Second Unit construction, which are given to members of the public interested in building
ADUs.
In addition to these resources,the City is reviewing the ADU design and construction plans developed
by the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART)that will be free to the
public.South San Francisco is amongst those initial cities reviewing,and therefore offering the pre-
approved plans to their property owners.This review is expected to be completed by February 2021.
HEART and City staff believe the availability of these off-the-shelf plans will encourage and facilitate
the construction of ADUs.Additionally,as mentioned in the response to Finding 8,the City will begin a
pilot program with Hello Housing in 2021 to provide project management and technical assistance to
homeowners wishing to build an ADU.This pilot effort will involve substantial outreach to the
community and is likely to raise awareness citywide of that legislation that streamlines ADU and JADU
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
community and is likely to raise awareness citywide of that legislation that streamlines ADU and JADU
construction.Finally,staff plan to push out ADU resources as available through the City’s social media
channels.
Recommendation 2:By December 31,2020,the County and its cities should commit to meeting for the
purpose of finding collaborative solutions for:
·developing and publicizing additional financial partners to help homeowners finance the construction of
new Second Units as well as the upgrading of non-permitted existing Second Units;
·developing solutions to address the shortage of licensed contractors willing to work on small projects
including,but not limited to,the feasibility of licensed contractors engaging and supervising non-
licensed “handymen;”
·identifying and collaborating with training institutions to recruit and train more general contractors and
inspectors.
Such meetings may occur in connection with 21 Elements Project meetings regarding Second Units,or through
a separate platform.
Response:This recommendation is in the process of being implemented.On December 3,2020,a 21
Elements meeting was held to explore aspects of Second Unit construction,including financing
resources and availability of construction workforce.City staff will continue to collaborate with 21
Elements on these topics in 2021.
As previously noted,the City is not aware of a shortage of qualified building inspectors.Currently,
inspection wait times in South San Francisco are generally less than 48 hours.
Recommendation 3:The County and each city should develop a marketing plan to focus on the needs and
concerns of homeowners who have non-permitted units.This should be done by the end of the calendar year
2020.
Response: This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. During the first half of 2021,
City staff will develop materials for the public regarding bringing non-permitted units into compliance
or, at a minimum, resolving health and safety issues sufficient to utilize amnesty protections afforded by
new State law. During the second half of 2021, the City will deploy this information widely by posting
it on www.ssf.net/ADUs <http://www.ssf.net/ADUs>, including it in a citywide newsletter, posts via
City social media channels, and with flyers distributed by Code Enforcement. The City will also
consider a stand-alone citywide mailer, perhaps included in a utility bill or similar.
Recommendation 4:The County and its cities should determine whether it is feasible to retain an outside
resource that can be shared among cities and the County to leverage Second Unit expertise.This determination
should be made by December 31, 2021.
Response:This recommendation is being explored.In 2019,the County of San Mateo retained the
nonprofit Hello Housing,a licensed general contractor,to partner with the County of San Mateo and the
Cities of Pacifica,East Palo Alto,and Redwood City on a pilot “One Stop Shop”program of free
technical assistance and project management for homeowners seeking to build a second unit.As
discussed above,the City will begin a pilot with Hello Housing this year.Through this program,the
City will learn more about the particular needs of South San Francisco homeowners and how the City
can best support their needs in the future.The City will continue to work with jurisdictions throughout
the County through 21 Elements to determine whether or not it is feasible to retain a resource as
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1018 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13.
the County through 21 Elements to determine whether or not it is feasible to retain a resource as
described in Recommendation 4.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the draft response to the Grand Jury Report,
“Second Units:Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods.”As previously mentioned,the draft response
includes the responses to the findings and recommendations detailed above.
FISCAL IMPACT
This report has no fiscal impact.All programs described in this report are already funded through existing
sources.
Attachments:
1.Grand Jury Report - Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods
2.Chart of ADU Permits in SSF
3.ADU Handout
4.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 1
Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods
Issue | Summary | Glossary | Background | Discussion | Findings | Recommendations
| Requests for Responses | Methodology | Bibliography | Appendixes
ISSUE
How are the County of San Mateo and its cities supporting homeowners who are considering
building a new Second Unit on their property or upgrading a non-permitted one, in response to
new State laws, which became effective January 1, 2020?
SUMMARY
Housing availability is a top priority in San Mateo County because while 93,000 new jobs were
added between 2010-2018, only 8,500 new housing units were built. Housing considered
“affordable” is especially at a crisis point. “Limited land and the large gap between new jobs and
available housing lead to high rents and high home prices. As of 2019, median rent in the County
for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,621 and for a two-bedroom apartment it is $3,349, while only
24% of County households can afford to purchase an entry-level home.”1
To put this slow-moving catastrophe into further perspective, more than two-thirds (68%) of the
County’s land is protected from development because it is either agricultural or open space. At
the same time, of the County’s already developed land, two-thirds is occupied by single-family
homes.2 Simply stated, building more single-family homes cannot begin to solve the County’s
housing shortfall. “Second Units” – broadly defined as self-contained living spaces that are on
the same property as an existing residence – present a creative and innovative option to
addressing the region’s affordable housing crisis.
The number of new Second Units dramatically increased after several State laws went into effect
in 2017. This made the construction of Second Units easier for homeowners. The number of new
Second Units is expected to further increase as a result of new state laws which went into effect
in January 2020. It has become clear to date that Second Units are popular for a variety of
reasons. They are attractive as housing for relatives, rental income and personal investment as
well as providing the option to downsize. Such units can also supply housing for community
members like educators or public safety employees who otherwise would not be able to live in
the community in which they work. Factoring in that there are approximately 155,000 single-
1 Home for All Brochure, Published April 2019. Accessed May 15, 2020. https://homeforallsmc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/08/HFA_brochure_v16_WEB.pdf
2 Home for All Community Convening on Second Units: Maintaining the Momentum, February 27, 2020
Responses
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2
family homes in San Mateo County3 and only 4,000 Second Units on those properties4, the
potential exists for thousands of new Second Units that would significantly impact the county’s
housing deficit over the years to come.
However, there are significant hurdles facing the development of Second Units. According to
housing advocates interviewed by the Grand Jury, the biggest impediments to the construction of
new Second Units, as well as upgrading non-permitted Second Units, are: obtaining financing,
the lack of contractors willing to work on Second Units, and the need for local governments to
recruit and train more inspectors.5
“The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and County Manager’s Office, along with support
from the County’s Department of Housing (“DOH”) have been leading the regional effort to
allow the development and construction of more Second Units.”6 DOH has been working
collaboratively with the 20 cities to help address countywide affordable housing issues. DOH has
contracted with a consulting firm, Baird & Driskell, on the 21 Elements Project, to assist the
County and cities in this effort. The consulting firm hosts monthly meetings related to Second
Units with city and DOH representatives. As part of this effort, DOH is developing a new
website and marketing plans that will focus on promoting Second Units.
As a result of this investigation, the Grand Jury recommends the following:
1. The County and its cities should continue their outreach to homeowners informing them about
the new laws that simplify and streamline the construction and permitting of Second Units.
2. The County and its cities should determine whether there is a way for the public entities to
compile a list of financial partners who can assist homeowners with funding new Second Units
and upgrading non-permitted Second Units.
3. The County and its cities should determine whether there is a way for the public entities to
develop a comprehensive list of contractor resources and partner with training institutions to
recruit and train more general contractors and inspectors.
4. The County and its cities should encourage homeowners who may have non-permitted Second
Units to go through the permitting process.
The 2019-2020 Grand Jury commends the current housing efforts of the County and its cities and
urges them to embrace the new opportunities. The impact of the laws passed by the California
Legislature in 2017 increased the number of Second Units constructed annually by 450%. If the
3 According to San Mateo County housing data, there are 276,444 housing units in San Mateo County (Fig. 1) .
Figure 33 says that 56% (155,000) of housing units are single-family, detached homes. When you multiply the two
figures, you get 154,808 (which rounds to 155k).
https://www.towncharts.com/California/Housing/San-Mateo-County-CA-Housing-data.html
4 Grand Juror interviews.
5 Grand Jury Interviews
6 Home for All collaborative, https://homeforallsmc.org/
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 3
2020 laws have a similar effect, our County and cities will be well-positioned for adding more
affordable housing.
GLOSSARY
Home for All: A collaborative countywide initiative which was undertaken to inspire
community action and promote closure of the county’s 11:1 jobs/housing gap.7 The members of
this initiative include the County and 16 of its cities as well as representatives from all sectors of
the community who are focused on creating a future where everyone in the County has a home
they can afford. It has been led by Supervisors Don Horsley and Warren Slocum. According to
its website, this initiative builds on the work and momentum of the Closing the Jobs/Housing
Gap Task Force.8
Second Unit: An interchangeable term with a granny flat, in-law suite, Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU), converted garage, backyard cottage or basement apartment. They are always self-
contained homes, smaller than the main house and legally part of the same property. Second
Units can take many forms and vary in size, but always contain everything someone needs to
live, including a kitchen, bathroom and a place to sleep.9
Junior Second Unit/Junior ADU: A very small living unit up to 500 square feet, which
re-purposes existing space within a residence such as a bedroom, garage or carport within an
existing single-family home. These units may contain a basic kitchen utilizing small plug-in
appliances and may share central systems as well as a bathroom with the primary dwelling.10
The “21 Elements Project”: A multi-year funded project co-sponsored by DOH and the
City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) through which all jurisdictions in San Mateo
County cooperate to update their respective Housing Elements and share information and work
on a wide variety of housing policies and programs.11 “21 Elements” is a project of Baird &
Driskell Community Planning Consultants, a master housing consultant, which supports all San
Mateo County and city jurisdictions, hosting monthly phone conferences related to affordable
housing issues (including Second Units), through a contract with DOH.12
BACKGROUND
The Bay Area housing crisis can be traced back to the 1970s when local cities experienced an
economic boom, and property taxes were rising with them. Then Proposition 13 put a cap on
7 Supra, note 1
8 https://homeforallsmc.org/about-us/
9 Second Unit Inspiration brochure, page 3. The booklet was produced as a joint project of Home for All and 21
Elements, 2018. www.SecondUnitCenterSMC.org
10 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs), California Department of
Housing and Community Development, accessed May 20, 2020. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-
research/AccessoryDwellingUnits.shtml
11 https://sanmateocounty.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4068159&GUID=1D7B2118 -0312-4351-88E6-
9E4BAB9C37B5
12 http://21elements.com/second-units
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 4
how much could be raised from property taxes each year. Cash-hungry cities zoned more land
for commercial use so they could collect more sales tax. That meant more retail property was
built than private housing. In addition, steep impact fees pushed developers to prioritize
expensive homes rather than multi-unit housing. Then, Silicon Valley businesses grew and
brought huge numbers of tech jobs to the Bay Area. “The housing crisis has been a slow-moving
storm that has been churning for decades.”13
The number of jobs in San Mateo County has grown beyond the number of new housing units
available.14 Between 2010-2018, for example, 93,000 jobs were added but only 8,500 new
housing units were built. To put this serious situation in perspective, more than two-thirds (68%)
of the County’s land is either agricultural or open space, and two-thirds of the County’s
developed land is occupied by single-family homes.15 Simply stated, building more single-family
homes on the remaining available land cannot begin to solve the County’s housing shortfall.
“Limited land and the large gap between new jobs and available housing lead to high rents and
high home prices. In the County, median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,621 and for a
two-bedroom apartment it is $3,349.”16 Approximately two thirds of San Mateo County
households cannot afford to purchase an entry-level home. Among those affected are important
members of the County’s workforce including teachers, firefighters and other public employees
who are unable to live in the areas they serve.17 Lack of affordable housing is an issue for San
Mateo County and throughout the State of California.18
13 Melissa Colorado, “Making It in the Bay: How the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis Spiraled Out of Control”
February 10, 2020. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/making-it-in-the-bay/making-it-in-the-bay-how-the-
bay-areas-housing-crisis-spiraled-out-of-control/2230410/
14 According to a San Mateo County spokesperson at a Home for All Community Convening on Second Units:
Maintaining the Momentum, Belmont, February 27, 2020
15 Home for All Community Convening on Second Units: Maintaining the Momentum, Belmont, February 27,
2020.
16 Home for All brochure, Published April 2019. https://homeforallsmc.org/wp -
content/uploads/2019/08/HFA_brochure_v16_WEB.pdf
17 Second Unit Inspiration Brochure, produced by Baird + Driskell Community Planning, page 4, 2018.
www.SecondUnitCenterSMC.org.
18 California Housing Partnership analysis of 2018 1-year American Community Survey (ACS) PUMS data with
HUD income levels https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/CHPC_HousingNeedsReportCA_2020_Final-.pdf
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 5
Throughout the County, the housing shortage is being addressed in a variety of ways including:
development of multi-unit complexes along transit corridors; shared housing; and the subject of
this report, building Second Units on single family properties. According to Grand Jury
interviews with local government officials and housing advocates, building and upgrading
Second Units is a relatively fast and efficient option and one component of a multi-faceted
strategy to address the County’s affordable housing shortage.19
California laws passed in 2017 dramatically increased the number of new Second Units in the
County to an average of 269 Second Units per year from an average of just 60 Second Units per
year from 2010-2016. (See Appendix A).
19 Grand Jury interviews.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 6
The laws which went into effect on January 1, 2020, include:20
o AB 68/AB 881 - Requires local agencies to approve or deny an ADU project more
quickly and prohibits local agencies from adopting ADU ordinances that impose
minimum lot size requirements, set certain maximum dimensions, or require replacement
off-street parking in certain situations. Also allows for an ADU as well as a "junior"
ADUs where certain access, setback and other criteria are met.
o SB 13 - Provides, until January 1, 2025, that cities may not condition approval of ADU
building permit applications on the applicant being the "owner-applicant" of either the
primary dwelling or the ADU, and prohibits impact fees on ADUs under 750 square feet.
o AB 587 - Provides that local agencies may now allow ADUs to be sold or conveyed
separately from a primary residence if certain conditions are met. This law is expected to
increase the ability of affordable housing organizations to sell deed-restricted ADUs to
eligible low-income homeowners.
o AB 670 - Prevents homeowners' associations from barring ADUs. AB 670 makes
unlawful any HOA condition that "prohibits or unreasonably restricts" the construction of
ADUs on single-family residential lots.
o AB 671 - Requires local governments to include in their General Plan housing elements
plans to incentivize and promote the creation of affordable ADUs. The law also requires
HCD to develop, by December 31, 2020, a list of state grants and financial incentives for
ADU development.
The new 2020 laws solve a number of key zoning and construction restraints which previously
held back less expensive housing options. Second Units can now be built or remodeled into 800
square-feet rental units with construction approved by the respective cities within 60 days and do
not require owner occupation, additional parking or impact fees (if 750 square feet or less).
In the case of amnesty, non-permitted Second Units are acceptable if they meet health and safety
standards, e.g., operating fire detectors and electric wiring. Of note is that units cannot be used
for short-term vacation rentals as the various laws were intended for rental to singles or families
who cannot otherwise afford a single-family dwelling or an apartment rental near their
workplace.21
20 https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/10/californias-2020-housing-laws-what-you-need-to-know.
Additionally, a more complete summary of the 2020 statutes impacting the construction or permitting of Second
Units can be found in Appendix B.
21New state laws for ADU/Second Unit construction, effective January 1, 2020: AB 670 (Friedman), AB 671
(Friedman), AB 68 (Ting), AB 587 (Friedman), AB 881 (Bloom), SB 13 (Wieckowski) are designed to help narrow
the shortfall in affordable housing in California. Another bill is being worked on to tie all bills together .
(Appendix B: Summary of bills)
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 7
DISCUSSION
In December 2019, the San Mateo County Grand Jury surveyed the city managers of all 20 cities
in the County regarding passage of California laws concerning Second Units. The survey
inquired about plans for the implementation of these new laws in each jurisdiction.22 With the
exception of East Palo Alto and Millbrae, all of the jurisdictions responded to the survey, and all
were aware of the new laws. Many were preparing to find ways to initiate the development of
more Second Units in their jurisdictions. Their main concerns included:
o short amount of time between passage of the laws and the need to implement them;
o perceived conflicts and inconsistencies within the new State laws;
o loss of local control might lead to community backlash;
o inadequate staffing to handle the potential increase in Second Unit interest;
o homeowner’s ability to secure funding for the construction costs; and
o availability of sufficient extra neighborhood parking.
Opportunity for New Second Units
Housing advocates consider Second Units to be “low-hanging fruit” for the development of new
housing inventory. There are about 155,000 single-family homes in San Mateo County with only
4,000 Second Units on those properties, so there is a potential for thousands of new Second
Units. Since 2010, there has been a steady growth in Second Unit approvals throughout the
county, according to San Mateo County’s Annual Jurisdiction Survey.23
To take full advantage of new opportunities for ADUs created by the 2020 State bills, cities
throughout the county are updating their zoning ordinances to be in compliance with the new
State laws. Additionally, many cities are focused on streamlining their individual Second Unit
permitting process as well as the process that will provide amnesty for pre-existing, non-
permitted Second Units.24
Several new online tools – including tools at https://secondunitcenter.org/ (a website maintained
by the County) – identify potential sites for Second Units, calculate estimated costs, and
streamline the process of building a Second Unit, thereby making Second Unit development an
easier option for homeowners to consider.25 They include:
o https://build.symbium.com/
Using this link, residents and planners in Redwood City, Pacifica, and Unincorporated
San Mateo County can quickly determine whether a Second Unit is allowed at a
particular address and if so, what specific development standards (State and local rules)
apply. More cities will be added to this list in the near future.26
22 Survey questions are listed in Appendix C.
23 “Accessory Dwelling Units Approved by Jurisdiction” (2010 -2018, with 2019 data added), Annual Jurisdiction
Survey. See chart and graph in Appendix A.
24 Grand Jury interviews.
25 Online Tools from companies like Symbium allows anyone to understand whether a Second Unit is allowed on a
particular parcel. See https://build.symbium.com
26 Second Unit Resource Center handout. https://secondunitcentersmc.org/
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 8
o http://calculator.secondunitcentersmc.org/
San Mateo County’s Second Unit Calculator helps a homeowner get an estimate for what
a Second Unit project might cost, and calculates the amount it might yield as an
investment. It also allows a user to change assumptions such as location, unit size, type of
unit and much more.
o https://secondunitcentersmc.org/
The County’s website focuses on Second Unit development and, according to Grand Jury
interviews, will be further updated in the future.
Amnesty for Non-Permitted Second Units
The actual number of non-permitted Second Units in the County is unknown.27 However,
whatever this number might actually be, these units are important affordable housing as long as
they meet minimum health and safety codes.
The San Mateo County Planning and Building Department and nonprofits such as “Rebuilding
Together Peninsula”28 are focused on encouraging owners of non-permitted Second Units in the
unincorporated area of the County and East Palo Alto respectively to develop plans that would
make more of them safer and healthier and thereby permitted.
In January 2020, the County initiated a pilot program for homeowners who wished to consider
upgrading their non-permitted Second Units.29 If this pilot program is successful, it will be
expanded and marketed as a model that cities in the County could adopt. The program allows:
o existing Second Units to be brought up to code and become permitted;
o applicants to explore whether the amnesty program for non-permitted units might work
for them;
o a no-risk assurance which enables the homeowner to back out of the permitting process at
any time with no obligation on their end to bring their non-permitted unit up to health and
safety standards;
o a variety of enforcement suspensions included in the laws that took effect this past
January; and
o some previously non-permitted construction features (so some homeowners no longer
need amnesty.)
Rebuilding Together Peninsula is a non-profit organization that focuses on home repair. Eighty
five percent of its home repair projects are in San Mateo County, primarily garage-conversion
Second Units in East Palo Alto.30 31 Much of that work is focused on upgrading non-permitted
Second Units. Grand Jurors toured the Redwood City offices and learned that the nonprofit
27 Grand Jury interviews.
28 RebuildingTogetherPeninsula is a non-profit that is focused on working with other local agencies to upgrade non-
permitted second units in East Palo Alto. It has a focus on repairs of garage -conversions, not new construction.
https://sites.google.com/rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/epa-adu-initiative/home
29 See the SMC Second Unit Amnesty Website: https://planning.smcgov.org/second-unit-amnesty
30 Grand Jury interview.
31 Rebuilding Together the Peninsula EPA Garage Conversion/ADU Legalization Initiative,
https://sites.google.com/rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/epa-adu-initiative/home
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 9
works on one project at a time, relying on volunteers who are good at making repairs. Most of
these Second Units are for relatives and friends, not for revenue. Rebuilding Together’s five year
plan targets low income communities of color. Second Unit goals for Rebuilding Together in
East Palo Alto are:
o legalizing non-permitted units;32
o repairing units to make them safer for occupants;
o streamlining the repair process;
o sharing learnings;
o training and workforce development; and,
o transitioning East Palo Alto Second Unit projects to “EPA CAN DO”33 leadership.
Moving Forward
Step One: Home for All Initiative
The County’s Home for All Initiative builds on the work and momentum of the San Mateo
County Board of Supervisors’ Closing the Jobs/Housing Gap Task Force.34 “The Second Unit
Center” is a program of the Home for All Initiative which is aimed at providing information and
tools to make it easier for homeowners to build second units to help increase the housing supply
in San Mateo County. According to the Second Unit Center website, on August 6, 2019, the
Board of Supervisors approved the creation of a new One Stop Shop35 pilot program to help
homeowners with Second Unit construction. Through this program, participating homeowners
can receive no-cost support from the nonprofit Hello Housing, a member of the Mid-Peninsula
Housing family of companies.
Hello Housing will provide up to 100 hours of free feasibility and project management support at
no cost in connection with the design, permitting, and project management involved with
building a Second Unit. The One Stop Shop pilot program is a partnership of DOH, Hello
Housing, and the cities of East Palo Alto, Pacifica, and Redwood City. Residents of these three
cities and the unincorporated County will be eligible to apply for inclusion in this pilot
program.36 If the pilot program is successful, it is hoped that it can be scaled to serve all
jurisdictions.37
To prepare for the eventual scaling up of this pilot program, the County and its cities are
reaching out to residents to inform, educate, and support homeowners who are considering
building or improving a Second Unit.38 As part of this effort, DOH and the City/County
Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) have co-sponsored and coordinated
32 Cost of a garage conversion or “permitted” to codes of the day is about $70,000 according to Rebuilding Togeth er
the Peninsula. This can include adding insulation, upgrading electrical, sealing and leveling a concrete floor,
reviewing the safety of the roof, creating a new share wall and a proper wall to replace the garage door, and make
garage electric/energy efficient and heated.
33 https://epacando.org/
34 Closing the Jobs/Housing Gap Task Force, The Task Force began in September 24, 2015 to build a common
understanding of the challenge, learn what is already being done both i nside and outside the county and finish by
exploring possible solutions. https://bos.smcgov.org/task-force
35 https://secondunitcentersmc.org/onestopshop/ (accessed on 7/22/2020)
36 ibid.
37 Grand Jury interviews.
38 Grand Jury interviews.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 10
the “21 Elements Project” which aids all jurisdictions in the County to work together on
addressing their housing needs, including the development of Second Units. As part of this
effort, monthly meetings and/or conference calls are convened by 21 Elements.39
Step Two: Raising Awareness and Enthusiasm
It is critical that interested residents become aware of Second Unit opportunities and resources
that are available to them for building Second Units on their property. To get the attention of
homeowners, there will need to be a variety of outreach strategies. The following are efforts by
the County of San Mateo and its cities, and for comparison, the City of San Jose.
County of San Mateo initiatives:
There has been a great deal of effort already put into the development of a Second Unit Initiative
in San Mateo County. During the past couple of years, as the need for a multi-pronged housing
initiative became apparent, the County took a number of critical steps.
The County developed two notable booklets -- Second Unit Inspiration and Second Unit
Workbook; initiated a collaborative partnership between the County and its cities through the
21 Elements Project; created two pilot programs (one focused on the process of building new
Second Units and the other on homeowners successfully obtaining amnesty for non-permitted
Second Units); and are developing an updated DOH Second Unit website and marketing plan.40
City-level initiatives
In their responses to the Grand Jury survey, city managers identified the following
communication methods:
o informational handouts - hard copies and digital (i.e., Second Unit designs, checklists,
development of some standard designs, lists of pre-approved contractors);
o posting key Second Unit resource links;
o publishing articles and/or promotions in local news media; and
o community meetings and workshops;
Funding for the development of some of these programs and materials may be acquired with
SB 2 Planning Grants. SB 2 provides funding and technical assistance to all local governments in
California to help cities and counties prepare, adopt, and implement plans and process
improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production.41
The City of San Jose (Santa Clara County)
The City of San Jose hired an Alternative Dwelling Unit (ADU) Ally acting much like an
expeditor for homeowners desiring Second Units. San Jose City’s ADU Ally has become a
valuable resource in assisting San Jose homeowners through the process of developing Second
Units. The ADU Ally:
o is a dedicated staff person who coordinates and connects homeowners to city services and
demystifies the process for homeowners who are exploring the process of building a
39 21Elements, http://21elements.com/second-units, Baird & Driskell Community Planning Consultants.
40 https://secondunitcentersmc.org accessed May 19, 2020.
41 https://hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/active-funding/planning-grants.shtml
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 11
Second Unit;
o creates online tools, handouts and information, including a Second Unit Universal
Checklist which offers step-by-step guidance; and,
o helped produce a YouTube video tutorial on how to build a Second Unit in San Jose.
An official from San Jose informed the Grand Jury that the resources created by this department
would be available for use during the San Mateo County Second Unit effort.
Home for All San Mateo held a summit in February 2020, at which the ADU Ally delivered a
featured presentation. While this dedicated specialist seems to be making an impact, only time
and hard data will tell.42
Step Three: Amnesty for Non-Permitted Second Units
There are thought to be a large but unidentified number43 of non-permitted Second Units in San
Mateo County. In order to successfully increase the number of housing units countywide, it is
critical that these Second Units be upgraded to comply with applicable health and safety codes
and maintained as viable housing units. The new State laws make it easier for those units to be
made safer by providing amnesty to the homeowners who built these non-permitted units and
encouraging them to bring their units up to permitting standards.
If the County pilot program for homeowners who wish to obtain permits for their non-permitted
Second Units44 is successful, it will have the potential to be expanded and marketed as a model
program that cities throughout the County could modify and/or adopt for their own use. This
action by the cities would help preserve these critical housing units. Interestingly, in the Grand
Jury’s December 2019 survey, only Belmont referred to amnesty. New construction appears to
be a higher priority for most cities.
The City of East Palo Alto and nonprofits such as Rebuilding Together Peninsula45 are also
focused on developing other plans that would make non-permitted Second Units safer and
ultimately permitted.
Barriers to Building or Upgrading Second Units:
While state law has been amended to make Second Units easier to develop, based on Grand Jury
interviews with housing advocates, it is clear that there are still significant barriers that hinder
and sometimes block homeowners from adding Second Units. For example, those barriers
include:
42 Grand Jury interview. See more in Appendix D
43 Grand Jury Interview.
44 SMC Second Unit Amnesty Website: https://planning.smcgov.org/second-unit-amnesty
45 RebuildingTogetherPeninsula is a non-profit that is focused on working with other local agencies to upgrade non-
permitted second units in East Palo Alto. It has a focus on repairs of garage -conversions, not new construction.
https://sites.google.com/rebuildingtogetherpeninsula.org/epa-adu-initiative/home
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 12
o The process of financing new Second Units or upgrading non-permitted Second Units. At
the time of this writing, only one local lender, San Mateo Credit Union,46 has committed
to providing lending for these projects. At the same time, homeowners who might
consider building a new or upgrading non-permitted Second Units, are often unaware of
financing options;47
o The recent booming Bay Area building environment has made it very difficult to find and
engage contractors willing to work on relatively small projects such as Second Units,
especially due to the demand for rebuilding homes lost to recent wildfires. During its
investigation, several interviewees suggested that local governments may wish to provide
options in which contractors could utilize “handy men” (who are not licensed as
contractors) to do work that the contractors would officially supervise;48
o Some homeowners find the building and permitting process complex and intimidating
according to the interviews of housing advocates;49
o Local public entities may lack a sufficient number of inspectors to handle building
inspections and amnesty approvals;50
o A misunderstanding by homeowners that the construction of a Second Unit could result
in the reassessment of their entire property as opposed to an increase, based on the value
of the Second Unit alone. (Adding an ADU will not impact the original home assessment,
but homeowners will get a supplemental bill.)51
o Some jurisdictions on the County’s coast are unclear as to whether the new State laws
apply to coastal areas;52 and
o The uncertainty of the Covid-19 environment.
As the County and its cities continue to focus on the shortage of available and affordable
housing, Second Units are an important option to consider. They are a popular alternative to
single-family homes and can be developed more quickly. This is even more important given the
COVID-19 pandemic because the number of households without an affordable place to live will
grow. For example, Matt Schwartz, President and CEO of CA Housing Partnership, says income
inequality was a problem before COVID-19. Before the pandemic, about 1.5 million households
were living without an affordable place in California and now that number will grow. He says
46 San Mateo Credit Union, https://www.smcu.org/Loans/Home-Loans/ADU-Loan
47 Grand Jury interviews.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 “City Flooded with Requests for ADU Permits.” Half Moon Bay Review, March 4, 2020,
https://www.hmbreview.com/news/city-flooded-with-requests-for-adu-permits/article_0d5a9920-5e49-11ea-b933-
c7dea1fa420c.html (viewed again on 4/27/2020)
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13
the state will still need to house the homeless. Interest rates are low, so this is the time to
continue to address the homelessness crisis.53
FINDINGS
F1. The number of jobs in San Mateo County has grown beyond the number of new housing
units available. More housing is needed and Second Units are one solution.
F2. From 2016 to 2020, the number of Second Units constructed annually within the County
dramatically increased by 450% (823) after related State laws were enacted in 2017.
Effective January 1, 2020, several additional new State laws were enacted in order to make
the construction of new Second Units easier for homeowners.
F3. There are about 155,000 single-family homes in San Mateo County with only 4,000 Second
Units on those properties, so there is a potential for thousands of new Second Units.
F4. The County has an unknown but large number of non-permitted Second Units. The new
2020 State laws are intended to make it easier for those units to be made safer, and
potentially to be brought up to permitting standards.
F5. Barriers to building new Second Units and for upgrading non-permitted Second Units
include: a lack of knowledge by homeowners as to potential lenders in financing the
construction of a Second Unit and a lack of lenders in the region that have indicated their
willingness to engage in such financing, homeowners’ difficulty in finding contractors
willing to work on “small” projects such as Second Units, and the need to recruit and train
more inspectors.
F6. DOH and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County have
co-sponsored and coordinated the “21 Elements Project” which aids all jurisdictions in the
County to work together on addressing their housing needs, including the development of
Second Units.
F7. The San Mateo County Department of Housing is updating its website and marketing plan
that focuses on Second Units.
F8. The City of San Jose has developed a Second Unit initiative that is worth examining
closely and possibly emulating. (See Appendix D).
RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. The County and its cities should continue to develop or enhance existing outreach to
homeowners about the new laws that simplify and streamline the construction and
permitting of Second Units including but not limited to the following:
53 Bay Area Housing Post-Covid-19 https://www.kqed.org/news/11818184/bay-area-housing-post-pandemic-
whats-in-store
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 14
o posting relevant information on their websites regarding the process for the
construction and permitting of Second Units including materials such as
checklists and flowcharts;
o increasing social media and other outreach regarding the above-referenced
resources;
o offering workshops (live or online) regarding the process for the construction and
permitting of Second Units at least quarterly.
R2. By December 31, 2020, the County and its cities should commit to meeting for the purpose
of finding collaborative solutions for:
o developing and publicizing additional financial partners to help homeowners
finance the construction of new Second Units as well as the upgrading of non-
permitted existing Second Units;
o developing solutions to address the shortage of licensed contractors willing to
work on small projects including, but not limited to, the feasibility of licensed
contractors engaging and supervising non-licensed “handymen”
o identifying and collaborating with training institutions to recruit and train more
general contractors and inspectors.
Such meetings may occur in connection with 21 Elements Project meetings regarding
Second Units, or through a separate platform.
R3. The County and each city should develop a marketing plan to focus on the needs and
concerns of homeowners who have non-permitted units. This should be done by the end of
the calendar year 2020.
R4. The County and its cities should determine whether it is feasible to retain an outside
resource that can be shared among cities and the County to leverage Second Unit expertise.
This determination should be made by December 31, 2021.
REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:
From the following governing bodies:
City Councils and County Board of Supervisors should respond to R1-R4.
The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the
governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements
of the Brown Act.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 15
METHODOLOGY
Documents
Alternative Dwelling Unit (ADU) SurveyMonkey Survey, December 2019.
ADU growth Survey by SMC Housing,
Interviews
Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of
the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to
the Civil Grand Jury.
Eight interviews were conducted with representatives of San Mateo County, San Mateo
County Housing Department, San Mateo County Planning and Building Department, San
Mateo Rebuilding Together Peninsula, Baird & Driskell and City of San Jose Building
Division - Permit Center.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs).
California Department of Housing and Community Development,
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/AccessoryDwellingUnits.shtml
(Accessed 7/23/2020)
Baird & Driskell Community Planning Consultants, 21Elements Project.
http://21elements.com/second-units (Accessed 7/23/2020)
Bay Area Housing Post-Covid-19. https://www.kqed.org/news/11818184/bay-area-
housing-post-pandemic-whats-in-store (Accessed 7/23/2020)
California Housing Partnership analysis of 2018 1-year American Community Survey
(ACS) PUMS data with HUD income levels. https://1p08d91kd0c03rlxhmhtydpr-
wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2020/03/CHPC_HousingNeedsReportCA_2020_Final-.pdf
(Accessed 7/23/2020)
Colorado, Melissa. “Making It In the Bay: How the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis Spiraled
Out of Control” February 10, 2020. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/making-it-
in-the-bay/making-it-in-the-bay-how-the-bay-areas-housing-crisis-spiraled-out-of-
control/2230410/ (Accessed 7/23/2020)
San Jose Backyard Homes News, October 21, 2019.
https://www.sjbackyardhomes.com/adu_ally/ (Accessed 7/23/2020)
Second Unit Workbook. (print and online) SMC Second Unit Resource Center.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 16
April 17, 2020. https://secondunitcentersmc.org/ or
https://planning.smcgov.org/second-unit-ordinance (Accessed 7/23/2020)
APPENDIX A: Accessory Dwelling Units Approved by Jurisdiction
“Accessory Dwelling Units Approved by Jurisdiction” (2010-2018, with 2019 data added),
Annual Jurisdiction Survey, County of San Mateo.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 17
APPENDIX B: Provision of New California Laws for Second Units
Provisions of the laws AB670, AB671, AB587, AB68, AB881, and SB13 include:
1. One Second Unit and one Junior Second Unit will be allowed on a single-family lot.
2. There will be no minimum lot size for the addition of a Second Unit.
3. No setback will be required if the Second Unit is the conversion of an existing structure
at the property line.
4. Second Units with a size up to 800 square feet that follow building construction standards
must be allowed.
5. Second Units under 800 square feet can be 16 feet tall and can have a setback of four feet
on the side and rear of the unit.
6. Cities have 60 days to review permit applications. If they fail to do so, they are
automatically approved.
7. No replacement parking for the main house is required if converting a garage.
8. No parking is required for a Second Unit if it is within a half mile walk of transit.
9. No impact fees apply to Second Units less than 750 square feet. If larger than 750 square
feet, impact fees must be proportional to the main house.
10. Second Units that receive building permits between 1/1/2020 and 12/31/2024 are exempt
from owner-occupancy rules.
11. Mandatory five-year stay of enforcement on non-permitted Second Units if health and
safety standards are met. This is based on Government Code Section 65852.2(n), which
will sunset in 2025.54
12. No short-term rentals of Second Units or Junior Second Units will be allowed for less
than 30 days to discourage vacation rentals.
13. Second Units will be allowed in multi-family and mixed-use zones. Second Units will be
allowed in multifamily buildings - up to two detached Second Units, plus allowing for the
conversion of uninhabited spaces for multiple Second Units (up to 25% of units in
multifamily buildings)
14. Home Owner’s Associations cannot ban Second Units or Junior Second Units, regardless
of any existing rules doing so. Home Owner’s Associations can set reasonable design
guidelines for Second Units and Junior Second Units.
54 Government Code Section 65852.2(n)
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 18
APPENDIX C: December 2019 Survey Questions
Questions from “Alternative Dwelling Unit (ADU)” SurveyMonkey Survey, December 2019.
1. Among your city leadership, who is aware of the passage of these laws?
(AB 68, AB 587, AB 670, AB 671, AB 881 and SB 13). Please identify leaders by name with
contact information.
2. Will your city be actively encouraging your residents to take advantage of these Second Unit
laws? (What might that entail?)
3. Do you think there will/could be at least 50 parcels in your city, which might be eligible for a
Second Unit?
4. Do you anticipate that your city's homeowners as well as landlords will take advantage of
this opportunity?
5. How will you encourage your homeowners as well as landlords to take advantage of this
opportunity?
6. What obstacles do you anticipate encountering?
7. What kinds of support might you need in order to be able to actively implement these new
state laws?
8. Name (and contact information) of the person filling out the response to this survey.
APPENDIX D: San Jose’s ADU Ally
San Jose City’s ADU Ally has become a valuable resource in assisting San Jose homeowners
through the process of developing Second Units. Having a dedicated person for this initiative has
had an impact on the San Jose City’s effort. Some of the actions that have resulted from this
singular dedicated staff person include:
1. Serving as the dedicated staff person who is the
o contact person who deals with people and points them in the right direction.
o coordinator and connecter of homeowners to all city services and who demystifies the
process.
o tour guide for homeowners who are exploring the process of building a Second Unit.
o “hand holder” holds a homeowner’s hand as they walk through the process. The ADU
Ally is quoted as saying, “I can see them all of the way through to the end of the
project, help them to submit or resubmit plans, and then through permit issuance. And
when they need to schedule inspections, I can connect them to the right city staff
members.”
2. Online tools, handouts and information have been created including a Second Unit Universal
Checklist which offers step-by-step guidance. The City of San Jose Planning Department’s
ADU website is an example of a comprehensive and easy-to-read site, See
sanjoseca.gov/business/development-services-permit-center/accessory-dwelling-units-adus
3. The ADU Ally helped produce a YouTube video tutorial on how to build a Second Unit in
San Jose. This attracted more than 2,900 views, before it was taken down due to recent
changes in ADU regulations and Zoning Ordinances.
2019-2020 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 19
4. The San Jose ADU Ally has said that the resources created by this department would be
available for use during the San Mateo County Second Unit effort.
Issued: October 28, 2020
ATTACHMENT 2
Number of ADUs Permitted in SSF
2010 1
2011 3
2912 1
2013 3
2014 2
2015 6
2016 8
2017 5
2018 22
2019 46
2020 63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2011 2912 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of ADUs Permitted in SSF
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS: GENERAL INFORMATION
December 2020
What is an accessory dwelling unit (ADU)?
An Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is a dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more
persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It includes permanent provisions for living,
sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be
situated.
What is a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU)?
A Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) is a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely
within a single-family residence. A JADU may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with
the existing structure.
How do I apply for an ADU or JADU?
Applications are submitted to the Building Division, and the plans are reviewed ministerially by the Planning Division
within 60 days of deeming an application complete.
Frequently Asked Questions on ADU and JADU Standards
What is the…
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit (JADU)
(Within existing
residence)
Detached
(New Construction)
Attached
(New Construction)
Converted
(Within existing
residence/structure)
Eligible Site Lot that allows single- and/or multi-family residential. Lot that allows single-
family residential.
Maximum #
Allowed
Lot with a single family structure:
• 1 ADU within the proposed or existing space of the home or an accessory
structure; OR
• 1 detached ADU; OR
• 1 attached ADU
**1 ADU, any of the above types, and 1 JADU allowed per lot**Effective
January 1, 2021**
Lot with multi-family structure:
• 25% of existing units or 1 unit, whichever is greater, within existing areas
not currently used as livable space; plus 2 detached ADUs
1 JADU per lot only
within the proposed or
existing space of the
home.
Maximum
Lot Coverage
Lot coverage requirement of the Zoning District (allowed 800 sq. ft. even if
lot coverage requirements are not met).
N/A – conversion of
existing space.
Maximum
Floor Area
• FAR requirement of
the Zoning District
(allowed 800 sq. ft.
even if FAR
requirements are
not met).
• 1,000 sq. ft.
• FAR requirement of
the Zoning District
(allowed 800 sq. ft.
even if FAR
requirements are
not met.
• 50% of primary unit
floor area or 800 sq.
ft., whichever is
greater, with a
maximum of 1,000
sq. ft.
• Expansion of up 150
sq. ft. to
accommodate
ingress and egress.
(For accessory
structures only.)
500 sq. ft.
December 2020
What is
the…
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit (JADU) Detached Attached Within Existing
Structure
Maximum
Height 16 feet Height requirement of the Zoning District. N/A – conversion of
existing space.
Minimum
Setback
• Front: Setback requirement of the Zoning District
• Interior/Street Side: 4 feet
• Rear: 4 feet
• Distance between structures: 6 feet
• Existing living area or accessory structure converted to ADU: No setback
requirement
N/A – conversion of
existing space.
Entry
Requirement Access required.
• Interior entry to the
primary dwelling
required.
• Exterior entry
required.
Parking
Requirement
1 space per ADU or per bedroom, whichever is less; may be provided as
tandem parking on a driveway.
ADU parking waived if:
• ½ mile walking distance from transit,
• In historic district,
• On-street parking permit required and not offered to ADU, or
• 1 block from car share.
None.
Parking
Replacement None.
Occupancy None.
The owner must
occupy the primary
residence or the JADU.
Deed-
Restriction
A deed-restriction needs to be filed to acknowledge the occupancy, ownership and size restrictions –
see the Planning Division for the deed-restriction form. The deed restriction will prohibit the unit from
being sold separately from the primary dwelling.
Fees
Required
• Building Permit Fees: Approximately 10% of the valuation. This includes plan check and MEP’s.
• Sewer Capacity Charges: Only an ADU constructed with a new single or multi-unit dwelling shall be
required to have a new or separate utility connection, including a separate sewer lateral, between
the ADU and the utility. If a new or separate utility connection is required pursuant to this section
or installed upon request of the property owner, a connection fee or capacity charge shall be
charged that is proportionate to the size in square feet of the ADUor its drainage fixture unit (DFU)
values. Separate electric and water meters shall be required for the ADU (SSF MC §
20.250.035(L)(2)).
• Engineering Sewer Video/Encroachment: A sewer video is required on MOST ADU’s. The fee to
review the video is $76.00 and the Compliance Certificate is $77.00. (Should the video fail, the cost
to replace the sewer averages from $5,000 to $15,000, depending on the extent). An
encroachment permit will be required with an average cost of $325 permit fee, $152/hr. inspection
fee and a deposit of $1,000.00.
• School Fees: Required for any ADU over 499 sq. ft., payable directly to the school district at $3.79 a
sq. ft.
Response to
Grand Jury Report
Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods
Grand Jury Report
•San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury issued the report on
second units on October 28, 2020
•Response, approved by City Council, is required before
January 26, 2021
•Response must include:
–Dis/Agreement with findings
–Status of implementing recommendations
2
Second Units Defined
•Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
–Attached, detached, or converted space (like a garage)
–Located on a single-family or multi-family lot
•Junior ADUs (JADUs)
–Less than 500 square feet
–Contained completely within a single family home
3
New ADUs Permitted in SSF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
4
Fees Paid by ADUs and JADUs
•Typical fees for an ADU or JADU
–Building permit fees
–Engineering fees (including potential work on sewer connections)
–School fees on ADUs over 500 square feet
•Exception for new ADUs constructed with new single family
homes
–Permit and impact fees charged in proportion to size of primary
dwelling unit
5
Grand Jury Findings &
Recommendations
6
8 Findings Were Made
•Findings primarily state what we know to be true
–Job growth has outpaced housing growth
–Many more ADUs have been permitted recently due to new State laws
–Potential for many more ADUs, and for bringing unpermitted ADUs into
compliance
–Barriers to new ADUs include lack of financing resources, contractors,
and inspectors (we disagree inspectors pose a barrier)
–21 Elements provides a resource to collaborate on solutions, and the
County is updating its ADU resources online
–San Jose has a model program (likely too costly for a city our size)
7
Recommendation 1
The County and its cities should continue to develop or
enhance existing outreach to homeowners about the new laws
that simplify and streamline the construction and permitting
of Second Units…
•Response:This recommendation has been partially
implemented.
–www.ssf.net/ADUs and paper brochures/handouts
–HEART pre-approved plans
–Hello Housing pilot program
8
Recommendation 2
By December 31, 2020, the County and its cities should
commit to meeting for the purpose of finding collaborative
solutions for developing and publicizing additional financial
resources, and addressing the shortage of licensed contractors
and contractors and inspectors.
•Response:Implementation in progress.
–21 Elements meeting on December 3, 2020, more to come
–Disagree that there is a lack of inspectors
9
Recommendation 3
The County and each city should develop a marketing plan to
focus on the needs and concerns of homeowners who have
non-permitted units. This should be done by the end of the
calendar year 2020.
•Response:Implementation in progress.
–First half of 2021, develop marketing materials
–Second half of 2021, deploy information widely
10
Recommendation 4
The County and its cities should determine whether it is
feasible to retain an outside resource that can be shared
among cities and the County to leverage Second Unit
expertise by December 31, 2021.
•Response:Recommendation being explored.
–Hello Housing pilot program will help staff better understand our
community’s needs
–Continue to work with 21 Elements
11
Action Tonight
Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution approving the
draft response to the Grand Jury Report.
Once signed by the Mayor, the response will be sent to the San
Mateo Grand Jury.
12
Questions?
13
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1019 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:13a.
Resolution approving the draft response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report titled,“Second Units:
Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods.”
WHEREAS,on October 28,2020,the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report titled “Second
Units:Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods”(the “Report”)with eight findings regarding second unit
construction and four recommendations intended to encourage second unit construction; and
WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco is required to respond to the Report within 90 days of its filing,or
by January 26, 2021; and
WHEREAS,the City’s response must include a statement as to whether or not the City agrees or disagrees with
each finding, as well as a response to each recommendation; and
WHEREAS,responses to recommendations must state whether the recommendation has been implemented,
will be implemented,requires further study,or will not be implemented These statements must be accompanied
by a detailed explanation; and
WHEREAS, staff has prepared a response to the Report, attached herein as Exhibit A.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby
approve the draft response,attached hereto as Exhibit A,to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report titled
“Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods.”
*****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
CITY COUNCIL 2021
MARK ADDIEGO, MAYOR
MARK NAGALES, VICE MAYOR, DISTRICT 2
JAMES COLEMAN, COUNCILMEMBER, DISTRICT 4
BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER
MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC
AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
(650) 829-6620
FAX (650) 829-6657
E-MAIL WEB-ECD@SSF.NET
January , 2021
DELIVERED BY MAIL AND EMAIL
Hon. Danny Y. Chou
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois
Hall of Justice
500 County Center, 8th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
grandjury@sanmateocourt.org
Re: Civil Grand Jury Report: “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods”
Dear Honorable Judge Chou:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
report, “Second Units: Adding New Housing In The Neighborhoods” (the Report), filed on
October 28, 2020. The City of South San Francisco’s response to the Report’s findings and
recommendations were approved at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 13, 2021 and
can be found below.
Response to Grand Jury Findings:
Finding 1: The number of jobs in San Mateo County has grown beyond the number of new
housing units available. More housing is needed and Second Units are one solution.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 2: From 2016 to 2020, the number of Second Units constructed annually within the
County dramatically increased by 450% (823) after related State laws were enacted in 2017.
Effective January 1, 2020, several additional new State laws were enacted in order to make the
construction of new Second Units easier for homeowners.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Page 2 of 5
Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Finding 3: There are about 155,000 single-family homes in San Mateo County with only 4,000
Second Units on those properties, so there is a potential for thousands of new Second Units.
Response: The City partially agrees with this finding. The City would like to clarify that
the 4,000 units cited in this statistic are permitted Second Units. An unknown number of
unpermitted Second Units also exist.
Finding 4: The County has an unknown but large number of non-permitted Second Units. The
new 2020 State laws are intended to make it easier for those units to be made safer, and potentially
to be brought up to permitting standards.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 5: Barriers to building new Second Units and for upgrading non-permitted Second Units
include: a lack of knowledge by homeowners as to potential lenders in financing the construction
of a Second Unit and a lack of lenders in the region that have indicated their willingness to engage
in such financing, homeowners’ difficulty in finding contractors willing to work on “small”
projects such as Second Units, and the need to recruit and train more inspectors.
Response: The City agrees in part with this finding. A lack of homeowner awareness of
financing and construction options are obstacles to Second Unit construction. Building a
Second Unit is expensive, averaging around $200,000 for a new detached ADU, which
may present a barrier for many homeowners in South San Francisco. The City disagrees
with the Grand Jury’s finding that the need to recruit and train more inspectors poses a
barrier to new Second Unit construction. In South San Francisco, the Building Divisio n is
usually able to inspect a project within 48 hours of a request. Likewise, Code Enforcement
is also generally able to conduct most inspections within 48 hours. The City is not aware
of any instance of the timeline for a building inspection constituting a hardship.
Finding 6: DOH and the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County have co-
sponsored and coordinated the “21 Elements Project” which aids all jurisdictions in the County to
work together on addressing their housing needs, including the development of Second Units.
Response: The City agrees with this finding.
Finding 7: The San Mateo County Department of Housing is updating its website and marketing
plan that focuses on Second Units.
Response: The City agrees in part with this finding. While it is true that the County is
updating its website and marketing plans focused on Second Units, it is Home for All that
is responsible for both of these tasks. Home for All is a County initiative co-chaired by
Supervisors Don Horsley and Carole Groom and administratively supported by staff from
multiple County departments.
Page 3 of 5
Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Finding 8: The City of San Jose has developed a Second Unit initiative that is worth examining
closely and possibly emulating. (See Appendix D).
Response: The City partially agrees with this finding. City Planning staff have reviewed
the City of San Jose’s Second Unit initiative, and while it is certainly worth examining and
emulating, it is likely infeasible for a city the size of South San Francisco. Sa n Jose’s
initiative includes a dedicated, full-time staff member who shepherds homeowners through
the ADU permitting process. Although having a dedicated staff member solely focused on
ADUs may not be possible for South San Francisco, the City will begin a new ADU pilot
program in 2021 with Hello Housing. The pilot is funded through a Development
Agreement with Genentech. This pilot program will provide many of those services San
Jose’s dedicated staff provides to a fixed number of homeowners.
Response to Grand Jury Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The County and its cities should continue to develop or enhance existing
outreach to homeowners about the new laws that simplify and streamline the construction and
permitting of Second Units including but not limited to the following:
posting relevant information on their websites regarding the process for the construction
and permitting of Second Units including materials such as checklists and flowcharts;
increasing social media and other outreach regarding the above-referenced resources;
offering workshops (live or online) regarding the process for the construction and
permitting of Second Units at least quarterly.
Response: This recommendation has been partially implemented. The City currently has
resources online for those seeking to build ADUs and JADUs, which can be found at
www.ssf.net/ADUs. These resources include a simplified handout with all of the critical
information someone seeking to build an ADU would need. This handout is included as
Attachment 3. The City also has hard-copy brochures prepared by 21 Elements and Home
for All that discuss the benefits of Second Unit construction, which are given to members
of the public interested in building ADUs.
In addition to these resources, the City is reviewing the ADU design and construction plans
developed by the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART)
that will be free to the public. South San Francisco is amongst those initial cities reviewing,
and therefore offering the pre-approved plans to their property owners. This review is
expected to be completed by February 2021. HEART and City staff believe the availability
of these off-the-shelf plans will encourage and facilitate the construction of ADUs.
Additionally, as mentioned in the response to Finding 8, the City will begin a pilot program
with Hello Housing in 2021 to provide project management and technical assistance to
homeowners wishing to build an ADU. This pilot effort will involve substantial outreach
to the community and is likely to raise awareness citywide of that legislation that
streamlines ADU and JADU construction. Finally, staff plan to push out ADU resources
as available through the City’s social media channels.
Page 4 of 5
Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
Recommendation 2: By December 31, 2020, the County and its cities should commit to meeting
for the purpose of finding collaborative solutions for:
developing and publicizing additional financial partners to help homeowners finance the
construction of new Second Units as well as the upgrading of non-permitted existing
Second Units;
developing solutions to address the shortage of licensed contractors willing to work on
small projects including, but not limited to, the feasibility of licensed contractors engaging
and supervising non-licensed “handymen;”
identifying and collaborating with training institutions to recruit and train more general
contractors and inspectors.
Such meetings may occur in connection with 21 Elements Project meetings regarding Second
Units, or through a separate platform.
Response: This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. On December 3,
2020, a 21 Elements meeting was held to explore aspects of Second Unit construction,
including financing resources and availability of construction workforce. City staff will
continue to collaborate with 21 Elements on these topics in 2021.
As previously noted, the City is not aware of a shortage of qualified building inspectors.
Currently, inspection wait times in South San Francisco are generally less than 48 hours.
Recommendation 3: The County and each city should develop a marketing plan to focus on the
needs and concerns of homeowners who have non-permitted units. This should be done by the end
of the calendar year 2020.
Response: This recommendation is in the process of being implemented. During the first
half of 2021, City staff will develop materials for the public regarding bringing non-
permitted units into compliance or, at a minimum, resolving health and safety issues
sufficient to utilize amnesty protections afforded by new State law. During the second half
of 2021, the City will deploy this information widely by posting it on www.ssf.net/ADUs,
including it in a citywide newsletter, posts via City social media channels, and with flyers
distributed by Code Enforcement. The City will also consider a stand-alone citywide
mailer, perhaps included in a utility bill or similar.
Recommendation 4: The County and its cities should determine whether it is feasible to retain an
outside resource that can be shared among cities and the County to leverage Second Unit expertise.
This determination should be made by December 31, 2021.
Response: This recommendation is being explored. In 2019, the County of San Mateo
retained the nonprofit Hello Housing, a licensed general contractor, to partner with the
County of San Mateo and the Cities of Pacifica, East Palo Alto, and Redwood City on a
pilot “One Stop Shop” program of free technical assistance and project management for
homeowners seeking to build a second unit. As discussed above, the City will begin a pilot
with Hello Housing this year. Through this program, the City will learn more about the
particular needs of South San Francisco homeowners and how the City can best support
their needs in the future. The City will continue to work with jurisdictions throughout the
Page 5 of 5
Subject: Response to Grand Jury Report
400 GRAND AVENUE P.O. BOX 711 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083
County through 21 Elements to determine whether or not it is feasible to retain a resource
as described in Recommendation 4.
Respectfully,
Mark Addiego
Mayor, City of South San Francisco
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1033 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14.
Report regarding a resolution approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of
Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and San Mateo County establishing the Community
Wellness and Crisis Response Team Pilot Program (Sharron Watts, Management Fellow)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo County
Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (BHRS)in establishing the Community Wellness and Crisis Response
Team pilot program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Recent events have highlighted community needs related to optimal response to individuals experiencing
behavioral health crises.Inadequate mental health services across the country means police are usually the first
to respond to someone in a mental health and/or substance use crisis.Nationally,it is estimated that those
situations make up at least 20%of police calls for service.Annually,South San Francisco responds to
approximately 360 calls which involve someone with a connection to mental illness.
The increased response of law enforcement to mental health calls has had some negative results often leading to
trauma,injury,or death.Data reveal that linking mentally ill persons to the justice system is often ineffective
and inefficient,and that people with mental illness or experiencing crisis are more likely to be appropriately
served through the mental health care system.Unfortunately,due to lack of behavioral health services,law
enforcement has been identified as the first responders to individuals in crisis.This deficit in resources reduces
the level and quality of care that a person in crisis receives and further strains the relationship between law
enforcement and community.
A 2019 national survey,“The Role and Impact of Law Enforcement in Transporting Individuals with Severe
Mental Illness”conducted by the Treatment Advocacy Center recognized the systemic shift and adverse
consequences of law enforcement calls for mental health transports.The destinations of law enforcement
“emergency”and “non-emergency”transportation lead to either a general hospital emergency department,
psychiatric emergency room,inpatient facility,or jail.Data also inform that there are 10 times more individuals
with severe mental illness in jails than in the nation’s state hospitals.Other key indicators include the burden of
costs and time on budgets and departments,averaging nationally 10%of law enforcement total budgets spent
responding and transporting persons suffering mental illness.Nationally and statewide,these common
occurrences have sparked deeper conversation on how to provide adequate care to a vulnerable population and
proper utilization of law enforcement resources.
The South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity (Commission),formed in July,2020,has set
as its top priority the creation of a police-mental health response team for mental health crises,substance use,
and homelessness,focused on conflict management/de-escalation and linking people to supportive services.
The work of the Commission is a driving force for the creation of the Community Wellness and Crisis
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1033 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14.
The work of the Commission is a driving force for the creation of the Community Wellness and Crisis
Response Team (CWCRT)pilot program in South San Francisco.CWCRT is a direct and streamlined
community health response to those experiencing a mental health crisis.
The Commission recognizes that individuals experiencing mental health crisis are often suffering from a
multitude of traumatic experiences,including but not limited to racism,discrimination,poverty,homelessness,
abuse,and/or substance use,identified mental health diagnosis and/or co-occurring disorders.These high rates
of justice involved mentally ill persons are also consistent with disproportionalities in health,housing,
education,and economic status.Furthermore,people of color and marginalized populations are also less likely
to be diagnosed or identified to have a mental illness and less likely to access mental health treatment,which
further inflate contact with law enforcement.The CWCRT collaboration would be a buffer between the
individual in crisis and the justice system while connecting them to relevant mental health services.
DISCUSSION
The CWCRT program is a partnership between the police departments of South San Francisco,Redwood City,
Daly City,and the City of San Mateo (the Cities)and San Mateo County Behavioral Health and Recovery
Services (BHRS),designed to optimally respond to individuals experiencing behavioral health crises.This
collaboration aims to provide a co-response model to better support mentally ill individuals and their families in
crisis, as well as the community.
The CWCRT program will embed a BHRS clinician with the South San Francisco Police Department.The
clinician will partner with officers and related service providers to address as many incidents as possible.The
clinician will respond in tandem with South San Francisco police officers to incidents involving behavioral
health crises.Once law enforcement ensures the scene is safe,officers will determine if the matter involves a
crime or not.For non-criminal matters,the clinician will assume responsibility for the individual.The clinician
will assess client needs,ensure appropriate action is taken,and connect the individual with the appropriate
service providers.For incidents involving criminal matters,law enforcement will maintain responsibility,and
they will work with the clinician to arrive at the optimal outcome possible.The clinician will also provide on-
going training to the South San Francisco Police Department in the area of behavioral health,crisis response,
and de-escalation.
The CWCRT Program will have identified goals and objectives, which include the following:
•Improved outcomes for individuals experiencing behavioral health crises;
•Increased access to appropriate resources;
•Increased and improved training and collaboration between BHRS and law enforcement staff;
•Strengthened relationships between law enforcement,behavioral health service providers,and the
community.
Collaboratively,a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)has been drafted between the aforementioned Cities
and the County, a copy of which is Attachment 1. Highlights of the MOU include:
·San Mateo County Health Behavioral Health and Recovery Services (BHRS)will hire four appropriate
mental health clinicians and assign one to each of the four cities in the pilot program.The program is
expected to be fully staffed and operational by Spring, 2021;
·The BHRS clinicians will be BHRS employees,paid by the County,and covered by the County for
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1033 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14.
·The BHRS clinicians will be BHRS employees,paid by the County,and covered by the County for
workers’ compensation or other liability claims;
·City will provide office space,a mobile police radio,and computer support including access to police
systems, and other needed supplies and support to the assigned mental health clinician;
·The Cities will work collaboratively with the BHRS Clinicians to provide necessary law enforcement-
related information to assist in achieving the Program goals;
·For South San Francisco,it is anticipated that the BHRS Clinician schedule will be Monday through
Friday during the day/swing shifts;
·County will front 100%of the cost of the program,with each city reimbursing County for 12.5%of the
costs (i.e. each City will pay one-fourth of one-half of the cost);
·The pilot program will run for two years,commencing when the four BHRS clinicians begin working in
the program.
The BHRS Clinician will:
o Assist in the first response by providing early intervention,referrals to therapeutic
hospitalizations, and guidance to support services for individuals in mental health crisis;
o Respond in conjunction with and as soon as practical with,law enforcement personnel to assist
individuals in mental health crisis;
o Provide follow-up interactions with community members,when appropriate,and provide in field
counseling,referral services and other expertise to clients and families of those suffering from a
mental health crisis;
o Work with police officers in their assigned police departments to collaborate with the Outreach
services, when not responding to calls for service in the field;
o Attend patrol briefings, share information, and provide mental health related training.
A typical scenario envisioned might proceed as follows:
·911 dispatch fields a call involving a mental health crisis;
·Law enforcement officers respond immediately,evaluate the scene and assures the BHRS clinician that
it is safe to proceed;
·BHRS clinician then works to deescalate the crisis and to determine a course of immediate treatment;
·Law enforcement remains on the scene as appropriate to insure safe and successful outcome of crisis
situation, exiting the scene at first opportunity.
Additionally,the CWCRT Program will measure and report regularly on its effectiveness in achieving
identified outcomes,which include reduced use of public safety and emergency services,reduced contact
between individuals with behavioral health issues and the criminal justice system,improved residential and
behavioral health stability,etc.To accomplish this,the County and the Cities have partnered with the John W.
Gardner Center of Stanford University.The Gardner Center will conduct regular data analysis to determine the
program’s effects,assess outcomes,and consider appropriate adjustments.The data and corresponding analysis
will be shared with the Parties to facilitate informed decision making about the program’s continuation.At the
conclusion of the two-year term, the Parties will determine if the program should be continued.
FISCAL IMPACT
The City is responsible for 12.5%of the personnel cost of the pilot program for the two-year term of the MOU,
plus the cost of equipment and other support of the assigned BHRS clinician.The estimated annual personnel
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 3 of 4
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1033 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14.
plus the cost of equipment and other support of the assigned BHRS clinician.The estimated annual personnel
cost for the pilot program is estimated at $615,492 in FY 2021/22,and $633,956 in FY 2022/23.The County
will pay for half of these costs,and each individual City will pay for one quarter of the remaining cost (or one
eighth of the total program cost).This results in the City of South San Francisco paying $76,937 in FY 21/22,
and $79,245 in FY 22/23.The proposed budget is included as Attachment 2.Cost-of-living adjustments result
in higher costs for year two when compared to year one.
The County will fully cover the personnel cost,and then bill South San Francisco for its portion of the cost.
City funding will come from the General Fund and will be included in the proposed fiscal year 2021-2022 City
budget.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This proposed pilot program strives to provide improved outcomes for individuals experiencing crises
associated with mental health or co-occurring disorders, supporting Strategic Plan Priority #4: Public Safety.
CONCLUSION
The Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team pilot program provides an alternative approach to law
enforcement’s sole response to individuals in mental distress.It strengthens the response to emergencies by
providing a licensed and skilled mental health professional that can aid in de-escalating mental health
situations,reduces law enforcement use of force,while providing an improved response to South San Francisco
residents in crises.Recognizing that the need for an efficient,effective,and a safe response,this pilot program
addresses immediate community requests to create a response team for mental health crises,substance use and
homelessness. Staff recommend entering into the proposed MOU and pilot program.
Attachment:
1.Proposed Memorandum of Understanding
2.Proposed Budget
3.Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 4 of 4
powered by Legistar™
Rev. 1.5.2021
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SAN MATEO, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, DALY CITY
AND REDWOOD CITY AND THE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO
The purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to set forth the agreement
between the County of San Mateo (County), acting through the Behavioral Health and
Recovery Services (BHRS) of San Mateo County Health, and the City of San Mateo;
the City of South San Francisco; the City of Daly City; and the City of Redwood City
(each, a City, and collectively referred to herein as the Cities); and each City’s
respective police department to develop a pilot program to improve City and County
response to community members experiencing mental health crisis (Pilot Program).
This MOU sets forth the terms of a working relationship between the County/BHRS and
the Cities, collectively referred to as the Parties, for the provision of embedding licensed
clinicians in law enforcement agencies in support of the Pilot Program and the Cities
and the County agree to the following:
1. Exhibits and Attachments
Attachment 1 – HIPAA Requirements, and Attachment 2 – BHRS Clinician Job
Description, are attached and incorporated into this MOU by this reference .
2. Background Information
On January 12, 2020, the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution
No. ___________, which approved the Pilot Program, a partnership among the Parties,
to embed in each City’s police department one licensed BHRS clinician (BHRS
Clinician). The Pilot Program was subsequently approved by each City’s City Council,
The Pilot Program is expected to be fully staffed and operational by the first quarter of
the 2021 calendar year. Designed based on best practice models in other jurisdictions,
the Pilot Program will enhance City and County response to incidents involving
individuals experiencing mental health crises, by supplementing that response with the
engagement of a BHRS Clinician assigned to work with each partner police department.
The BHRS Clinician will assist in the first response by providing early intervention,
referrals to therapeutic hospitalizations, and guidance to support services for individuals
in mental health crisis.
In furtherance of the Pilot Program, the County has entered into an agreement with the
John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities of the Stanford University
Graduate School of Education (Gardner Center), to support the Parties’ planning and
implementation efforts (Gardner Center Agreement). Once the Pilot Program is
launched, the Gardner Center will conduct an implementation and evaluation study
Rev. 1.5.2021
which will examine the interventions and assessment methods utilized by the Pilot
Program, in order to assist the Parties to better understand and most effectively support
the population served through the Pilot Program. The Parties will share the costs for
the Gardner Center Agreement as set forth below in Section 11.2 of this MOU.
3. Purpose or Scope of Work
The Cities enter into this cooperative and reciprocal agreement with the County, acting
through BHRS, for implementation of the Pilot Program to enhance each City’s
response to community members in mental health crisis. In the event of a suspected
mental health crisis within a community, once informed, the BHRS Clinician will respond
to the scene, exercising their independent judgment and expertise and in collaboration
with the City’s law enforcement staff. Law enforcement staff will also be dispatched to
the scene. The goal of the immediate response will be to de-escalate the crisis and to
support the safety of the individual in crisis, those around the individual, and all
responding to the incident. The BHRS Clinician will then assess the person suspected
to be in mental health crisis (“the client”) and determine the best course of action (e.g.,
temporary mandatory placement in a medical facility for psychiatric evaluation and
treatment under Section 5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, referral for
treatment, etc.). One of the goals of the Pilot Program is that clients in mental health
crisis who come into contact with law enforcement receive early intervention to guide
them toward appropriate health services. BHRS Clinicians assigned to the Pilot
Program will have been trained in the range of available mental health resources both
within BHRS and in the community and, together, the law enforcement/BHRS Clinician
response team will decide on the best course of action and/or resource or program for
the client.
The County of San Mateo derives direct benefit from the implementation of this MOU,
by way of, for example, increasing its ability to directly respond to community members
in mental health crisis; enhancing response time for those in need of mental health
services and resources; and creating a broader and more effective continuum of care
that results in a decrease in justice system contacts.
In an effort to achieve a healthy and integrated community, this MOU represents a
collaboration among the Parties to jointly exercise their common powers to enhance
community linkages and help stabilize and improve the health and well-being of persons
experiencing mental health crisis. Important outcomes include, but are not limited to:
residential stability, improved mental health, reduced use of acute and emergency
services, and reduced contact with the criminal justice system.
Rev. 1.5.2021
4. Relationship of Parties
The County acknowledges and agrees that the work/services performed under this
agreement by the BHRS Clinicians are performed as an independent contractor relative
to the Cities. The BHRS Clinicians are part of the County of San Mateo workforce and
remain employees of the County while providing services under this MOU and pursuant
to the Pilot Program, and at no time shall BHRS Clinicians be deemed employees of the
Cities. Neither the County of San Mateo nor any of its employees (including, but not
limited to the BHRS Clinicians) acquire any of the rights, privileges, powers or
advantages of the employees of the Cities.
5. Mutual Responsibilities of Parties
5.1 The Parties agree to develop, review and modify, as needed, policies and
procedures for the Pilot Program, regarding, but not limited to, scope of work, chain of
communication, necessary training, grievance process, performance concerns,
monitoring of the Pilot Program, supervision of job performance of BHRS Clinicians, and
handling and disposition of data generated by Pilot Program participants. The policies
and procedures will reflect the Parties’ mutual understanding that the BHRS Clinicians
are County employees and professionals who exercise independent judgment and
expertise in the performance of their scope of work under the Pilot Program.
5.2 The Parties will participate, as needed, in efforts to obtain and analyze
data to document the effectiveness of the Pilot Program in reaching the anticipated
goals and objectives, while protecting and respecting individuals’ confidentiality and
privacy rights. These efforts will include partnering with the Gardner Center to evaluate
the Pilot Program’s effectiveness during the term of the MOU.
5.3 The Parties will develop relevant training plans for County and City staff
and participate in collaborative trainings when appropriate, develop program strategies,
and implement protocol of response team in a manner that respects the dignity and
diversity of community members.
6. Responsibility of Individual Parties
6.1 Each City, acting through its Police Department, shall be responsible for
each of the following:
Provide the assigned BHRS Clinician with a workspace, City-
specific computer/automation support, and office supplies
necessary for all work required within the City’s police station
Provide mobile police radio to the assigned BHRS Clinician for in-
field work
Rev. 1.5.2021
Orient and familiarize assigned BHRS Clinician with the Police
Department work space, technology and operations, and specific
community needs, in furtherance of the BHRS Clinician’s
performance of the work anticipated as part of the Pilot Program
Support assigned BHRS Clinician in clinical decisions and referrals
Provide assigned BHRS Clinician with access to the law
enforcement data base system, to the extent necessary to carry out
job responsibilities as a County employee participating in the Pilot
Program
Work collaboratively with BHRS Clinician to provide necessary law
enforcement-related information to assist the BHRS Clinician in
achieving the agreed upon outcomes of the Pilot Program.
6.2 BHRS shall be responsible for each of the following:
Ensure continuous and appropriate supervision of BHRS Clinicians
assigned to the Cities’ Police Departments on an as needed basis.
Ensure BHRS Clinicians keep and maintain a valid license to
engage in their specific mental health discipline in the State of
California.
Provide BHRS Clinicians with all other equipment and materials
necessary to perform the BHRS Clinician function in the Pilot
Program.
Perform evaluations of BHRS Clinicians consistent with BHRS’s
schedule for regular evaluations of the performance of its
employees.
Exercise reasonable care to ensure compliance with all legal
requirements of an employer with regard to the BHRS Clinicians
BHRS Clinicians will address all issues related to the conditions of
their work, including conditions at participating City police
departments, to their BHRS supervisor or the appropriate person at
the County.
BHRS Clinicians assigned to work with participating City Police
Departments will collaborate with their assigned law enforcement
team, BHRS and other colleagues to move seamlessly between
systems
BHRS Clinicians will respond, in conjunction with and as soon as
practical with, law enforcement personnel to assist individuals in
mental health crisis
Rev. 1.5.2021
BHRS Clinicians will conduct general mental health assessments,
including a determination of whether action pursuant to section
5150 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is required
BHRS Clinicians will provide follow-up interactions with community
members, when appropriate
BHRS Clinicians will provide in field counseling, referral services
and other expertise to clients and families of those suffering from a
mental health crisis
BHRS Clinicians will be a conduit to the local psychiatric
emergency services facilities for individuals requiring specific or
long-term care
BHRS Clinicians will work with police officers in their assigned
police departments to collaborate with the Outreach services, when
not responding to calls for service in the field
BHRS Clinicians will attend patrol briefings, share information, and
provide mental health related training
See Attachment 2 for a full Job Description for the BHRS Clinician.
7. Goals and Objectives
Goal 1: Law enforcement staff and BHRS Clinicians will respond together to active
crisis situations where mental health crisis is a factor.
Goal 2: Improve outcomes for individuals experiencing a crisis due to
mental illness or suspected mental illness.
Goal 3: Increase access to appropriate behavioral health resources.
Goal 4: BHRS Clinicians will provide clinical consultation, training, and
support to law enforcement personnel in the field.
Goal 5: BHRS Clinicians will increase knowledge of mental health
conditions and effective intervention strategies among law
enforcement personnel.
Goal 6: Law enforcement will strengthen relationships with service
providers and community.
The Parties agree to meet and confer periodically to assess and revise program goals,
and to add new program goals, as appropriate. This includes consideration of
opportunities to support BHRS Clinicians as primary responders in designated
situations where mental health crisis is a factor.
Rev. 1.5.2021
8. Special Terms and Conditions
8.1 Coordination and Oversight
The assigned BHRS managers will be responsible for the day to day
coordination of the program operations and problem resolution with
respect to BHRS Clinicians.
The Chiefs of the Police Departments and the Deputy Director of Aging
and Adult Services and the Deputy Director of Youth Services, BHRS, will
identify participants for the quarterly oversight meetings and will convene
said quarterly meetings to monitor the progress of the Pilot Program
towards its objectives, review any operational issues that have arisen
through this effort, and identify items for ongoing work plan.
With approval from the Chiefs, Clinical Services Manager and the Mental
Health Supervising Clinician will coordinate the development of
information about the program and the services it provides.
The Chiefs of each police department will coordinate with their internal
resources to work out the initial protocol for interaction with personnel from
their law enforcement agencies and any Crisis Negotiation Units.
The Chiefs or their delegates, and the BHRS Clinical Services Manager
will coordinate information that will be needed for budget reporting and
future planning by their respective departments.
8.2 Conflict Resolution
In the event of disagreements or conflicts between or among Parties to
this MOU, the disagreement or conflict will be referred initially and in
writing to the assigned managers from the Cities and BHRS. In the event
that consultation at that level does not resolve the disagreement or
conflict, then to the BHRS Clinical Services Manager and the designated
point of contact for the law enforcement agency shall meet and confer and
attempt to resolve the matter. Finally, in the event that the disagreement
or conflict remains, the BHRS Deputy Director of Aging and Adult Services
and the Chief of the relevant Police Department(s) shall meet and confer.
Notwithstanding the conflict resolution process described in this section,
BHRS is solely responsible for decisions about the assignment of BHRS
Clinicians, hiring and continuing employment of BHRS Clinicians, and
supervision and evaluations of the performance of BHRS Clinicians.
Rev. 1.5.2021
In the event that the disagreement or conflict pertains to the performance
of the assigned BHRS Clinician and the disagreement or conflict is not
resolved through the steps described above, BHRS shall remove the
assigned BHRS Clinician and exercise reasonable diligence to identify
and provide a qualified replacement.
8.3 Staffing and Supervision
The Pilot Program will consist of four full time limited term BHRS clinicians
who must be licensed to provide mental health services by appropriate
State of California licensing authorities. BHRS will be responsible for
hiring the licensed clinicians, and the hiring processes. The Cities will be
entitled to assign one member on the hiring panel. The BHRS Clinician will
have an appropriate level of licensing, training, experience collaborating
with law enforcement, knowledge of BHRS resources and significant
clinical experience to deal independently with the variety of scenarios and
client profiles likely to present in the course of the Pilot Program and to act
without immediate supervision in the performance of the BHRS Clinician
role in the Pilot Program, while also collaborating with a City’s law
enforcement personnel.
8.4 Records and Confidentiality
Records created by the BHRS Clinician, even while operating in
collaboration with one or more of the Cities, shall be considered County
records, free from the control and direction of any other party to this MOU.
Such records will be subject to all federal, state and local laws and
regulations regarding the protection of client/patient privacy and
confidentiality.
All Parties agree that all BHRS Clinicians are County employees for the
purposes of this MOU, and for purposes of meeting privacy requirements
of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).
BHRS will train these members of its workforce on federal, state and local
policies and procedures with respect to the confidentiality and use or
disclosure of protected health information of clients as necessary and
appropriate for the BHRS Clinicians to carry out their functions. The
County will provide BHRS Clinicians with the appropriate Health System
policies and procedures, which are subject to change from time to time.
The County reserves the right to take appropriate action for violation of its
policies; such action may include the immediate termination of any BHRS
Clinician who violates Federal, State or local law and policy.
BHRS shall maintain beneficiary medical and/or clinical records for a
period of ten (10) years, except that the records of persons under age
Rev. 1.5.2021
eighteen (18) at the time of treatment shall be maintained: a) until one (1)
year beyond the person's eighteenth (18th) birthday or b) for a period of
ten (10) years beyond the date of discharge, whichever is later. This rule
does not supersede professional standards (BHRS is allowed to maintain
records for a longer period of time if required by other regulations or
licenses).
9. Hold Harmless and Indemnification
a. It is agreed that the County shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify each of
the Cities and their officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all
claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third
party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and which
result from the acts or omissions of the County and/or its officers, employees,
agents, and servants.
b. The County shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify each of the Cities from
and against any and all claims for wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, and all other
withholdings and charges payable to, or in respect to, the County's
representatives for services provided under this Agreement.
c. It is agreed that each of the Cities shall defend, save harmless, and indemnify
the County and its officers, employees, agents, and servants from any and all
claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind, and description brought by a third
party which arise out of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and which
result from the acts or omissions of a City or Cities and/or their respective
officers, employees, agents and servants.
d. The duty of each party to defend, hold harmless, and indemnify the other as
set forth herein shall include the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the
California Civil Code.
e. In the event of concurrent negligence (or intentional/reckless acts) of a City or
Cities and/or their respective officers and employees, on the one hand, and the
County and/or its officers, employees, agents, and servants, on the other hand,
then the liability for any and all claims for injuries or damage 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 fault.
10. Term and Termination
10.1 Term
The MOU shall be effective immediately upon signature by each of the
parties, and the term of the MOU shall end two years after the
Rev. 1.5.2021
commencement of the Pilot Program. The two-year Pilot Program will
commence once the four (4) BHRS Clinicians called for under the terms of
the MOU have been hired and assigned to the Cities and the BHRS
Clinicians have begun providing services as contemplated under the Pilot
Program. Prior to the commencement of the Pilot Program, each of the
Parties will execute an addendum to this MOU that attests and confirms
the commencement date of the Pilot Program.
10.2 Amendment/Modification Process
All subsequent modifications or amendments to this MOU shall be in
writing and signed by each of the Parties hereto before they will be
effective.
10.3 Termination
The Parties agree that the term of this MOU is for a term that will last for
two years after the commencement of the Pilot Program. Each Party
agrees to remain a party to this MOU for the entire duration of the two-
year term of the Pilot Program, subject only to termination for cause.
Cause for termination of this MOU will include only a material breach of
this MOU by another Party or impossibility of performance. Prior to
termination for cause, the terminating party must give all other Parties 30
days written notice of the alleged material breach and notice of an
opportunity to cure such breach during the notice period. If the party(ies) is
unable to cure within 30 days, the MOU may be terminated as to the
noticing party only.
11. Funding/Financial Responsibilities
11.1 Personnel Cost Sharing
Unless amended by the Board of Supervisors and the governing bodies of the
respective participating jurisdictions, the annual contributions of Cities and County to the
Pilot Program expenses shall be as follows:
County shall pay, up front, one hundred percent (100%) of the personnel
costs of the Pilot Program (i.e., the fully weighted costs of salary and
benefits for the BHRS Clinicians). Participating Cities shall each
reimburse County for twelve and one-half percent (12.5%) of these salary
and benefit costs for BHRS Clinicians, such that, after reimbursement
from the Cities, the County will cover fifty percent (50%) of these Pilot
Program personnel costs and the Cities will cover a combined total of fifty
percent (50%) of these Pilot Program personnel costs.
Beginning in the 2020-21 FY, the maximum obligation of County for
Rev. 1.5.2021
personnel costs shall not exceed $343,421.
Beginning in the 2021-22 FY, the maximum obligation of the County and
Cities’ respective obligations will be subject to a Cost of Living Adjustment
(COLA).
For fiscal years beyond the 2020-21 Fiscal Year, each City commits to
include in its respective proposed budgets funding for its share of the Pilot
Program. County acknowledges that each City Council retains discretion
to approve the Pilot Program funding included in each City’s respective
future proposed budgets for the term of this MOU.
Upon expiration of the two-year term of the Pilot Program, the County shall bear
no financial responsibility for the Pilot Program. Should the Cities, whether all or some
combination of them, agree to continue the Pilot Program beyond the two years, it will
be at no cost to the County.
The Parties agree to meet in the last quarter of the two -year term to address the
handling of termination of the Pilot Program, and/or the continuance of the Program by
all or some combination of the Parties beyond the two-year term.
11.2 Gardner Center Agreement Cost Sharing
The total cost of the Gardner Center Agreement shall not exceed Two Hundred
Fifty-Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Nine dollars ($259,869) for the duration of the
Term. The contributions of Cities and County to the costs of the Gardner Center
Agreement shall be as follows:
County shall be responsible for the first fifty percent (50%) of the Gardner
Center Agreement, as and when invoices come due. Thereafter, the
Cities will collectively pay for the remaining fifty percent (50%) of the
Gardner Center Agreement, as and when invoices come due.
The maximum obligation of County shall not exceed One Hundred
Twenty-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-Four dollars, fifty cents
($129,934.50), fifty percent of the Gardner Center Agreement costs.
Each City’s respective maximum obligation for the Gardner Center
Agreement costs shall not exceed Thirty-Two Thousand Four Hundred
Eighty-Three dollars, sixty-three cents ($32,483.63), twelve and one-half
percent (12.5%) of the Gardner Center Agreement costs.
Rev. 1.5.2021
Should the Gardner Center Agreement exceed Two Hundred Fifty-Nine
Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Nine dollars ($259,869), the Parties agree
to meet to address additional cost sharing.
11.3 Administration and Supplies Cost Sharing
The total estimated cost of supplies for personnel is $60,000 in the 2020 -21 FY
and shall be borne by the County while the cost of supplies used in the offices of each
law enforcement agency will be the Cities’ responsibility. In the 2021-22 FY the
estimated cost of supplies to be paid for by the County is estimated to be less than
$60,000.
11.4 Cost Definitions
Costs to be shared for this program, as detailed in Sections 11.1 – 11.3, include
the following:
Personnel costs, including fully weighted salary and benefits
Gardner Center Agreement costs
Administration and supplies costs
12. Contact Information
The following is contact information of the persons responsible from each
party/entity for the completion and maintenance of this MOU:
12.1 Party A (County of San Mateo) Information
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
12.2 Party B (City of San Mateo) Information
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
Party C (City of South San Francisco) Information
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Rev. 1.5.2021
Facsimile:
Email:
Party D (City of Daly City) Information
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
Party E (City of Redwood City) Information
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Facsimile:
Email:
Rev. 1.5.2021
Effective Date and Signatures: You must have the Fiscal Managers and Directors from
each division sign. Optional to add Program Managers or others. Gilman and Janet
This MOU shall be effective upon the signature of all parties authorized officials. It shall
be in force from [DATE] to [DATE]. All Parties indicate agreement with this MOU by their
signatures.
Signatures and dates:
_________________________________ _______________________________
(Print/type) Name (Print/type) Name
Title, County of San Mateo Title, County of San Mateo
_________________________________ _______________________________
Date Date
_________________________________ _______________________________
(Print/type) Name (Print/type) Name
Title, City of San Mateo Title, City of San Mateo
_________________________________ _______________________________
Date Date
_________________________________ _______________________________
(Print/type) Name (Print/type) Name
Title, City of South San Francisco Title, City of South San Francisco
_________________________________ _______________________________
Date Date
_________________________________ _______________________________
(Print/type) Name (Print/type) Name
Title, City of Daly City Title, City of Daly City
_________________________________ _______________________________
Date Date
_________________________________ _______________________________
(Print/type) Name (Print/type) Name
Title, City of Redwood City Title, City of Redwood City
Rev. 1.5.2021
_________________________________ _______________________________
Date Date
3653110.1
Attachment 2
A. Expenditures
1.Personnel Expenditures
a.Employee Salary - list all employees Title Salary % of time Yr. 1 Yr. 2
i.Employee 1, title, salary, % of time LMFT/LPSW 103,904 100 103,904 107,021
ii.Employee 2, title, salary, % of time LMFT/LPSW 103,904 100 103,904 107,021
iii.Employee 3, title, salary, % of time LMFT/LPSW 103,904 100 103,904 107,021
iv.Employee 4, title, salary, % of time LMFT/LPSW 103,904 100 103,904 107,021
b.Subtotal of all salaries 415,616 415,616 428,084
Employee Benefits
i.Part-time benefits
ii.Full-time benefits LMFT/LPSW 49,969 100 49,969 51,468
iii.Subtotal of benefits All 4 LMFT/LPSW 199,876 199,876 205,872
d.Subtotal of Personnel Expenditures 615,492 615,492 633,956
APPENDIX 1: BUDGET WORKSHEET
San Mateo County Behavioral Health & Recovery Services Budget Worksheet
Community Wellness and
Crisis Response Team
TWO-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM
1
Call to Action
The increased response of law enforcement to mental health calls has had some devastating results often leading to trauma, injury, or death.
Studies indicate improved outcomes for individuals experiencing crises associated with mental health or co-occurring disorders when law enforcement officials and mental health practitioners implement agency-wide responses.
(Steadman, Deane, Borum, & Morrissey, 2009)
2
Response
The work of the Commission is a driving force for creation of the Community Wellness and Response Team Pilot Program in South San Francisco
The creation of a police-mental health response team for mental health crises, substance use, and homelessness focused on conflict management/de-escalation and linking people to supportive services
3
Community Wellness and Crisis
Response Team
CWCRT pilot program is a countywide collaboration
between San Mateo County Behavioral Health and
Recovery Services and the four cities: South San
Francisco, Redwood City, Daly City, San Mateo
A coordinated response to community needs and the
growing concern to adequately address mental health
issues in South San Francisco (and The Cities) while
maintaining public safety.
4
What is CWCRT?
An alternative approach to law enforcement’s
sole response to individuals in mental distress;
Strengthens the response to emergencies by
providing a licensed and skilled mental health
professional that aids in de-escalating mental
health situations;
Reduces law enforcement use of force, and
ensures the health and safety of SSF residents in
crises.
5
Goals & Objectives
Improved outcomes for individuals experiencing
behavioral health crises
Increased access to appropriate resources
Increased and improved training and collaboration
between BHRS and law enforcement staff
Strengthened relationships between law enforcement,
behavioral health service providers, and the
community.
6
Outcomes
Reduced use of public safety and emergency services
Reduced contact between individuals with behavioral
health issues and the criminal justice system
Improved residential and behavioral health stability
7
Measuring Effectiveness
Partnered with John W. Gardner Center of Stanford
University
The Gardner Center will conduct regular data analysis
to determine the program’s effects, assess outcomes,
and consider appropriate adjustments.
8
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal
responsibility
The City is responsible
for 12.5% of the
personnel cost
The City is responsible
for 12.5% of the
Gardner Center
Costs
Two-Year Total
The total personnel
cost estimated at
$1,249,448,
South San
Francisco’s portion
equaling $156,182.
Annual Costs
FY 21/22, $76,937
FY 22/23, $79,245
$32,483.63 to
Gardner Center
(as invoiced)
9
Community Wellness and
Crisis Response Team
TWO-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM
SHARRON WATTS, MANAGEMENT FELLOW
SSF COMMISSION ON RACIAL AND SOCIAL EQUITY
10
1
From:Russell Lee
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:58 AM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Public Comments for 01/13/21 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14: As many health professionals have generally expressed, the mere presence of police officers in
mental health crises have a significant chance of escalating them. Because even if a cop, paired with a mental
health expert, ideally executed their role in acting in non-aggression, at their core they are visually threatening.
Armed cops on stand by if "anything goes wrong" means being prepared to arrest, tackle, taze, and/or shoot the
person in question experiencing a MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. This is a rebuffed version of our current system
of cops solely responding to mental health calls. I strongly encourage the city council to advocate to the county
on behalf of our residents to pilot a program which ONLY has mental health clinicians responding to mental
health calls. Our residents who may act "erratically" when they're under mental distress should not be provoked
into a situation where their fates could end in tragedy.
Agenda Item 15: A metal canopy that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the PD from being shot
at seems a little absurd, but it makes sense knowing how paranoid the police department is of the people of SSF.
If the cops really wanted something to cover themselves, someone had suggested to plant trees and other
greenery. Can we please not waste money we could be using to curb the impacts of the pandemic and recession.
Agenda Item 16: Please please endorse the statewide bill to extend the eviction moratorium and rental
protections. The moratorium is the only thing keeping renters from being put onto the street. But along with
endorsing AB 15, we need to find a way to address the growing financial strains of our residents. Helping
supplement food, transportation, and school material costs are some ways to alleviate the day to day stress so
many families in this city have.
Agenda Item 17: As with any government service or meeting, there needs to be a strong push to be inclusive as
possible. Reforming the public comment system so that residents can either sign up for it ahead of time or raise
their hand on a specific item. We should make these meetings as easy as possible for people to engage with. An
unintended victory of moving to Zoom is that it opened up a new avenue of civic engagement. Those people
who couldn't always drive out to the municipal building for a city council meeting can now attend on their
computer. Please allow those watching the meeting to speak on an item by allowing the raise hand function. Not
everyone is prepared to speak on an item ahead of a meeting but hearing another resident's comment on an item
can inspire them to speak on the subject as well.
Thank you!
-Russell
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 1/13/2021
Item # 14
From:Kimberly Hui
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:Agenda Item 14 - Mental Health Professional for SSFPD
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:43:29 PM
Hi all,
This is an extremely important moment for South San Francisco. Adding a mental health
professional who is trained in de-escalation, crisis intervention, and counseling will support
our push towards caring for South San Francisco residents. However, I believe our city council
needs to acknowledge that ONE individual to address all mental health situations in South San
Francisco is not enough. To properly support our community and this mental health
professional, they will need a team to support their work.
I want to reiterate, this is a first step but it is not enough. To address the concerns, safety, and
well-being of our community, we must have a task force composed of qualified individuals
(not police officers - who only need a high school diploma to ensure safety ?! but also they
aren't always thinking of our community first) to address non-violent calls. We cannot expect
ONE INDIVIDUAL to carry that burden on their own. Do not tell me that you expect police
officers to take their work seriously, when they don't take the safety of our INDIVIDUAL
BODIES seriously.
Please look towards SF's Street Crisis Response Team.
Best,
Kimberly Hui
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1034 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14a.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of
South San Francisco and the County of San Mateo in establishing the Community Wellness and Crisis
Response Team (CWCRT) Pilot Program.
WHEREAS,the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and the County of
San Mateo Behavioral Health and Recovery Services establishes the Community Wellness and Crisis Response
Team (CWCRT) Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS,the South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity has set as its top priority the
creation of a police-mental health response team for mental health crises,substance use,and homelessness,
focused on conflict management/de-escalation and linking people to supportive services; and
WHEREAS,the CWCRT program is an alternative and innovative approach which enhances law enforcement’s
ability to respond to community members in mental health crisis while creating a more effective continuum of
care; and
WHEREAS,the CWCRT program is designed to optimally respond to individuals experiencing behavioral
health crises through a co-response model to better support mentally ill individuals and their families in crisis,
as well as the community; and
WHEREAS,the CWCRT program will improve outcomes for individuals experiencing behavioral health
crises,increase access to appropriate resources,and strengthen relationships between law enforcement,
behavioral health service providers, and community; and
WHEREAS, support of the CWCRT program meets the Strategic Plan Priority for public safety.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco,with
concurrence of the City Manager that,by the adoption of this Resolution,the City Council hereby supports the
execution of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and the County of
San Mateo in establishing the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team Pilot Program.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that,by the adoption of
this Resolution,the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding for the
establishment of the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team Pilot Program,including any changes that
do no increase the City’s obligations and approved by the City Attorney.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1034 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:14a.
****
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 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 #:20-1012 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:15.
Report on the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center parking canopy design.(Jacob Gilchrist,Director of
Capital Projects)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hear a report on the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center
parking canopy design.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
As a key element at the exterior of the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center,the parking area canopies
create a safe and secure environment for officers and their fleet.The goal of the canopy design was to create a
visual barrier from neighboring properties,allowing officers insurance that they can safely move within their
space without surveillance from neighboring buildings.A secondary goal of the canopies is to keep the cars
covered and protected from the elements as much as possible.
In a presentation to Council early in the project planning,staff presented an initial design for the canopies.The
design team further developed the concept,altering it significantly to insure that the design achieved the goals
of safety and security for officers and their vehicles.This design resulted in increasing the pitch and height of
the canopy roof structures.Through this design revision the highest point of the roof height increased from 15’
to 20’. This design change was not shared with City Council.
As installation of the canopies began in October 2020,staff learned that some Councilmembers are concerned
about the height of the canopy -particularly the section closest to Chestnut Avenue.Staff understands that
Councilmembers believe the height and mass of the structure may create an unwelcoming visual barrier to view
the exterior of the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center.To explore options for altering the design,staff
worked with the architects and general contractor to develop options for this section of the canopy.While 43
parking spaces are covered by the canopy at the perimeter of the facility,the section closest to Chestnut covers
the 7 southernmost spaces,making it a discreet component that is relatively simpler and less expensive to alter
compared to making changes to the complete set of perimeter parking canopies.
The three options before Council are below:
-Option 1. Leave canopy section in place.
o This is the least expensive option and would maintain the existing visual barrier.
o There is no additional cost to leave the canopy section in place.
-Option 2. Remove the canopy section.
o This option will leave 7 perimeter parking spaces uncovered and site lines to the Chestnut Ave
vehicular gate would be visible from the adjacent apartment building at 41 Chestnut Avenue.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-1012 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:15.
o Cost to remove the canopy section - approximately $40k.
-Option 3. Flatten the canopy section with a metal roof.
o This would require a complete structural redesign of the canopy section.The benefit of this
option is that it would maintain most of the visual barrier from the adjacent apartment building.
o Cost to flatten the canopy section - approximately $350k.
-Option 4. Flatten the canopy section -provide a fabric covering.
o This option is less costly but also less durable than option 3.
o The cost is still high due to the foundation work and material costs.The fabric alone is over
$100k.
o Cost to provide a fabric covering over the flattened section - approximately $290k.
Staff looks forward to discussing the options with Council.In order to avoid additional costs related to project
delays, staff needs direction from Council by early February 2021.
This study session will also include a review of the perimeter and public-facing elements of the Police
Operations and 9-1-1 Dispatch Center.In attached presentation,Staff has provided images of the 10’tall
perimeter fence and gates,the landscape plan,building façade and signage,and publicly accessible interior
spaces.
FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact is dependent on Council directing staff to make changes to the current design.Changes could
potentially be funded by construction contingency previously included in the project budget.
RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN
This effort is included in the City’s Strategic Plan.It aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing
quality of life and Priority #3 which is focused on enhancing public safety.
ATTACHMENTS
·Presentation
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
2 smithgroup.com
•
•
3 smithgroup.com
4 smithgroup.com
5 smithgroup.com
6 smithgroup.com
Pending structural
analysis
COSTS
▪Keep Existing Height $0
▪Remove 7-Space Section $40k
▪Flatten 7-Space Section $350k
▪Fabric 7-Space Section $290k
7 smithgroup.com
8 smithgroup.com
9 smithgroup.com
10 smithgroup.com
11 smithgroup.com
12 smithgroup.com
13 smithgroup.com
14 smithgroup.com
Metal Roof parking structure Standing Seam Metal Roofing
Selected Color Sample –Zinc Gray
Available Colors
16 smithgroup.com
17 smithgroup.com
18 smithgroup.com
19 smithgroup.com
20 smithgroup.com
21 smithgroup.com
22 smithgroup.com 10’-0”
23 smithgroup.com
24 smithgroup.com
25 smithgroup.com
26 smithgroup.com
27 smithgroup.com
28 smithgroup.com
29 smithgroup.com
30 smithgroup.com
31 smithgroup.com
32 smithgroup.com
33 smithgroup.com
1
From:Marcela Rivera <
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 12:12 PM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Agenda item 15 public comment
To whom it may concern:
This is a ridiculous request. First of all this would be a VERY UGLY sight to see while enjoying a walk on
centennial trail and probably cause a lot of noise for our neighbors living in the apartments when it rains. I
would hate to look out my window and see a metal canopy. Second of all this is a horrible use of money and
honestly after watching this video our police really don’t deserve more of our money if they don’t even
understand the law and how to treat people. This new gov’t plaza is supposed to be a place where people can go
and enjoy the city, so why not plant trees and greenery? Who would want to take their kids to a park with a
huge metal overhang around the corner? If the fear is getting shot at, then you’re really not selling this new area
as a safe community space(which it already isn’t because police will be hanging around probably harassing
people).
I just looked through the plans linked in the agenda and yes it seems to be confirmed that the canopy is a
complete eye sore. It’s embarrassing that this is even being considered. We’re in a pandemic and our neighbors
are going houseless and hungry and this is how you want to spend our money???? Shame.
Sincerely,
Marcela
Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343Agenda: 1/13/2021Item # 15
1
From:Russell Lee
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:58 AM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Public Comments for 01/13/21 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14: As many health professionals have generally expressed, the mere presence of police officers in
mental health crises have a significant chance of escalating them. Because even if a cop, paired with a mental
health expert, ideally executed their role in acting in non-aggression, at their core they are visually threatening.
Armed cops on stand by if "anything goes wrong" means being prepared to arrest, tackle, taze, and/or shoot the
person in question experiencing a MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. This is a rebuffed version of our current system
of cops solely responding to mental health calls. I strongly encourage the city council to advocate to the county
on behalf of our residents to pilot a program which ONLY has mental health clinicians responding to mental
health calls. Our residents who may act "erratically" when they're under mental distress should not be provoked
into a situation where their fates could end in tragedy.
Agenda Item 15: A metal canopy that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the PD from being shot
at seems a little absurd, but it makes sense knowing how paranoid the police department is of the people of SSF.
If the cops really wanted something to cover themselves, someone had suggested to plant trees and other
greenery. Can we please not waste money we could be using to curb the impacts of the pandemic and recession.
Agenda Item 16: Please please endorse the statewide bill to extend the eviction moratorium and rental
protections. The moratorium is the only thing keeping renters from being put onto the street. But along with
endorsing AB 15, we need to find a way to address the growing financial strains of our residents. Helping
supplement food, transportation, and school material costs are some ways to alleviate the day to day stress so
many families in this city have.
Agenda Item 17: As with any government service or meeting, there needs to be a strong push to be inclusive as
possible. Reforming the public comment system so that residents can either sign up for it ahead of time or raise
their hand on a specific item. We should make these meetings as easy as possible for people to engage with. An
unintended victory of moving to Zoom is that it opened up a new avenue of civic engagement. Those people
who couldn't always drive out to the municipal building for a city council meeting can now attend on their
computer. Please allow those watching the meeting to speak on an item by allowing the raise hand function. Not
everyone is prepared to speak on an item ahead of a meeting but hearing another resident's comment on an item
can inspire them to speak on the subject as well.
Thank you!
-Russell
From:Kimberly Hui
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:Agenda Item #15 - Metal Structure around new police dept
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:48:16 PM
Hi all,
This is unnecessary. With this budget, we need to divert resources to our COMMUNITY. We
must address issues of food insecurity, job security, immigrant rights (NO DEPORTATION),
and mental health resources. Why is there a cut in the Parks and Recreation Department, when
we rely on them to bring us joy in this pandemic. Why is there a cut in the library when they
are educating our children. If we address the root issues of systemic racism, systemic
community poverty, systemic violence in poor communities, THERE WILL BE NO NEED
FOR THIS METAL STRUCTURE. No need to spend more money on the police who aren't
looking at us as individuals, who only see our skin tone. Divert this precious resource to
UPLIFT our community. Do not spend it on a structure, that has no evidence. When has the
SSF Police Dept been so in danger that there were shooters in the parking lot? I would like to
see concrete numbers for why this is necessary.
These funds can be diverted to a full task force for crisis intervention, for the mental health
professionals that could help our students at SCHOOLS, to ensure that there is a school nurse
to care for our students. Please reconsider this budget decision.
Kimberly Hui
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-09 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:16.
Report regarding a resolution supporting Assembly Bill 15,the Tenant Stabilization Act of 2021,and
authorizing the Mayor to send a letter in support to the state legislature.(Sharon Ranals,Assistant City
Manager)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council consider adoption of a resolution in support of Assembly Bill 15,the
Tenant Stabilization Act of 2021,related to COVID-19 relief from tenant eviction,and if adopted to
authorize the Mayor to send a letter in support to the state legislature.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020,enacted by Assembly Bill 3088 (AB 3088),was passed by the
California Legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on August 31,2020.The act prevents eviction
of residential tenants enduring financial hardship due to COVID-19 through January 2021,and delays rental
recovery by landlords until March 2021.Passage of AB 3088 was intended to stabilize the housing situation in
California and establish a framework for tenants and landlords to negotiate and avoid as many evictions and
foreclosures as possible in the face of the state of emergency created by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Assembly Bill 15 (AB 15),authored by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco),is titled the Tenant
Stabilization Act of 2021.This bill would extend the moratorium on residential evictions from nonpayment of
rent from January 31,2021 to December 31,2021,based on the fact that since AB 3088 was adopted the
COVID-19 crisis in California has grown worse and millions of renters remain vulnerable to eviction.
The premise of the legislation is that,“mass evictions would be calamitous both for public health and for the
state’s economic recovery”by forcing some individuals and families to move in together,creating conditions
that promote the spread of the virus,as well as causing many people to become homeless.The intent of the
legislation is that the act remains in effect temporarily until such time as a long-term solution to the housing
instability caused by the pandemic is enacted.
Attachment
1.Full Text of Assembly Bill No. 15
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1
From:lorena melgarejo >
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 2:38 PM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Public Comment for Item 16 -- Support for the Resolution in support of AB15
Faith In Action Bay Area is a network of congregations, neighborhood associations, schools and
community leaders working across San Mateo County to build community leadership and organize for
community change. We write to urge you to support the resolution supporting Assembly Bill 15, a
critical measure to extend California’s COVID-related eviction protections in the midst of a raging
pandemic which has laid bare our state’s housing inequities.
As an organization which works to address our dual housing and homelessness crises, we urge the
South San Francisco City Council to take a strong stand in supporting the passage of AB 15, which will
shield California renters from potential displacement, protect the public health, and aid in our
recovery.
In San Mateo County alone, over 15,000 households will be at risk of eviction if AB15 does not pass at
the state level. This constitutes 13% of the renting population. Our tenants and landlords are both
struggling due to the unpaid rent. In San Mateo County, it is estimated that residents have
accumulated rent debt collectively at the scale of $11 million per month. While our community has
developed robust rental assistance programs that have helped thousands of families, the scale of the
crisis requires systemic intervention, as it is simply too big to solve through local and private funds
alone.
We are extremely concerned about the eviction cliff coming on Feb 1, as state eviction protections (AB
3088) expire. These evictions will be devastating for many of our families in South San Francisco,
who are at risk of homelessness or displacement. This expiration will usher in a period of
unprecedented eviction filings and threatens to leave thousands of families without a home during a
public health crisis.
For all these reasons, we urge you to vote to pass this resolution to support AB15.
Sincerely,
Lorena Melgarejo
Executive Director
Faith In Action Bay Area
1
From:Russell Lee
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:58 AM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Public Comments for 01/13/21 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14: As many health professionals have generally expressed, the mere presence of police officers in
mental health crises have a significant chance of escalating them. Because even if a cop, paired with a mental
health expert, ideally executed their role in acting in non-aggression, at their core they are visually threatening.
Armed cops on stand by if "anything goes wrong" means being prepared to arrest, tackle, taze, and/or shoot the
person in question experiencing a MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. This is a rebuffed version of our current system
of cops solely responding to mental health calls. I strongly encourage the city council to advocate to the county
on behalf of our residents to pilot a program which ONLY has mental health clinicians responding to mental
health calls. Our residents who may act "erratically" when they're under mental distress should not be provoked
into a situation where their fates could end in tragedy.
Agenda Item 15: A metal canopy that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the PD from being shot
at seems a little absurd, but it makes sense knowing how paranoid the police department is of the people of SSF.
If the cops really wanted something to cover themselves, someone had suggested to plant trees and other
greenery. Can we please not waste money we could be using to curb the impacts of the pandemic and recession.
Agenda Item 16: Please please endorse the statewide bill to extend the eviction moratorium and rental
protections. The moratorium is the only thing keeping renters from being put onto the street. But along with
endorsing AB 15, we need to find a way to address the growing financial strains of our residents. Helping
supplement food, transportation, and school material costs are some ways to alleviate the day to day stress so
many families in this city have.
Agenda Item 17: As with any government service or meeting, there needs to be a strong push to be inclusive as
possible. Reforming the public comment system so that residents can either sign up for it ahead of time or raise
their hand on a specific item. We should make these meetings as easy as possible for people to engage with. An
unintended victory of moving to Zoom is that it opened up a new avenue of civic engagement. Those people
who couldn't always drive out to the municipal building for a city council meeting can now attend on their
computer. Please allow those watching the meeting to speak on an item by allowing the raise hand function. Not
everyone is prepared to speak on an item ahead of a meeting but hearing another resident's comment on an item
can inspire them to speak on the subject as well.
Thank you!
-Russell
1
Mouasher, Iman
From:Lisa Marie Wong <
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:28 PM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Resolution in Support of AB 15
Dear Council,
I am a resident of South San Francisco and a member of Faith in Action.
I am writing to urge Council to adopt a resolution in support of AB 15. I am extremely worried for the families
of South San Francisco who will be left vulnerable to being evicted from their homes once the statewide
eviction protections expire at the end of this month.
In our work in Faith in Action over the past several months, we have talked to countless South San Franciscan
families who have lost work and/or wages during the pandemic and are struggling to get by and pay their rent.
It's unconscionable to allow our families to be put out into the street.
Please pass a resolution in support of AB 15 tonight.
--
Lisa Marie Wong
Communications Coordinator
Faith in Action Bay Area
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:21-10 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:16a.
Resolution regarding Assembly Bill 15,the Tenant Stabilization Act of 2021,and authorizing the Mayor to send
a letter in support to the state legislature.
WHEREAS,COVID-19 infections and deaths are reaching record highs across California,including in South
San Francisco, where approximately 40% of residents are renters; and
WHEREAS,25.5%of California renter households and 17.4%of California property owners are behind on
their rent and mortgage payments according to the Terner Center at UC Berkeley; and
WHEREAS,South San Francisco,like much of the rest of the United States,faces an escalating eviction and
debt crisis; and
WHEREAS,at least 151,000 people are homeless in California,and rising unemployment combined with a
lack of eviction protections and small homeowner assistance will only further exacerbate the homelessness
crisis; and
WHEREAS,the public health and socioeconomic stability of South San Francisco is facing an unprecedented
test,and city and county governments need every available tool to respond locally to the specific issues their
communities face; and
WHEREAS,Assembly Bill 3088,the legislation passed in the California State Legislature and signed by
Governor Newsom on August 31,2021,to protect renters who cannot pay their rent in full due to COVID-
related hardship, expires on January 31, 2021; and
WHEREAS,Assembly Bill 15,sponsored by Assemblymember David Chiu (D-San Francisco),dozens of state
legislators and hundreds of tenant,affordable housing,labor and social justice groups across the state,will
extend and improve AB 3088 for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic,and as currently drafted does not
limit the ability of cities and counties to further protect our residents.
NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby endorses AB 15 and urges
the California State Legislature to pass and Governor Newsom to sign Assembly Bill 15 with urgency,without
preemption of critical local protections,allowing city and county governments to address the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic and stabilize the communities they represent,and authorizes the Mayor to send a letter in
support to the state legislature.
* * * * *
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/20/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1020 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:17.
Policy regarding public comments at City Council meetings (Mark Addiego, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
1
From:Russell Lee
Sent:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:58 AM
To:All at City Clerk's Office
Subject:Public Comments for 01/13/21 City Council Meeting
Agenda Item 14: As many health professionals have generally expressed, the mere presence of police officers in
mental health crises have a significant chance of escalating them. Because even if a cop, paired with a mental
health expert, ideally executed their role in acting in non-aggression, at their core they are visually threatening.
Armed cops on stand by if "anything goes wrong" means being prepared to arrest, tackle, taze, and/or shoot the
person in question experiencing a MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS. This is a rebuffed version of our current system
of cops solely responding to mental health calls. I strongly encourage the city council to advocate to the county
on behalf of our residents to pilot a program which ONLY has mental health clinicians responding to mental
health calls. Our residents who may act "erratically" when they're under mental distress should not be provoked
into a situation where their fates could end in tragedy.
Agenda Item 15: A metal canopy that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect the PD from being shot
at seems a little absurd, but it makes sense knowing how paranoid the police department is of the people of SSF.
If the cops really wanted something to cover themselves, someone had suggested to plant trees and other
greenery. Can we please not waste money we could be using to curb the impacts of the pandemic and recession.
Agenda Item 16: Please please endorse the statewide bill to extend the eviction moratorium and rental
protections. The moratorium is the only thing keeping renters from being put onto the street. But along with
endorsing AB 15, we need to find a way to address the growing financial strains of our residents. Helping
supplement food, transportation, and school material costs are some ways to alleviate the day to day stress so
many families in this city have.
Agenda Item 17: As with any government service or meeting, there needs to be a strong push to be inclusive as
possible. Reforming the public comment system so that residents can either sign up for it ahead of time or raise
their hand on a specific item. We should make these meetings as easy as possible for people to engage with. An
unintended victory of moving to Zoom is that it opened up a new avenue of civic engagement. Those people
who couldn't always drive out to the municipal building for a city council meeting can now attend on their
computer. Please allow those watching the meeting to speak on an item by allowing the raise hand function. Not
everyone is prepared to speak on an item ahead of a meeting but hearing another resident's comment on an item
can inspire them to speak on the subject as well.
Thank you!
-Russell
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1021 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:18.
Process for Council vacancy appointment.(Mark Addiego, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
From:
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Subject:Council Seat Vacancy Deadline
Date:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 2:09:31 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that the deadline for the Application for Appointment to the City Council is on Friday the
15th, just 2 days after the Wednesday night City Council meeting.
The notice regarding the deadline was sent out on Chrsitmas Eve which was a surprise. I felt
after the last Council Meeting that the process for applying would come up at this weeks
meeting, which would then include when the deadline would be, but I did not expect it to be
just 2 days later. I am asking that the deadline be extended until at least Monday so that
there is 2 days over weekend available to complete application. I feel postponing the deadline
from a Friday 5 PM to say following Monday morning (for example), is only a delay of couple
of hours business time which likely won't affect the Council much. Thank you.
Government Code Section 54957.5
SB 343
Agenda: 1/13/2021
Item # 18
From:
To:All at City Clerk"s Office;
Subject:Agenda Item 18 - Appointing City Council
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:52:50 PM
Hi everyone,
Please make this process more transparent and ACCESSIBLE for our community to
participate in and understand your reasoning for choosing these individuals.
Our City Council should consist of individuals with a passion for uplifting South San
Francisco. If the process of appointing a member is not transparent then I do not trust that they
will hold our community as the top priority.
To build trust with our community, there needs to be transparency at each step of government.
Please keep our residents in mind when you appoint someone. Also consider, revising this
process. Who do you consider as candidates for appointment? What are the qualifications? Are
you including EQUITY as a driving factor? Will this member accurately reflect the voices of
our community. It's important to reflect on our city's governmental processes if they are not
serving our community anymore.
Thank you.
Kimberly Hui
From:Daniel Deveron Baker
To:All at City Clerk"s Office
Cc:
Subject:Nomination for City Council Vacancy
Date:Wednesday, January 13, 2021 3:59:03 PM
01-13-2021
DEAR HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS,
My name is Daniel Deveron Baker. I am a long-time resident of South San
Francisco (since 1974), and I absolutely love our City and our People!
I am a graduate of the 2006 SSF Citizens' Academy, and the 2011 SSFPD
(Police) Citizens' Academy.
I am a long-time worker at Safeway (over 43 years, full time), for most of my
career at the Safeway store on Chestnut in South San Francisco. I have been
on medical leave since 10-25-2020.
I would like to nominate PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard for the City Council
vacancy.
PaulaClaudine is a dear friend, currently serving as a school administrator
and on the board of our SSF Cultural Arts Commission.
She is honest, reliable, and absolutely dedicated to our City of South San
Francisco.
I believe an application from her is forthcoming.
Thank you for all you do.. I appreciate each and every one of you!
SINCERELY, DANIEL DEVERON BAKER
Daniel Deveron Baker
S San Fran CA 94080-1271
Here it is..Dan's 6-14-2011 YouTube Video..
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-1022 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:19.
Council discussion on changing the time of the Regular City Council meetings.(Mark Addiego, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/7/2021Page 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 #:21-12 Agenda Date:1/13/2021
Version:1 Item #:20.
Discussion of C/CAG Committee Vacancies for Elected Officials. Congestion Management & Environmental
Quality (CMEQ) Committee (4) vacant seats, Legislative Committee (3) vacant seats, Resource Management
and Climate Protection (RMCP) Committee (1) vacant seat.(Mark Addiego, Mayor)
City of South San Francisco Printed on 1/11/2021Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
C/CAG
CITY/COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
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 • San Mateo County •South San Francisco • Woodside
Date: December 4, 2020
To: All Councilmembers of San Mateo County Cities and Members of the Board of Supervisors
From: Marie Chuang, Chair, C/CAG Board of Directors
Subject: C/CAG Committee Vacancies for Elected Officials
The City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) currently has vacancies on four
of its standing Committees for elected officials of City Councils and/or the Board of Supervisors. The vacancies
are:
4 Seats – Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
4 Seats – Congestion Management & Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee
3 Seats – Legislative Committee
1 Seat – Resource Management and Climate Protection (RMCP) Committee
Please see Attachment A for more information about each Committee. Individuals wishing to be considered for
appointment to any of these Committees should email a letter of interest to:
Sandy Wong, C/CAG Executive Director
City/County Association of Governments
555 County Center, 5th Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
slwong@smcgov.org
Individuals must be an elected official on one of the twenty City/Town Councils in San Mateo County or an
elected official on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors 1. Individuals interested in being considered for
appointment for one or more of these committees should submit a letter of interest by January 7, 2021.
Appointments will be considered at the January 14, 2021 C/CAG Board meeting. If there are fewer letters of
interest received by January 7, 2021 than seats vacant, the recruitment will remain open until filled. If you have
any questions about the Committees or this appointment process, please contact Sandy Wong or the C/CAG
staff member noted in Attachment A: Committee Descriptions and Staff Contacts.
Sincerely,
Marie Chuang
Chair, C/CAG Board of Directors
Enclosure: Attachment A: Committee Descriptions and Staff Contacts
cc: All City/County Managers; All City Clerks
1 No more than two BPAC members can reside in the same jurisdiction. There are currently two members that reside in the
Unincorporated County of San Mateo, and as a result, no new members from this jurisdiction can be appointed to BPAC at this time.
ATTACHMENT A: Committee Descriptions and Staff Contacts
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) provides advice and recommendations to the full
C/CAG Board of Directors on matters relating to planning and funding for countywide bicycle and pedestrian
improvements. The BPAC advises the C/CAG Board on priority projects for funding such as the Transportation
Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3) grant program and the One Bay Area Grant program. Approximately six
meetings are held per year on the fourth Thursday of the month at 7:00 p.m. Prior to the COVID-19 Crisis, the
meetings were held in the San Mateo City Hall. During the COVID-19 Crisis, the meetings have been held over
Zoom. No more than two BPAC members can reside in the same jurisdiction. There are currently two members
that reside in the Unincorporated County of San Mateo, and as a result, no new members from this jurisdiction
can be appointed to BPAC at this time. For more information about the Committee and Meeting agendas,
contact Mikaela Hiatt at mhiatt@smcgov.org; and/or see https://ccag.ca.gov/committees/bicycle-and-
pedestrian-advisory-committee/
The Congestion Management and Environmental Quality Committee (CMEQ) provides advice and
recommendations to the full C/CAG Board on all matters relating to transportation planning, congestion
management, travel demand management, coordination of land use and transportation planning, mobile source
air quality programs, energy resources and conservation, and other environmental issues facing the local
jurisdictions in San Mateo County. The role of the CMEQ Committee also includes making recommendations
to the C/CAG Board on the allocation of funding for specific projects and activities addressing these
programmatic areas. The Committee meets on the last Monday of each month from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Prior
to the COVID-19 Crisis, the meetings were held in the San Mateo City Hall. During the COVID-19 Crisis, the
meetings have been held over Zoom. For more information about the Committee and Meeting agendas,
contact Jeff Lacap at jlacap@smcgov.org; and/or see: https://ccag.ca.gov/committees/congestion-
management-and-environmental-quality-committee/
The Legislative Committee provides advice and recommendations to the full C/CAG Board on all matters
relating to State legislation and ballot measures of potential interest to C/CAG. The Committee monitors bills of
potential interest to C/CAG and selects those to be tracked. The Committee then recommends positions on bills
for consideration by the full C/CAG Board and acts as the liaison with C/CAG’s legislative advocating firm.
The Committee receives reports and recommendations from the C/CAG legislative advocating firm. The
Committee also represents C/CAG through an annual visit with San Mateo County representatives on the State
Legislature and other key members at the State agencies. The Legislative Committee meets on the 2 nd Thursday
of the month from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Prior to the COVID-19 Crisis, the meetings were held in the San
Mateo City Hall. During the COVID-19 Crisis, the meetings have been held over Zoom. For more
information about the Committee and Meeting agendas, contact Reid Bogert at rbogert@smcgov.org;
and/or see: https://ccag.ca.gov/committees/legislative-committee/
The Resource Management and Climate Protection (RMCP) Committee provides advice and
recommendations to the full C/CAG Board and provides updates to the Congestion Management and
Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee on matters related to energy, water, and climate action efforts in
San Mateo County, and develops and promotes actions, programs and resources on the same. The RMCP
committee also receives reports on the San Mateo County Energy Watch (SMCEW) and Regionally Integrated
Climate Action Planning (RICAPS) program. The Committee supports the goals, strategies, and actions
outlined in the San Mateo County Energy and Water Strategy, which include: conserving and transitioning our
energy supply and grid, water supply conservation and technologies, collaboration, leadership, and economic
development opportunities. The RMCP meets on the third Wednesday of the month from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. Prior to the COVID-19 Crisis, the meetings were held at in the conference room at 155 Bovet Rd. in the
City of San Mateo or the County Center in Redwood City as a secondary location. During the COVID-19
Crisis, the meetings have been held over Zoom. For more information about the Committee and Meeting
agendas, contact Kim Springer at kspringer@smcgov.org; and/or see:
https://ccag.ca.gov/committees/resource-management-and-climate-protection-committee/