The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-02-24 e-packet@7:00Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 South San Francisco, CA TELECONFERENCE MEETING City Council Regular Meeting Agenda February 24, 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, Flores 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 REGISTRATION NO LONGER REQUIRED - ZOOM LINK BELOW: Join at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/87656785839 (Enter your email and name) Join by Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 876 5678 5839 Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 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 regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. As of March 24, 2021 the meeting time will be 6:00 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) EDDIE FLORES, Councilmember (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 a regular meeting will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall. If, however, the document or writing is not distributed until the regular meeting to which it relates, then the document or writing will be made available to the public at the location of the meeting, as listed on this agenda. The address of City Hall is 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AGENDA REVIEW ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) 1. Presentation on San Mateo County Strong Fund Restaurant, Brewery, and Winery Relief Grant Program (Rosanne Foust, President and CEO, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA). 2. REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS Remote Public Comments Received3. 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. Submit Public Comments in Advance via GoogleDocs: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via GoogleDocs by 5:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Comments received by the deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after 5:00 p.m. will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words total can be read in three minutes. Link to submit public comment can be found here: https://forms.gle/JK5pmh55JGUZsLw2A Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Comments During Remote Meeting: Members of the public who wish to provide comment during the meeting may do so by using the “Raise Hand” feature: • To raise your hand on a PC or Mac desktop/laptop, click the button labeled "Raise Hand” at the bottom of the window on the right side of the screen. Lower your hand by clicking the same button, now labeled “Lower Hand.” • To raise your hand on a mobile device, tap “Raise Hand” at the bottom left corner of the screen. The hand icon will turn blue, and the text below it will switch to say "Lower Hand" while your hand is raised. To lower your hand, click on “Lower Hand.” • To raise your hand when participating by telephone, press *9. Once your hand is raised, please wait to be acknowledged by the City Clerk, or designee, who will call on speakers. When called upon, speakers will be unmuted. After the allotted time, speakers will be placed on mute. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS CONSENT CALENDAR Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of December 1, 2020, January 13, 2021, January 20, 2021, January 22, 2021, January 26, 2021, and January 27, 2021. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) 4. Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of Advanced Chemical Transport Inc. for the Oyster Point Marina Fuel Tank and Fueling Station Removal Project (pf2001) as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $242,204.60). (Dave Bockhaus, Deputy Director of Public Works) 5. A 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 and Construction Testing Services, Inc. of San Francisco, for Special Inspection and Material Testing for the Civic Campus Phase 1: Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 6. A resolution amending an existing consulting services agreement with Construction Testing Services Inc. for Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services on the Civic Campus Phase 1: Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center project in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85. 6a. Page 5 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations, grants, and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190, and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 7. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations, grants, and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190, and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. 7a. Report regarding a resolution approving a Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan Fund for pre-payment of Housing Element Update services; and approving Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s Park-in-lieu Fee for pre-payment of BART Right-of-way Master Planning (PK2103) consistent with the reimbursable Local Early Action Planning Grants (LEAP) Program. (Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) 8. Resolution approving Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan Fund for pre-payment of Housing Element Update services; and approving Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s Park-in-lieu Fee for pre-payment of BART Right-of-way Master Planning (pk2013) consistent with the reimbursable Local Early Action Planning Grants Program. 8a. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation) 9. Resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000. 9a. Report regarding adoption of a resolution accepting $250,000 from Fairfield Residential as prepayment for the Industrial Area Community Facilities District. (Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 10. Page 6 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Resolution accepting Fairfield 200 Airport LP’s prepayment of $250,000 to partially satisfy its obligations associated with the East of 101 Community Facility District in connection with its development of a mixed-use multifamily residential project at 200 Airport Boulevard. 10a. Staff report regarding a resolution approving the filing of a grant application in a total amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. (Jacob Gilchrist, Capital Project Director) 11. Resolution approving the filing of a grant application in a total amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. 11a. 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) 12. 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. 12a. PUBLIC HEARING Report regarding an update on the SSF PUC Housing Partners project and a resolution accepting the dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. owned property located on El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210) to the City of South San Francisco for a public purpose. (Nell Selander, Economic and Community Development Deputy Director) 13. Resolution accepting the dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. owned property, located at 1200 El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210), to the City of South San Francisco for a public purpose 13a. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report to discuss options to allow moderate density housing in residential districts that currently only allow single family dwellings. (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) 14. Page 7 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 February 24, 2021City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Report regarding an ordinance requiring large grocery and drug stores in South San Francisco to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in “hazard pay” during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic (Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic & Community Development, and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 15. Urgency Ordinance amending Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay” to require grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic 15a. Ordinance amending Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay” to require large grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic 15b. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS CLOSED SESSION Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency designated representatives: Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director, Donna Williamson, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee organization: AFSCME, Local 829; Confidential Unit - Teamsters Local 856; Mid-management Unit - Teamsters Local 856; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 16. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4)) Initiation of Litigation: Three potential cases (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 17. ADJOURNMENT Page 8 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/21/2021 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-136 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:1. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing March as Women’s History Month.(Mark Addiego, Mayor) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Dated: February 24, 2021 RECOGNITION OF MARCH AS WOMEN’S HISTORY MONTH February 24, 2021 WHEREAS, from earliest times, women have helped shape our Nation. Historians today stress all that women have meant to our national life, but the rest of us too should remember, with pride and gratitude, the achievements of women throughout American history; and WHEREAS, Women’s History Month began as a local celebration in Santa Rosa, California. The Education Task Force of the Sonoma County Commission on the status of Women planned and executed a “Women’s History Week” celebration in 1978. The organizers selected the week of March 8 to correspond with International Women’s Day; and WHEREAS, it wasn’t until nine years later, in 1987, Congress designated the month of March as “Women’s History Month;” and WHEREAS, American women of every race, class, and ethnic background have made historic contributions to the growth and strength of our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways; and WHEREAS, American women have played and continue to play critical economic, cultural, and social roles in every sphere of the life of the Nation by constituting a significant portion of the labor force working inside and outside of the home; and WHEREAS, American women have been leaders, not only in securing their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but also in the abolitionist movement, the emancipation movement, the industrial labor movement, the civil rights movement, and other movements, especially the peace movement, which create a more fair and just society for all; and WHEREAS, as today’s women and girls reach for new heights, they stand on the shoulders of all those who have come before and carry forward their legacy of proud achievement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the month of March, that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby celebrate countless pioneering women and the victories they won, and we continue our work to build a society where our daughters have the same possibilities as our sons, and we know that when women succeed, America succeeds. ________________________________ Mark Addiego, Mayor ________________________________ Mark Nagales, Vice Mayor ________________________________ James Coleman, Councilmember ________________________________ Eddie Flores, Councilmember ________________________________ Buenaflor Nicolas, Councilmember City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-144 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:2. Presentation on San Mateo County Strong Fund Restaurant, Brewery, and Winery Relief Grant Program (Rosanne Foust, President and CEO, San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA). City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Restaurant, Brewery and Winery Relief Program -SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 2021 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Reg CC Item #2 Program Objectives Support restaurants, breweries, and wineries that have suffered from the economic impact of the COVID-19 Provide grant assistance up to $10,000 directly to local, non-corporate establishments in a streamlined manner Timeline and Applicant Assistance Application Portal Timeframe: Monday, February 22th - Monday, March 8th at 12:00PM Information, FAQs, and application can be found on: www.smcstrong.org Support hotline for application assistance (available weekdays between 9:00AM -4:00PM) Support in English: 650-413-5600 Support in Spanish: 855-221-1777 Support in Chinese: 888-262-7552 Support in Tagalog: 800-211-9641 --- Email support for applicants at: restaurantrelief@smcgov.org Application Evaluation Process Complete pre-applications* Eligible pre-applications will be put into a pool (for selection by lottery) Selected businesses will be contacted by County staff (for documentation** & final determination by the evaluation committee) Fully approved businesses will be provided to the San Mateo Credit Union for disbursement of funds Defined application window, NOT first-come, first-served -Incomplete applications will NOT be processed and ineligible applications will NOT be considered - *Applicants will NOT be required to submit documentation during the initial, pre-application process ** Copy of a valid City Business License (if a license is offered), Copy of W-9, Copy of current County Environmental Health Permit, Photo ID for the owner/partners/managing parties Pre-Application Open until March 8, 2020 at 12:00PM The Restaurant, Brewery, and Winery Relief application can be found on the San Mateo County Strong website here. Pre-Application Form Includes: •Name of restaurant, brewery, or winery •Establishment Address •Name of applicant •Applicant email address •Applicant phone number •Applicant’s relationship to establishment (sole proprietor, co-owner, managing partner of LLC, principal, other) •% of establishment application owns (e.g. 50%, 100%, etc.) OPTIONAL -Ownership Demographics of Applying Owner, Partner, or Principal (for data collection only & will NOT be used in the selection process) •Woman, veteran, minority, LGBTQ+ owned •Race •Gender •Age Pre-Application Open until March 8, 2020 at 12:00PM The Restaurant, Brewery and Winery Relief application can be found on the San Mateo County Strong website here. Pre-application available in: English Spanish, Chinese, or Tagalog If selected, you will need to have the four items listed ready to submit to staff for verification (those items are NOT required to complete this application): •IRS Form W9 •County of San Mateo Environmental Health Permit •City/Town Business License (if applicable) •Photo ID of establishment owner(s)/partners/principal(s) Categories of Potential Applicants *Brick and mortar physical location within San Mateo County and the City of Palo Alto **Under this definition, corporate-owned franchises, pop-ups, food trucks, home-based business or a catering company, cottage food operator, or a microenterprise home kitchen operation are not restaurants and are ineligible for grants Will provide grants of up to $10,000 each to qualifying establishments: RESTAURANT Brick and mortar physical location within San Mateo County* and a full-service kitchen on site** BREWERY Active California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Type 23 (Small Beer Manufacturer) License, with a brick and mortar physical location within San Mateo County WINERY Active ABC Type 2 (Wine Grower) License, with a brick and mortar physical location within San Mateo County The application portal opened on Monday, February 22th and will remain open until Monday, March 8th at 12:00PM To learn more about eligibility and/or to apply, please visit: SMCSTRONG.ORG What Types of Businesses DO NOT Qualify for the Grant? Applicants will be ineligible for a grant from the Program under the following circumstances: Incomplete applications Failure to meet the eligibility criteria outlined The applicant’s establishment has received or been approved for a grant from any of the following programs: •Small business relief program managed by Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 20, 2020 (Resolution 077791) •San Mateo County Strong Fund Small Business Grant administered by the Community Fund, approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 10, 2020 (Resolution 077828) o Recipients of grants from earlier San Mateo County Strong grant programs are eligible for the Program) •The establishment has received over $200,000 in revenue from participation in the “Great Plates” program The establishment operates in a hotel without a separate business license The applicant is a pop-up, food truck, home-based business or a catering company, cottage food operator, or a microenterprise home kitchen operation The applicant is a corporate-owned franchise ? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) FAQs are available on SMCSTRONG.org •Information on: •General Questions •Eligibility •Outreach and Ongoing Fundraising •And more •Available in English, Spanish, Tagalog, and Chinese If you have any additional questions not listed on the FAQ page, please email: restaurantrelief@smcgov.orgTo view the FAQs page in Spanish, Tagalog, and Chinese, click on the buttons below the Frequently Asked Questions title. Questions ??? Support hotline for application assistance (available weekdays between 9:00AM -4:00PM) Support in English: 650-413-5600 Support in Spanish: 855-221-1777 Support in Chinese: 888-262-7552 Support in Tagalog: 800-211-9641 --- Email support for applicants at: restaurantrelief@smcgov.org SMCSTRONG.ORG City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-140 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:3. Remote Public Comments Received City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…1/24 Email address * Cynthia Marcopulos Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Regular CC Item #3 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…2/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…3/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Cities inviting corporations to relocate here bring thousands of employees transferring from all over the country creating the housing crisis. Affluent cities don’t allow massive developments. These cities are preserving their quality of life by fighting against enormous construction. We moved here for a quality of life, not to be living on top of the other. We have City Councils who won’t join together to preserve our quality of life and the reason we moved here, but roll over with the whisper of “SB50” or “Scott Weiner”. We’ve experienced water rationing. We need to build desalinization plants due to the influx of new residents. Housing crisis? Solve it by letting people move to the outskir ts and telecommute, that's sustainable. South City cannot bear the burden for the entire Peninsula when other cities, like Ather ton, Woodside, Palo Alto are preserving their quality of life. We have 33 percent vacancies, and new housing developments on the horizon. Tell corporations to move to a state that is in economic crisis, like Detroit. Think what they can do with their billions to create their own fantasy cities. We have the east side and the Industrial Park to build affordable housing vs. changing family neighborhoods forever. This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * Submit your comment below. * Forms 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…4/24 Email address * Dennis Rudoni Sunshine Gardens Life Long Resident - Sunshine Gardens Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…5/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…6/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed I have not invested in my quality of life in " The Gardens" to have "Units" on each side and behind my proper ty. Now that there are residents on Cuneo's old proper ty they walk their dogs up into the gardens and let their animals relieve themselves on our lawns because they don't have lawns. This is just one example of how my invested quality of life in the gardens has changed. My quality of life will also change when the housing project on old mission rd is completed. I really doubt that your plans actually include the gardens but just to be sure I need to inform you that I am totally against your plans if they include the gardens. I have a solution to the problem with housing ... The California Golf Club ... This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * Submit your comment below. * Forms 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…7/24 Email address * Denton Murphy SSF Resident Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…8/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qULH…9/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…10/24 Item 14 – I am strongly in favor of any proposals which allow for more housing to be built within SSF city limits. I am proud to see that our city council has taken the long overdue step of reconsidering single family home zoning. Every year California loses residents due to our elected officials reluctance to combat sky high housing costs. We must build more housing. I’m tired of seeing people my age and younger leave due to this reason. Initiatives like this are par t of the answer. Thank you for your time. Item 15 – I’m strongly in favor of passing this ordinance. The pandemic has failed to stem corporate executive thievery, and this ordinance puts South San Francisco on the side of its working citizens. Just to give a sense of scale, the average CEO to typical worker pay ratio was 320 to 1 in 2019, before a pandemic that saw most retail and grocery chains posting record profits. This is up from 61 to 1 in 1989, and 25 to 1 in 1965. Walgreens, the only chain to see a decrease in profit this pandemic, when they posted a mere 885 million profit in FY20, still thought enough of their CEO to ensure he received 17 million in compensation in 2020, or about 524 times what his median worker makes. This sickening cult of the executive needs to end. Private companies have shown repeated unwillingness to look after their employees. At the chains where this would apply (Safeway, Walgreens, Costco) most hazard pay programs ended by mid-June, according to the Brookings Institute. The pandemic cer tainly didn’t end, but these companies’ ability to care about what their employees were exposed to on a daily basis did. This ordinance would correct this neglect by giving our essential workers what they deserve, instead of an anodyne commercial telling us how much these companies care. I’d like to thank the council for their time. I hope you do the right thing, and pass this ordinance tonight. This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Submit your comment below. * Forms 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…11/24 Email address * Jonathan New Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…12/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…13/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Council, thank you for the opportunity to submit comment. My name is Jonathan New, and I'm a single family home owner. I would like to strongly urge the council to upzone single family neighborhoods. Upzoning grants proper ty owners additional flexibility to accommodate their changing needs. Families may want to split their home to accommodate aging parents or even earn additional rental income. This land use flexibility increases the variety and quantity of housing which is especially crucial during our housing supply shortage. We've seen Sacramento and Berkeley recently eliminate single family zoning, and it would be great to see South San Francisco continue leading the charge. Thank you. This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * Submit your comment below. * Forms 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…14/24 Email address * Katie DeLeuw Resident Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…15/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…16/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…17/24 Dear Mayor Addiego, Vice-Mayor Nagales, and Councilmembers Nicolas, Coleman, and Flores, Thank you for beginning this impor tant conversation about zoning modifications in single-family residential neighborhoods, agenda item 14. I support ending exclusionary zoning in South San Francisco and I’m happy to learn that you are considering this. I am a homeowner in a single-family neighborhood. My husband and I bought our house in 2017. We have made South City our home -- we are raising our kids here, plan to live here for a long time, and are excited to envision the future of South San Francisco. I fully embrace the values stated in the SSF General Plan of equity and inclusion, innovation, sustainability, and livability, and I see increasing housing density as a major step in aligning the future South City with these values. In addition to helping address the jobs-housing imbalance we face in South City, the peninsula, and the whole Bay Area, increasing housing density in single-family neighborhoods will help improve affordability and slow down displacement in our city. It is beyond time to end the racial and class exclusions caused by single family zoning and proactively create more equitable housing solutions. Please don’t let the voices of fear dissuade you from moving this conversation forward. I understand that people don’t like change. But it’s inevitable. We can fight it and get left behind, or embrace it, improve our communities, and make it easier for our neighbors to stay, communities to grow, and our own kids to return to South City someday if they want to. Please suppor t the next steps toward eliminating single-family housing in South San Francisco. Thank you for the oppor tunity to comment on this topic. Katie DeLeuw SSF resident in Sign Hill P.S., I found information from the Sightline Institute to be very helpful in understanding this topic, and recommend it! https://www.sightline.org/upzoning/ This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Submit your comment below. * Forms 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…18/24 Email address * Matt Janiga Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…19/24 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…20/24 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNhi5mTeuFv4CdBekzILt1qUL…21/24 I'm writing in suppor t of Item 14. I ask that the council also examine (1) setback requirements on upper floors for residential buildings, (2) the lack of an exception or waiver process at the planning commission level and (3) the speed it takes to approve permits in conjunction with these changes. Currently planning commission requirements require an additional foot wor th of setback on exterior walls related to second story additions in homes in neighborhoods such as Brentwood. As background, most homes in the Brentwood were constructed with just four feet between the structure and the property line. However, the city/planning commission recently changed the setback rules where new construction needs five feet. So second story additions need to come in one foot from the exterior walls of the structure's first floor. The effect of this is unsafe, as it prevents property owners from installing sheer walls for seismic safety purposes. The current setback requirements are also arbitrary and punish newer residents, as there are currently 50+ existing homes in the Brentwood neighborhood that are in violation of the current second- story setback requirements. Related to this, there is no way to appeal or ask for an exception from the setback requirements during the current design review process with the city. The Chief Planner currently feels they are unable to grant waivers or exceptions to the current requirements. Finally, the permitting and review process appears to be incredibly slow. Based on our personal experience, it takes between 8 and 10 months to have home renovations approved by the city. If we are to tackle discriminatory zoning, we should also look at outdated and inefficient processes that add unnecessary delay to new and renovated homes. Otherwise, we'll never get out of our housing crisis and never meet our RHNA goals. This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Submit your comment below. * Forms City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-122 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:4. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of December 1, 2020, January 13, 2021, January 20, 2021, January 22, 2021, January 26, 2021, and January 27, 2021. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 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 City Manager Futrell apprised the Council and the community of Governor Newsom’s Immediate Assistance for Businesses Impacted by COVID-19, including Temporary Tax Relief. He indicated that staff would work with the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to assist local businesses. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood provided an overview of staff’s efforts to assist the community. He encouraged the community to call (650) 829-6620 or the City’s website at https://www.ssf.net/departments/economic-community-development/business-recovery- resources. PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation recognizing Library Board Member Robert Turnberg Councilmember Matsumoto read into the record a proclamation recognizing Boardmember Turnberg for his years of service and commitment to the community. 2. Proclamation recognizing Library Board Member Pat FitzPatrick Councilmember Matsumoto read into the record a proclamation recognizing Boardmember FitzPatrick for her years of service and commitment to the community. MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2020 7:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-63-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2020 MINUTES PAGE 2 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 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 2020. None. COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Councilmember Nagales requested an overview of the newly passed legislation and inquired about the possible impacts to the City. City Attorney Woodruff provided an overview for the Council and community. Councilmember Nicolas invited the community to attend the Commission on Racial and Social Equity meeting on Wednesday, December 2, 2020. She requested to adjourn in memory of a long- time South San Francisco resident and Mater Dolorosa Catholic Church parishioner, Jerome Gacula. CONSENT CALENDAR The City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar, after which Council voted and engaged in discussion of specific item as follows: Items 5, and 6 were pulled by for further discussion. Item No. 5: Mayor Garbarino inquired about the housing units, in specific the units designated for individuals with disabilities. Economic and Community Development Deputy Director Selander provided an overview of the project and housing choices for individuals with disabilities. Sarah White, Director of Development, BRIDGE Housing, provided an overview of the process. Item No. 6: Vice Mayor Addiego thanked the staff and Genentech for their partnership and expressed his support of the project. 4. Report regarding Resolution No. 175-2020 approving a First Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Firehouse Work LLC. and Anton DevCo Inc. for the old firehouse property located at 201 Baden Avenue (Julie Barnard, Economic Development Coordinator) 5. Report regarding Resolution No. 176-2020 approving an agreement between the City of South San Francisco and BRIDGE Housing Corporation for a predevelopment loan for 158 affordable housing units at the PUC Site and approving Budget Amendment Number 21.029. (Nell Selander, Deputy Director of Economic Development and Housing) 6. Report regarding adoption of Ordinance No. 1614-2020 amending Chapter 20.260 of the South San Francisco Zoning Code related to the Genentech Master Plan Zoning District; and adoption of Ordinance No. 1615-2020 approving a Development Agreement (DA20-0001) between the City of South San Francisco and Genentech, Inc. for the Genentech Campus/Master Plan Project in South San Francisco, California. (Tony Rozzi, AICP, Principal Planner) Motion — Councilmember Matsumoto/Second – Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Consent Calendar items 4-6 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas, and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2020 MINUTES PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing opened: 7:42 p.m. 7. Report regarding consideration of applications for a Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand Management Plan, Waiver and Modification, General Plan Amendment, and Zoning Text Amendment to construct three new buildings containing 338 residential units and 955 square feet of retail space at 410 Noor Avenue, associated CEQA analysis, and Overrule of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) determination of inconsistency with respect to Noise Policies (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner) Senior Planner Friedman presented the report and indicated that the project applicant, SyRes Properties, was proposing a mixed-use, a multi-family residential project at 410 Noor Avenue. Currently a vacant site and former Century Plaza Theater. This 4.74-acre project site is within the El Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX) Zoning District and is located approximately 1/4 mile from the San Bruno BART station. The project included 338 residential units, including ten percent deed- restricted affordable units, ground-floor residential amenities, a small retail space, 466 below-grade parking spaces, and seven surface parking spaces. The San Mateo City / County Association of Governments (C/CAG) reviewed this project for consistency with the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Consistency Plan (ALUCP) and found the project inconsistent with the policies of the 2012 ALUCP due to its location within the airport noise contours. The applicant requested City Council approval through the local agency override process, consistent with Public Utilities Code Sections 21676 and 21676.5. The following individuals provided public comment: • Alex Melendrez, Housing Leadership Council • Ceci Conley, Silicon Valley Leadership Group Public Hearing closed: 8:13 p.m. Vice Mayor Addiego expressed his support of the project and thanked Senior Vice President of SyRES Properties for Mr. Ceridono for bringing his project to South San Francisco. Councilmember Nagales requested clarification of the project and affordable housing units. Senior Planner Freidman provided an overview of the project history and affordability. Councilmember Matsumoto expressed her support and congratulated staff on their work. She requested clarification on the terms "override and overrule". Senior Planner Friedman indicated that state law uses the term override and overrule interchangeably. Assistant City Attorney D'Andrea clarified the use of terms. 7a. Resolution No. 177-2020 overruling the San Mateo City / County Association of Governments (C/CAG) Airport Land Use Commission determination of inconsistency with respect to Noise Policies for the 410 Noor multi-family residential project (“410 Noor” or “Project”) by adopting specific findings that the project is consistent with the override provisions contained in Division 9, Part 1, Chapter 4, Article 3.5 of the Public Utilities REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2020 MINUTES PAGE 4 Motion— Vice Mayor Addiego/Second Councilmember Matsumoto: To approve Resolution No. 177-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 7b. Resolution No. 178-2020 making findings and a determination that the environmental effects of the proposed multi-family residential project at 410 Noor Avenue (“410 Noor”, or “Project”) were sufficiently analyzed under the South El Camino General Plan Amendments Program Environmental Impact Report per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15168 and 15162, and that the proposed project is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines sections 15183 and 15332, and qualifies for streamlining per CEQA Guidelines sections 15183.3 and 15183.5, and Public Resources Code 21159.28. Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Resolution No. 178-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 7c. Resolution No. 179-2020 adopting a General Plan Amendment in association with the 410 Noor Residential Project to clarify and incorporate the City Council’s discretion to approve appropriate projects that are found inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Consistency Plan, using the Local Agency Override Process, per Public Utilities Code Section 21670 et seq. Motion— Councilmember Nicolas/Second Councilmember Nagales: To approve Resolution No. 179-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 7d. Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”) to include a reference to the local agency override process. Motion— Councilmember Matsumoto/Second Vice Mayor Addiego: To introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.300.010 (“Performance Standards”) to include a reference to the local agency override process, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 7e. Resolution No. 180-2020 making findings approving the entitlements request (P18-0013, UP18- 0006, DR18-0006, TDM18-0003, and WM20-0005) to construct a high density residential development consisting of 338 units across three buildings, a small retail space, and residential and open space amenities at 410 Noor Avenue (collectively referred to as “410 Noor” or “Project”). Motion— Councilmember Nagales/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No. 180-2020, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 8. Report regarding consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on September 17, 2020, adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated 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 opened: 8:43 p.m. Principal Planner Rozzi presented the report and requested that the City Council continue the public hearing to a date uncertain. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2020 MINUTES PAGE 5 Motion— Vice Mayor Addiego/Second Councilmember Nicolas: To continue the public hearing to date uncertain, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Matsumoto, Nicolas and Nagales, Vice Mayor Addiego and Mayor Garbarino; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 9. Report regarding Resolution No. 181-2020 to amend the City of South San Francisco Salary and Wage Schedule, to adjust wages of hourly employee classifications in accordance with the City’s Minimum Wage Ordinance and to adjust salaries for Executive Management positions in accordance with the Executive Management Compensation Plan (Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director) Human Resources Director Lockhart presented the report and provided an overview of the proposed changes. She indicated that the adjustments to Executive Management positions were salary range adjustments. Vice Mayor Addiego requested clarification about the approval process for salary adjustments to the Executive Management unit members. Human Resources Director Lockhart indicated that the adjustments are within the City Manager's purview. Councilmember Matsumoto requested clarification of positions listed in Appendix A dated July 2017. In specific, the positions of Chief Innovation Officer and Information Technology Director. Human Resources Director Lockhart indicated that the City Manager changed the title for that position, but it is the same job with a different title. The salary schedule amendment recently approved by the City Council listed the correct title. Staff will make any necessary changes during the 2022 labor negotiations. City Manager Futrell clarified that the Chief Innovation Officer was an unfunded position but was a career step for the Information Technology Director position. Councilmember Matsumoto expressed her concern with the inconsistency of titles within the salary schedule and the MOU. She requested that staff fix the inaccuracies and provide the City Council with a copy of the job descriptions for both the Information Technology Director and Chief Innovation Officer. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMNTS None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Garbarino adjourned the meeting at 8:58 p.m. in memory of long- time South San Francisco resident and Mater Dolorosa Catholic Church parishioner, Jerome Gacula. Respectfully submitted by: Approved: Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego City Clerk Mayor Approved: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego AGENDA REVIEW No Changes ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF None REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. 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 the day of the meeting. The following individuals provided remote public comments: • Eddy Holman • Liliana Rivera COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Mayor Addiego requested a moment of silence to honor the lives lost due to COVID-19 and the Capital insurrection. Chief Azzopardi recognized Capital Police Officers Brian Sicknick and Howard Liebengood. Vice Mayor Nagales requested the Council establish a pilot program using universal basic income to help South San Francisco residents during the pandemic. He directed city staff to study the program's implementation and asked Council to show leadership to become the county's first city to provide such assistance. City Manager Futrell stated city staff would look into the program's feasibility and report back to Council at a future meeting. Councilmember Nicolas commended Parks and Recreation staff for the Winter Wonderland event and requested an update from Fire Chief Magallanes on the Zonehaven Community Evacuation project. She requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Alejandro Aguilar, Evelina Tanada, James Mose, and her niece Veronica Rachel Carpio La Madrid. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2021 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 JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 CONSENT CALENDAR The Assistant City Clerk duly read the Consent Calendar: 2. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of October 28, 2020, November 9, 2020 and November 18, 2020. 3. Report regarding Resolution No. 01-2021 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) 4. Report regarding Resolution No. 02-2021 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) 5. Report regarding Resolution No. 03-2021 approving the second amendment to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Baden Developments LLC for 432 Baden (Julie Barnard, Economic Development Coordinator). 6. Report regarding Resolution No. 04-2021 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) 7. Report regarding Resolution No. 05-2021 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) 8. Report regarding Resolution No. 06-2021 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) 9. Report regarding Resolution No. 07-2021 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) 10. Report regarding a Resolution No. 08-2021 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) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 3 11. Report regarding Resolution No. 09-2021 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) Motion — Vice Mayor Nagales/Second – Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Consent Calendar items 2-11 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Nicolas and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 12. Report on Resolution No. 10-2021 approving the Annual Development Impact Fee and Sewer Capacity Charge Report (AB 1600) for the Fiscal Year 2019-20. (Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance) Finance Director Salisbury introduced Management Analyst Enders whom presented the report. State law 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 was a cost recovery charge based on the proportional benefit to the person or property being charged. It was associated with providing collection and treatment capacity through the existing infrastructure available and future capital projects. The city was required to review the status annually of the collected impact fees and capacity charges. Vice Mayor Nagales requested the number of projects that would be completed this year and incoming fees from the projects. Finance Director indicated they would be working with Economic Development to anticipate the number of projects to be completed and update the Council in a Thursday memo. Vice Mayor Nagales requested that the Parks 11 plan be updated and work on a plan for the library site. Councilmember Coleman stated he was interested in looking at the child care impacts fees and incorporating them into the old library site. Mayor Addiego requested the City Manager to schedule study sessions on various items. City Manager stated he would work with him to get the study sessions on the calendar. Motion — Councilmember Nicolas/Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: to approve Resolution No. 10- 2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Nicolas and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 4 13. Report regarding Resolution No. 11-2021 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). Deputy Director Selander presented the report and provided background information on San Mateo County Grand Jury report. 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. The statements must be accompanied by a detailed explanation. Councilmember Nicolas requested that the HEART program pre-approved plans and loan products be available when marketing the program. Deputy Director Selander stated the pre-approved plans were still under review; however, they would be shared once they are approved. Councilmember Nagales requested clarification on the process for getting homeowners into compliance. Deputy Director Selander stated that State law passed a five-year amnesty program for the unpermitted ADUs, provided they met with essential health and safety requirements. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus provided an overview of the Code Enforcement process. Councilmember Coleman inquired about the reasoning behind homeowners not getting permits. Deputy Director Selander indicated that cost was the primary reason and stated that permit costs were between 10% to 30% of the total project cost. Motion — Councilmember Nicolas/Second – Councilmember Coleman: to approve Resolution No. 11-2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Nicolas and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 14. Report regarding Resolution No. 12-2021 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) Management Fellow Watts presented the report on establishing the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team Pilot Program and provided background information. The South San Francisco Commission on Racial and Social Equity (Commission), formed in July, 2020, 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 was a driving force for the creation of the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) pilot program in South San Francisco. 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. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 5 The city would be 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 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. Public comments were submitted from the following: • Russell Lee • Kimberly Hui Councilmember Coleman inquired whether one mental health clinician would be sent to the city for eight hours of the day and the possibility of officers not being in uniform when responding to mental health calls. Police Chief Azzopardi stated the program would bring one mental health clinician and they would work a 40 hours a week. He stated that it would not be possible to have only certain officers assigned to these calls due to staffing issues. Vice Mayor Nagales inquired about the process and requested clarification on the reporting of the mental health calls. Police Chief Azzopardi provided an overview of the process and reporting procedures. Councilmember Nicolas inquired whether a bilingual clinician would be assigned given the demographic of the city. Scott Gilman, Director of Behavioral Health and Recovery Services stated there had been a lot of discussion around that topic; however, it would be unlikely given the specific requirements needed for the position. Councilmember Coleman inquired whether other Racial and Social Equity Commission priorities would come to fruition similar to this program. Management Fellow Watts stated that addressing mental health issues was at the top of the commissions’ priorities and there would still be other programs the commission would be exploring. Mayor Addiego inquired about the recruiting process for the clinician position. Mr. Gilman provided an overview of the recruitment process. Motion — Councilmember Nicolas/Second – Councilmember Coleman: to approve Resolution No. 12-2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Nicolas and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 15. Report on the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center parking canopy design. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist presented the report on the Police Operations and 911 Dispatch Center parking canopy design. As installation of the canopies began in October 2020, staff learned that some Councilmembers were concerned about the height of the canopy - particularly the section closest to Chestnut Avenue. 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. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 6 Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist introduced Reynaldo Royo from the Smith Group, whom provided a presentation on the exterior and public spaces. Public comments were submitted from the following: • Russell Lee • Kimberly Hui • Marcela Rivera • Eddy Holman • Liliana Rivera Councilmember Coleman inquired about the total cost of the canopy and whether all the funds had been exhausted. Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist stated the total cost was $1.8 million dollars and about $180,000 remained. Councilmember Coleman inquired about the purpose of the canopy and whether the city considered a natural alternative. Director of Capital Projects Gilchrist stated that the purpose of the canopy was to protect the police station's views and the vehicles. He noted that the city did explore a natural alternative; however, it would take years to develop. Mayor Addiego provided background information on the design of the police station, as he was the last standing member that worked on the project. Police Chief Azzopardi provided additional information on the project and expressed that he wanted a building that was safe for his officers. The consensus of the Council was to move forward with option two, which removed a portion of the canopy along Chestnut Avenue. 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) Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez present the report and provided background information. 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 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 7 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. Councilmember Coleman provided comments on his support of AB 15 and encouraged the Council to support the item. City Manager Futrell provided information on a meeting with the Mayor and Assemblymember Ting. There was unanimous consensus with the Governor and the legislature that an extension was required; however, there was no consensus on the length of the extension. Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez stated that the potential date of extension would be July 2021. Public comments were submitted from the following: • Lorena Melgarejo, Executive Director, Faith in Action Bay Area • Russell Lee • Roderick Bovee • Lisa Marie Wong, Communications Coordinator, Faith in Action Bay Area • Eddy Holman • Hon. John Baker • Jordan Grimes • Barbara Lopez Councilmember Nicolas expressed her concerns for the tenants and small building owners. Given the influx of the various bills, she was unclear on which bill to support. Vice Mayor Nagales stated that something had to be done given the potential of mass evictions and suggested writing a letter of support to extend the moratorium, not tied to a specific bill. Mayor Addiego inquired whether Council would have another opportunity to weigh in at the next Council meeting. Assistant to the City Manager Fernandez stated Council could revisit the item at the next meeting since the deadline was January 31st. Councilmember Coleman agreed to revisit the item at a future date and concurred with Vice Mayor’s suggestion of writing a letter of support not tied to a specific bill. The consensus of the Council was to draft a letter supporting extending the moratorium not tied to a specific bill. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 17. Policy regarding public comments at City Council meetings (Mark Addiego, Mayor) Councilmember Coleman provided background information on the issues regarding public comments at Council meetings. He requested the Council consider allowing the public to weight in during the meetings with the hand raise function. Vice Mayor Addiego expressed his concerns with having the conversation without the City Clerk present. He requested the item be postponed until the City Clerk was available to answer questions given her expertise. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 8 Mayor Addiego stated that access was important and agreed that the Elected City Clerk should be present for the conversation. Councilmember Nicolas agreed that the City Clerk should be present to address this item. Public comments were submitted from the following: • Russell Lee • Eddy Holman The consensus of Council was to move the item to the following Council meeting. 18. Process for Council vacancy appointment. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) Assistant City Clerk Avila stated there were six qualified applicants and additional information was available on the city’s website. Councilmember Coleman suggested allowing the public to submit questions during the interview process and have specific questions for each candidate. The Council had a discussion on the process and the consensus of the Council was to solicit questions from the public then rank the top three questions. The top three questions would be asked to all the candidates so that the public would be part of the process. Public comments were submitted from the following: • Anonymous • Kimberly Hui • Daniel Baker • Eddy Holman 19. Council discussion on changing the time of the Regular City Council meetings. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) Mayor Addiego provided his reasoning behind requesting the time change for the regular City Council meetings. Vice Mayor Nagales expressed his concerns with changing the time of the meetings and was in agreement to changing the time while holding zoom meetings. The consensus of Council was to change the regular City Council meetings to 6 p.m. City Attorney Woodruff stated that the regular City Council meeting time was adopted by ordinance; therefore the municipal code needed to be amended. 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) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 13, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 9 Mayor Addiego requested input from the Council on the C/CAG Committee Vacancies. There was a consensus of the Council to nominate the following elected officials: Congestion Management & Environmental Quality Richard Brown, Reuben Holober, Tom McCune, and Patrick Sullivan Legislative Committee Michael Salazar, Lisa Gauthier, Karen Cunningham, and Anders Fung Resource Management and Climate Protection Diana Reddy ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting in the memory of Alejandro Aguilar, Evelina Tanada, James Mose, Veronica Rachel Carpio La Madrid, George Corey, Barbara Bergamaschi, and Andy Ottman at 10:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Cindy Avila Mark Addiego Assistant City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego. 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 2:00 p.m. on January 20, 2021. The following individuals provided public comment: • Eddy Holman, South San Francisco resident • Mina Richardson, member, South San Francisco Unified School District Board of Trustees ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Review and selection of questions for Council applicants as submitted by members of the public. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) Council reviewed and discussed the questions submitted by members of the community. Council made a selection of questions to ask all candidates in the process. 2. Council Appointment Interviews. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) a. Interview Applicants for vacant City Council seat: 5:20 p.m.: Robert Uy 5:50 p.m.: George Mardikiah - Applicant not interviewed 6:20 p.m.: Amir Thagavis 6:50 p.m.: Hermes Monzon 7:20 p.m.: Norman Faria MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2021 5:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-63-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 20, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 7:50 p.m.: Scott Grindy 8:20 p.m.: Oswald Rojas - Applicant not interviewed 8:50 p.m.: Kimberly Samayoa Applicants Mardikiah and Rojas withdrew from consideration. Council interviewed applicants Uy, Thagavis, Monzon, Faria, Grindy and Samayoa. Meeting recessed: 6:44 p.m. Meeting resumed: 6:50 p.m. b. Discussion and determination of process for filing vacant City Council seat. The Council engaged in a discussion and reached a consensus of the appointment process as follows: Councilmembers will select their top three candidates at the conclusion of interviews. City Clerk Govea Acosta will create a polling question, via Zoom, with names of all interviewed candidates, and Council will publicly choose their top three. Poll results will be displayed to the public, and Council will decide whether to interview the top three candidates or appoint by majority vote. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved: Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego City Clerk Mayor Approved: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego. AGENDA REVIEW City Clerk Acosta announced that Krista Martinelli had withdrawn her application and would not be interviewing. Mayor Addiego read into the record a letter sent my Mrs. Martinelli in regards to her withdrawal. 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 2:00 p.m. on January 22, 2021. None ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Council Appointment Interviews. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) a. Interview Schedule: 5:00 p.m.: Vishalkumar (BJ) Patel 5:30 p.m.: Pradeep Gupta 6:00 p.m.: Krista Martinelli -Applicant not interviewed 6:30 p.m.: Steven Ponce-Ramirez 7:00 p.m.: Joshua Aguirre 7:30 p.m.: Alan N. Wong 8:00 p.m.: Michael Coutts -Applicant not interviewed 8:30 p.m.: Reynaldo Tanada Jr. Applicants Coutts and Martinelli withdrew their applications from consideration. Council interviewed applicants Patel, Gupta, Ponce-Ramirez, Aguirre, Wong, and Tanada. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 22, 2021 5:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-63-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 22, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved: Cindy Avila Mark Addiego Assistant City Clerk Mayor Approved: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF City Manager Futrell apprised the Council and the community of a strong storm expected to bring heavy rain and strong winds to the Bay Area throughout the week and into the weekend. He indicated that the Public Works Department was providing sandbags for residents at the Corporation Yard located at 550 North Canal Street. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 1. Council Appointment Interviews. (Rosa Govea Acosta, City Clerk) a. Interview Applicants for vacant City Council seat: 5:00 p.m.: Eduard (Eddie) Flores 5:30 p.m.: PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard 6:00 p.m.: Mathew William Janiga 6:30 p.m.: Sarah Funes Council interviewed applicants Flores, Hobson-Coard, Janiga, and Funes. 2. 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 via GoogleDocs in advance of the meeting by 3:00 p.m. on January 26, 2021. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TUESDAY, JANUARY 26, 2021 5:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-63-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 26, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 Deputy City Clerk Rodriguez read into the record public comments submitted by the following individuals: • Aubrey Merriam, Chief Executive Officer, Boys & Girls Club of North San Mateo County. • Irving Torres, member, SMC Latinx Dems. • Katie DeLeuw, South San Francisco resident. • Ray Larios, member, San Mateo County Latinx Democratic Club. • April Vargas, community member. Meeting recessed: 7:08 p.m. Meeting resumed: 7:18 p.m. City Attorney Woodruff provided an overview of the Ralph M. Brown Act and the public comment period. He indicated that speakers could speak on any topic for up to three minutes during the public comment section. If there appeared to be a large number of speakers, the Mayor might reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). He reminded community members that comments that were not in compliance with the City Council's rules of decorum would be summarized for the record if submitted in writing or muted during a live public meeting. Due to the number of raised hands before the meeting break, Mayor Addiego reduced speaker time from three-minutes to two-minutes per speaker. The following individuals provided public comment: • Eddy Holman, South San Francisco resident. • Barbara Hahn, teacher, South San Francisco Unified School District. • Megan Woodrich, teacher, South San Francisco Unified School District. • Gemma Choa Nepales, teacher, South San Francisco Unified School District. • Ethan Mizzi, South San Francisco resident. • Brian Steltzer, community member. • Sam Saravia, South San Francisco resident. • Aristel de la Cruz, teacher, South San Francisco Unified School District. 3. Discussion and Consideration of Appointment of Applicant. Due to technical difficulties launching the webinar's polling feature for the Council, they verbally provided their top three candidates. Councilmember Nicolas explained the process that Council would use to select their top three (3) candidates. She thanked all candidates for their time and dedication to serve the community. She noted how difficult it would be to select only three candidates as all candidates did well and would bring significant value to the City Council. The top three candidates were: Kim Samayoa, Alan Wong, and Eddie Flores. Vice Mayor Nagales thanked all candidates for their time and dedication to the community. The top three candidates were: Amir Thagavis, Pradeep Gupta, and Eddie Flores. Councilmember Coleman thanked Council for making the process transparent and expanding public participation. He praised applicants for their thoroughness and noted that the selection process would be difficult. The top three candidates were: Robert Uy, Reynaldo Tanada Jr., and Eddie Flores. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 26, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 3 Mayor Addiego thanked all applicants for their time and commitment to their community. The top three candidates were: Pradeep Gupta, Hermes Monzon, and PaulaClaudine Hobson- Coard. The Council engaged in a discussion about their top three candidates and reached a consensus to nominate applicant Eduard "Eddie" Flores as the leading candidate. Motion— Councilmember Coleman/Second Councilmember Nicolas: To appoint Eduard “Eddie” Flores as City Councilmember At-Large, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved: Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego City Clerk Mayor Approved: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Futrell requested Item 2 be pushed to a future meeting. The Council agreed. 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 via GoogleDoc by 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. The following individuals provided remote public comments: • San Mateo County Supervisor Pine • John C. Baker, Local Government Liaison PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District (Eunejune Kim, Director of Public Works/City Engineer) Director of Public Works/City Engineer Kim introduced Len Materman, Chief Executive Officer of the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District who provided the presentation. He provided background information on the District, its 2021 priorities, and projects. Mr. Materman shared the current 100-year and 500-year flood zone areas in South San Francisco as indicated on the FEMA floodplain map. Councilmember Coleman stated he was interested in making the Colma Creek a community asset and inquired what was envisioned for the creek. Mr. Materman provided an overview of the vison for Colma Creek and stated they were actively looking for opportunities to turn the concrete channel into something natural. MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2021 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 JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 Vice Mayor Nagales shared he had attended various General Plan meetings which included activating the space along the Colma Creek corridor. He stated that activating the space was a top priority and educating on the community on climate change. Councilmember Nicolas stated that vulnerable areas of the community were located in flood zone areas and expressed her support for the District projects. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 2. Report regarding a resolution approving the summary vacation of public easement for bus stop turnout on the property APN 015-023-290 (700 Gateway Boulevard) due to bus stop turnout relocation. (Jason Hallare, Senior Civil Engineer) Item not heard 3. Report regarding proposed amendments to the City’s abandoned shopping carts and graffiti ordinances. (Dave Bockhaus, Deputy Director of Public Works) Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus presented the report and provided background information on the proposed amendments to the city’s ordinances. The two proposed ordinances were the result of a citywide effort in 2020 to outline improvements the city can make to address ongoing issues of blight. As part of that process, staff identified abandoned shopping carts and graffiti removal as ongoing problems that can be improved by revising the city’s current ordinances for each. Mayor Addiego inquired to the number of graffiti removal requests in 2020. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus stated there were 285 service requests. Vice Mayor Nagales expressed his support of enforcing the ordinance for shopping cart and inquired about enforcement and wheel locking systems. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus indicated that the new ordinance requires businesses to have cart containment on premises including physical measures such as security guards, bollards or wheel locks. It also requires to report on collection and if the city picks up carts a citation would be issued. Vice Mayor Nagales inquired about the cost of wheel locking system. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus would research and provide the cost to Council via a Thursday memo. Vice Mayor Nagales requested that staff outreach proactively to ensure the community and businesses understand of the ordinances. Councilmember Nicolas inquired whether businesses were given an opportunity to provide input and the cost of removing graffiti. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus indicated that they did not give them an opportunity to provide input and that the cost of graffiti abatement was approximately $100 per hour. Councilmember Coleman supported the proposed shopping cart ordinance but expressed his concerns with the graffiti ordinance, due to the current location of hot spots. Mayor Addiego agreed with Councilmember Coleman’s comments and expressed his concern with the shopping cart ordinance and future penalties. He recalled stores having cart retrieval services. Deputy Director of Public Works Bockhaus indicated that cart retrieval services would be allowed and indicated that it was State law. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 3 City Manager Futrell stated he would work with staff to address the concerns from Council and would bring back the item to Council at a future meeting. 4. Report regarding Resolution No. 13-2021 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of South San Francisco and the Town of Atherton for the purchase of $1,427,825 in PG&E Rule 20A Credits for the amount of $645,521. (Eunejune Kim, Public Works Director) Public Works Director Kim presented the report and provided background information on the item. In November, 2020, Council authorized the City Manager to negotiate the purchase of Rule 20A credits with other agencies to ensure funding for the Spruce Avenue Underground Utility District. The City Manager had negotiated with the Town of Atherton to purchase its $1,427,825 in available credits for the amount of $642,521 ($0.45 per $1.00), which would reduce City’s Rule 20A credit deficit to $0.2M. The City would be able to borrow a future year’s allocation to make up the $0.2M deficit by the end of this fiscal year. Motion— Councilmember Coleman/Second Councilmember Nicolas: to approve Resolution No. 13-2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Nicolas and Coleman, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Cindy Avila Mark Addiego Assistant City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / CALL TO ORDER Mayor Addiego called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Coleman and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales, and Mayor Addiego. AGENDA REVIEW No changes. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF City Manager Futrell apprised the Council and the community of a strong storm expected to bring heavy rain and strong winds to the Bay Area throughout the week and into the weekend. He indicated that the Public Works Department was providing sandbags for residents at the Corporation Yard located at 550 North Canal Street. PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation recognizing February as Black History Month. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) Councilmember Nicolas read into the record a proclamation recognizing Black History Month. 2. Presentation on activities planned for Black History Month. (Leslie Arroyo, Communications Communications Director Arroyo presented Black History month events in South San Francisco and encouraged the community to participate virtually. REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. Members of the public were encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via Google Docs by 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 2021. • Bruce Naegel - Deputy City Clerk Rodriguez read into the record the comment submitted for Agenda Item No. 16. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2021 7:00 p.m. Teleconference via Zoom City Council conducted this meeting in accordance with California Governor Newsom’s Executive Orders N-29-20 and N-63-20 and COVID-19 pandemic protocols. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 2 COUNCIL COMMENTS/REQUESTS Councilmember Nicolas indicated that she would serve as the Council's representative on the Homeless Outreach Team (HOT) and thanked former Councilmember Matsumoto for her service. She welcomed Officer Stephanie Tenorio of the South San Francisco Police Department and thanked the officers for their work and collaboration in assisting a family in need. Councilmember Nicolas suggested a future partnership for COVID-19 vaccinations with Kaiser Permanente and requested to adjourn the meeting in memory of Johnnie Rey and all holocaust victims. Vice Mayor Nagales welcomed newly appointed Councilmember Eddie Flores. He congratulated South San Francisco longtime resident George Wong on his 100th birthday celebration and requested a congratulatory letter be sent on behalf of the City Council. Councilmember Coleman requested Council's support in bringing forward a Hazard Pay Ordinance for essential workers such as grocery store employees similar to what other cities have passed. City Manager Futrell indicated that the ordinance would require the grocery stores to pay the fee and directed his staff to work with City Attorney Woodruff to review other cities' proposed ordinances and bring the item back for Council discussion. Mayor Addiego thanked Council for their efforts and work to find a new member of the City Council. He acknowledged the public service of the police department and their commitment to serving those in need. He suggested creating a "community fund" to assist the department in providing food and supplies. He recommended a future discussion with City Manager Futrell and Councilmember Nicolas on this topic. 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 was pulled by Vice Mayor Nagales for further discussion. 4. Motion to approve the Minutes for the meetings of November 24, 2020 and December 1, 2020. 5. Report regarding Resolution No. 14-2021 authorizing the acceptance of $20,636 in grant funding for Fiscal Year 2020-21 from the San Mateo County Child Care Relief Fund for the Little Steps Preschool at the Community Learning Center and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 operating and revenue budgets upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #21.036. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 6. Report regarding Resolution No. 15-2021 authorizing the acceptance of $14,780 in CARES Act funding from San Mateo County for Fiscal Year 2020-21 for the Parks and Recreation Department’s Senior Services Program, and authorizing the Finance Director to adjust the City’s Fiscal Year 2020-2021 operating and revenue budgets upon receipt of funds pursuant to budget amendment #21.035. (Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) 7. Report regarding adoption of Resolution No. 16-2021 approving reimbursement agreement with KR Oyster Point Developer, LLC for costs associated with the formation of City of South San Francisco Community Facilities District 2021-01. (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 3 9. Report regarding resolution of intent to establish City of South San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Public Facilities and Services). (Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) 9a. Resolution No. 18-2021 of Intention of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to Establish City of South San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Public Facilities and Services), City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes to Pay the Costs of Acquiring or Constructing Certain Facilities, to Pay for Certain Services and Expenses, and to Pay Debt Service on Bonded Indebtedness 9b. Resolution No. 19-2021 of Intention of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco to Incur Bonded Indebtedness Within Proposed City of South San Francisco Community Facilities District No. 2021-01 (Public Facilities and Services), City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California 10. Report regarding multiple resolutions for the procurement of furniture, fixtures and equipment and authorizing the City Manager to execute purchasing contracts with vendors for the Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center Project (pf2003), in the amount not to exceed $946,246.62. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 10a. Resolution No. 20-2021 approving a purchase agreement with System & Space, Inc. to purchase furniture and equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $249,800.00 10b. Resolution No. 21-2021 approving a purchase agreement with Watson Consoles to purchase furniture and equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $151,339.26. 10c. Resolution No. 22-2021 approving a purchase agreement with Wilson Office Interiors, Inc. to purchase furniture and equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $545,107.36. 11. Report regarding multiple resolutions for the procurement of communications and information technology (IT) equipment / computer hardware and authorizing the City Manager to execute purchasing contracts with vendors for the Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center Project (pf2003), in the amount not to exceed $826,740.98. (Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) 11a. Resolution No. 23-2021 approving a purchase agreement with L3Harris Technologies, Inc. to purchase communication equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $184,226.00. 11b. Resolution No. 24-2021 approving a purchase agreement with Zetron, Inc. to purchase communication equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Station and 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $311,300.00. 11c. Resolution No. 25-2021 approving a purchase agreement with Telecommunications Engineering Associates (TEA) to install City furnished communication equipment for the Civic REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 4 Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $174,586.00. 11d. Resolution No. 26-2021 approving a purchase agreement with Dell Marketing L.P. to purchase information technology (IT) equipment for the Civic Campus Project, Phase I, Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $156,646.98. Motion — Councilmember Nicolas/Second – Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve Consent Calendar items 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. CONSENT CALENDAR – Agenda Item No. 8 Item No. 8: Vice Mayor Nagales expressed his concern with the possible impact on small businesses, especially during the pandemic. City Manager Futrell provided an overview of the business license tax and indicated staff would not impose a tax without direction from the City Council. Approval of the item allows staff to hire a consultant to perform the study. 8. Report regarding Resolution No. 17-2021 approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Consulting Services Agreement with Matrix Consulting Group for consultant services related to a business license tax update, in a contract amount not to exceed $45,000. (Janet Salisbury, Finance Director) Motion — Vice Mayor Nagales/Second – Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Consent Calendar item 8, Resolution No. 17-2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Na gales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing opened: 7:42 p.m. 12. Report regarding a Public Hearing to receive public comment and consider approval of a resolution amending the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, Community Development Block Grant 2018-2023 Consolidated Plan, and Fiscal Years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plans to program CARES Act funds and program income. (Kris Romasanta, Community Development Coordinator) 12a. Resolution No. 27-2021 approving amendments to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2018-2023 Consolidated Plan, Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan, Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan, authorize a budget transfer to incorporate the CARES Act Funds into the Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget and incorporate $140,000 to the Fiscal Year 2020-2021 CDBG budget. Community Development Coordinator Romasanta presented the report and indicated that the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan's purpose was to identify the City's housing and economic development needs, goals, and strategies, stipulating how funds will be spent. The Citizen Participation Plan sets forth the policies and procedures by which the City would encourage citizens to participate in developing the Action Plan and Consolidated Plan. The amendments included a $50,000 change of CDBG funding and a required change text for reviewing the Citizen Participation Plan from 15 days to the required 30 days. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 5 She indicated that on September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) notified the City that it would receive $574,525 in a third round of Community Development Block Grant Coronavirus (CDBG-CV3) funds. The City also has $140,000 of Fiscal Year 2020-2021 (FY 20-21) program income and rollover funds that must be programmed. Since the City is considering programming more than $50,000 and beginning an activity not identified in the City’s 2018-2023 Consolidated Plan, FY 19-20, or FY 20-21 Action Plans, the City must make substantial amendments to these plans. Additionally, the City should amend its Citizen Participation Plan to align with HUD regulations. The City adopted a Five-Year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan aims to establish a unified, strategic vision for economic development, housing, and community development actions for the City. The Consolidated Plan stipulated how funds would be allocated to various activities over the planning period, currently running from 2018 to 2023. The 2018-2023 Consolidated Plan, first approved on March 14, 2018, must be amended to include new sections on Broadband Needs and Hazard Mitigation. On April 24, 2019, the City adopted the FY 19-20 Action Plan. On April 22, 2020, the City amended its Consolidated Plan and FY 19-20 Action Plan to program the first round of CDBG Coronavirus (CDBG-CV1) funds. The City is now required to make a second amendment to the Consolidated Plan and FY 19-20 Action Plan, incorporating the new $574,525 in CDBG-CV3 funding. As previously mentioned, the City is also programming $140,000 of program income and rollover funds from previous years, which requires amending the FY 20-21 Action Plan. On May 15, 2020, the City amended its CPP to allow for a modified process in times of an emergency, including holding meetings virtually and using a HUD-approved waiver to provide just five days’ notice for public hearings. After the amendment process, HUD notified staff that another section of the CPP, addressing noticing during usual, non-emergent times, needed to be extended from 15 days to 30 days. Making this change requires an amendment to the CPP. The following individuals provided public comment: • Becky Flanagan, Director of Nutrition Services, Peninsula Volunteers, Inc. • Leah Taylor, Executive Director of the South San Francisco Housing Authority Public Hearing closed: 8:01 p.m. Councilmember Nicolas, a member of the CDBG subcommittee, stated that the focus in providing funding to address the digital divide was to focus on the community's essential needs. Councilmember Coleman expressed his support and emphasized the need to address the digital divide citywide and suggested community WiFi Hotspots as a future project. Vice Mayor Nagales shared his support of the proposed projects and shared with the community the increase of WiFi hotspots recently installed by the County of San Mateo at various locations around the City. He requested that staff continue to pursue WiFi Hotspots for the Westborough area. He asked for clarification on the Meals on Wheels program increase of ten clients and the current waitlist for South San Francisco residents. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 6 Ms. Flanagan provided an overview of the Meals on Wheels program and current limitations due to kitchen size and staffing. She stated that 88 individuals are on the waitlist for South San Francisco and noted that the additional funding would allow them to serve ten clients on the waitlist. Vice Mayor Nagales suggested continuing a conversation to find resources for the additional 78 individuals waiting to receive a free meal. He inquired about the Great Plates Program and its ability to serve residents in need. Ms. Flanagan indicated that the program is renewed every month. The program has been renewed monthly, but it is unknown when it will no longer be available. The program serves approximately 1,700 residents and provides three (3) meals a day (7 days a week) from participating restaurants. Motion— Councilmember Coleman/Second Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Resolution No. 27-2021, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 13. Report regarding consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on September 17, 2020, adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and approving certain entitlements to construct a new five-story hotel at 840 El Camino Real. (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) Chief Planner Rozzi presented the report and indicated that on November 9, 2020, the City Council set a public hearing for December 1, 2020 and continued the consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and approve a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new five-story hotel. On December 1, 2020, the City Council continued the item to a future City Council meeting in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) Section 1.28.040. SSFMC Section 1.28.040 (j) provides that an appeal before the City Council may be continued within the discretion of the Council to a time certain, but shall be concluded within ninety (90) days after commencement of the hearing unless time is waived by the appellant. Based on this timeline and as appellant has not waived time, the City Council must take action on the appeal prior to February 7, 2021. In order to allow sufficient time for further CEQA analysis to provide a response to additional CEQA issues raised by the appellant, staff recommends the City Council, by motion, remand the item to the Planning Commission for consideration in accordance with Section 1.28.040. The additional CEQA analysis is of greater scope than previously identified at the prior hearing and would not be able to be completed prior to February 7, 2021. Motion— Councilmember Coleman/Second Vice Mayor Nagales: To approve, by motion, the Council remand the item to the Planning Commission in accordance with the timeline set forth under SSFMC Section 1.28.040, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 14. Report regarding an ordinance amending South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 to authorize the City Council to set regular meeting times by resolution, and a resolution setting the time of regular meetings at 6 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 7 City Attorney Woodruff presented the report and indicated that the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2.04.010 provides that “The council shall hold a regular meeting on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at seven p.m.” City Council previously provided guidance to staff that they wish to change City Council regular meeting times from 7 p.m. to 6 p.m. City Council also provided guidance that the South San Francisco Municipal Code should be amended to authorize the City Council to set regular meeting times by resolution. The ordinance amends the South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 2.04.010, to eliminate the 7 p.m. regular meeting time and authorized the City Council to set regular meeting times by resolution. The resolution will set regular meeting times at 6 p.m. and go into effect 30-days after adoption. 14a. Ordinance amending Section 2.04.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to authorize the time of regular City Council meetings be established by resolution. Motion— Councilmember Nicolas /Second Vice Mayor Nagales: To introduce and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Section 2.04.010 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to authorize the time of regular City Council meetings be established by resolution, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 14b. Resolution No. 28-2021 of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco setting the time of regular meetings at 6 p.m. Motion— Councilmember Coleman /Second Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Resolution No. 28-201, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 15. Report regarding Resolution No. 29-2021 approving a professional services agreement in the amount of $1 million with Hello Housing to administer an Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Program and approving budget amendment 21.038 appropriating $504,650 in the City of South San Francisco’s Commercial Linkage Fee Fund for the first year of Program implementation. (Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner) Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development Selander presented the report and indicated that the City Council adopted Ordinance 1615-2020 on December 1, 2020, approving a Development Agreement (DA) between the City and Genentech. The DA committed Genentech to pre-pay a portion of the Commercial Linkage Fees it will eventually owe as it pulls building permits for development allowed under the DA. Within the pre-payment was a $1 million set-aside for an ADU Pilot Program, which will be paid approximately one year after approval of the DA, in December 2021. Genentech's pre-payment for this program designates Hello Housing as the program administrator. She indicated that Hello Housing has experience operating similar housing programs and stated that no other vendors could provide the same services. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 8 The total cost of implementing Hello Housing’s proposed ADU Pilot Program is $1 million over two years. Approval of the Resolution would authorize the City to enter into a $1 million contract with Hello Housing and appropriate funding for the first year of program implementation. Once the City receives Genentech’s pre-payment of $1 million for this program in December 2021, the funds will be deposited into Fund 823. The first $504,650 of Genentech’s pre-payment will reimburse the City for the funds it advanced for the first year of program implementation. The remaining $495,350 will be earmarked for year two of the ADU Pilot Program. The unencumbered cash balance of Fund 823 as of January 14, 2021, was $2.8 million. Mayor Addiego requested clarification on Genentech’s million-dollar funding timeline. Deputy Director of Economic and Community Development Selander indicated that the City would receive a portion of funds in December 2021. Hello Housing, Vice President Jennifer Duffy provided an overview of the proposed program and indicated that it creates a pathway for homeowners to build ADU’s. She thanked the City Council and staff for their support. Vice Mayor Nagales thanked Hello Housing for their participation. He expressed his support of the program and praised staff for their work in prioritizing affordable housing. He suggested staff outreach to residents so that they understand the process. Motion— Vice Mayor Nagales /Second Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Resolution No. 29- 201, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 16. Report regarding a study session on Potential Reach Codes for Electrical Energy, EV Charging Stations, and Wood/Gas Fireplaces (Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic and Community Assistant City Manager/Parks and Recreation Director Ranals provided an overview of project and indicated that the City of South San Francisco has a tradition of championing strong sustainability policies. In 2014, the City adopted the Climate Action Plan (CAP), which outlined goals, policies, and programs to reduce GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and to support the goals of California State sustainability legislation (AB 32 and SB 375). Currently, the CAP is in the process of being further strengthened as part of the General Plan Update. In addition, in 2017, the City joined Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), an energy consortium composed of all cities in San Mateo County and county government, which enabled the purchase of electricity directly from renewable energy providers. The partnership with PCE allowed local residents to have more choice in how they can obtain their energy and, as a result, promoted the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In recent months, the Council expressed interest in exploring “Reach Codes” - which are local amendments to the State Energy Codes intended to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This report provides a brief discussion of Reach Codes in three potential policy areas: (1) promoting electrical energy in new residential construction; (2) increasing the number of EV charging stations; and/or (3) increasing restrictions on wood and/or gas fireplaces. In addition, staff continues to study national trend of enacting Sustainable Roof Laws, requiring most new buildings and buildings undergoing major roof reconstruction to include a sustainable roofing zone on 100% of the REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 9 available roof space. Sustainable roofing zones are defined as "areas of a roof assembly where a solar photovoltaic electricity generating system, a green roof system, or a combination thereof, is installed." Under Sustainable Roof Laws, roofs must have a solar panel array, green roof or both. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood provided an overview of the technical terminology and solicited input and direction from the Council for potential future legislative action in three potential policy areas: (1) promoting electrical energy in new residential construction; (2) increasing the number of EV charging stations; and/or (3) increasing restrictions on wood and/or gas fireplaces. He indicated that if the City Council desired to adopt local Reach Codes on any of these three policy areas, staff would draft the proposed legislation and code amendments using PCE's resources to investigate cost-effectiveness further. Including the development of appropriate policy direction to the permit data analyzed, cost-effectiveness, social equity, and the building types impacted. Councilmember Coleman requested clarification on building appliance electrification options such as natural gas ban, all-electric required, and all-electric preferred. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood clarified the options presented and indicated a natural gas ban required much more extensive reconstruction of the city's municipal code. Melanie Jacobson, Principal of Integrated Design 360 LLC, provided an overview of the energy reach code pathways, requirements, and program implementation for residential construction subject to change with Council's direction. The following individual provided public comment: • Diane Bailey, Executive Director of Menlo Spark Councilmember Coleman expressed his concern about wood-burning fireplaces and suggested a future ban. He suggested implementing a subsidy program to help residents convert from a wood- burning fireplace to an electric fireplace. Also, Councilmember Coleman proposed requiring all new buildings and existing buildings undergoing certain major roof renovations to have a solar photovoltaic system, a green roof system, or a combination of both, similar to New York City. Mayor Addiego requested clarification on the wood and gas fireplace options. Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood provided clarification and indicated that staff would confirm the number of cities in the bay area that have adopted reach codes. Council engaged in discussion and provided direction to Economic and Community Development Director Greenwood: The staff would proceed immediately with an all-electric approach for new residential construction and return for Council input on non-residential uses after receiving input from the business community and PCE. Provide examples of ordinances from other agencies, separate residential and commercial. EV charging stations adopt flexibility with staff proposals—no action taken on wood and gas fireplaces, pending additional information to Council, including a subsidy for residents. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 10 17. Resolution No. 30-2021 of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco Adopting a Resolution to Appoint a Voter and Resident of South San Francisco as Councilmember through Certification of the 2022 Municipal Election. City Clerk Govea Acosta read into the record a resolution appointing Eduard “Eddy” Flores as Councilmember through Certification of the 2022 Municipal Election. Motion— Vice Mayor Nagales /Second Councilmember Nicolas: To approve Resolution No. 30- 201, by roll call vote: AYES: Councilmembers Coleman, Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego; NAYS: None; ABSENT: None; ABSTAIN: None. 18. Report regarding San Mateo County City Selection Committee appointments to various regional boards. (Christina Fernandez, Assistant to the City Manager) Assistant to the City Manager, Fernandez presented the report, and the Council discussed their recommendations for applicants to the San Mateo County City Selection Committee. San Mateo County City Selection Committee agenda Item No. 1: Council expressed their support for City of Foster City, Vice Mayor Richa Awasthi. San Mateo County City Selection Committee agenda Item No. 2: No candidates San Mateo County City Selection Committee agenda Item No. 3: Council expressed their support for City of Daly City, Mayor Juslyn Manalo. San Mateo County City Selection Committee agenda Item No. 4: Council expressed their support for City of Foster City, Councilmember Sam Hindi; City of San Carlos, Vice Mayor Sara McDowell; and City of San Mateo, Vice Mayor Rick Bonilla. San Mateo County City Selection Committee agenda Item No. 5: Council expressed their support for City of Redwood City, Councilmember Diana Reddy. ITEMS FROM COUNCIL – COMMITTEE REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMNTS 19. Policy regarding public comments at City Council meetings. (Mark Addiego, Mayor) City Clerk Govea Acosta provided an overview of the current public comment process and indicated that the former Mayor gave the direction with support from the Council. She acknowledged the community’s desire to provide live public comments and change the process. She stated that her office did not have the authority to change the process since it is a Council-driven decision. The City Council engaged in a discussion of the process to determine the next steps and decided that moving forward; participants would be allowed to “raise hands” during the meeting before each agenda item. Time limits will be assessed by the Mayor and modified if needed depending on the number of speakers. Meeting recessed: 10:00 p.m. Meeting resumed: 10:07 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2021 MINUTES PAGE 11 CLOSED SESSION Entered into Closed Session: 10:07 p.m. 20. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2)) Significant Exposure to Litigation: One Potential Case (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Mike Futrell, City Manager) Resumed from Closed Session: 10:55 p.m. Report out of Closed Session by Mayor Addiego: The City Council gave direction to negotiators. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, Mayor Addiego adjourned the meeting in memory of Johnnie Rey and all holocaust victims at 10:56 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Approved by: Rosa Govea Acosta, CMC, CPMC Mark Addiego City Clerk Mayor Approved by the City Council: / / City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-63 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:5. Report regarding a motion to accept the construction improvements of Advanced Chemical Transport Inc.for the Oyster Point Marina Fuel Tank and Fueling Station Removal Project (pf2001)as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $242,204.60).(Dave Bockhaus,Deputy Director of Public Works) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council,by motion,accept the construction improvements of Advanced Chemical Transport Inc.for the Oyster Point Marina Fuel Tank and Fueling Station Removal Project (pf2001) as complete in accordance with plans and specifications (Total Construction Cost $242,204.60). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On July 24,2019,the City Council awarded a construction contract to Advanced Chemical Transport,Inc. (DBA ACT Enviro)of San Jose,California,in an amount not to exceed $215,950 for the Oyster Point Marina Fuel Tank and Fueling Station Removal Project.Given that the location of the underground storage tank (UST) site at Oyster Point was very challenging due to underlying landfill and proximity of underground fuel lines in the tidal zone,and given that the City has various redevelopment projects underway at Oyster Point,the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD)allowed the City to perform the closure of the fuel tank site in two phases.The first phase generally included a UST and Fuel Dispenser Removal Project during the summer of 2020 and the second phase generally included Fuel Line Removal Projects to be completed prior to the end of 2024. The Phase 1 scope of work completed by ACT Enviro included the following: ·Cleaned, inerted, and removed the two existing 10,000-gallon fuel tanks. ·Removed the fuel dispensers from the marina docks. ·Collected soil samples at 20 foot intervals along the entire length of the existing fuel lines (approx.755’ in length). Soil analytical testing was performed under a separate on-call contract with the City. ·Drained remaining fuel from underground fuel lines. ·Removed two underground fuel lines in Area “B”(see Location Map)within the Kilroy Oyster Point redevelopment project area. ·Capped all remaining fuel lines to temporarily close them in place for future removal as part of Phase 2. During construction,the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department approved the requirements for backfilling the tank pits and fuel line trenches.The approvals included the ability to reuse the existing clean excavated soil for backfill material and the installation of a new clay cap for the landfill.The environmental soil testing performed confirmed that the fuel tanks were not leaking which enabled all the excavated soil from the tank pits to be reused as backfill.However,the soil testing along the fuel lines confirmed that the lines were leaking in several locations and therefore required the removal and disposal of contaminated soil material from the fuel line trenches.The Engineering Division,with City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-63 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:5. removal and disposal of contaminated soil material from the fuel line trenches.The Engineering Division,with the assistance of West Coast Code Consultants,Inc.,inspected the work and found the project to be complete in accordance with the contract documents and regulatory requirements.Project location map and construction photos are included as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively, of this staff report. FISCAL IMPACT This project is funded by the General Fund and is included in the City of South San Francisco’s Fiscal Year 2019-20 Capital Improvement Program (Project No.pf2001).The total construction cost incurred for the contract with ACT Enviro is summarized as follows: Projected Actual Construction Contract, ACT Enviro $ 215,950.00 $ 215,950.00 Construction Contingency (25%) $ 54,000.00 $ 26,254.60 Total Construction Budget $ 269,950.00 $ 242,204.60 RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Approval of this action will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan Priority Area 2,Quality of Life,Initiative 2.2 by promoting bike paths, pedestrian ways, and multi-modal transportation options. CONCLUSION Staff recommends acceptance of the project as complete.Upon acceptance,a Notice of Completion will be filed with the County of San Mateo Recorder’s office.At the end of the thirty-day lien period,the retention funds will be released to the Contractor after the City receives the one-year warranty bond. Attachments: 1.Project Location Map 2.Construction Photos 3.Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Project Location Map Attachment 1 Exposed Fuel Tank Removing fuel tank from Pit Construction Photos Attachment 2 New clay cap material installed over tank pits. Installing a plastic membrane over the clay cap. Draining fuel from underground fuel lines. Removing a fuel line. Dock with dispenser removed. Dispenser pad on dock capped with plywood. South San Francisco Oyster Point Marina Fuel Tank and Fueling Station Removal Project (pf2001) Acceptance of Construction Improvements as Complete February 24, 2021 Attachment 3 Project Overview Fuel Tank and Fuel Dispenser Removal Project Fuel Tank Site 2 ∗Regulated by the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. Requires: ∗Complete Removal of UST, Fuel Lines, and Dispensers. ∗Testing of underlying soil to confirm if facilities were leaking. ∗Possible removal of contaminated soil. ∗Possible installation of groundwater monitoring wells. Project Overview On July 24, 2020: The City Council Awarded a Construction Contract to Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. (DBA ACT Enviro) Fuel Tank Site 3 Completed Work Vicinity Map 4 •Cleaned, inerted, and removed the two existing 10,000-gallon fuel tanks. •Removed fuel dispenser from marina docks. •Collected soil for sampling at 20-foot intervals along the entire length of the existing fuel lines (approx. 755’ in length). •Drained remaining fuel from underground fuel lines. •Removed two underground fuel lines in Area “B” (see Location Map) within the Kilroy Oyster Point redevelopment project area. •Capped all remaining fuel lines to temporarily close them in place for future removal as part of Phase 2. Phase 1, UST and Fuel Dispenser Removal Project Tank Removal 5 New clay cap material installed over tank pits 6 Draining Fuel and Removing Fuel Lines 7 Dock with dispenser removed 8 Construction Costs 9 Projected Actual Construction Contract, ACT enviro $215,950.00 $215,950.00 Construction Contingency (25%) Total Construction Budget $54,000.00 $269,950.00 $26,254.60 $242,204.60 Staff Recommendation 10 City Council to make a motion to: ∗Accept the Work of Advanced Chemical Transport, Inc. (DBA ACT Enviro) as Complete. ∗Authorize a Notice of Completion to be filed with San Mateo County. 11 Questions? City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-93 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:6. A 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 and Construction Testing Services,Inc.of San Francisco,for Special Inspection and Material Testing for the Civic Campus Phase 1:Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85. (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 Construction Testing Services,Inc.for Special Inspection and Material Testing Services in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85 for consulting services related to the Civic Campus Phase 1: Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Following the January 8,2020 City Council award of a construction contract to Swinerton Builders for the Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center project,on February 28,2020 the City entered into a consulting services agreement with Construction Testing Services,Inc.(“CTS”)for special inspection and material testing services necessary for construction of the Civic Campus Phase 1:Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center (“Police Station”). The February 2020 agreement was executed in the amount of $149,908.25 by the approval of the City Manager at the recommendation of the Capital Projects Director.The current remaining balance on this agreement is $7,753.00.Staff anticipates the need for additional special inspection and material testing services through Spring 2021 in order to complete the regulatory and legal requirements laid out by the South San Francisco Building Department.After review and negotiation with CTS,staff determined that an additional $30,023.85 is sufficient to complete the scope of CTS’ work. Typically,services provided by inspection firms are provided on a time and material basis because the scheduling and execution of their inspection work,while required by the City,is ultimately controlled by the contractor.With this amendment,CTS will continue to work with the Building Department to ensure that the new Police Station is built per contract documents and complies with all applicable building codes. The City agreed to pay CTS a sum not to exceed $149,908.25 under the original Agreement entered into on February 28,2020 to provide special inspection and material testing services.This contract amendment would increase the not-to-exceed number as summarized below: Description Date Amount Original Agreement 2/28/2020 $ 149,908.25 1st Amendment $ 30,023.85 TOTAL: $ 179,932.10 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-93 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:6. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for this amendment is included in the $56,857,615 budget for Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center presented and approved by Council on January 8, 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 City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Consulting Services Agreement with Construction Testing Services,Inc.for Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 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 #:21-94 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:6a. A resolution amending an existing consulting services agreement with Construction Testing Services Inc.for Special Inspection and Materials Testing Services on the Civic Campus Phase 1:Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center project in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85. WHEREAS,on February 28,2020,the City awarded a Consulting Services Agreement to Construction Testing Services,Inc.of San Francisco,California (“Consultant”)for special inspection and materials testing services needed on the Civic Campus Phase 1:Police Operations &911 Dispatch Center (“Police Station”)project in the Not-to-Exceed amount of $149,908.25; and WHEREAS,Construction Testing Services,Inc.has performed satisfactorily on the Police Station project and has provided deliverables and services as outlined in Agreement; and WHEREAS,Consultant will provide services on a Time and Materials basis with only billing for services rendered; and WHEREAS,Consultant will provide necessary inspection services required to fulfill City of South San Francisco Building permit requirements and those of authorities having jurisdiction; 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 is within the Civic Campus Phase 1 project budget presented to City Council on January 8, 2020 totaling a project total amount of $56,857,615.00 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 of the existing consulting services agreement with Construction Testing and Services,Inc.of San Francisco,California in an amount not to exceed $30,023.85 and authorizing a total not to exceed contract amount of $179,982.10. 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 Construction Testing Services,Inc.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 3/15/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-94 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:6a. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/15/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. This First Amendment to the Consulting Services agreement is made at South San Francisco, California, as of February 25, 2021 by and between the City of South San Francisco (“City”), a municipal corporation, and Construction Testing Services, Inc. (“Consultant”), (sometimes referred together as the (“Parties”) who agree as follows: RECITALS A.On February 28, 2020, City and Consultant entered that certain Consulting Services Agreement (“Agreement”) whereby Consultant agreed to provide Special Inspections and Materials Testing Services on the Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center project. 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 2: Compensation. Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended by the amount of $30,023.85 such that the City agrees to pay Consultant a sum not to exceed totaling $172,908.25, with the understanding that up to $142,155.25 has already been paid to Consultant as of December 31, 2020. Description Date Amount Original Agreement 2/28/2020 $ 149,908.25 1st Amendment $ 30,023.85 TOTAL: $ 179,932.10 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. 3.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 Page 1 of 44 Dated: CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. By: By: Mike Futrell City Manager Approved as to Form: By: City Attorney Attested: By: City Clerk EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 44 • TESTING • INSPECTION • ENGINEERING 4770 Duckhorn Drive, Sacramento, CA 95834 • Phone (916) 419-4747 • Fax (916) 419-4774 2118 Rheem Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588 • Phone (925) 462-5151 • Fax (925) 462-5183 One Embarcadero Center, Suite 535, San Francisco, CA 94111 • Phone (415) 438-2357 • Fax (415) 334-4747 246 30th St., Suite 101, Oakland, CA 94601 • Phone (510) 444-4747 • Fax (510) 835-1825 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES February 9, 2021 Kitchell 900 Antoinette Lane South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: Michael Ransom Job Name: 16901 Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center Re: Change Order Request #1 for Special Inspections & Materials Testing Dear Michael, Construction Testing Services is requesting a Change Order to cover all additional services performed to date as well as to completion of the project. Additional services include but are not limited to, masonry inspections, fireproofing inspections, additional laboratory testing, and additional project management/administration time. Below is a breakdown of the Original Contract amount, total billings through December 31, 2020 and anticipated costs to complete the project based on correspondence with Kitchell. Original Contract Amount $ 149,908.25 Total Services Billed through December 2020 $ 142,155.25 Contract Remining through December 2020 $ 7,753.00 Estimated January 2021 Billing $ 16,027.85 Estimated Cost to Complete (April. 2021) $ 21,749.00 Total Change Order Request $ 30,023.85 Please provide your approval for a Change Order in the amount of $30,023.85. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have or if further detail and clarification is needed to process this request. Regards, John Lange Project Manager EXHIBIT A Page 3 of 44 CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT for consulting services is made by and between the City of South San Francisco ("City") and Construction Testing Services, Inc. ("Consultant") (together sometimes referred to as the "Parties") as of February 28, 2020 (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 December 31, 2021, 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 ONE HUNDRED FORTY NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED EIGHT DOLLARS AND TWENTY FIVE CENTS ($149,908.25), 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, 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. Exhibit A 1/41 EXHIBIT A Page 4 of 44 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 activities 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: None. Expenses not listed above are not chargeable to City. Reimbursable Exhibit A 2/41 EXHIBIT A Page 5 of 44 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. 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 Exhibit A 3/41 EXHIBIT A Page 6 of 44 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." C. Consultant shall comply with the City of South San Francisco Project Labor Agreement (PLA) requirements. Exhibit A "Agreement to be Bound" of document shall be fully executed for all applicable scopes of work. 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. Exhibit A 4/41 EXHIBIT A Page 7 of 44 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 Exhibit A 5/41 EXHIBIT A Page 8 of 44 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 coveratie. 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 (3 0) 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 Exhibit A 6/41 EXHIBIT A Page 9 of 44 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 Exhibit A 7/41 EXHIBIT A Page 10 of 44 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. Exhibit A 8/41 EXHIBIT A Page 11 of 44 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. Section 8. Consultant shall include the provisions of this Subsection in any subcontract approved by the Contract Administrator or this Agreement. 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 Exhibit A 9/41 EXHIBIT A Page 12 of 44 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 Exhibit A 10/41 EXHIBIT A Page 13 of 44 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." Section 10 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. 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 Exhibit A 11/41 EXHIBIT A Page 14 of 44 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: Exhibit A 12/41 EXHIBIT A Page 15 of 44 Consultant City Construction Testing Services, Inc. 50 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94111 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, and 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 Scope of Services Exhibit B 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] Exhibit A 13/41 EXHIBIT A Page 16 of 44 The Parties have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. Mike Futrell, City Manager Aaren Sols, VP of Business Development iGrG Uvr 9,?v 5 ( 4(- ;c7 ) Att st: L City Clerk .3 4A V12-12t2a Approved as to Form: Cittney 2729964. Exhibit A 14/41 EXHIBIT A Page 17 of 44 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Consultant shall provide Special Inspection and Material Testing services during construction and as required, including without limitation the following: 1. Provide technical consultation during construction to respond to requests for information as applicable. 2. Provide technical consultation during construction including review of submittals as applicable 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. Prepare daily field reports documenting the work observed. 5. Inspection and testing of structural steel erection including metal decking and shop. 6. Visual inspection of structural steel welding and bolting. 7. Non-destructive testing of structural steel welding. 8. Visual inspection of light gauge steel welding. 9. Visual inspection of welding of miscellaneous metals. 10. Masonry installation inspection. 11. Embedded anchors inspection. 12. Visual inspection and non-destructive testing at fabrication facilities for structural steel and miscellaneous metals. 13.Asphalt sampling, testing and inspection. 14. Intermittent batch plan inspection. 15. Inspection of in-place mock-ups. 16. Pre -cast concrete inspection and attachment to structure. Exhibit A 15/41 EXHIBIT A Page 18 of 44 General Requirements: a. The CONSULTANT shall have access to the PROJECT site at all times. Services will be scheduled and coordinated by the City's Construction Manager. b. The CONSULTANT will endeavor to secure compliance by Contractor with the contract requirements, but does not guarantee the performance of their contracts. c. The CONSULTANT, as part of his/her basic services, shall advise the CITY of any deficiencies in construction of the PROJECT. d. The CONSULTANT 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. e. The CONSULTANT shall not issue orders to Contractor that might commit the CITY to extra expenses without first obtaining the written approval of the CITY. f. The CONSULTANT shall provide written evaluation of the performance of the Contractor under the requirements of the Construction Documents when requested by the CITY. g. The CONSULTANT 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. h. If work requested by the Architect pursuant to this Article involves additional charge, prior written approval of the CITY shall be obtained before proceeding. i. The CONSULTANT 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 CBC. Architect/CONSULTANT reviewed shop drawings and/or placing drawings may be used only as an aid to inspection. Special inspections are to be Exhibit A 16/41 EXHIBIT A Page 19 of 44 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT 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 CONSULTANT 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, CONSULTANT 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. Exhibit A 17/41 EXHIBIT A Page 20 of 44 EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION SCHEDULE PROJECT: Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center FOR: City of South San Francisco PROJECT COORDINATION AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION 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) LABORATORY TESTING 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 CONCRETE 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) PROOF LOAD/TORQUE TESTING a. Proof load Testing (JOBSITE) b. Torque Testing (JOBSITE) REINFORCING STEEL 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 STRUCTURAL STEEL a. Sample and Test b. Identify all materials (shop material identification) c. Verify Stiffener locations, connection tabs d. Welding Inspection (Shop) e. Welding Inspection OT (Shop) f. Welding Inspection NT (Shop) g. Welding Inspection NTOT (Shop) h. Welding Inspection (Field) i. Ultrasonic Testing (Shop) j. Ultrasonic Testing OT (Shop) k. Ultrasonic Testing NT (Shop) I. Ultrasonic Testing NTOT (Shop) m. Ultrasonic Testing (Field) n. High-strength Bolting Inspection (Field) o. Metal Deck Welding Inspection p. Reinforcing Steel Welding Inspection q. Metal Stud Welding Inspection r. Concrete Insert Welding Inspection MASONRY a. Special Inspection Stresses Used b. Preliminary Acceptance Tests Test Lab: Construction Testing Services Date: February 28, 2020 0 hrs @ 70.00 per hr. = 0 hrs @ 70.00 per hr. = 0 hrs @ 70.00 per hr. = 0 hrs @ 70.00 per hr. = 0 hrs @ 65.00 per hr. = 0 hrs @ 70.00 per hr. = 0 trips @ 140.00 per trip. _ 0 tests @ 175.00 per test. _ 0 tests @ 200.00 per test. _ 0 tests @ 150.00 per test. _ 0 tests @ 150.00 per test. _ 0 tests @ 150.00 per test. _ 0 tests @ 150.00 per test. _ 0 h rs @ 70.00 per hr. = 20 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 11560.00 10 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 780.00 10 hrs @ 78. 00 per hr. = 780.00 64 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 41992.00 12 sets @ 60.00 ea. set = 720.00 24 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 17872.00 24 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 1,872.00 20 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 1,560.00 15 ea @ 150.00 per ea. _ 21250.00 20 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 1,560.00 80 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 67240.00 40 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 3,120.00 40 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 3,120.00 300 hrs @ 40.00 per hr. _ 121000.00 70 hrs @ 60.00 per hr. _ 4,200.00 300 hrs @ 45.00 per hr. _ 13, 500.00 70 hrs @ 67.50 per hr. _ 47725.00 100 hrs @ 78. 00 per hr. _ 71800.00 300 hrs @ 42.00 per hr. _ 12, 600.00 70 hrs @ 63.00 per hr. _ 47410.00 300 hrs @ 47.25 per hr. _ 14,175.00 70 hrs @ 70. 88 per hr. _ 41961.25 100 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 71800.00 40 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. _ 3,120.00 60 hrs @ 78. 00 per hr. = 4,680.00 40 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 3,120.00 30 hrs @ 78. 00 per hr. = 27340.00 30 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 2,340.00 30 hrs @ 78.00 per hr. = 2,340.00 5 ea @ 100.00 per ea. = 500.00 Exhibit A 18/41 EXHIBIT A Page 21 of 44 INSPECTION COST WORKSHEET Masonry Units, Wall Prisms) c. Subsequent Tests (Mortar, Grout, Field Wall Prisms) 10 ea @ $ 30.00 per ea. _ $ 300.00 d. Placement Inspection of Units 100 hrs @ $ 78. 00 per hr. _ $ 77800.00 SUPERVISION & REPORTS a. Review Mix Designs and Welding Procedures NOT TO EXCEED $ 900.00 b. Supervision of lab and field personnel & coordination NOT TO EXCEED $ 2,900.00 c. Preparation of Test Reports NOT TO EXCEED $ 27700.00 d. Final Verified Report NOT TO EXCEED $ 271.00 e. Attendance of pre -construction meeting NO CHARGE f. Other Charges (Please explain) Shop base rate of $40/hour and $42/hour for NDT applies to Gayle locations in Nampa and Caldwell only for concurrent work based on current Galye schedule. Soils scope has been removed for the bid and will be provided by the geotechnical engineering of record. No contingency is budgeted by CTS for uncontrollable overtime, prevailing wage increases and unforeseen requirements that may arise in the specifications, as well as for work over the estimated hours. Owner should budget appropriate amount for budgetary purposes. See attached fee schedule for basis of charges. g. Engineer shall submit a current Schedule of Fees for other services that may be available. Schedule shall include hourly charges for personnel. Estimated Total Value of Test Lab Services Not to Exceed for the Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center BASE BID) $ 149,908.25 Exhibit A 19/41 EXHIBIT A Page 22 of 44 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES INSP ESTING ENGINEERING 2020 FEE SCHEDULE - P17409 2/1812020 353.00 PERSONNEL FEES AND BASIS OF CHARGES 303.90 185.00 INSPECTIONS, ENGINEERING & SPECIAL SERVICES 273.00 78. 00 Associate Engineer, Licensed Standard Discounted FIELD INSPECTION AND LABORATORY SERVICE Rate/Hour Rate/Hour Steel 219-99 78.00 Nondestructive - UT, MT, PT 223.90 78.00 Steel Visual/UT Combination 223.09 78.00 Structural Steel Shop Fabrication Inspections (shop) at Gayle Nampa/Caldwell 219.00 40.00 Nondestructive - UT, MT, PT (shop) at Gayle Nampa/Caldwell 223.90 42.00 Concrete ACI 219.99 78.00 Concrete ICC 2i g.99 78.00 Masonry 219-99 78.00 Fireproofing 218.00 Shear Wall Nailing/Framing/Hold Downs 218.00 Soil Technician w/Nuclear Gauge and/or Sand Cone (portal-to-portal) 248.09 70.00 Asphalt Technician (portal-to-portal) 218.00 Shoring/Soldier Piers 218.00 Roofing & Waterproofing 218.00 50.00 Multi -Disciplined Inspector 218.00 100.00 Inspector Requiring G1 Pay Grade 253.00 100.00 Specialty Inspector or Where Formal Certification is Required 218.00 Field Inspector with Special Enhancement 218.00 Laboratory Technician 218.00 Technician Typist 218.00 271.00 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Principal Engineer (Civil/Structural) 353.00 Geotechnical Engineer 303.90 185.00 Consulting Engineer (Civil/Structural) 273.00 78.00 Associate Engineer, Licensed 248.00 Project Manager 219-99 100.00 Staff Engineer 2:99 100.00 Field Supervision 43:89 100.00 ASNT Level III 258.00 Drafting 153.00 Quality Control Manager QOR SPECIAL SERVICES Portable and Mobile Laboratories, NDT and Soils QOR Epoxy Bolt/Expansion Anchor - Installation Observation 218-09 78.00 Epoxy Bolt/Expansion Anchor Proof Load Testing (portal-to-portal) 209 78.00 Coring, 1 Person (including equipment) (portal-to-portal) 278.00 Coring, 2 Persons (including equipment) (portal-to-portal) 443.00 Asphalt Coring (portal-to-portal) 303.00 Project Research QOR Ultrasonic Testing for Non -Metallic Materials QOR Pavement Rehabilitation Analysis Using Deflections QOR Roof Moisture Survey QOR Soil Drilling Equipment QOR Geotechnical Site Investigations/Foundation Reports QOR Pachometer, Schmidt Hammer, Windsor Probe, Skidmore - Equipment Fee $115/Day (portal-to-portal) 288.00 Floor Flatness Testing FF/FL - Equipment Fee $115/Day (portal-to-portal) 288.00 Measuring Moisture Vapor Emission Rate (Calcium Chloride) - $55/Kit (portal-to-portal) ASTM F1869 288.00 Relative Humidity Testing - $75/Kit (portal-to-portal) ASTM F2170 288.00 Ferroscan - Equipment Fee $115/day (portal-to-portal) 288.00 GPR - Equipment Fee $115/day (portal-to-portal) 343.00 Administration, Secretarial, Special Projects, Notary, Certified Payroll 463-99 50.00 Concrete/Grout/Mortar Mix Design Review (less than 48 hours notice - $500) 345-88 100.00 Welding Procedure Review (less than 48 hours notice - $500) 345.09 100.00 Welder Qualification Test Record (WQTR) 250.00 DSA Interim Reports 178.00 Geotechnical Pad Letter (less than 48 hours notice - $550) 345.00 Final Letter (less than 48 hours notice - $550) 345:90 271.00 EXPERT WITNESS TESTIMONY Court appearance, per day 2,420.00 Court appearance, per half day 1,210.00 Field inspection and laboratory technician services will be billed in accordance with minimums shown on Basis of Charges. Professional engineering services will be billed in two hour increments. Allfees subject to Basis of Charges Exhibit A 20/41 EXHIBIT A Page 23 of 44 4d&N CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES BASIS OF CHARGES INSPECTING TESTING ENGINEERING GENERAL Fees for tests and inspection include cost of technician, normal equipment and regular reports. Engineering services will be charged at applicable rates and will require travel and mileage charges for equipment transport and storage per code (portal to portal) from the nearest CTS laboratory. Soils testing with nuclear gauge and/or sand cone equipment and inspections requiring equipment will require applicable travel and mileage charges for equipment transport and storage per code (portal-to-portal) from the nearest CTS laboratory. Fees for special projects, services overseas, or elsewhere in the United States, will be quoted on request. With prior notification to Client; charges are subject to change at any time. Construction Testing Services reserves the right to adjust the rates quoted in this contract based upon any Union or prevailing wage increases and/or changes in any industry requirements. MINIMUM HOURLY CHARGES — INSPECTION Technician personnel and the following minimum charges are contractual commitment: One-half day or less Over one-half day Show -up time (less than 2 hours notice = 4 hour charge) WORKING HOURS AND PREMIUM TIME Regular workday is the first 8 hours between 6:00 am and 6:00 pm Monday through Friday Overtime, Weekdays and Saturdays (first 8 hours) Overtime Saturdays (over 8 hours) and Sundays (first 8 hours) Overtime Sundays (over 8 hours) and Holidays Shift differential, swing and graveyard - Work performed between 2:00 pm and 4:00 am) MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES - Only Where Applicable Notary Services Fee Facsimile Charges. Plus $1.00/page (n/c for cover page) Wireless Router/Data Card for Jobsite Internet iPad Monthly Rental Fee Electronic Reporting Fees/Subscriptions (PlanGrid, BIM, etc.) Parking Fees Air Travel Outside Services Subsistence (per union contract) Mileage Sample Pickup Driver Weekend Sample Pickup Project Administration Samples Made by Others: Concrete Cylinders Samples Made by Others: All Other Tests Laboratory Sample Witness Fee Laboratory Sample Storage Fee (per sample) EZ Cure Boxes (Thermostatically Controlled Curing Boxes) Returned Check Fee 4 Hours 8 Hours 2 Hours Premium time is as follows: 1.5 x quoted hourly rate 2 x quoted hourly rate 3 x quoted hourly rate 12.5%/hour additional to base or quoted rate. 40.00/each 7.00/minimum 135.00/day 100.00/month At Cost At Cost Cost Plus 10% Cost Plus 20% 130.00/day Standard Federal Rate 200.00/hour 1204W Of MoRthly !AVG 130 + Test 55.00 + Test 130.00 120.00 QOR 150.00 65. 00/hour Included in Rates TESTS Testing fees shown include normal time for performing test. Samples requiring special preparation will be charged at the laboratory technician rate. Fees for tests not listed will be quoted upon request. There will be a minimum charge of $100.00 for any engineering report. Please note some tests maybe tested by subconsultants. Samples delivered to the laboratory after 3:00pm or samples needing results within 24 hours will incur a 50% mark-up. INSURANCE The liability of Construction Testing Services (CTS) is limited to CTS's contract value. PAYMENT Invoices will be submitted monthly or bimonthly for services performed during the preceding month and are payable on receipt. Interest of 1.5% per month (but not exceeding the maximum rate allowable by law) will be payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days, payment thereafter to be applied first to accrued interest and then to the principle unpaid amount. Attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any delinquent amount shall be paid by client. Visa, MasterCard and American Express payments are accepted however fees will apply. Visa and MasterCard payments require an additional 3% on top of the amount of the invoice being paid. American Express payments require an additional 4% on top of the amount of the invoice being paid. Allfees subject to Basis of Charges Exhibit A 21/41 EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 44 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES CONCRETE AND MASONRY TESTS CONCRETE Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (6x12) Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (4x8) Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (Over 8000 PSI) Cylinder molds. 6" x 12" and 4" x 8" Compressive Strength of Lightweight Insulating Concrete Obtaining and Testing Sawed Beams and Drilled Cores of Concrete (Cores) Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Round Panel) Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third -Point Loading) Flex Beams per Caltrans Test Methods Length Change of Hardened Hydraulic -Cement Mortar and Concrete (Shrinkage, 1 Sample) Shotcrete Nozzleman Qualification Letter (Per Nozzleman, Per Position) Shotcrete Pre -Qualification Cores (Compression and Visual) Shotcrete Production Cores Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Determining Density of Structural Lightweight Concrete (Cylinders) Standard Specification for Concrete Made by Volumetric Batching and Mixing Cement Quality Sampling Physical Testing of Gypsum, Gypsum Plasters and Gypsum Concrete Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression Grab Sample, Sealing and Storing in a Humidity and Temperature Controlled Room Density of Hydraulic Cement Testing of Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) Test Cylinders GFRC Pull Test GFRC Flexural Test Foaming Agents for Use in Producing Cellular Concrete Using Preformed Foam (Cell -Crete) MASONRY Compressive Testing of Grout (Masonry) Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars Using 2" Cube Specimens Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units (Core Compression) Compressive Strength of Molded Masonry Mortar Cylinders and Cubes (2" Sample) Testing Concrete Masonry Units (CMU) and Related Units (Full Unit) Linear Drying Shrinkage of Concrete Masonry Units (Per Unit) Masonry Core Shear Testing Testing Concrete Masonry Units (Absorption, Moisture Content, Unit Weight) Brick and Clay Tile (modulus of rupture, compression, saturation coefficient, suction rate, efflorescence)* Mortar Molds. 2" x 4". Single Use Mortar or Grout, Stored and Cured, Not Tested (Including Mold) AGGREGATES (SOILS AND CONCRETE) Determining Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (Coarse Only) Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (Fine Only) Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (Wash Included) Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates (200 Wash Only) Standard Test Methods for Particle -Size Distribution (Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis Evaluating Cleanness of Coarse Aggregate Soundness of Aggregates by Use of Sodium Sulfate or Magnesium Sulfate Unit Weight of Aggregate Clay Lumps and Friable Particles in Aggregates Flat Particles, Elongated Particles or Flat and Elongated Particles in Coarse Aggregate Organic Impurities in Fine Aggregates for Concrete Density, Relative Density(Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate Density, Relative Density(Specific Gravity), and Absorption of Fine Aggregate Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer Resistance to Degradation of Small Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine Percentage of Crushed Particles/Standard Test Method for Determining the Percentage of Fractured Particles in Coarse Aggregate Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate (as Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Grading) Sand Equivalent Value of Soils and Fine Aggregate Durability Index (Fine) Durability Index (Coarse) Durability Index (Fine and Coarse) Lightweight Particles in Aggregate Resistance of Rock to Wetting and Drying Unusual sample preparation for brick specimen will be charged at the established hourly rate. All fees subject to Basis of Charges INSPECTING TESTING ENGINEERING ASTM C1019 Standard Discounted 121.00 $30.00 Rate/Each Rate/Each ASTM C39 84.98 15.00 ASTM C39 84.99 15.00 ASTM C39 143.00 CBC 2105A.4 ASTM C470 72. 00 340.00 ASTM C495 94. 00 ASTM C42 121.00 121.00 ASTM C1550 440.00 ASTM C78 308.00 CT523 and CT524 308.00 ASTM C157 150.00 ACI 506, ASTM C42 and C1140 $440.00 336.00 ACI 506, ASTM C42 and C1140 $110.00 ASTM D854 ASTM C1140 110.00 ASTM C131(535) and C211 AASHTO T336 535.00 ASTM D5821 /CT205 ASTM C567 405.00 ASTM C1252/AASHTO T304A ASTM C685 965.00 ASTM D2419/CT217 CBC 2010 667.00 ASTM D3744/CT229 ASTM C472 55.00 ASTM D3744/CT229 ASTM C496 253.00 ASTM D 3744/CT229 ASTM C469 215.00 ASTM C123/AASHTO T113 CBC 150.00 CRD -C169 ASTM C188 195.00 ASTM D4832 150.00 PCI 374.00 PCI 374.00 ASTM C796 525.00 ASTM C1019 421.99 $30.00 ASTM C109 121.00 $30. 00 ASTM C1314 49:7.09 $100.00 CBC 2105A.4 187.00 ASTM C780 A7.6 121.00 ASTM C140 184.00 ASTM C426 270.00 CBC 2105A.4 270.00 ASTM C140 340.00 ASTM C67 1,000.00 121.00 158.00 121.00 CT202/ASTM C136 229.09 150.00 CT202/ASTM C136 295.09 150.00 CT202/ASTM C117 379.99 150.00 ASTM C117/D1140 220.00 ASTM D6913 350.00 CT227 370.00 ASTM C88/CT214 275.00 CT212 158.00 ASTM C142 215.00 ASTM D4791 /CT235 370.00 CT213/ASTM C40 336.00 ASTM C127/CT206 336.00 ASTM C128/CT207 336.00 ASTM D854 336.00 ASTM C131(535) and C211 535.00 ASTM D5821 /CT205 405.00 ASTM C1252/AASHTO T304A 405.00 ASTM D2419/CT217 270.90 150.00 ASTM D3744/CT229 405.00 ASTM D3744/CT229 405.00 ASTM D 3744/CT229 405.00 ASTM C123/AASHTO T113 QOR CRD -C169 590.00 Exhibit A 22/41 EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 44 win CONSTRUCTION 141W1 TESTING SERVICES INSPECTING TESTING ENGINEERING SOILS, AGGREGATE, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SERVICES & TESTS Standard Discounted SOILS Rate/Each Rate/Each Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions ASTM D3080 535.00 Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils (per point) ASTM D4767 1,000.00 Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils (added points) ASTM D4767 200.00 Consolidated Undrained Triaxial Compression Test for Cohesive Soils (single point) ASTM D4767 325.00 One -Dimensional Consolidation Properties of Soils Using Incremental Loading ASTM D2435 300.00 Caltrans Corrosivity Package 505.00 Determining Field and Laboratory Resistivity and pH Measurements for Soil and Water CT643 QOR Soils and Waters for Sulfate Content CT417 QOR Soils and Waters for Chloride Content CT422 QOR Particle -Size Analysis of Soils (with Hydrometer) ASTM D422 590.00 Pore Water Extraction and Determination of the Soluble Salt Content of Soils by Refractometer ASTM D4542 625.00 Standard Test Method for Particle -Size Analysis of Soils (without Hydrometer) ASTM D422 535.00 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils ASTM D4318/CT204 535.09 200.00 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified/Standard Effort ASTM D1 557/D698 502.00 175. 00 Hydrometer Only ASTM D422 535.00 pH of Soils ASTM D4972 467.00 Relative Compaction of Untreated and Treated Soils and Aggregates CT216 590.00 Determining the Resistance "R" Value of Treated and Untreated Bases, Subbases, and Basement Soils by the Stabiliometer ASTM D2844/CT301 590.00 Laboratory Determination of Water(*moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass ASTM D2216/CT226 150.00 Density of Soil in Place by the Drive -Cylinder Method D2937 116.00 Expansion Index of Soils ASTM D4829 405.00 Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter Permeability) ASTM D5084/CT220 550.00 Lab Compaction Characteristics of Soil 1 Point Proctor (Check Point) ASTM D698/D1557 337.00 Maximum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table ASTM D4253 285.00 Minimum Index Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative Density ASTM D4254 285.00 Density of Hydraulic Cement ASTM C188 253.00 Volatile Organic Content EPA 8260B QOR Semi Volatile Organics by GC/Ms (Basic Target List) EPA 8270C QOR Total Organic Carbon ASTM 2974/EPA 5310Bm QOR ICP Metals Concentration EPA 6020 - CAM/CCR 17 QOR Total Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons: TPH, MTBE, Benzene,Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Zylenes, QOR SS EPA 8015B ICP Metals Concentration EPA 6020 QOR pH EPA 9045D 535.00 Sequential Batch Extraction of Waste with Acidic Extraction Fluid ASTM D5284 QOR Chromium Soluble EPA 7196A QOR Moisture, Ash and Organic Matter of Peat and Other Organic Soils (Organic Content) ASTM D2974 270.00 Universal Soil Classification System (USCS) Test ASTM D2487 300.00 California Bearing Ratio Test ASTM D1883 370.00 Unconfined Compressive Strength of Cohesive Soil ASTM D2166/CT221 187.00 ASPHALT Quantitative Extraction of Bitumen from Bituminous Paving Mixtures (Solvent) ASTM D2172/CT310 732.00 Determining Low Temperature Performance Grade (PG) of Asphalt Binders ASTM 6816 QOR Thickness/Height of Compacted Bituminous Paving Mixture Specimens (Cores) ASTM D3549/CT308 270.00 Method of Prep of Bituminous Mixture Test Specimens ASTM D6926/CT304 270.00 ASTM D1188 and Bulk Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures (LTMD) D2726/CT308 990.00 Indirect Tensile (IDT) Strength of Bituminous Mixtures (TSR) ASTM D6931/CT371 3,146.00 Mechanical Size Analysis (Coarse and Fine) of Extracted Aggregate ASTM D5444/CT202 405.00 Marshall Stability and Flow of Bituminous Mixtures ASTM D6927 990.00 Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity and Density (Rice) ASTM D2041/CT309 405.00 Measuring the Permeability of Bituminous Pavements and Seal Coats CT341 QOR Swell of Bituminous Mixtures CT305 370.00 Moisture Vapor Susceptibility of Bituminous Mixtures/Moisture or Volatile Distillates in Asphalt ASTM D1461/CT307 930.00 Stabilometer Value (1 sample) CT366 370.00 Determination of Asphalt Content of Bituminous Paving Mixtures by the Ignition Method CT382/ASTM D6307 405.00 Determination of Correction Factor of Bituminous Paving Mixtures by the Ignition Method CT382/ASTM D6307 405.00 Determination of Asphalt and Moisture Contents of Bituminous Mixtures by Microwave Oven CT370 405.00 Effect of Water on Compressive Strength of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures (Set of 6) ASTM D1075 3,330.00 Compressive Strength of Bituminous Mixtures ASTM D1074 270.00 Hamburg Wheel Track AASHTO T324 3,630.00 Moisture Susceptibility AASHTO T283 3,630.00 Unusual sample preparation (dried clays, saturated clays, etc.) and all other tests for treated or untreated soils, aggregate subbase and aggregate base will be charged at established rates for laboratory technician. Does not include sample preparation or sieve analysis Allfees subject to Basis of Charges Exhibit A 23/41 EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 44 f 0; A` N CONSTRUCTION I ITESTING SERVICES MATERIALS MECHANICAL TESTS Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (General Tensile) Fillet Weld Break Test for Qualification (Welding) Tension Testing of Metallic Materials, Tension Testing Wrought and Cast Aluminum and Magnesium - Alloy Products, (Welding Coupon Tensile) Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (Couplers) Impact Testing of Miniaturized Charpy V -Notch Specimens, Notched Bar Impact Testing of Metallic Materials Testing, Practices, and Terminology for Chemical Analysis of Steel Products Mechanical Testing of Steel Products & Bend Testing of Material for Ductility; #348 Mechanical Testing of Steel Products & Bend Testing of Material for Ductility; #9411 Mechanical Testing of Steel Products & Bend Testing of Material for Ductility; #14+ Mechanical Testing of Steel Products, Standard Specification for Steel Wire, Plain, for Concrete Reinforcement Guided Bend Test for Ductility of Welds, Mechanical Testing of Welds Determining the Mechanical Properties of Externally and Internally Threaded Fasteners, Anchor Bolts Only (Tension and Yield) Rockwell Hardness of Metallic Materials Proof Test for Carbon and Alloy Steel (Nuts Only) Radiographic Examination of Metallic Castings/Weldments Macroetching Metals and Alloys Determining the Mechanical Properties of Externally and Internally Threaded Fasteners, Washers, Direct Tension Indicators, and Rivets (HSB Assemblies) Mechanical Testing of Steel Products (Terminators Tensile) Strength for Sewn or Bonded Seams of Geotextiles Tearing Strength of Fabrics by the Tongue (Single Rip) Procedure Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test) Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composite Bars Steel Strand, Uncoated Seven -Wire for Prestressed Concrete FIREPROOFING Thickness and Density of Sprayed Fire -Resistive Material (SFRM) Cohesion/Adhesion of Sprayed Fire -Resistive Materials (Test Kit Only) INSPECTING TESTING ENGINEERING ASTM E605 $270.00 ASTM E736 $77. 00 CONTACT INFORMATION Headquarters: 2118 Rheem Drive • Pleasanton, CA 94588 • P 925.462.5151 • F 925. 462.5183 Peninsula: 50 California Street, Suite 1500 • San Francisco, CA 94111 • P 415.334.4747 • F 415. 438.2357 Oakland: 246 30th Street, Suite 101 • Oakland, CA 94601 • P 510.444.4747 • F 510. 835.1825 San Jose: 2033 Gateway Place, #500 San Jose, CA 95110 • P 408.573.6992 • F 408.437.1201 Stockton: 343 East Main Street, #711 • Stockton, CA 95202 • P 209.507.7555 • F 209.507.7554 Rocklin: 4400 Yankee Hill Road • Rocklin, CA 95677 • P 916. 419.4747 • F 916.419.4774 Las Vegas: 3842 E. Post Road • Las Vegas, NV 89120 • P 702. 257.4747 • F 702.257.4718 Al/fees subject to Basis of Charges Standard Discounted Rate/Each Rate/Each ASTM A370 470.00 AWS B4.0 205.00 ASTM E8, B557 and AWS B4.0 470.00 ASTM A370 460.00 ASTM E2248 and ASTM E23 QOR ASTM A751 336.00 ASTM A370 and E290 3:79.99 $150.00 ASTM A370 and E290 440.00 ASTM A370 and E290 QOR ASTM A370, A82 and A185 440.00 ASTM El 90 and AWS B4.0 270.00 ASTM F307, F1554 and F606 528.00 ASTM E18 150.00 ASTM Al 94 or A563 337.00 ASTM E94, E1030 and E1032 QOR ASTM E340, E381 and AWS 337.00 ASTM F606 370.00 ASTM A370 370.00 ASTM D4884 336.00 ASTM D2261 336.00 ASTM D5034 270.00 ASTM D3039 990.00 ASTM A416 and Al 061 1,463.00 ASTM E605 $270.00 ASTM E736 $77.00 CONTACT INFORMATION Headquarters: 2118 Rheem Drive • Pleasanton, CA 94588 • P 925. 462.5151 • F 925. 462.5183 Peninsula: 50 California Street, Suite 1500 • San Francisco, CA 94111 • P 415.334.4747 • F 415. 438.2357 Oakland: 246 30th Street, Suite 101 • Oakland, CA 94601 • P 510.444.4747 • F 510. 835.1825 San Jose: 2033 Gateway Place, #500 San Jose, CA 95110 • P 408.573.6992 • F 408.437.1201 Stockton: 343 East Main Street, #711 • Stockton, CA 95202 • P 209. 507.7555 • F 209.507.7554 Rocklin: 4400 Yankee Hill Road • Rocklin, CA 95677 • P 916.419.4747 • F 916.419.4774 Las Vegas: 3842 E. Post Road • Las Vegas, NV 89120 • P 702.257.4747 • F 702.257.4718 Al/fees subject to Basis of Charges Exhibit A 24/41 EXHIBIT A Page 27 of 44 10 ACCDW" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) 03/11/ 2020 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CA LIC OB29370 1-925-244-7700 Edgewood Partners Insurance Centers (EPIC) San Ramon - Branch ID 143941 P. O. Box 5003 CONTACT Certificates DepartmentNAME: p PHONE 925-244-7700 FAX 925-901-0671NExt): A/C No): ADDRIESS. EPICcerts@epicbrokers.com INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # X INSURER A: HARTFORD FIRE IN CO 19682SanRamon, CA 94583 INSURED INSURER B: COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INS CO 19410 Construction Testing Services, Inc. INSURER C: CONTINENTAL CAS CO 20443 INSURER D: 2118 Rheem Drive INSURER E: 1 INSURER F: Pleasanton, CA 94588 COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 58715437 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHFR DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF MM/DD/YYYY POLICY EXP MM/DDlYYYY LIMITS A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY X X 57UUNFP6329 08/01/19 08/01/20 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 CLAIMS -MADE 7 OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED 300,000PREMISESEaoccurrence $ MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ 2,000,000POLICYFX]PRO JECT [7LOC OTHER: A AUTOMOBILE X LIABILITY ANY AUTO X X 57UUNFP629 0M/. D SINGLE LIMIT $ 11000,000Eaaccidint) BODILY I JURY (Per person) $ BODILY I JURY (Per accident) $ X ALL OWNED SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS NON-OWNEDOPER HIRED AUTOS X AUTOS tea° Y. ... `"` ,_ s ., DAMAGE $ per accid nt UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR URRENCE $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS -MADE DED RETENTION $ B B WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y! N ANY PROP RIETORlPARTNER/EXECUTIVE X X WC 6 2 4 9 9 2 5 9 (CA) WC62499260 (NV, ID) 07/01/19 07/01/19 07/01/20 07/01/20 X STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ 1,000,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? H Mandatory in NH) N / A E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ 11000,000Ifyes, describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below C Professional/Pollution MCH591919731 08/01/19 08/01/20 Per Claim 11000,000 Aggregate 2,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) P17409 / RE: City of South San Francisco Police Operations & 911 Dispatch Center ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of South San Francisco and its officers, employees, agents, and volunteers CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of South San Francisco THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. Parks, Facilities & Common Greens Div. 550 N. Canal Street AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE South San Francisco, CA 94080 USA ' 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD SLeles-SRC 58715437 Exhibit A 25/41 EXHIBIT A Page 28 of 44 DATE SUPPLEMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE 03,11„020 NAME OF INSURED: construction Testing Services, Inc. SUPP (10/00) Exhibit A 26/41 EXHIBIT A Page 29 of 44 POLICY NUMBER: 57UUNFP6329 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout this policy the words "you" and "your" refer to the Named Insured shown in the Declarations, and any other person or organization qualifying as a Named Insured under this policy. The words "we", "us" and "our" refer to the stock insurance company member of The Hartford providing this insurance. The word "insured" means any person or organization qualifying as such under Section 11 - Who Is An Insured. Other words and phrases that appear in quotation marks have special meaning. Refer to Section V - Definitions. SECTION I - COVERAGES COVERAGE A BODILY INJURY AND PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY 1. Insuring Agreement a. We will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance applies. We will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking those damages. However, we will have no duty to defend the insured against any "suit" seeking damages for "bodily injury" or "property damage" to which this insurance does not apply. We may, at our discretion, investigate any "occurrence" and settle any claim or "suit" that may result. But: 1) The amount we will pay for damages is limited as described in Section III - Limits Of Insurance; and 2) Our right and duty to defend ends when we have used up the applicable limit of insurance in the payment of judgments or settlements under Coverages A or B or medical expenses under Coverage C. No other obligation or liability to pay sums or perform acts or services is covered unless explicitly provided for under Supplementary Payments - Coverages A and B. b. This insurance applies to "bodily injury" and property damage" only if: 1) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" is caused by an "occurrence" that takes place in the "coverage territory"; 2) The "bodily injury" or "property damage" occurs during the policy period; and 3) Prior to the policy period, no insured listed under Paragraph 1. of Section 11 - Who Is An Insured and no "employee" authorized by you to give or receive notice of an occurrence" or claim, knew that the bodily injury" or "property damage" had occurred, in whole or in part. If such a listed insured or authorized "employee" knew, prior to the policy period, that the bodily injury" or "property damage" occurred, then any continuation, change or resumption of such "bodily injury" or property damage" during or after the policy period will be deemed to have been known prior to the policy period. c. "Bodily injury" or "property damage" will be deemed to have been known to have occurred at the earliest time when any insured listed under Paragraph 1. of Section II Who Is An Insured or any "employee" authorized by you to give or receive notice of an "occurrence" or claim: 1) Reports all, or any part, of the "bodily injury" or "property damage" to us or any other insurer; 2) Receives a written or verbal demand or claim for damages because of the "bodily injury" or "property damage"; or 3) Becomes aware by any other means that bodily injury" or "property damage" has occurred or has begun to occur. d. Damages because of "bodily injury" include damages claimed by any person or organization for care, loss of services or death resulting at any time from the "bodily injury" e. Incidental Medical Malpractice And Good Samaritan Coverage Bodily injury" arising out of the rendering of or failure to render the following health care services by any "employee" or "volunteer worker" shall be deemed to be caused by an occurrence" for: HG 00 010916 C 2016 The Hartford Includes copyrighted material of Insurance Services Office, Inc. with its permission.) Exhibit A 27/41 EXHIBIT A Page 30 of 44 The insurance afforded herein for any subsidiary not named in this Coverage Part as a named insured does not apply to injury or damage with respect to which such insured is also a named insured under another policy or would be a named insured under such policy but for its termination or the exhaustion of its limits of insurance. 3. Newly Acquired Or Formed Organization Any organization you newly acquire or form, other than a partnership, joint venture or limited liability company, and over which you maintain financial interest of more than 50% of the voting stock, will qualify as a Named Insured if there is no other similar insurance available to that organization. However: a. Coverage under this provision is afforded only until the 180th day after you acquire or form the organization or the end of the policy period, whichever is earlier; b. Coverage A does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that occurred before you acquired or formed the organization; and c. Coverage B does not apply to "personal and advertising injury" arising out of an offense committed before you acquired or formed the organization. 4. Nonowned Watercraft With respect to watercraft you do not own that is less than 51 feet long and is not being used to carry persons for a charge, any person is an insured while operating such watercraft with your permission. Any other person or organization responsible for the conduct of such person is also an insured, but only with respect to liability arising out of the operation of the watercraft, and only if no other insurance of any kind is available to that person or organization for this liability. However, no person or organization is an insured with respect to.- a. o: a. "Bodily injury" to a co -"employee" of the person operating the watercraft; or b. "Property damage" to property owned by, rented to, in the charge of or occupied by you or the employer of any person who is an insured under this provision. 5. Additional insureds When Required By Written Contract, Written Agreement Or Permit The following person(s) or organization(s) are an additional insured when you have agreed, in a written contract, written agreement or because of a permit issued by a state or political subdivision, that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy, provided the injury or damage occurs subsequent to the execution of the contract or agreement. A person or organization is an additional insured under this provision only for that period of time required by the contract or agreement. However, no such person or organization is an insured under this provision if such person or organization is included as an insured by an endorsement issued by us and made a part of this Coverage Part. a. Vendors Any person(s) or organization(s) (referred to below as vendor), but only with respect to bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of "your products" which are distributed or sold in the regular course of the vendor's business and only if this Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily injury" or property damage" included within the Ioftoperations hazard 1) The insurance afforded the vendor is subject to the following additional exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: a) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" for which the vendor is obligated to pay damages by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract or agreement. This exclusion does not apply to liability for damages that the vendor would have in the absence of the contract or agreement; b) Any express warranty unauthorized by you; c) Any physical or chemical change in the product made intentionally by the vendor; d) Repackaging, except when unpacked solely for the purpose of inspection, demonstration, testing, or the substitution of parts under instructions from the manufacturer, and then repackaged in the original container; e) Any failure to make such inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing as the vendor has agreed to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products; f) Demonstration, installation, servicing or repair operations, except such operations performed at the vendor's premises in connection with the sale of the product; g) Products which, after distribution or sale by you, have been labeled or relabeled or used as a container, part or ingredient of any other thing or substance by or for the vendor; or HG 00 01 09 16 Exhibit A 28/41 EXHIBIT A Page 31 of 44 h) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of the sole negligence of the vendor for its own acts or omissions or those of its employees or anyone else acting on its behalf. However, this exclusion does not apply to: i) The exceptions contained in Sub- paragraphs (d) or (f); or ii) Such inspections, adjustments, tests or servicing as the vendor has agreed to make or normally undertakes to make in the usual course of business, in connection with the distribution or sale of the products. 2) This insurance does not apply to any insured person or organization, from whom you have acquired such products, or any ingredient, part or container, entering into, accompanying or containing such products. b. Lessors Of Equipment 1) Any person(s) or organization(s) from whom you lease equipment; but only with respect to their liability for "bodily injury", property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your maintenance, operation or use of equipment leased to you by such person(s) or organization (s). 2) With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds this insurance does not apply to any "occurrence" which takes place after the equipment lease expires. c. Lessors Of Land Or Premises Any person or organization from whom you lease land or premises, but only with respect to liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of that part of the land or premises leased to you. With respect to the insurance afforded these additional insureds the following additional exclusions apply: This insurance does not apply to: 1. Any "occurrence" which takes place after you cease to lease that land; or 2. Structural alterations, new construction or demolition operations performed by or on behalf of such person or organization. d. Architects, Engineers Or Surveyors Any architect, engineer, or surveyor, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or HO 00 0109 16 omissions of those acting on your behalf: 1) In connection with your premises; or 2) In the performance of your ongoing operations performed by you or on your behalf. With respect to the insurance afforded these additional insureds, the following additional exclusion applies: This insurance does not apply to "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of or the failure to render any professional services by or for you, including: 1. The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; or 2. Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the "occurrence" which caused the "bodily injury" or "property damage", or the offense which caused the personal and advertising injury", involved the rendering of or the failure to render any professional services by or for you. e. Permits Issued By State Or Political Subdivisions Any state or political subdivision, but only with respect to operations performed by you or on your behalf for which the state or political subdivision has issued a permit. With respect to the insurance afforded these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: 1) "Bodily injury", "property damage" or personal and advertising injury" arising out of operations performed for the state or municipality; or 2) "Bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products -completed operations hazard". f. Any Other Party Any other person or organization who is not an additional insured under Paragraphs a. through e. above, but only with respect to liability for "bodily injury", "property damage" or "personal and advertising injury" caused, in whole or in part, by your acts or omissions or the acts or omissions of those acting on your behalf: 1) In the performance of your ongoing operations; Exhibit A 29/41 EXHIBIT A Page 32 of 44 2) In connection with your premises owned by or rented to you; or 3) In connection with "your work" and included within the "products -completed operations hazard", but only if a) The written contract or agreement requires you to provide such coverage to such additional insured; and b) This Coverage Part provides coverage for "bodily injury" or "property damage" included within the "products - completed operations hazard". However: 1) The insurance afforded to such additional insured only applies to the extent permitted by law; and 2) If coverage provided to the additional insured is required by a contract or agreement, the insurance afforded to such additional insured will not be broader than that which you are required by the contract or agreement to provide for such additional insured. With respect to the insurance afforded to these additional insureds, this insurance does not apply to: Bodily injury" "property damage" or personal and advertising injury" arising out of the rendering of, or the failure to render, any professional architectural, engineering or surveying services, including: 1) The preparing, approving, or failing to prepare or approve, maps, shop drawings, opinions, reports, surveys, field orders, change orders or drawings and specifications; or 2) Supervisory, inspection, architectural or engineering activities. This exclusion applies even if the claims against any insured allege negligence or other wrongdoing in the supervision, hiring, employment, training or monitoring of others by that insured, if the "occurrence" which caused the "bodily injury" or "property damage", or the offense which caused the personal and advertising injury", involved the rendering of or the failure to render any professional services by or for you. The limits of insurance that apply to additional insureds is described in Section III - Limits Of Insurance. How this insurance applies when other insurance is available to the additional insured is described in the other Insurance Condition in Section Iv - Commercial General Liability Conditions. No person or organization is an insured with respect to the conduct of any current or past partnership, joint venture or limited liability company that is not shown as a Named Insured in the Declarations. SECTION III - LIMITS OF INSURANCE 1. The Most We Will Pay The Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations and the rules below fix the most we will pay regardless of the number of: a. Insureds; b. Claims made or "suits" brought; or c. Persons or organizations making claims or bringing "suits". 2. General Aggregate Limit The General Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay for the sum of: a. Medical expenses under Coverage C; b. Damages under Coverage A, except damages because of "bodily injury" or property damage" included in the "products - completed operations hazard"; and c. Damages under Coverage B. 3. Products -Completed Operations Aggregate Limit The Products -Completed Operations Aggregate Limit is the most we will pay under Coverage A for damages because of "bodily injury" and property damage" included in the "products - completed operations hazard". 4. Personal And Advertising Injury Limit Subject to 2. above, the personal and Advertising Injury Limit is the most we will pay under Coverage B for the sum of all damages because of all "personal and advertising injury" sustained by any one person or organization. 5. Each Occurrence Limit Subject to 2. or 3. above, whichever applies, the Each Occurrence Limit is the most we will pay for the sum of: a. Damages under Coverage A; and b. Medical expenses under Coverage C because of all "bodily injury" and "property damage" arising out of any one "occurrence". C. Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit Subject to 5. above, the Damage To Premises Rented To You Limit is the most we will pay under Coverage A for damages because of property damage" to any one premises, while rented to you, or in the case of damage by fire, lightning or explosion, while rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner. HG 00 0109 16 Exhibit A 30/41 EXHIBIT A Page 33 of 44 3) Any manager, if you or the additional insured is a limited liability company; 4) Any "executive officer" or insurance manager, if you or the additional insured is a corporation; 5) Any trustee, if you or the additional insured is a trust; or 6) Any elected or appointed official, if you or the additional insured is a political subdivision or public entity. This duty applies separately to you and any additional insured. 3. Legal Action Against Us No person or organization has a right under this Coverage Part: a. To join us as a party or otherwise bring us into a "suit" asking for damages from an insured; or b. To sue us on this Coverage Part unless all of its terms have been fully complied with. A person or organization may sue us to recover on an agreed settlement or on a final judgment against an insured; but we will not be liable for damages that are not payable under the terms of this Coverage Part or that are in excess of the applicable limit of insurance. An agreed settlement means a settlement and release of liability signed by us, the insured and the claimant or the claimant's legal representative. 14. Other Insurance If other valid and collectible insurance is available to the insured for a loss we cover under Coverages A or B of this Coverage Part, our obligations are limited as follows: a. Primary Insurance This insurance is primary except when b. below applies. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b. Excess Insurance This insurance is excess over any of the other insurance, whether primary, excess, contingent or on any other basis: 1) Your Work That is Fire, Extended Coverage, Builder's Risk, Installation Risk or similar coverage for "your work"; 2) Premises Rented To You That is fire, lightning or explosion insurance for premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; 3) Tenant Liability That is insurance purchased by you to cover your liability as a tenant for property damage" to premises rented to you or temporarily occupied by you with permission of the owner; 4) Aircraft, Auto Or Watercraft If the loss arises out of the maintenance or use of aircraft, "autos" or watercraft to the extent not subject to Exclusion g. of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability; 5) Property Damage To Borrowed Equipment Or Use Of Elevators If the loss arises out of "property damage" to borrowed equipment or the use of elevators to the extent not subject to Exclusion j. of Section I - Coverage A - Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability; 6) When You Are Added As An Additional Insured To other Insurance Any other insurance available to you covering liability for damages arising out of the premises or operations, or products and completed operations, for which you have been added as an additional insured by that insurance; or 7) When You Add others As An Additional Insured To This Insurance Any other insurance available to an additional insured. However, the following provisions apply to other insurance available to any person or organization who is an additional insured under this coverage part. a) Primary Insurance When Required By Contract This insurance is primary if you have agreed in a written contract or written agreement that this insurance be primary. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other insurance by the method described in c. below. b) Primary And Non -Contributory To Other Insurance When Required By Contract If you have agreed in a written contract, written agreement, or permit that this insurance is primary and non- contributory with the additional insured's own insurance, this insurance is primary and we will not seek contribution from that other insurance. HG 00 01 09 16 Exhibit A 31/41 EXHIBIT A Page 34 of 44 Paragraphs (a) and (b) do not apply to other insurance to which the additional insured has been added as an additional insured. When this insurance is excess, we will have no duty under Coverages A or B to defend the insured against any "suit"' if any other insurer has a duty to defend the insured against that "suit". If no other insurer defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will be entitled to the insured's rights against all those other insurers. When this insurance is excess over other insurance, we will pay only our share of the amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum of: 1) The total amount that all such other insurance would pay for the loss in the absence of this insurance; and 2) The total of all deductible and self-insured amounts under all that other insurance. We will share the remaining loss, if any, with any other insurance that is not described in this Excess Insurance provision and was not bought specifically to apply in excess of the Limits of Insurance shown in the Declarations of this Coverage Part. c. Method Of Sharing If all of the other insurance permits contribution by equal shares, we will follow this method also. Under this approach each insurer contributes equal amounts until it has paid its applicable limit of insurance or none of the loss remains, whichever comes first. If any of the other insurance does not permit contribution by equal shares, we will contribute by limits. Under this method, each insurer's share is based on the ratio of its applicable limit of insurance to the total applicable limits of insurance of all insurers. 5. Premium Audit a. We will compute all premiums for this Coverage Part in accordance with our rules and rates. b. Premium shown in this Coverage Part as advance premium is a deposit premium only. At the close of each audit period we will compute the earned premium for that period and send notice to the first Named Insured. The due date for audit and retrospective premiums is the date shown as the due date on the bill. If the sum of the advance and audit premiums paid for the policy period is greater than the earned premium, we will return the excess to the first Named Insured. c. The first Named Insured must keep records of the information we need for premium HG 00 0109 16 computation, and send us copies at such times as we may request. 6. Representations a. When You Accept This Policy By accepting this policy, you agree: 1) The statements in the Declarations are accurate and complete, 2) Those statements are based upon representations you made to us; and 3) We have issued this policy in reliance upon your representations. b. Unintentional Failure To Disclose Hazards If unintentionally you should fail to disclose all hazards relating to the conduct of your business that exist at the inception date of this Coverage Part, we shall not deny coverage under this Coverage Part because of such failure. 7. Separation Of Insureds Except with respect to the Limits of Insurance, and any rights or duties specifically assigned in this Coverage Part to the first Named Insured, this insurance applies: a. As if each Named Insured were the only Named Insured; and b. Separately to each insured against whom claim is made or "suit" is brought. 8. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery Against Others To Us a. Transfer Of Rights Of Recovery If the insured has rights to recover all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, those rights are transferred to us. The insured must do nothing after loss to impair them. At our request, the insured will bring "suit" or transfer those rights to us and help us enforce them. b. Waiver Of Rights Of Recovery (Waiver Of Subrogation) If the insured has waived any rights of recovery against any person or organization for all or part of any payment, including Supplementary Payments, we have made under this Coverage Part, we also waive that right, provided the insured waived their rights of recovery against such person or organization in a contract, agreement or permit that was executed prior to the injury or damage. 9. When We Do Not Renew If we decide not to renew this Coverage Part, we will mail or deliver to the first Named Insured shown in the Declarations written notice of the Exhibit A 32/41 EXHIBIT A Page 35 of 44 POLICY NUMBER: 57UUNFP6329 COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE HA 99 16 03 12 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. COMMERCIAL AUTOMOBILE BROAD FORM ENDORSEMENT This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: BUSINESS AUTO COVERAGE FORM To the extent that the provisions of this endorsement provide broader benefits to the "insured" than other provisions of the Coverage Form, the provisions of this endorsement apply. 1. BROAD FORM INSURED A. Subsidiaries and Newly Acquired or Formed Organizations The Named Insured shown in the Declarations is amended to include: 1) Any legal business entity other than a partnership or joint venture, formed as a subsidiary in which you have an ownership interest of more than 50% on the effective date of the Coverage Form. However, the Named Insured does not include any subsidiary that is an insured" under any other automobile policy or would be an "insured" under such a policy but for its termination or the exhaustion of its Limit of Insurance. 2) Any organization that is acquired or formed by you and over which you maintain majority ownership. However, the Named Insured does not include any newly formed or acquired organization: a) That is a partnership or joint venture, b) That is an "insured" under any other policy, c) That has exhausted its Limit of Insurance under any other policy, or d) 180 days or more after its acquisition or formation by you, unless you have given us notice of the acquisition or formation. Coverage does not apply to "bodily injury" or "property damage" that results from an "accident" that occurred before you formed or acquired the organization. B. Employees as Insureds Paragraph A.1. - WHO 1S AN INSURED - of SECTION 11 - LIABILITY COVERAGE is amended to add: d. Any "employee" of yours while using a covered "auto" you don't own, hire or borrow in your business or your personal affairs. C. Lessors as Insureds Paragraph A.1. - WHO IS AN INSURED - of Section 11 - Liability Coverage is amended to add: e. The lessor of a covered "auto" while the auto" is leased to you under a written agreement if: 1) The agreement requires you to provide direct primary insurance for the lessor and 2) The "auto" is leased without a driver. Such a leased "auto" will be considered a covered "auto" you own and not a covered auto" you hire. D. Additional Insured if Required by Contract 1) Paragraph A.1. - WHO IS AN INSURED of Section 11 - Liability Coverage is amended to add: f. When you have agreed, in a written contract or written agreement, that a person or organization be added as an additional insured on your business auto policy, such person or organization is an "insured", but only to the extent such person or organization is liable for "bodily injury" or "property damage" caused by the conduct of an "insured" under paragraphs a. or b. of who Is An Insured with regard to the ownership, maintenance or use of a covered "auto." C 2411, The Hartford (includes copyrighted material Form HA 99 16 0312 of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission.) Page 1 of 5 Exhibit A 33/41 EXHIBIT A Page 36 of 44 The insurance afforded to any such E. Primary and Non -Contributory if additional insured applies only if the Required by Contract bodily injury" or "property damage" Only with respect to insurance provided to occurs: an additional insured in 1.D. - Additional 1) During the policy period, and Insured If Required by Contract, the 2) Subsequent to the execution of such following provisions apply: written contract, and 3) Primary Insurance When Required By 3) Prior to the expiration of the period Contract of time that the written contract This insurance is primary if you have requires such insurance be provided agreed in a written contract or written to the additional insured. agreement that this insurance be 2) How Limits Apply primary. If other insurance is also primary, we will share with all that other If you have agreed in a written contract insurance by the method described in or written agreement that another Other Insurance 5,d. person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy, the 4) Primary And Non -Contributory To Other most we will pay on behalf of such Insurance When Required By Contract additional insured is the lesser of: If you have agreed in a written contract a) The limits of insurance specified in or written agreement that this insurance the written contract or written is primary and non-contributory with the agreement; or additional insured's own insurance, this b) The Limits of insurance shown in insurance is primary and we will ncontributionfromthatother the Declarations. insurance. Such amount shall be a part of and not Paragraphs (3) and (4) do not apply to other in addition to Limits of Insurance shown insurance to which the additional insured in the Declarations and described in this has been added as an additional insured. Section. When this insurance is excess, we will have no 3) Additional Insureds Other Insurance duty to defend the insured against any "suit" if If we cover a claim or "suit" under this any other insurer has a duty to defend the Coverage Part that may also be covered insured against that "suit". If no other insurer by other insurance available to an defends, we will undertake to do so, but we will additional insured, such additional be entitled to the insured's rights against all insured must submit such claim or "suit" those other insurers. to the other insurer for defense and When this insurance is excess over other indemnity. insurance, we will pay only our share of the However, this provision does not apply amount of the loss, if any, that exceeds the sum to the extent that you have agreed in a of: written contract or written agreement 1) The total amount that all such other that this insurance is primary and non- insurance would pay for the loss in the contributory with the additional insured's absence of this insurance; and own insurance. 2) The total of all deductible and self-insured 4} Duties in The Event Of Accident, Claim, amounts under all that other insurance. Suit or Loss We will share the remaining loss, if any, by the If you have agreed in a written contract method described in Other Insurance 5.d. or written agreement that another person or organization be added as an 2• AUTOS RENTED BY EMPLOYEES additional insured on your policy, the Any "auto" hired or rented by your "employee" additional insured shall be required to on your behalf and at your direction will be comply with the provisions in LOSS considered an "auto" you hire. CONDITIONS 2. - DUTIES IN THE The OTHER INSURANCE Condition is amended EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM , SUIT by adding the following: OR LOSS — OF SECTION IV — BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS, in the same manner as the Named Insured. @ 2011, The Hartford (Includes copyrighted material Form HA 99 16 03 12 of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission.) Page 2 of 5 Exhibit A 34/41 EXHIBIT A Page 37 of 44 If an "employee's" personal insurance also 5. applies on an excess basis to a covered "auto" hired or rented by your "employee" on your behalf and at your direction, this insurance will be primary to the "employee's" personal insurance. 3. AMENDED FELLOW EMPLOYEE EXCLUSION EXCLUSION 5. - FELLOW EMPLOYEE - of SECTION 11 - LIABILITY COVERAGE does not apply if you have workers' compensation insurance in -force covering all of your if Coverage is excess over any, other collectible insurance. 4. HIRED AUTO PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE If hired "autos" are covered "autos" for Liability Coverage and if Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss, or Collision coverages are provided under this Coverage Form for any auto" you own, then the Physical Damage Coverages provided are extended to "autos" you hire or borrow, subject to the following limit. The most we will pay for "loss" to any hired auto" is: 1) $100,000; 2) The actual cash value of the damaged or stolen property at the time of the "loss"; or 3) The cost of repairing or replacing the damaged or stolen property, whichever is smallest, minus a deductible. The deductible will be equal to the largest deductible applicable to any owned "auto" for that coverage. No deductible applies to "loss" caused by fire or lightning. Hired Auto Physical Damage coverage is excess over any other collectible insurance. Subject to the above limit, deductible and excess provisions, we will provide coverage equal to the broadest coverage applicable to any covered "auto" you own. We will also cover loss of use of the hired "auto" if it results from an "accident", you are legally liable and the lessor incurs an actual financial loss, subject to a maximum of $1000 per if This extension of coverage does not apply to any "auto" you hire or borrow from any of your employees", partners (if you are a partnership), members (if you are a limited liability company), or members of their households. PHYSICAL DAMAGE - ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY TRANSPORTATION EXPENSE COVERAGE Paragraph AA.a. of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE is amended to provide a limit of $50 per day and a maximum limit of 1,000. 6. LOAN/LEASE GAP COVERAGE Under SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, in the event of a total "loss" to a covered "auto", we will pay your additional legal obligation for any difference between the actual cash value of the "auto" at the time of the "loss" and the "outstanding balance" of the loan/lease. Outstanding balance" means the amount you owe on the loan/lease at the time of "loss" less any amounts representing taxes; overdue payments; penalties, interest or charges resulting from overdue payments; additional mileage charges; excess wear and tear charges; lease termination fees; security deposits not returned by the lessor; costs for extended warranties, credit life Insurance, health, accident or disability insurance purchased with the loan or lease; and carry-over balances from previous loans or leases. 7. AIRBAG COVERAGE Under Paragraph B. EXCLUSIONS - of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, the following is added: The exclusion relating to mechanical breakdown does not apply to the accidental discharge of an airbag. 8. ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT - BROADENED COVERAGE a. The exceptions to Paragraphs B.4 - EXCLUSIONS - of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE are replaced by the following.- Exclusions ollowing: Exclusions 4.c. and 4.d. do not apply to equipment designed to be operated solely by use of the power from the "auto's" electrical system that, at the time of "loss", is: 1) Permanently installed in or upon the covered "auto"; 2) Removable from a housing unit which is permanently installed in or upon the covered "auto"; 3) An integral part of the same unit housing any electronic equipment described in Paragraphs (1) and (2) above; or C 2011, The Hartford (Includes copyrighted material Form HA 99 16 03 12 of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission.) Page 3 of 5 Exhibit A 35/41 EXHIBIT A Page 38 of 44 4) Necessary for the normal operation of the covered "auto" or the monitoring of the covered auto's" operating system. b.Section III — Version CA 00 01 03 10 of the Business Auto Coverage Form, Physical Damage Coverage, Limit of Insurance, Paragraph C.2 and Version CA 00 01 10 01 of the Business Auto Coverage Form, Physical Damage Coverage, Limit of Insurance, Paragraph C are each amended to add the following: 1,500 is the most we will pay for "loss" in any one "accident" to all electronic equipment (other than equipment designed solely for the reproduction of sound, and accessories used with such equipment) that reproduces, receives or transmits audio, visual or data signals which, at the time of "loss", is: 1) Permanently installed in or upon the covered "auto" in a housing, opening or other location that is not normally used by the "auto" manufacturer for the installation of such equipment; 2) Removable from a permanently installed housing unit as described in Paragraph 2.a. above or is an integral part of that equipment; or 3) An integral part of such equipment. c. For each covered "auto", should loss be limited to electronic equipment only, our obligation to pay for, repair, return or replace damaged or stolen electronic equipment will be reduced by the applicable deductible shown in the Declarations, or $250, whichever deductible is less. 9. EXTRA EXPENSE - BROADENED COVERAGE Under Paragraph A. - COVERAGE - of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, we will pay for the expense of returning a stolen covered auto" to you. 10. GLASS REPAIR -WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE Under Paragraph D. - DEDUCTIBLE - of SECTION III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, the following is added: If another Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. company policy or coverage form that is not an automobile policy or coverage form applies to the same "accident", the following applies: 1) If the deductible under this Business Auto Coverage Form is the smaller (or smallest) deductible, it will be waived; 2) If the deductible under this Business Auto Coverage Form is not the smaller (or smallest) deductible, it will be reduced by the amount of the smaller (or smallest) deductible. 12. AMENDED DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT, CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS The requirement in LUSS CONDITIONS 2.a. - DUTIES IN THE EVENT OF ACCIDENT,CLAIM, SUIT OR LOSS - of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS that you must notify us of an "accident" applies only when the "accident" is known to: 1) You, if you are an individual; 2) A partner, if you are a partnership, 3) A member, if you are a limited liability company; or 4) An executive officer or insurance manager, if you are a corporation. 13. UNINTENTIONAL FAILURE To DISCLOSE HAZARDS If you unintentionally fail to disclose any hazards existing at the inception date of your policy, we will not deny coverage under this Coverage Form because of such failure. 14. HIRED AUTO) - COVERAGE TERRITORY Paragraph e. of GENERAL CONDITIONS 7. - POLICY PERIOD, COVERAGE TERRITORY - of SECTION IV - BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is replaced by the following: e. For short-term hired "autos", the coverage territory with respect to Liability Coverage is anywhere in the world provided that if the insured's" responsibility to pay damages for bodily injury" or "property damage" is determined in a "suit," the "suit" is brought in the United States of America, the territories and possessions of the United States of America, Puerto Rico or Canada or in a settlement we agree to. No deductible applies to glass damage if the 15. WAIVER OF SUBROGATION glass is repaired rather than replaced. TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY 11. TWO OR MORE DEDUCTIBLES AGAINST OTHERS TO US - of SECTION IV - Under Paragraph D. - DEDUCTIBLE - of SECTION BUSINESS AUTO CONDITIONS is amended by III - PHYSICAL DAMAGE COVERAGE, the adding the following: following is added: C 2011, The Hartford (Includes copyrighted material Form HA 9916 0312 of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission.) Page 4 of 5 Exhibit A 36/41 EXHIBIT A Page 39 of 44 We waive any right of recovery we may have against any person or organization with whom you have a written contract that requires such waiver because of payments we make for damages under this Coverage Form. 16. RESULTANT MENTAL ANGUISH COVERAGE The definition of "bodily injury" in SECTION V- DEFI N ITIONS is replaced by the following: Bodily injury" means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by any person, including mental anguish or death resulting from any of these. 17. EXTENDED CANCELLATION CONDITION Paragraph 2. of the COMMON POLICY CONDITIONS - CANCELLATION - applies except as follows: If we cancel for any reason other than nonpayment of premium, we will mail or deliver to the first Named Insured written notice of cancellation at least 60 days before the effective date of cancellation. 18. HYBRID, ELECTRIC, OR NATURAL GAS VEHICLE PAYMENT COVERAGE In the event of a total loss to a "non -hybrid" auto for which Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss, or Collision coverages are provided under this Coverage Form, then such Physical Damage Coverages are amended as follows: a.lf the auto is replaced with a "hybrid" auto or an auto powered solely by electricity or natural gas, we will pay an additional 10%, to a maximum of $2,500, of the "non -hybrid" auto's actual cash value or replacement cost, whichever is less, b.The auto must be replaced and a copy of a bill of sale or new lease agreement received by us within 60 calendar days of the date of "loss," c. Regardless of the number of autos deemed a total loss, the most we will pay under this Hybrid, Electric, or Natural Gas Vehicle Payment Coverage provision for any one loss" is $10, 000. For the purposes of the coverage provision, a.A "non -hybrid" auto is defined as an auto that uses only an internal combustion engine to move the auto but does not include autos powered solely by electricity or natural gas. b.A "hybrid" auto is defined as an auto with an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors; and that uses the internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors to move the auto, or the internal combustion engine to charge one or more electric motors, which move the auto. 19. VEHICLE WRAP COVERAGE In the event of a total loss to an "auto" for which Comprehensive, Specified Causes of Loss, or Collision coverages are provided under this Coverage Form, then such Physical Damage Coverages are amended to add the following: In addition to the actual cash value of the "auto we will pay up to $1,000 for vinyl vehicle wraps which are displayed on the covered "auto" at the time of total loss. Regardless of the number of autos deemed a total loss, the most we will pay under this Vehicle Wrap Coverage provision for any one "loss" is $5,000. For purposes of this coverage provision, signs or other graphics painted or magnetically affixed to the vehicle are not considered vehicle wraps. 0 2011, The Hartford (Includes copyrighted material Form HA 99 16 03 12 of ISO Properties, Inc., with its permission.) Page 5 of 5 Exhibit A 37/41 EXHIBIT A Page 40 of 44 BLANKET WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT - CALIFORNIA This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached effective on the inception date of the policy unless a different date is indicated below. The following" attaching clause" need be completed only when this endorsement is issued subsequent to preparation of the policy). This endorsement, effective 12:01 AM 07101/2019 forms a part of Policy No. WC 624-99-259 Issued to Construction Testing Services, Inc. By Commerce & Industry Insurance Company We have a right to recover our payments from anyone liable for an injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against any person or organization with whom you have a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us, as regards any work you perform for such person or organization. The additional premium for this endorsement shall be 2 % of the total estimated workers compensation premium for this policy. WC 04 03 61 Ed. 11-90) Exhibit A 38/41 EXHIBIT A Page 41 of 44 WAIVER OF OUR RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM OTHERS ENDORSEMENT This endorsement changes the policy to which it is attached effective on inception date of the policy unless a different date is indicated below. This endorsement, effective on 12:01 AM 07/0112019 forms a part of Policy No. WC 624-99-260 Issued to Construction Testing Services, Inc. By Commerce & Industry Insurance Company We have the right to recover our payments from anyone liable for any injury covered by this policy. We will not enforce our right against the person or organization named in the Schedule. This agreement applies only to the extent that you perform work under a written contract that requires you to obtain this agreement from us. This agreement shall not operate directly or indirectly to benefit any one not named in the Schedule. Schedule ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION WITH WHOM YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT, A CONDITION OF WHICH REQUIRES YOU TO OBTAIN THIS WAIVER FROM US. THIS ENDORSEMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO BENEFITS OR DAMAGES PAID OR CLAIMED: 1. PURSUANT TO THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION OR EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY LAWS OF KENTUCKY, NEW HAMPSHIRE, OR NEW JERSEY; OR, 2. BECAUSE OF INJURY OCCURRING BEFORE YOU ENTERED INTO SUCH A CONTRACT. This form is not applicable in Kansas for private construction contracts as defined in K. S.A. 16-1801 through K.S.A. 16-1807 or public construction contracts as defined in K.S.A. 16-1901 through 16-1908, except where permitted by statue or other applicable law, such as for use in wrap-up insurance programs. Any person or organization for which the employer has agreed by written contract, executed prior to loss, may execute a waiver of subrogation. However, for purposes of work performed by the employer in Missouri, this waiver of subrogation does not apply to any construction group of classifications as designated by the waiver of right to recover from others (subrogation) rule in our manual. This form is not applicable in California, Kentucky, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Texas or Utah. WC 00 03 13 Ed. 04/84) Exhibit A 39/41 EXHIBIT A Page 42 of 44 CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES SIR QUESTIONNAIRE General Liability Insurance — Self -Insured Retention (SIR) Questionnaire 1. Do you have Self -Insured Retention (SIR) related to the liability coverage? If so, how much is it? CTS does not have a SIR for general liability coverage 2. Do you have a deductible related to the liability coverage? If so, hove much is it? CTS does not have a deductible for general liability coverage 3. Does your insurance have a provision stating that no one else can pay the deductible except the contractor? N/A 4. Does the insurance agreement permit the City as an additional insured to pay the amount of the SIR or deductible if the contractor does not? N/A k-._ I 3/ ID 1 2-02 Aaren Solis Da e Vice President of Business Development SAN FRANCISCO: 50 California Street, Suite 1500 • San Francisco, CA 94111 • Phone (415) 334-4747 9 Fax (415) 438.2357 Exhibit A 40/41 EXHIBIT A Page 43 of 44 TAXABLE YEAR CALIFORNIA FORM 220 Withholding Exemption Certificate 590 The payee completes this form and submits it to the withholding agent. The withholding agent keeps this form with their records. Withholding Agent Information Name City of South San Francisco Payee Information Name SSN or ITIN 2 FEIN CA Corp no. CA SOS file no. Construction Testing Services, Inc. 94-3221709 Address (apt./ste., room, PO box, or PMB no.) 2118 Rheem Drive City (If you have a foreign address, see instructions.) State ZIP code Pleasanton CA 94588 Exemption Reason Check only one box. By checking the appropriate box below, the payee certifies the reason for the exemption from the California income tax withholding requirements on payment(s) made to the entity or individual. Individuals — Certification of Residency: I am a resident of California and I reside at the address shown above. If I become a nonresident at any time, I will promptly notify the withholding agent. See instructions for General Information D, Definitions. Corporations: The corporation has a permanent place of business in California at the address shown above or is qualified through the California Secretary of State (SOS) to do business in California. The corporation will file a California tax return. If this corporation ceases to have a permanent place of business in California or ceases to do any of the above, I will promptly notify the withholding agent. See instructions for General Information D, Definitions. Partnerships or Limited Liability Companies (LLCs): The partnership or LLC has a permanent place of business in California at the address shown above or is registered with the California SOS, and is subject to the laws of California. The partnership or LLC will file a California tax return. If the partnership or LLC ceases to do any of the above, I will promptly inform the withholding agent. For withholding purposes, a limited liability partnership (LLP) is treated like any other partnership. Tax -Exempt Entities: The entity is exempt from tax under California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 23701 (insert letter) or Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) (insert number). If this entity ceases to be exempt from tax, I will promptly notify the withholding agent. Individuals cannot be tax-exempt entities. insurance Companies, Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs), or Qualified Pension/Profit-Sharing Plans: The entity is an insurance company, IRA, or a federally qualified pension or profit-sharing pian. California Trusts: At least one trustee and one noncontingent beneficiary of the above-named trust is a California resident. The trust will file a California fiduciary tax return. If the trustee or noncontingent beneficiary becomes a nonresident at any time, I will promptly notify the withholding agent. Estates — Certification of Residency of Deceased Person: I am the executor of the above-named person's estate or trust. The decedent was a California resident at the time of death. The estate will file a California fiduciary tax return. Nonmilitary Spouse of a Military Servicernernber: I am a nonmilitary spouse of a military servicemember and I meet the Military Spouse Residency Relief Act (MSRRA) requirements. See instructions for General Information E, MSRRA. CERTIFICATE OF PAYEE: Payee must complete and sign below. To learn about your privacy rights, how we may use your information, and the consequences for not providing the requested information go to ftb.ca.gov/forms and search for 1131. To request this notice by mail, call 800.852.5711. Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the information on this form, including accompanying schedules and statements, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete. I further declare under penalties of perjury that if the facts upon which this form are based change, I will promptly notify the withholding agent. Type or print payee's n Payee's signature 111P title Patrick Greenan, President Telephone (925) 462-5151 Date 3/6/2020 7061203 Form 590 2019 Exhibit A 41/41 EXHIBIT A Page 44 of 44 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-111 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:7. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations,grants,and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190,and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209,for Fiscal Year 2020- 21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events.(Greg Mediati,Deputy Director of Parks and Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations, grants,and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190,and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209,for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that City Council authorize the acceptance of: 1.$13,918 in donations and grants from various funders to support the Parks and Recreation Department’s (Department)South San Francisco Magnolia Center Senior Services/Rocko’s Produce Food Box Program; 2.$2,271.94 in stipends from the Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (4Cs)and the Children’s Council of San Francisco to provide financial relief to childcare programs to assist with hardships experienced due to the pandemic; and 3.An in-kind donation of assorted candies from See’s Candies valued at $34,209,which was distributed through various programs and initiatives citywide. The donations,stipends,and grants described in this report are itemized in Exhibit A.These funds were received in fiscal year 2020-2021 from July 1, 2020 through January 31, 2021. Magnolia Center Senior Services/Rocko’s Produce Food Box Program Since the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis,the Parks and Recreation Department’s Senior Services Program has played a critical role in keeping seniors connected to vital resources through information and referral services,and wellness calls that take place each week.One vital component of the Senior Services Program is its partnership with Rocko’s Produce,a South San Francisco business that boxes fresh produce and food that is then delivered to South San Francisco seniors at no cost. The South San Francisco Magnolia Center Senior Services/Rocko’s Produce Food Box Program began with an anonymous donation of $2,000 from a South San Francisco resident who wanted to ease food insecurity issues for older South San Francisco residents.Since then,the Magnolia/Rocko’s Food Box Program has been extended month to month based on donations that continue to come in from private donors and grants.Each box includes fresh fruit,vegetables,eggs,and other food products provided to Seniors at no cost.The Senior Services Program administers the program,and the Senior Van Driver (a City employee)carries out the pick-up and delivery of the food boxes to the seniors.The boxes of food have been delivered to seniors in the community who need healthy food and a safe way to receive it.The program provides a much-needed service City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-111 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:7. community who need healthy food and a safe way to receive it.The program provides a much-needed service as well as assisting in providing healthy food options for older adults.To date,donations from South San Francisco Friends of Parks and Recreation,individual community members,city employees,local businesses, matching funds,and various grants have raised $21,917.That has resulted in over 438 boxes of fresh produce and food being delivered so far to older adults and seniors in South San Francisco. The program continues to operate through donations and will continue as long as funds are made available. Many seniors that have received the boxes have stated it is the best food they have received and are very appreciative and grateful for this program. Childcare Program Relief Funding In January 2021,the Parks and Recreation Department received several checks from childcare subsidy agencies 4Cs and the Children’s Council of San Francisco totaling $2,271.94.These childcare subsidy agencies issue vouchers to help low income families pay for childcare so they can work or attend school.Several participants in the Department’s Childcare Program receive such subsidies,and families must meet certain eligibility requirements depending on the type of subsidy received. The checks received in January 2021 represent additional funding beyond the usual subsidy payments.A cover letter from 4Cs states “the federal CARES Act has awarded funds to California to address the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on childcare providers and the families they serve.The 2020-21 Budget Act designates a portion of those funds to be distributed to child care providers who serve children receiving a child care subsidy.The stipend is intended to provide financial relief to assist with hardships experienced due to the pandemic.”Checks totaling $2,063.40 from 4Cs and $208.54 from the Children’s Council of San Francisco is based on the number of children in the Department’s care in July 2020,the average cost of care,and available funding. Staff did not have to apply for this funding.Stipends will be passed on to Childcare Program participants in the form of fee waivers based on need,with priority going to families who already receive some form of financial assistance. See’s Candies Donation The Parks and Recreation Department is grateful to have had the opportunity to partner with See’s Candies to receive a donation of 1,350 pounds of candy with a retail value of $34,209 this past fall and winter.Initially,the Department had been looking for a modest donation of assorted sweets to treat guests at the Department’s Halloween drive-in movie event in October,Winter Wonderland event in December,and distribution in senior food boxes during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season.However,the quantity of candy received far exceeded staff’s expectations.In addition to the aforementioned purposes,staff was also able to distribute candy to over 300 families enrolled in the Department’s preschool and elementary school programs;the City’s Winter food drive on Monday,December 21,where 600 people were expected to attend;and appreciation gifts for Parks and Recreation staff members who have been working hard this year to continue to serve the community.Sweet treats included peanut brittle,lollipops,scotch kisses,and assorted chocolates.Additionally, in mid-2020,See’s had previously donated hundreds of pounds of candies for the City’s essential workers, which is included in this total. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-111 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:7. FISCAL IMPACT Receipt of the donations, grants, and stipends identified in this report have no impact to the City’s general fund. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN Acceptance of this funding will contribute to the City’s Strategic Plan under Priority #2 by helping to build robust recreation programs. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations,grants,and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190,and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. The Parks and Recreation Department appreciates contributions from individual community members and local businesses that help continue and enhance the Department’s mission to provide opportunities for physical, cultural and social well-being,protect and enhance the physical environment,and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 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 #:21-112 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:7a. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of donations,grants,and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190, and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209,for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department continues to play an essential role in response to the Covid- 19 pandemic by providing much needed socialization,food distribution,health and wellness activities, childcare programs, in addition to other essential services; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco (City)received $13,918 in donations for the South San Francisco Magnolia Center Senior Services/Rocko’s Produce Food Box Program, itemized herewith in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the City received $2,063.40 from the Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (4Cs)and $208.54 from the Children’s Council of San Francisco to provide financial relief to childcare programs to assist with hardships experienced due to the pandemic, itemized herewith in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department received a donation of 1,350 pounds of candy from See’s Candies with a retail value of $34,209,and this candy was distributed through various programs and initiatives citywide, and is also itemized herewith in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the Parks and Recreation Department appreciates contributions from individual community members and local businesses that help continue and enhance the Department’s mission to provide opportunities for physical,cultural and social well-being;protect and enhance the physical environment;and ensure the effective and efficient use of public facilities and open space. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby accepts the donations,grants,and stipends from various funders totaling $16,190,and an in-kind donation from See’s Candies valued at $34,209,all of which are itemized in Exhibit A,for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to support Parks and Recreation Department programs and events. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ Exhibit A Parks and Recreation Department Donations/Grants/Stipends for City Council Approval Received July 1, 2020 through January 31, 2021 Fiscal Year 2020-2021 TABLE A Magnolia Center Senior Services/Rocko’s Produce Food Box Program* Month Donor Amount March – June 2020 Donations Anonymous Donor Friends of Parks and Recreation Anonymous Donor $2,000 $1,525 $343 July – December 2020 Donations Anonymous Donor Genentech Match to Donor Contribution Friends of Parks and Recreation Garden Chapel Inc. Liberty Bank $2,000 $1,000 $550 $500 $500 December 2020 – January 2021 Donations South San Francisco Police Association $500 December 2020 – January 2021 Grants Kaiser Permanente Foundation Health Plan Inc. $5,000 Total $13,918 278+ boxes * Table A only includes donations and grants being presented for City Council approval. The Magnolia/Rocko’s Food Box Program has also benefited from $14,000 in grant funding that has previously been accepted by City Council. TABLE B Childcare Program Relief Funding Donor Amount Children’s Council of San Francisco $208.54 Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (4Cs) $538.88 Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (4Cs) $1,255.08 Child Care Coordinating Council of San Mateo County (4Cs) $269.44 TOTAL 2,271.94 TABLE C See’s Candies In-Kind Donation Donor Value In-Kind Donation See’s Candies $34,209 1,350 pounds of candy City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-119 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:8. Report regarding a resolution approving a Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan Fund for pre-payment of Housing Element Update services;and approving Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s Park-in-lieu Fee for pre-payment of BART Right-of-way Master Planning (PK2103)consistent with the reimbursable Local Early Action Planning Grants (LEAP) Program.(Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan Fund for pre-payment of Housing Element Update services;and approving Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s Park-in-lieu Fee for pre-payment of BART Right-of-way Master Planning (PK2103)consistent with the reimbursable Local Early Action Planning Grants (LEAP) Program. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION On a rolling cycle,the State’s Housing and Community Development Department offers a Local Early Action Planning Grant (LEAP)that provides funding to cities for specific planning initiatives.For this cycle,the State focused on housing production and meeting the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment Cycle 6 (RHNA). City planning staff,in coordination with the Capital Projects Department,successfully applied and executed a grant agreement that will reimburse the City up to $300,000 for projects that further housing production within the City consistent with the state’s goal.Staff applied with two project descriptions,as described below (included as Attachment 1 - LEAP Application): 1.Update to the Housing Element for RHNA 6 for 2023-2031 with $150,000 allocation.The 2023- 2031 Housing Element and associated implementation activities establish the overarching policy framework,goals,quantified objectives and implementing programs to facilitate and accelerate housing production consistent with the forthcoming RHNA 6 housing needs by income category and as well as other special housing needs that will be quantified through the update process.The Housing Element is a required element in the General Plan and is updated on a rolling eight year cycle.Planning staff has partnered with Baird &Driskell Planning Consultants as part of the 21 Elements joint collaboration in San Mateo County to deliver an updated Housing Element jointly with the General Plan 2040 Update. 2.Master Planning for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)Right of Way with $150,000 allocation. The City will take over maintenance and development rights to the BART right-of-way running through South San Francisco at some time in 2021 or 2022.The BART ROW will require proactive and creative programming and the City would like to utilize a landscape architecture and planning firm to survey, map,and engage with the community to develop a master plan for this right-of-way.The nexus to fostering housing development is relatively straightforward -with this infrastructure planning,any residential project proposed within the BART ROW sphere of influence could opt to construct a portion of the right-of-way improvements as laid out in the master plan in lieu of required on-site open space. Typically,residential unit construction,and affordable housing development in particular,are hindered by the on-site development requirements such as landscaping and public/private open space.This effortCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-119 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:8. by the on-site development requirements such as landscaping and public/private open space.This effort would permit the proposed project to maximize housing unit development on residentially zoned parcels and create open/recreation space within the BART ROW that would be open to all. The application was approved by Resolution 81-2020 on June 24,2020 by the City Council authorizing the City Manager to execute contracting with the State Department of Housing and Community Development (See Attachment 2 - City Council Resolution 81-2020) To start program implementation,the City must allocate funding from existing reserves that can be repaid via the state reimbursement process.Staff has prepared this Resolution approving a budget amendments advancing funds for this purpose. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of implementing both programs to facilitate housing production will total no more than $300,000 under the grant parameters.Approval of the Resolution will authorize the City to enter into consultant contracts and appropriate funding for implementation.Contracting would either be executed by the City Manager for the Housing Element Update ($60,000 contract)or will return to the City Council for authorization.Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriates $150,000 from the City’s General Plan Fund (Fund 270-27446)and Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriates $150,000 from the City’s Park-in-lieu Fee (Fund 209). The unencumbered cash balance of Fund 270-27446 as of January 25,2021 is $1.6 million.Adopting the Resolution has no impact on the General Fund. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the City Council approving Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 from the City’s General Plan Fund (Fund 270-27446)and Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 from the City’s Park-in-lieu Fee (Fund 209) for project implementation. Attachments 1.LEAP Application 2.City Council Resolution 81-2020 Associated Documents 1.Resolution authorizing Budget Amendment a.Executed Contract between City and HCD City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ CITY: Attachment 1a of Application Project #1 – 2023 -2031 Housing Element Task Est. Cost Begin End Deliverables Notes Develop Strategies to Expand Site Capacity: Evaluate existing site inventory and potential strategies for expanding site capacity to meet projected needs, including potential rezoning, upzoning and changes to development standards. Initiate public outreach. Hire firm to support site analysis and evaluation, including development feasibility analysis of policy strategies and analysis of market potential for missing middle housing. $30,000 July 2020 Dec 2022 Updated site inventory and priority strategies for the update This work will be undertaken through our participation in 21 Elements Define Update Work Plan: Evaluate the existing element in relation to recent state law requirements; develop key foundational sections of the housing element; refine work program and schedule, including engagement strategy, to complete update and implement rezoning and/or other priority actions. $20,000 July 2020 June 2021 Evaluation of existing element and refined work program to achieve priority actions This work will be undertaken with support from 21 Elements Rezone Land and/or Change Development Standards to Meet RHNA: Based on outcomes from previous tasks, conduct necessary rezoning and/or changes to development standards plus associated CEQA analysis. $50,000 TBD Dec 2022 Changes to general plan and or zoning ordinance; CEQA documentation Complete Housing Element Update: Adopt updated Housing Element in compliance with State laws, including the updated site inventory and by-right procedures for supportive housing. $50,000 TBD Dec 2022 Draft and Final updated Housing Element This work will be undertaken with support from 21 Elements $150,000 Project #2 – BART Right-of-way Design and Activation Planning Task Est. Cost Begin End Deliverables Notes Survey and Map Right of Way: Mapping details and extent of BART ROW for purposes of master planning will require full surveys and mapping to determine extent of sphere of influence and present utilities. $50,000 Jan 2021 April 2021 Updated topographical and civil maps showing extent of BART ROW and influence and all present utilities Variable time assumption for this effort depending on actual bid estimates Community Outreach: Engagement with surrounding area residents and property owners for ROW design and programming feedback and assistance. Engagement with non-profit and for-profit residential developers to secure interest in program for off-site open space improvements that will increase density on residentially zoned sites. $30,000 April 2021 Dec 2021 Meetings prior to preliminary design, draft design engagement (x2), and final design meeting Timeline dependent on survey and mapping effort Design and Programming for BART ROW: Based on engagement with community and civic leaders, design will be completed and adopted for implementation. $70,000 April 2021 Dec 2021 BART ROW Landscape and Programming Plan; In-lieu construction calculator An additional est. $50,000 would be covered by SSF funds General Plan and Zoning Update: Update the General Plan 2040 and zoning ordinance to reflect adopted BART ROW master plan. N/A TBD Dec 2022 Updates to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Costs not covered by LEAP Grant $150,000 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-120 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:8a. Resolution approving Budget Amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s General Plan Fund for pre-payment of Housing Element Update services;and approving Budget Amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 in the City of South San Francisco’s Park-in-lieu Fee for pre-payment of BART Right-of-way Master Planning (pk2013)consistent with the reimbursable Local Early Action Planning Grants Program. WHEREAS,the State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)released a Local Early Action Planning Grants Program (LEAP)to facilitate housing production and compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Cycle 6 (RHNA)allocation at the local level with a maximum grant amount of $300,000; and WHEREAS,City Council adopted Resolution 81-2020 on June 24,2020 by the City Council authorizing the City Manager to apply and execute contracting with the State Department of Housing and Community Development for a LEAP application; and WHEREAS,the City applied for two programs with 1)to comply with RHNA 6 by updating the Housing Element in tandem with the General Plan 2040 Update,and 2)a master planning effort for the Bay Area Rapid Transit right-of-way to promote open space and park area; and WHEREAS,the City program proposals were accepted by HCD and a contract fully executed with the City for an amount not to exceed $300,000 and reimbursement based and is included as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS,the City Council wishes to appropriate $150,000 in funding from the General Plan Fund (Fund 270-27446)and $150,000 in funding from the Park-in-lieu Fee Fund (Fund 209)for a total of $300,000 to pre- pay the two program objectives; and WHEREAS,the unencumbered cash balance of the General Plan Fund (Fund 270-27446)is $1.6 million as of January 25, 2021 and of the Park-in-lieu Fee Fund (Fund 209) is $2,550,000 as of February 16, 2021; and WHEREAS,HCD’s LEAP grant monies in an amount not to exceed $300,000 will replenish both funds once received. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council does hereby: 1.Approve budget amendment 21.040 appropriating $150,000 from the City’s General Plan Fund (Fund 270-27446); and 2.Approve budget amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 from the City’s Park-in-lieu Fee (FundCity of South San Francisco Printed on 3/9/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-120 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:8a. 2.Approve budget amendment 21.041 appropriating $150,000 from the City’s Park-in-lieu Fee (Fund 209). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to use professional judgment to appropriate funds in the case of any discrepancies to effectuate the intent of the City Council’s action in adopting this resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/9/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ 12/28/2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-109 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:9. Report regarding a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000.(Greg Mediati, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Much of the landside portions of Oyster Point Marina within the West Basin,which includes the lands between the Harbor Master’s Office and Oyster Point Boulevard,are currently undergoing significant transformations as part of an endeavor by the City of South San Francisco and real estate developer,Kilroy Realty Corporation. The project includes the construction of office/research and development buildings and an adjoining parking structure,new road alignments and streetscape,utilities,a crescent beach at Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, a future hotel site, Bay Trail improvements, a waterfront park, and a new open space parcel. As part of the landscape package, three restroom buildings are also envisioned, which include: ·One public restroom facility and wash down area at the crescent beach, ·One shared restroom facility with restrooms for park users,and restrooms and showers specifically for marina tenants, and ·One restroom entirely dedicated to marina tenants. The Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facility grants are awarded to qualifying public agencies in order to fund facilities such as boat launching ramps, boarding floats, marina parking areas, restrooms, and lighting for motorized and non-motorized boaters. To offset costs associated with the restroom construction project,staff has applied for $884,000 in additional grant funding,which would fund the difference between the engineer’s estimate ($3,214,000)and the lowest responsible bid ($4,098,000).In consultation with the City’s grant consultant,Townshend Associates,it was determined that requesting this gap funding would be considered the most competitive approach for a successful grant award. With assistance from Townshend Associates,the application was filed on February 1,2021,however,staff is required to bring forth a resolution to the City Council during the month of February to seek City Council authorization to file the application, which is attached to this report. FISCAL IMPACT If awarded,grant monies will help fund the construction of the new park and marina restrooms at Oyster Point Marina that would otherwise be funded through the project’s contingency,alternative funding sources,or value engineering exercises.Grant funding does not commit the City to on-going funding after the completion of the City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-109 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:9. engineering exercises.Grant funding does not commit the City to on-going funding after the completion of the grant term. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This item before the City Council supports the City’s Quality of Life strategic goal by providing additional funding for high-quality park and marina amenities for residents. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project General Facesheet for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______ Applicant Information a.Applicant Name City of South San Francisco b.Organizational Unit c.Address 400 Grand Ave. d.Address 2 e.City South San Francisco State CA Zip 94080 f.Federal ID Number 65-08778548 Reference No. g.Agency Type City County U.S. Forest Service U.S. Bureau of Land Management Federal Agency District Other Public Agency Project Information a.Project Name Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project b.Is implementing agency same as Applicant Yes No c.Implementing Agency Name d.Project Start Date Jul-01-2021 End Date Jun-30-2022 e.Amount of Funds Requested $884,614.00 Project Cost $2,980,966.00 a.Type of Project New Previously Funded by DBW Attach description of year and purpose of funding 26323_0_176_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf b.Project location and body of water project is located on:Oyster Point Marina (95 Harbor Master Rd., South San Francisco, CA 94080), located on the San Francisco Bay c.Please attach a site map 26325_0_853_SSF_Oyster Point_Maps.docx d.Has a DBW representative visited the proposed project site?Yes No If Yes, Who?When? __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 of 13 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:Version # ______ APP # ______ Contacts a.Project Administrator Name Philip Vitale Title Deputy Mailing Address 400 Grand Ave. City South San Francisco State CA Zip 94080 Telephone (650) 877-8500 Fax E-mail Address philip.vitale@ssf.net Facesheet for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 2 of 13 Project Description Project Description for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______ General Project Information - Page 1 Proposed Project Components: (Check all that apply.) Ramp # of Existing Boat Ramp Lanes # of Existing Single Vehicle Stalls Boarding Floats # of Proposed Boat Ramp Lanes # of Proposed Single Vehicle Stalls Gangways Fish Cleaning Station # of Existing Single ADA Vehicle Stalls Solar Panels Electrical # of Proposed Single ADA Vehicle Stalls Wind Turbines Slope Protection # of Existing Vehicle/Trailer Stalls Charging Stations (Electric Vehicles)Restrooms # of Proposed Vehicle/Trailer Stalls Boat Hoists Pay Station # of Existing ADA Vehicle/Trailer Stalls Dump Stations Project Credit Sign # of Proposed ADA Vehicle/Trailer Stalls ADA Path of Travel General Project Information - Page 2 1 a.Has a public hearing consistent with federal law or regulation taken place regarding the proposed project? Yes No If Yes, when and where? When:11/30/16, 1/18/17, 9/6/17, 9/7/17, 10/11/17, 11/28/18, 1/27/21 Where:South San Francisco City Council 1 b.Is there public support or opposition for the proposed project?Yes No Please describe This project is supported by the San Mateo County Harbor District, the marina tenants, marina users, and boat ramp visitors to enhance the quality of restroom facilities at Oyster Point Marina, which is also experience significant improvements, which include creation of a new park, sea level rise improvements, marina ramp replacement, and improved access to the marina. You may attach support or opposition letters here. Name of support or opposition letter Attachment 2.Describe the problems the proposed project will solve. For example, does the project fix or address a health, access, or safety issue for users at the facility? The existing restroom facilities are aged and in disrepair, and do not meet current ADA accessibility standards due to their age. Additionally, to address sea level rise by raising the San Francisco Bay Trail, and accommodate the larger rehabilitation of the landside portions and ramps in the west basin of the Oyster Point Marina, the existing restroom facilities must be razed and replaced. 3.Describe the scope of the project to be financed with DBW funding: If awarded, this project will help fund the construction of a restroom and shower facility dedicated to marina users and boaters. The restroom __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 3 of 13 Project Description for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ building includes two restrooms -- each with two lavatories, and two private shower rooms for boaters. The larger project will also construct two additional public restrooms, for which funding is not being requested at this time. Currently, the City has $1.2 million budgeted for the new restroom facility, however the low bid for construction of the restroom buildings is $884,000 over budget. This request will help the City and marina close the gap to construct the new facilities. 4.Describe the types of boating done at the proposed facility/improvements: Oyster Point includes a 408-berth marina including live aboard and tenant slips, guest docks, boat launching ramps, a ferry terminal, water taxi berths, a 300 foot fishing pier, and a park with hiking and jogging trails, picnic facilities and a 2.5 acre sandy beach. The marina is a regional destination, largely for motorized boaters who use the docks and the launch facilities to access the San Francisco Bay, and Pacific Ocean beyond the Golden Gate. In addition to these users, the facility is used by kayakers, paddlers, kite boarders, dragon boat teams, and first responders including the South San Francisco Fire Department. 5.What are the proposed existing hours of facility operation? Oyster Point Marina is open to the public 24 hours a day year-round. The marina and its facilities is open non-tenant boaters and members of the public from 5:30 a.m. - 10:30 p.m. The restroom and shower facility would be available to marina users during these times. 6.Describe the importance or significance of the proposed project: The existing restroom facilities serve thousands of visitors and marina users each year, and are in disrepair due to their age, great deal of use from the public and marina users, and the marine environment. General Project Information - Page 3 7.Has local law enforcement (Sheriff/Marine Patrol) been consulted to ensure the proposed facility meets the needs for water rescue? Yes No If Yes, provide the date and identify the components added to satisfy law enforcement needs. Date: Identify the components added to satisfy law enforcement needs, who was consulted, and what agency. If No, explain Existing/adjacent facilities meet local law enforcement needs and have been reviewed for fire and life safety. Additionally, they have been stakeholders as it related to water-based first response, as the operated marine rescue vessels based in this facility. 8 a.Are there any impediments to accessing the facility (i.e. security gates): Yes No 8 b.What is the process for facility admittance? The facility has publicly accessible restrooms and restrooms and shower facilities accessible to marina users. 9 a.Does the existing facility meet current Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) code requirements? Yes No If No, identify needed improvements The restroom facilities complied with ADA code at time of construction, however, they no longer meet the current code. 9 b.Does the proposed project improvements help the site meet current required ADA requirements? Yes No __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 4 of 13 Project Description for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ If Yes, how The new facilities have been reviewed for consistency with the ADA, and meet these requirements. 9 c.Has an ADA expert been consulted to ensure the proposed project complies with ADA requirements? Yes No If Yes, provide details Yes. Architects with DE+ are industry experts in the field of accessible design. Additionally, the City's civil engineering consulting team and the City Building Department who are also experts in reviewing for code compliance have accepted the new facility design. 10 a.Will the project be open and accessible to all public recreational boaters?Yes No 10 b.Does the project improve existing or create new public access at this facility? If Yes, how This replaced the existing public facilities with new, improved, and larger facilities that can better serve the destinations increased user base: the marina, beach area and Bay Trail users. 10 c.Does the project provide access to unique boating opportunities? If Yes, describe The marina has launch facilities for motorized and non-motorized boating. Dragon Boating, kite-boarding, paddleboarding, and kayaking. The site also has one of the few public boat ramps easily accessible on the San Francisco peninsula. General Project Information - Page 4 11 a.Indicate below the fees a person must pay to launch a boat: Activity Amount ($) Launching 12.00 Parking 0.00 Facility Entrance 0.00 Invasive Species Inspection 0.00 Other Other Fee Explanation: 11 b.What is the annual number of boat launches at the existing facility? Total:2,500 Motorized:2,000 Non-motorized:500 11 c.What is the projected annual number of boat launches at the improved facility? Total:3,500 Motorized:2,500 Non-motorized:1,000 11 d.What was the methodology used to arrive at this number? The city utilized boat launching fees and information provided by the Harbor District to arrive at this number. 12.List all permits and approvals required to construct the project: (A Notice of Exemption from CEQA is NOT an exemption from other regulatory agencies) Name of Permit Status Date Copy of Permit US Army Corps of Engineers – Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Approved 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Regional Water Quality Control Board – Porter Cologne Act, NPDES, Stormwater Approved 26417_1_718_ City of So San Francisco Cal Water OPD Agreement - FINAL.pdf __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 5 of 13 Project Description for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ Bay Conservation and Development Commission – Minor Permit Approved 26417_2_280_2 017.007.01_BC DCOriginal.pdf General Project Information - Page 5 13.Status of Project Planning: Status Completed Technical Feasibility Study Yes No Preliminary Design Yes No Engineer’s Cost Estimate Yes No Final Design Yes No 14.Environmental Impact (NEPA/CEQA) Status of NEPA/CEQA Compliance Expected Completion Date Attachment Adopted/Approved 382_3-24-11 Filed NOD Oyster Pt Specific Pl.pdf Expected/Determined Level of CEQA Clearance: Notice of Exemption Negative Declaration Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Unknown __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 6 of 13 Project Cost Estimate Estimated Project Cost - Summary for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project2/1/2021________________________________________________________________________________________________________________FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______CategoryTotalAmountNarrative1Construction2,144,580.002,144,580.00Cost of construction.2Engineering (Suggested estimate of 12%)257,349.00257,349.00Engineering costs estimated at 12%3Escalation (Suggested estimate of 10%)193,012.00193,012.00Escalation costs estimated at 10%.4Contingency (Suggested estimate of 10%)214,458.00214,458.00Contingency costs estimated at 10%5Inspection (Suggested estimate of 5%)107,229.00107,229.00Inspection costs estimated at 5%.6Permits (Suggested estimate of 3%)64,667.0064,667.00Permit costs estimated at 3%.TOTAL EXPENDITURES2,981,295.002,981,295.00 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page: 7 of 13 Project Cost Estimate for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project2/1/2021________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Other Funding SourcesStatus of Other Project Funding Sources(Attach copy of any funding applications, or approved letters of intent to fund.)Status of FundingName of Funding SourceAmountApplied ForApprovedAttachmentDBW884,614YesNoYesNoApplicant2,096,681YesNoYesNo26439_1_613_ResolutionPlaceholder.docxCity / CountyYesNoYesNoOther State SourcesYesNoYesNoFederalYesNoYesNoOtherYesNoYesNoTOTAL:2,981,295 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Page: 8 of 13 Additional Information Additional Information for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______ Public Benefit and Economic Development Information 1 a.What are the public benefits of the project? Three restrooms in total are being constructed with two having public access. While funding requested is specifically for the restroom for marina users, grant funding closes the funding gap, and makes the larger project feasible. In addition to the restrooms, the Oyster Point Marina project also creates a wonderful waterfront public park, enhanced access to boating facilities and ramps, a fishing pier, picnic facilities and a 2.5 acre sandy beach. 1 b.What are the projected economic development benefits to the surrounding municipalities of the proposed project? The larger revitalization project includes the investment of $40 million City dollars to improve the Oyster Point Marina. Additionally, private developers are investing $2 billion dollars at Oyster Point, which will spur additional interest and usage of the Marina. These enhanced revenue streams will continue to support the growth of local marina business. 1 c.Is the project a part of a larger community level development plan or strategy?Yes No If “Yes”, please explain and provide a copy of the supporting Development Plan. As noted in the previous response (31b), the restroom project is part of a larger redevelopment of the aged Oyster Point Marina peninsula, which is currently mid-way through construction. This includes a $40 million dollar investment by the city, and $2 billion private investment. Plans, drafted by world renown landscape architecture firm, James Corner Field Operations (notably projects include NYC Highline Park, Chicago Navy Pier etc.), are attached. Copy of the supporting Development Plan 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf 2.Is there a demonstrated demand for a boat launching facility and access at the project location? Yes No If Yes, explain Recent reports show of the 408 slips available at the marina, 313 slips are currently occupied, representing an overall occupancy rate of 77%, though it is projected after dock replacement work concludes, demand will increase by 6%. Nearly 2,000 launching permits are also issued each year for motorized vessels, with thousands more non-motorized vessel launches and transient boaters using the guest docks. Transient docking and launching is expected to increase after the rehabilitation of the landside portions of the marina and park are complete. 3 a.Is the existing facility in an "economically underserved" area?Yes No If Yes, explain The California State Parks Community Factfinder shows that the average per capita income for those residing within a half-mile radius is $31,139. Per capita income for the City is $42,962, or 37% higher than the Oyster Point area. Of those living in this area, 15% are considered living in poverty. 3 b.Will the proposed project increase access or usage by an underserved public?Yes No If Yes, explain The marina users and live-aboards are the only residents in the area, so all demographic figures referenced above are for those who occupy the marina. Any improvements to the marina and restroom facilities directly benefit this same underserved population. __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 9 of 13 Additional Information for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ 3 c.Will the proposed project provide economic benefit to the local area?Yes No If Yes, explain The revitalized marina will serve as a local and regional destination for water oriented activities, and recreation. Increased boating, fishing, jogging and walking is expected from the general public, and also the additional employees who will work within the 2 million square-foot development on the peninsula. 3 d.Will the proposed project increase service to boaters outside the local area (promote tourism)? Yes No If Yes, how Yes, the enhancements to the marina, including the new restroom facilities are projected to increase use and create a regional draw for boating, recreational uses, and tourism. Other Information 4 a.Does the applicant own the project site?Yes No 4 b.Does the applicant hold a long-term lease agreement on the project site?Yes No If so, when does it expire? 4 c.Does the applicant operate the site through a concessionaire?Yes No If so, when does the concessionaire agreement expire? 4 d.Applicants must own or control the project area and rights of way to and from the project area. Applicant shall maintain the project area and all improvements funded by the grant in accordance with DBW Maintenance Guidelines for the life of the grant (20 years). (Provide copies of any related lease agreements, etc. concerning the control and operation of the project site.) Description Attachment Harbor District Agreement 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf 5.Attach a Resolution from the governing body authorizing applicant to apply for funding or agenda for when the governing body will be approving the resolution. 26353_0_681_Resolutio n Placeholder.docx 6.Attach a copy of the proposed feasibility study.26354_0_575_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf 7.Attach copies of any initial drawings or designs. Drawings / Designs Description Attachment Project Site Plan 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf 8.Has the applicant retained an outside engineer, design or other consultant for the project? Yes No If Yes, please provide the contact information Name:Title Company Address Telephon e E-mail Charles Dilworth Principal Dilworth Eliot Studio, Inc. 415 Jackson Street, San Francisco, CA 415-255- 9740 info@dilw ortheliot.c om __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 10 of 13 Additional Information for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ Richard Kennedy Principal James Corner Field Operations 633 Battery Street, #118, San Francisco, CA 415-943- 9197 rkennedy @fieldope rations.ne t 9.Is there anything else you like DBW to know about the project? Additional Attachment (if applicable) __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 11 of 13 Acknowledgement & Signature Acknowledgement & Signature for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______ Applicant Acknowledgement and Signature Under penalty of perjury, I hereby certify that I am an authorized representative of the Applicant, and that I have been authorized by the Applicant by resolution to execute this Application for DBW funding. Authorized Signature: Philip Vitale Name:Philip Vitale Title:Deputy Date:02/01/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 12 of 13 Attachments Index List Of Attachments for Boat Launching Facilities (Motorized) - 2021 Agency: City of South San Francisco Application: Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 2/1/2021 __________________________________________________________________________ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Version # ______ APP # ______ #Section Title File Name 1 Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 176_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf 26323_0_176_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf 2 Oyster Point Marina Restroom Construction Project 853_SSF_Oyster Point_Maps.docx 26325_0_853_SSF_Oyster Point_Maps.docx 3 Project Description 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf 26417_0_745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf 4 Project Description 718_City of So San Francisco Cal Water OPD Agreement - FINAL.pdf 26417_1_718_City of So San Francisco Cal Water OPD Agreement - FINAL.pdf 5 Project Description 280_2017.007.01_BCDCOriginal.pdf 26417_2_280_2017.007.01_BCDCOriginal.p df 6 Project Description 382_3-24-11 Filed NOD Oyster Pt Specific Pl.pdf 26424_0_382_3-24-11 Filed NOD Oyster Pt Specific Pl.pdf 7 Project Cost Estimate 613_Resolution Placeholder.docx 26439_1_613_Resolution Placeholder.docx 8 Additional Information 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf 26333_0_38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf 9 Additional Information 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf 26352_0_210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf 10 Additional Information 681_Resolution Placeholder.docx 26353_0_681_Resolution Placeholder.docx 11 Additional Information 575_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf 26354_0_575_DBW Motorized Boat Facilities Application Form_210122.pdf 12 Additional Information 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf 26357_0_192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf __________________________________________________________________________ Page: 13 of 13 Section / Title: Project Description / 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 745_COE Permit Letter 18_07xx.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 382_3-24-11 Filed NOD Oyster Pt Specific Pl.pdf Section / Title: Project Description / 382_3-24-11 Filed NOD Oyster Pt Specific Pl.pdf LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSCONSULTANT TEAM:100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250,SAN FRANCISCO, CA400 GRAND AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTAMP :REVISION :KILROY OYSTER POINTCLIENT :PROJECT NAMENO.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYAll Rights ReservedThese drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner FieldOperations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used inconnection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared,in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner FieldOperations.DRAWING NO.DATE:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING TITLE:CHECKED: DESCRIPTION:OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CD - BULLETIN 1KEY PLAN :05.27.2020100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/16/2017JCFO50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT08/11/2017JCFO100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09/20/2017JCFO50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11/17/2017JCFO4705 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA 92869D.D.PAGANO, INC.284 VISITACION AVENUE, BRISBANE, CA 94005GREENLEE ASSOC.100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS02/12/2018JCFO3130 LA SELVA, SUITE 100, SAN MATEO, CA 64403WILSEY HAM55 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 550, OAKLAND, CA 94607 KPW STRUCTURAL300 BRANNAN ST, SUITE 212, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107HLB LIGHTING5860 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD, SUITE 15, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BELDEN ENGINEERS1100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 112/14/2018JCFO2100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 105/27/2020JCFO575 SUTTER STREET, #302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102DREYFUSS+BLACKFORDKHRKNTSCOVER SHEETG-0.0633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111415.943.9197JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSOYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 1PREPARED FOR:KILROY OYSTER POINT AND CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOMAY 27, 2020Section / Title: Additional Information / 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf SEE FOR RETAINING WALLAND MARINA PARKING DESIGN,GRADING, AND DETAILS.SEE FOR PLANTING ANDIRRIGATION.SEE FOR CLAY CAP ANDINTERIM EROSION CONTROLGRADING PLANS.SEE FOR FINAL ROUGHGRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANSAND HOTEL FENCING.CONTRACT LIMIT LINEFUTURE HOTEL SITEPHASE 1D BLDG (N.I.C.)100' BCDC JURISDICTIONGULL STREETSEE FOR ALL ROAD, UTILITIES,STREET LIGHTING, SIDEWALK,CURB RAMPS, AND BIO-RETENTIONGRADING, LAYOUT, AND DETAILS.SEE FOR PLANTING AND SOILPLANS, SCHEDULE, AND DETAILS.OYSTER POINT BLVDRIGHT-OF-WAY2132SEE FOR CLAY CAP AND FINALEROSION CONTROL GRADINGPLANS.SEE FOR FINAL PLANTINGSELECTION AND IRRIGATIONPLANS.MARINAPARKINGMARINA BLVDRIGHT-OF-WAYFUTURE OPEN SPACE / PARK31OYSTER POINT BLVD GATEWAYRIGHT-OF-WAYOYSTER POINT MARINA(EXISTING)100' BCDC JURISDICTIONFERRY BUILDING(EXISTING)SEE FOR PUMP STATIONDRAWINGS.SEE FOR OPEN SPACE PARKLAYOUT, MATERIAL, FURNISHING,GRADING, DRAINAGESOIL/PLANTING PLANS,IRRIGATION AND DETAILS.SEE FOR UTILITIES ANDROUGH GRADING.12MARINA BLVDOPEN SPACEOPEN SPACE4RAMPS TO THE EXISTING DOCK(N.I.C.)21SEE FOR PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMERAND OPEN SPACE ELECTRICAL PLANS.1KHRK1" = 80'LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSNORTHCONSULTANT TEAM:100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250,SAN FRANCISCO, CA400 GRAND AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTAMP :REVISION :KILROY OYSTER POINTCLIENT :PROJECT NAMENO.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYAll Rights ReservedThese drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner FieldOperations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used inconnection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared,in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner FieldOperations.DRAWING NO.DATE:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING TITLE:CHECKED: DESCRIPTION:OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CD - BULLETIN 1KEY PLAN :05.27.2020100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/16/2017JCFO50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT08/11/2017JCFO100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09/20/2017JCFO50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11/17/2017JCFO4705 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA 92869D.D.PAGANO, INC.284 VISITACION AVENUE, BRISBANE, CA 94005GREENLEE ASSOC.100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS02/12/2018JCFO3130 LA SELVA, SUITE 100, SAN MATEO, CA 64403WILSEY HAM55 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 550, OAKLAND, CA 94607 KPW STRUCTURAL300 BRANNAN ST, SUITE 212, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107HLB LIGHTING5860 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD, SUITE 15, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BELDEN ENGINEERS1100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 112/14/2018JCFO2100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 105/27/2020JCFO575 SUTTER STREET, #302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102DREYFUSS+BLACKFORDSCOPE REFERENCE PLANLR-1.080'40'200'SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"95% PUMP STATION 1KEYDRAWING PACKAGE100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS-ADDENDUM 1 LANDSCAPE SUBMISSION1SCOPE AND REFERENCE PACKAGE LEGENDDATED100% DESIGN REFUSERELOCATION-BULLETIN 2100% PHASE IC STREETS AND UTILITIES DESIGNPACKAGE- BULLETIN 123412/14/201802/16/201801/18/201802/16/201812222Section / Title: Additional Information / 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf CONTRACT LIMIT LINECONTRACT LIMIT LINE+FFE16.0BEACHMARINA WESTMARINA EASTOYSTER POINTBLVD GATEWAYREPLENISHED BEACHOYSTER POINTBLVDMARINA BLVDFUTURE OPEN SPACE / PARKFUTURE HOTEL SITEOYSTER POINT MARINA(EXISTING)ACCESSIBLE BEACH PATHBAY TRAILPRIVATE MARINARESTROOM (S.A.D.)PUBLIC/PRIVATEMARINA RESTROOM(S.A.D.)OPEN SPACE100' BCDC JURISDICTIONSTAIRSOVERLOOK DECKPHASE 1D BLDG (N.I.C.)BEACH DROP-OFFRESTROOM, WASH STATION ANDCHANGING FACILITY (SEE ARCHITECTURE DWGS)100' BCDC JURISDICTIONBEACHMARINA WESTPUMP STATION (N.I.C.)PARKING(SEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS ANDUTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGE)TEMPORARY PARKING(SEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS AND UTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGE)MARINA DROP-OFFEXISTINGBUS STATIONGULL STREETRAMPS TO DOCKSSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS ANDUTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGEFERRY BUILDING(EXISTING)MARINA EASTBEACH MAINTENANCE PATHFUTURE ELECTRICALCAR CHARGING AREA(5 STALLS)KHRK1" = 80'-0"LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSNORTHCONSULTANT TEAM:100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250,SAN FRANCISCO, CA400 GRAND AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTAMP :REVISION :KILROY OYSTER POINTCLIENT :PROJECT NAMENO.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYAll Rights ReservedThese drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner FieldOperations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used inconnection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared,in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner FieldOperations.DRAWING NO.DATE:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING TITLE:CHECKED: DESCRIPTION:OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CD - BULLETIN 1KEY PLAN :05.27.2020100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/16/2017JCFO50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT08/11/2017JCFO100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09/20/2017JCFO50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11/17/2017JCFO4705 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA 92869D.D.PAGANO, INC.284 VISITACION AVENUE, BRISBANE, CA 94005GREENLEE ASSOC.100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS02/12/2018JCFO3130 LA SELVA, SUITE 100, SAN MATEO, CA 64403WILSEY HAM55 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 550, OAKLAND, CA 94607 KPW STRUCTURAL300 BRANNAN ST, SUITE 212, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107HLB LIGHTING5860 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD, SUITE 15, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BELDEN ENGINEERS1100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 112/14/2018JCFO2100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 105/27/2020JCFO575 SUTTER STREET, #302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102DREYFUSS+BLACKFORDSITE REFERENCE PLANLR-1.180'40'200'SCALE: 1" = 80'-0"22222222Section / Title: Additional Information / 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)STABILIZEDAGGREGATE PAVINGKEYSYMBOLAPDESCRIPTIONASPHALT PAVINGASMATERIAL SCHEDULECOLOR / FINISHCITY STANDARDC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-3WOOD DECKWDCITY STANDARDWHITE /SALT WASHREFERENCECP-1HARDWOODDWP-1ED-1METAL EDGINGCC-1C.I.P. CONCRETE CURBCC-2C.I.P. CONCRETE CURB7/ L-7.01.11/ L-7.01.11/ L-7.01.14/ L-7.01.12/L-7.07.15/ L-7.01.13/ L-7.01.25/ L-7.01.26/ L-7.01.1C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVINGSEE CIVILDWGSAP-2LOOSE AGGREGATE PAVING(AGGREGATE MULCH)CONCRETE PAVER(VEHICULAR GRADE)CPADETECTABLE WARNINGPAVERS (@ BAY TRAIL)8/ L-7.01.1DWP-2DETECTABLE WARNINGPAVERS (@ PARKING)GLACIER WHITECHARCOALCP-2C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(VEHICULAR GRADE)COLORED EXP. AGGRE-GATE TO MATCH CP-42/ L-7.01.1/3/ L-7.01.3C.I.P. CONC. BIKE PAD(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-1ACOLOREDEXP. AGGREGATE1/ L-7.01.16/ L-7.05.2C.I.P. CONC. BIKE PAD(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-1BC.I.P. CONC. FURNISHING PAD(VEHICULAR GRADE)CP-2AC.I.P. CONC. FURNISHING PAD(VEHICULAR GRADE)CP-2BC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-41/ L-7.01.1CITY STANDARDCITY STANDARDWHITE /SALT WASHWHITE /SALT WASH2/ L-7.01.12/ L-7.01.1GREXPOSED GRAVEL TRENCHDECORATIVEROCK9/ L-7.01.12/L-7.06.11/ L-7.06.31/ L-8.111/ L-7.01.16/ L-7.05.2AP-3STABILIZED AGGREGATE PAVING(VEHICULAR GRADE)10/ L-7.01.1CC-3C.I.P. CONCRETE CURB1/ L-7.01.4C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-5WHITE /SALT WASH2/ L-7.01.4ED-2PAVING RETENTION EDGE5/ L-7.07.1CONTRACT LIMIT LINECP-1OYSTER POINT BLVD GATEWAYOYSTER POINT BLVDMARINA BLVDPHASE 1D BLDG (N.I.C.)100' BCDC JURISDICTIONASADA CURB RAMP LAYOUT AND DETAILING, TYPSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS AND UTILITIES DESIGNPACKAGEADA CURB RAMP LAYOUT ANDDETAILING, TYPSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETSAND UTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGEBEACH DROPOFFCC-1OVERLOOK DECKCP-2BCC-1CP-3ED-1ED-1BIO-RETENTION CURB LAYOUTAND DETAIL, TYP.SEE CIVIL'S PHASE ICSTREETS AND UTILITIESDESIGN PACKAGECP-2BBEACH MAINTENANCE PATHCPAASRESTROOM, WASH STATIONAND CHANGING FACILITY(S.A.D.)CP-1BDWP-1CP-2BWDCP-2ACP-2ACP-3CP-2REPLENISHED BEACHACCESSIBLE BEACH PATHSTAIRSPUMP STATION (N.I.C.)CP-2BCC-1ED-1CC-1CP-1ASAW CUT, MEET AND MATCH TOEXISTING BAY TRAILCC-3CP-5CP-1AKHRK1" = 40'-0"LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSNORTH40'20'100'SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"CONSULTANT TEAM:100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250,SAN FRANCISCO, CA400 GRAND AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTAMP :REVISION :KILROY OYSTER POINTCLIENT :PROJECT NAMENO.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYAll Rights ReservedThese drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner FieldOperations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used inconnection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared,in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner FieldOperations.DRAWING NO.DATE:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING TITLE:CHECKED: DESCRIPTION:OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CD - BULLETIN 1KEY PLAN :05.27.2020100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/16/2017JCFO50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT08/11/2017JCFO100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09/20/2017JCFO50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11/17/2017JCFO4705 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA 92869D.D.PAGANO, INC.284 VISITACION AVENUE, BRISBANE, CA 94005GREENLEE ASSOC.100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS02/12/2018JCFO3130 LA SELVA, SUITE 100, SAN MATEO, CA 64403WILSEY HAM55 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 550, OAKLAND, CA 94607 KPW STRUCTURAL300 BRANNAN ST, SUITE 212, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107HLB LIGHTING5860 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD, SUITE 15, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BELDEN ENGINEERS1100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 112/14/2018JCFO2100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 105/27/2020JCFO575 SUTTER STREET, #302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102DREYFUSS+BLACKFORDMATERIAL PLAN - BEACHL-1.01SEE SHEET L-1.02 1111222222222222122Section / Title: Additional Information / 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf CONTRACT LIMIT LINECONTRACT L IM IT L INE OYSTER POINT MARINA(EXISTING)PARKINGSEE CIVIL'S PHASE ICSTREETS AND UTILITIESDESIGN PACKAGEFUTURE OPEN SPACE / PARKFUTURE HOTEL SITE100' BCDCJURISDICTIONCC-2ED-2TEMPORARY PARKINGSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS ANDUTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGECP-1ED-1APASCC-2CC-1CC-2AP-3MARINA BLVDAPCC-2CP-2AAPED-1CP-2ACP-3CC-2ED-1CC-1AP100' BCDC JURISDICTIONMARINA DROP-OFFRAMPS AND STAIRS TO EXISTING DOCKS(N.I.C.)SEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS ANDUTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGEBIO-RETENTION CURB LAYOUTAND DETAIL, TYP.SEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETSAND UTILITIES DESIGNPACKAGERETAINING WALLSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETSAND UTILITIES DESIGNPACKAGEPUBLIC/PRIVATEMARINA RESTROOM (S.A.D.)PRIVATE MARINA RESTROOM(S.A.D.)CC-2LAWN AREAFLEXIBLEOPEN SPACEPICNIC AREAADA CURB RAMP LAYOUTAND DETAILING, TYPSEE CIVIL'S PHASE ICSTREETS AND UTILITIESDESIGN PACKAGEADA CURB RAMP LAYOUT ANDDETAILING, TYPSEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETSAND UTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGECP-2ED-1FUTURE ELECTRICALCAR CHARGING AREAS (5 STALLS)AP-2AP-2CP-2ADWP-2ED-2CP-2BCP-4CP-2BDWP-2DWP-2DWP-2CP-2ACP-2ACP-3CP-4RAMPS AND STAIRS TO EXISTING DOCKS(N.I.C.)SEE CIVIL'S PHASE IC STREETS ANDUTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGEAPPAD MOUNTED PG&ETRANSFORMER, SEEELECTRICAL DRAWINGSCONCRETE PAD, SEESTRUCTURAL DRAWINGSED-1GRED-1APC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)STABILIZEDAGGREGATE PAVINGKEYSYMBOLAPDESCRIPTIONASPHALT PAVINGASMATERIAL SCHEDULECOLOR / FINISHCITY STANDARDC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-3WOOD DECKWDCITY STANDARDWHITE /SALT WASHREFERENCECP-1HARDWOODDWP-1ED-1METAL EDGINGCC-1C.I.P. CONCRETE CURBCC-2C.I.P. CONCRETE CURB7/ L-7.01.11/ L-7.01.11/ L-7.01.14/ L-7.01.12/L-7.07.15/ L-7.01.13/ L-7.01.25/ L-7.01.26/ L-7.01.1C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVINGSEE CIVILDWGSAP-2LOOSE AGGREGATE PAVING(AGGREGATE MULCH)CONCRETE PAVER(VEHICULAR GRADE)CPADETECTABLE WARNINGPAVERS (@ BAY TRAIL)8/ L-7.01.1DWP-2DETECTABLE WARNINGPAVERS (@ PARKING)GLACIER WHITECHARCOALCP-2C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(VEHICULAR GRADE)COLORED EXP. AGGRE-GATE TO MATCH CP-42/ L-7.01.1/3/ L-7.01.3C.I.P. CONC. BIKE PAD(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-1ACOLOREDEXP. AGGREGATE1/ L-7.01.16/ L-7.05.2C.I.P. CONC. BIKE PAD(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-1BC.I.P. CONC. FURNISHING PAD(VEHICULAR GRADE)CP-2AC.I.P. CONC. FURNISHING PAD(VEHICULAR GRADE)CP-2BC.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-41/ L-7.01.1CITY STANDARDCITY STANDARDWHITE /SALT WASHWHITE /SALT WASH2/ L-7.01.12/ L-7.01.1GREXPOSED GRAVEL TRENCHDECORATIVEROCK9/ L-7.01.12/L-7.06.11/ L-7.06.31/ L-8.111/ L-7.01.16/ L-7.05.2AP-3STABILIZED AGGREGATE PAVING(VEHICULAR GRADE)10/ L-7.01.1CC-3C.I.P. CONCRETE CURB1/ L-7.01.4C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING(PEDESTRIAN GRADE)CP-5WHITE /SALT WASH2/ L-7.01.4ED-2PAVING RETENTION EDGE5/ L-7.07.1KHRK1" = 40'-0"LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONSNORTH40'20'100'SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"CONSULTANT TEAM:100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250,SAN FRANCISCO, CA400 GRAND AVENUE,SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CACITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOSTAMP :REVISION :KILROY OYSTER POINTCLIENT :PROJECT NAMENO.DATEDESCRIPTIONBYAll Rights ReservedThese drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner FieldOperations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used inconnection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared,in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner FieldOperations.DRAWING NO.DATE:SCALE:DRAWN:DRAWING TITLE:CHECKED: DESCRIPTION:OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE IC100% CD - BULLETIN 1KEY PLAN :05.27.2020100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN06/16/2017JCFO50% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT08/11/2017JCFO100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT09/20/2017JCFO50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS11/17/2017JCFO4705 EAST CHAPMAN AVENUE, ORANGE COUNTY, CA 92869D.D.PAGANO, INC.284 VISITACION AVENUE, BRISBANE, CA 94005GREENLEE ASSOC.100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS02/12/2018JCFO3130 LA SELVA, SUITE 100, SAN MATEO, CA 64403WILSEY HAM55 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 550, OAKLAND, CA 94607 KPW STRUCTURAL300 BRANNAN ST, SUITE 212, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107HLB LIGHTING5860 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD, SUITE 15, PLEASANTON, CA 94588 BELDEN ENGINEERS1100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 112/14/2018JCFO2100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - BULLETIN 105/27/2020JCFO575 SUTTER STREET, #302, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102DREYFUSS+BLACKFORDMATERIAL PLAN - MARINAWESTL-1.02SEE SHEET L-1.01 SEE SHEET L-1.03 111222222211222222222Section / Title: Additional Information / 38_Oyster Point Phase 1C.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf Section / Title: Additional Information / 210_San Mateo County Harbor District JPA 2018.pdf SBSB SB SB 165 SF PUBLIC - WOMEN 101 U 2 165 SF PUBLIC - MEN 102 U 2 100 SF EAST SHOWER 105 U 1 185 SF MARINA WEST - MEN 104 U 2185 SF MARINA WEST - WOMEN 103 U 2 100 SF WEST SHOWER 106 U 1 93 SF JANITOR 109 U 1 156 SF CITY REC STORAGE 108 S-2 1 151 SF ELECTRICAL ROOM 107 U 2 PARKING LOT - DROP OFF BAY TRAIL P U B L I C R I G H T O F W A Y PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 36' -9" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 34' -3" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 35' -3" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 36' -7" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 49' -9" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 49' -5" 212 SF MARINA EAST - WOMENS 201 U 3 212 SF MARINA EAST - MENS 202 U 3 112 SF MARINA EAST - EAST SHOWER 203 U 2 112 SF MARINA EAST - WEST SHOWER 204 U 2 BAY TRAIL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 52' -0" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 49' -1" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 26' -10" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 28' -8" 105 SF MARINA EAST - ELECTRICAL ROOM 205 U 2 58 SF BEACH - ALL GENDER RESTROOM 301 U 1 58 SF BEACH - CHANGING ROOM 302 U 1BAY TRAILPUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYEXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 16' -3" EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE = 16' -9" 49 SF BEACH - PLUMBING CHASE 303 U 1 EXIT DISCHARGE @ PUBLIC WAY EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCEXXX'-X" FIRE / LIFE SAFETY PLAN LEGEND PROPERTY LINE / PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, SXXD XXXXX ROOM NAME ROOM NUMBER AREA OCCUPANCY LOAD OCCUPANCY GROUP XXX SF XXX XX X FIRE / LIFE SAFETY PLAN NOTES OCCUPANCY UTILITY WITHOUT SPRINKLER SYSTEM 200' CBC TABLE 1017.2 EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE FUNCTION OF SPACE UTILITY OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR 100 GROSS* CBC TABLE 1004.1.2 NOTE: PER CBC TABLE 1004.1.2 OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR FOR UTILITY IS 300 GROSS BUT WE FEEL 100 GROSS IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA ALLOWANCES PER OCCUPANT STORAGE S2 300 GROSS STORAGE S2 200' Dreyfuss+ Blackford PROJECT NUMBER:PLOT DATE:KEY PLAN : STAMP : REVISION : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONS CONSULTANT TEAM: ARCHITECT: 582 MARKET ST, SUITE 1901, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104RJSD STRUCTURAL DESIGN 150 8TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103MHC ENGINEER 150 REDWOOD HIGHWAY #245, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903O'MAHONY & MYER All Rights Reserved These drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner Field Operations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner Field Operations. KILROY OYSTER POINT CLIENT : PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. DATE:SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: DESCRIPTION: 100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 400 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER 575 Sutter Street, #302 San Francisco, CA 94102-1130 T 415.366.0468 dreyfussblackford.com 9/25/2020 5:04:09 PMAs indicated G0.05 FIRE/ LIFE SAFETY PLAN 09/25/20 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS B9019.02 OYSTER POINT PARK DEVELOPMENT 1/8" = 1'-0"1 FLOOR PLAN -MARINA WEST 1/8" = 1'-0"2 FLOOR PLAN -MARINA EAST 1/8" = 1'-0"3 FLOOR PLAN -BEACH 0' 4'16'8' T R U E N O R T HPROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH LICENS E D A RC HI TECTOFSTATE C A L I F O RNIAC25102 SCOTT B. SHANNON REN. 01/31/21 S E D NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 09/06/19 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT SET 01/31/20 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 08/07/20 2 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 09/18/20 Section / Title: Additional Information / 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf PEDXINGPEDXINGPEDXINGPEDXING1 A1.01 2 A1.01 3 A1.01 MARINA WEST AND PUBLIC RESTROOMS MARINA EAST BEACH RESTROOM CONTRACT LIMIT LINECONTRACT LI MI T LI NECONTRACT LIMIT LINE C O N T R A C T L IM IT L IN E162' -9 1/2"43'-8"708' -7"183'-3"534'-11"60'-3 1/2"644'-5 1/2"7 6 '-6 1 /2 " 1 5 4 '-9 "232'-3 1/2"ACCESSIBLE PARKING MARINA DROPOFF BEACH DROPOFF A C C ES S I B L E P A R K I N G 1. OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) LIMIT OF WORK OUTSIDE OF RESTROOM LIMIT OF WORK IS NOT IN CONTRACT (NIC). 2. CONCRETE PAVING, BAY TRAIL ASPHALT PAVING, CONCRETE SUB-SLAB, AND AGGREGATE BASE WITHIN RESTROOM LIMIT OF WORK IS INCLUDED IN OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) AND IS NOT IN CONTRACT FOR THE RESTROOM DRAWING PACKAGE; SEE OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) 3. SEE OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 AND 100% PHASE 1C STREET AND UTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGE FOR UTILITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH THE RESTROOM. ALL WORK DONE ABOVE OR BELOW UTILITIES CROSSING BY OTHERS SHALL BE COMPLETED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF OWNER APPOINTED INSPECTORS. 4. SITE DEMOLITION WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK BOUNDARIES ARE PART OF A SEPARATE CONTRACT, SEE OYSTER POINT XXXX PACKAGE FOR DEMOLITION SCOPE. 5. SEE GENERAL NOTES G0.02 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SITE GRADING. 6. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BE 5% MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE WITH 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOP AND 48" IN WIDTH MINIMUM PER CBC 2019. 7. REFERENCE ELEVATION OF "0" REFER TO FOLLOWING ELEVATIONS AS PROVIDED IN OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1C DRAWING PACKAGE SHEET GRADING PLAN (L-3.10.1, L-3.10.1, AND L-3.10.3). A. MARINA WEST SITE ELEVATION:12.60' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) B. MARINA EAST SITE ELEVATION: 12.20' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) C. BEACH SITE ELEVATION: 16.83' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) D. FENCE ELEVATION:16.00' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) SITE PLAN / SECTION GENERAL NOTES LIMIT OF WORK (OFFSET 6" FOR CLARITY) SITE PLAN LEGEND 100 FT BCDC LINE TREE; REFERENCE ONLY; NIC; SEE LANDSCAPE PACKAGE Dreyfuss+ Blackford PROJECT NUMBER:PLOT DATE:KEY PLAN : STAMP : REVISION : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONS CONSULTANT TEAM: ARCHITECT: 582 MARKET ST, SUITE 1901, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104RJSD STRUCTURAL DESIGN 150 8TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103MHC ENGINEER 150 REDWOOD HIGHWAY #245, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903O'MAHONY & MYER All Rights Reserved These drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner Field Operations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner Field Operations. KILROY OYSTER POINT CLIENT : PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. DATE:SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: DESCRIPTION: 100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 400 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER 575 Sutter Street, #302 San Francisco, CA 94102-1130 T 415.366.0468 dreyfussblackford.com 9/25/2020 5:02:09 PMAs indicated A1.00 SITE & LIMIT OF WORK PLAN 09/25/20 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS B9019.02 OYSTER POINT PARK DEVELOPMENT TRUE NORTH 0'32'128'64'LICENS E D A RC HI TECTOFSTATE C A L I F O RNIAC25102 SCOTT B. SHANNON REN. 01/31/21 S E D NO. DESCRIPTION DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/01/19 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 09/06/19 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT SET 01/31/20 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 08/07/20 2 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 09/18/20 Section / Title: Additional Information / 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0"SALT MARSH LIMITS (+7.8)BCDC 100' SHORELINE JURISDICTION 6.2 (MHW) 6.8 (MHHW) 11.0 (BFE) **13 (2050 BFE + SLR) **16.5 (2050 BFE + SLR) 0' -0" MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0"SALT MARSH LIMITS (+7.8)BCDC 100' SHORELINE JURISDICTION 6.2 (MHW) 6.8 (MHHW) 11.0 (BFE) **13 (2050 BFE + SLR) **16.5 (2050 BFE + SLR) 0' -0" BEACH REF. LEVEL 16' - 9 3/4"SALT MARSH LIMITS (+7.8)BCDC 100' SHORELINE JURISDICTION 6.2 (MHW) 6.8 (MHHW) 11.0 (BFE) **13 (2050 BFE + SLR) **16.5 (2050 BFE + SLR) 0' -0" 1. OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) LIMIT OF WORK OUTSIDE OF RESTROOM LIMIT OF WORK IS NOT IN CONTRACT (NIC). 2. CONCRETE PAVING, BAY TRAIL ASPHALT PAVING, CONCRETE SUB-SLAB, AND AGGREGATE BASE WITHIN RESTROOM LIMIT OF WORK IS INCLUDED IN OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) AND IS NOT IN CONTRACT FOR THE RESTROOM DRAWING PACKAGE; SEE OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) 3. SEE OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1 AND 100% PHASE 1C STREET AND UTILITIES DESIGN PACKAGE FOR UTILITIES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT REQUIRE COORDINATION WITH THE RESTROOM. ALL WORK DONE ABOVE OR BELOW UTILITIES CROSSING BY OTHERS SHALL BE COMPLETED UNDER THE INSPECTION OF OWNER APPOINTED INSPECTORS. 4. SITE DEMOLITION WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK BOUNDARIES ARE PART OF A SEPARATE CONTRACT, SEE OYSTER POINT XXXX PACKAGE FOR DEMOLITION SCOPE. 5. SEE GENERAL NOTES G0.02 FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SITE GRADING. 6. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BE 5% MAXIMUM RUNNING SLOPE WITH 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOP AND 48" IN WIDTH MINIMUM PER CBC 2019. 7. REFERENCE ELEVATION OF "0" REFER TO FOLLOWING ELEVATIONS AS PROVIDED IN OYSTER POINT DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1C DRAWING PACKAGE SHEET GRADING PLAN (L-3.10.1, L-3.10.1, AND L-3.10.3). A. MARINA WEST SITE ELEVATION:12.60' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) B. MARINA EAST SITE ELEVATION: 12.20' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) C. BEACH SITE ELEVATION: 16.83' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) D. FENCE ELEVATION:16.00' (TO BE CONFIRMED BY JCFO) SITE PLAN / SECTION GENERAL NOTES Dreyfuss+ Blackford PROJECT NUMBER:PLOT DATE:KEY PLAN : STAMP : REVISION : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONS CONSULTANT TEAM: ARCHITECT: 582 MARKET ST, SUITE 1901, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104RJSD STRUCTURAL DESIGN 150 8TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103MHC ENGINEER 150 REDWOOD HIGHWAY #245, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903O'MAHONY & MYER All Rights Reserved These drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner Field Operations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner Field Operations. KILROY OYSTER POINT CLIENT : PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. DATE:SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: DESCRIPTION: 100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 400 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER 575 Sutter Street, #302 San Francisco, CA 94102-1130 T 415.366.0468 dreyfussblackford.com 9/25/2020 5:02:11 PMAs indicated A1.01 SITE SECTIONS 09/25/20 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS B9019.02 OYSTER POINT PARK DEVELOPMENT 1/16" = 1'-0"1 SITE SECTION -HD WEST -OPTION 2.1 1/16" = 1'-0"2 SITE SECTION -HD EAST -OPTION 2.1 1/16" = 1'-0"3 SITE SECTION -BEACH -OPTION 2.1 0' 8'32'16'LICENS E D A RC HI TECTOFSTATE C A L I F O RNIAC25102 SCOTT B. SHANNON REN. 01/31/21 S E D NO. DESCRIPTION DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/01/19 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 09/06/19 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT SET 01/31/20 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 08/07/20 2 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 09/18/20 Section / Title: Additional Information / 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf SBSB SB SB B C E A D F 654321 C1 A3.00/ 1A3.00/ 2A3.00/ 3A3.00/ 4 1 A4.00 2 A4.00 12'-11 1/2"7'-10 1/4"5'-8 1/2"7'-10 1/4"12'-11 1/2"5'-9"11'-9"6'-2"14'-2 1/4"9'-5 3/4"47'-4" ROLL DOWN ACCESS DOOR A3.103A3.10 5 A3.10 12 A3.1015A3.10 17 4 2 11 9 8 6 16 13 14 20 19 18 PUBLIC - WOMEN 101 PUBLIC - MEN 102 EAST SHOWER 105 MARINA WEST - MEN 104 MARINA WEST - WOMEN 103 WEST SHOWER 106 JANITOR 109 CITY REC STORAGE 108 ELECTRICAL ROOM 107 MARINA WEST - WEST CHASE 112 MARINA WEST - EAST CHASE 111 MARINA WEST - PLUMBING CHASE 110 MARINA WEST - EAST CHASE 111 MARINA WEST - WEST CHASE 112 1091101071 0 4101 102108 1 0 6 105103 B6B4B5B4 B4B4B2 B1 B1 A 2 A2A2A2 A2B2B5B6 B3 B1 A4B1B1A4A2 B 3 B1 A 2 A1 100A100B100C1 A5.00 1 A5.01108A B6DRINKING FOUNTAIN, NIC. SEE LANDSCAPE PACKAGE EXTENT OF SLAB, TYP.B1B13'-0 1/4"6'-2"2 A5.00 3 A5.00 2 A5.01 08 A9.01 3 A5.01 A7.51 10 7'-10 1/4"5'-8 1/2"7'-10 1/4" 07 A9.01 BAY TRAIL B7B7 A3.10 1 A3.10 7 A3.10 10 9 A9.01 1'-6" 30X48 CLEARANCE PARALLEL APPROACH 1. REFER TO SHEET A7.10 FOR PARTITION TYPES, GRAPHIC AND SYMBOLIC DESIGNATIONS, NOTES, AND DETAILS. 2. REFER TO SHEET G0.03 AND G0.04 FOR TOILET ACCESSORY MOUNTING DIAGRAMS. 3. REFER TO SHEET G0.03 FOR TYPICAL SHOWER AND TUB DETAILS. 4. REFER TO SHEET A7.00 FOR DOOR INFORMATION, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS. 5. REFER TO SHEET A10.00 FOR FINISH INFORMATION AND SCHEDULES. 6. REFER TO SHEET A9.11 FOR LOUVER INFORMATION, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS. 7. REFER TO SHEET A9.11 FOR INTERIOR EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS. 8. REFER TO SHEET A3.00 - A3.02 FOR EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF EXTERIOR FINISH, U.N.O. 10. SEE JAMES CORNER DRAWING FOR GRADES OUTSIDE OF THE RESTROOM FOOTPRINT. ANY GRADES SHOWN OUTSIDE OF RESTROOMS FOOTPRINT ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. 11. MARINA WEST PLAZA, LANDSCAPE AND PLANTED AREA, NIC SXXD. 12. ALL PUBLIC ACCESS AREAS TO BE ADA ACCESSIBLE. 13. DRAINAGE & RETENTION OUTSIDE RESTROOM, NIC, SXXD FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES KEYNOTE TAGFLOOR DRAIN, SPDFD DOOR TAG, SEE A7.00 DOOR SCHEDULE WALL TYPE. SEE A7.00 PARTITION TYPES 100X X.X FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 100 FOOT BCDC LINE Dreyfuss+ Blackford PROJECT NUMBER:PLOT DATE:KEY PLAN : STAMP : REVISION : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONS CONSULTANT TEAM: ARCHITECT: 582 MARKET ST, SUITE 1901, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104RJSD STRUCTURAL DESIGN 150 8TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103MHC ENGINEER 150 REDWOOD HIGHWAY #245, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903O'MAHONY & MYER All Rights Reserved These drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner Field Operations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner Field Operations. KILROY OYSTER POINT CLIENT : PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. DATE:SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: DESCRIPTION: 100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 400 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER 575 Sutter Street, #302 San Francisco, CA 94102-1130 T 415.366.0468 dreyfussblackford.com 9/25/2020 5:02:14 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A2.00 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN -MARINA WEST 09/25/20 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS B9019.02 OYSTER POINT PARK DEVELOPMENT T R U E N O R T H 0' 2'8'4'LICENS E D A RC HI TECTOFSTATE C A L I F O RNIAC25102 SCOTT B. SHANNON REN. 01/31/21 S E D 1 1 1 NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 09/06/19 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT SET 01/31/20 1 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 07/10/20 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 08/07/20 2 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 09/18/20 Section / Title: Additional Information / 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf 1. SEE A7.10 FOR PARTITION TYPES, GRAPHIC AND SYMBOLIC DESIGNATIONS, NOTES, AND DETAILS. 2. SEE G0.03 - G0.04 FOR TYPICAL TOILET ACCESSORY MOUNTING DIAGRAMS. 3. SEE A7.00 FOR DOOR INFORMATION, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS. 4. SEE A10.00 FOR FINISH INFORMATION AND SCHEDULES. 5. SEE A7.00 FOR LOUVER INFORMATION, SCHEDULES AND DETAILS. 6. SEE A9.11 FOR INTERIOR EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS. 7. ALL EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF EXTERIOR FINISH, U.N.O. 8. ELEVATION 0' - 0" REFER TO FINISH SURFACE. SEE GRADING PLAN FROM OYSTER POINT 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS - ADDENDUM 1, DATED DECEMBER 14, 2018 (LANDSCAPE PACKAGE) FOR SPOT ELEVATIONS FOR ALL RESTROOM LOCATIONS. 9. SEE G0.04 FOR TACTILE & GEOMETRIC SIGNAGE. 10. PROVIDE ALL LAVATORY P-TRAP, HOT/COLD WATER SUPPLY WITH PROTECTIVE DEVICE. 11. ALL LOUVERS ON DOORS TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH DOOR FINISHES. 12. ROOF VENT TO BE PROVIDED BY PM-1 ELEVATIONS / SECTIONS GENERAL NOTES MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0" HSS COLUMNS BEHIND METAL SCREEN MESH, SSD. GALVANIZED TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING, TYP. EXT-1 RF-1 SCRN-1 EXT-2 0' -0" METAL FASCIA, SEE SPEC 07 62 00, TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING TYP.. MATCH STANDING SEAM ROOF FINISH BATTERED TEXTURE CAST-IN- PLACE CONCRETE, TEXTURE FORMLINER (SEE 03 30 00 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE) ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING SMOOTH FINISH CONCRETE AT VESTIBULE W/ ANTI- GRAFFITI COATING CONTROL JOINT; SSD A7.51 5 Sim POWDER COAT MATTE FINISH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH, MARINE GRADE PM-1 MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF METAL FASCIA, SEE SPEC 07 62 00, TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING TYP.; MATCH STANDING SEAM ROOF FINISH HSS COLUMNS BEHIND METAL SCREEN MESH, SSD. GALVANIZED TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING, TYP. ROOF VENT, TYP. PER PLUMBING DRAWINGS EXT-2 EXT-1 SCRN-1 RF-1 0' -0" CONTROL JOINT, TYP; SSD BATTERED TEXTURE CAST- IN-PLACE CONCRETE, TEXTURE FORMLINER (SEE 03 30 00 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE) ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING SMOOTH CONCRETE AT VESTIBULE W/ ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING POWDER COAT MATTE FINISH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH, MARINE GRADE PM-1 MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0" HSS COLUMNS BEHIND METAL SCREEN MESH, SSD. GALVANIZED TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING, TYP. EXT-1 SCRN-1 RF-1 EXT-2 0' -0" BATTERED TEXTURE CAST- IN-PLACE CONCRETE, TEXTURE FORMLINER (SEE 03 30 00 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE) ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING METAL FASCIA, SEE SPEC 07 62 00, TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING; MATCH STANDING SEAM ROOF FINISH SMOOTH FINISH CONCRETE AT VESTIBULE W/ ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING POWDER COAT MATTE FINISH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH, MARINE GRADE CONTROL JOINT, SSD MARINA REF. LEVEL 12' - 0" COUNTER DOOR, COILING STAINLESS STEEL W/ PROTECTIVE COATING SMOOTH CONCRETE AT VESTIBULE W/ ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING BATTERED TEXTURE CAST- IN-PLACE CONCRETE, TEXTURE FORMLINER (SEE 03 30 00 ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE) ANTI-GRAFFITI COATING POWDER COAT MATTE FINISH STAINLESS STEEL SCREEN MESH, MARINE GRADE METAL FASCIA, SEE SPEC 07 62 00, TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING; MATCH STANDING SEAM ROOF FINISH HSS COLUMNS BEHIND METAL SCREEN MESH, SSD. GALVANIZED TNEMEC PROTECTIVE COATING, TYP. EXT-1 EXT-2 RF-1 SCRN-1 0' -0" CONSTRUCTION JOINT, TYP.; SSD Dreyfuss+ Blackford PROJECT NUMBER:PLOT DATE:KEY PLAN : STAMP : REVISION : LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: 633 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 118, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 JAMES CORNER FIELD OPERATIONS CONSULTANT TEAM: ARCHITECT: 582 MARKET ST, SUITE 1901, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104RJSD STRUCTURAL DESIGN 150 8TH STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103MHC ENGINEER 150 REDWOOD HIGHWAY #245, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903O'MAHONY & MYER All Rights Reserved These drawing, concepts, designs and ideas are the property of James Corner Field Operations. They may not be copied, reproduced, disclosed to others or used in connection with any work other than the specified project for which they were prepared, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of James Corner Field Operations. KILROY OYSTER POINT CLIENT : PROJECT NAME DRAWING NO. DATE:SCALE: DRAWING TITLE: DESCRIPTION: 100 FIRST STREET SUITE 250, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 400 GRAND AVENUE, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINAL OR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT/ENGINEER 575 Sutter Street, #302 San Francisco, CA 94102-1130 T 415.366.0468 dreyfussblackford.com 9/25/2020 5:02:42 PM1/4" = 1'-0" A3.00 BUILDING ELEVATIONS -MARINA WEST 09/25/20 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS B9019.02 OYSTER POINT PARK DEVELOPMENT 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MARINA WEST -EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MARINA WEST -SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 MARINA WEST -WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 MARINA WEST -NORTH ELEVATION 0' 2'8'4' HEAVY SAND BLASTED TEXTURE CONCRETE (FORMLINER) EXT -1 EXT -2 SCRN -1 RF -1 SMOOTH FINISH CONCRETE TARTAN SCREEN MESH STAINLESS STEEL (POWDER COAT TO MATCH ROOF) (CAMBRIDGE ARCHITECTURAL) INVARIMATTE (DULL BEAD BLAST) STAINLESS STEEL (BEMO)LICENS E D A RC HI TECTOFSTATE C A L I F O RNIAC25102 SCOTT B. SHANNON REN. 01/31/21 S E D 1 1 1 1 1 NO. DESCRIPTION DATE SCHEMATIC DESIGN 03/01/19 100% DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SET 09/06/19 90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PERMIT SET 01/31/20 1 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 07/10/20 100% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 08/07/20 2 SECOND PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 09/18/20 PM -1 PERFORATED METAL, STAINLESS STEEL, TYPE 316L. SEE SPEC 07 62 00 FOR DETAILS Section / Title: Additional Information / 192_SSF Oyster Point Restroom West - Plans.pdf City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-110 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:9a. Resolution authorizing the filing of a grant application for the State of California Division of Boating and Waterways Boat Launching Facilities Grant program in an amount not to exceed $884,000. WHEREAS, the landside portions of Oyster Point Marina within the West Basin, which includes the lands between the Harbor Master’s Office and Oyster Point Boulevard, are currently undergoing significant transformations as part of an endeavor by the City of South San Francisco and real estate developer, Kilroy Realty Corporation; and WHEREAS, the project includes the construction of office/research and development buildings and an adjoining parking structure, new road alignments and streetscape, utilities, a crescent beach at Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, a future hotel site, Bay Trail improvements, a waterfront park, and a new open space parcel; and WHEREAS, as part of the landscape package, three restroom buildings are also envisioned, which include one public restroom facility and wash down area at the crescent beach, one shared restroom facility with restrooms for park users, and restrooms and showers specifically for marina tenants, and one restroom entirely dedicated to marina tenants; and WHEREAS, to offset costs associated with the restroom construction project, staff has applied for $884,000 in additional grant funding, which would fund the difference between the engineer’s estimate ($3,214,000) and the lowest responsible bid ($4,098,000); and WHEREAS, with assistance from Townshend Associates, the application was filed on February 1, 2021, however, staff is required to bring forth a resolution to the City Council during the month of February to seek City Council authorization to file the application; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has the authority to construct, operate, and maintain the Oyster Point Marina restrooms. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco authorizes the City Manager or his designee to file and sign the Boat Launching Facilities Grant application with the Division of Boating and Waterways. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2021Page 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 #:21-71 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:10. Report regarding adoption of a resolution accepting $250,000 from Fairfield Residential as prepayment for the Industrial Area Community Facilities District.(Christina Fernandez,Assistant to the City Manager and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting $250,000 in prepayment from Fairfield Residential for the Industrial Area Community Facilities District. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION Fairfield Residential is moving forward with development of a multifamily residential project at 200-214 Airport Boulevard.Condition #39 of the Conditions of Approval (Council Resolution No.100-2019)requires Fairfield to participate in the South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District (IA-CFD). Fairfield has agreed to prepay their IA-CFD obligation in an amount totaling $500,000. Per Condition #39,the Applicant agrees to participate in the yet to be formed South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District (IA-CFD)at an annual tax rate of no more than $0.25 per gross project square foot on the 200-214 Airport Boulevard Property.In the event an IA-CFD is not formed,Applicant agrees to contribute the equivalent of an annual community benefit fee of no more than $0.25 per gross project square foot on the 200-214 Airport Boulevard property for a term of 30 years.Such payment can be made on an annual basis or be pre-paid as mutually agreed upon by the Applicant and the City of South San Francisco. In accordance with the payment instructions contained in the attached Discharge Approval Statement, Fairfield’s payment will be made in two installments-one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of building permits and one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Project.Fairfield’s obligations referenced herein will be satisfied and discharged upon payment of the final installment. FISCAL IMPACT Prepayment of the first installation of the IA-CFD in the amount of $250,000 improves the City’s ability to improve and expand the City’s transportation capital needs. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Industrial Area Community Facilities District meets the strategic plan goals of building and maintaining a sustainable city with a full range of multi-modal transportation projects. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the first installment of prepayment from Fairfield Residential for the Industrial Area Community Facilities District in the amount of $250,000. Fairfield’s payment will be made in two installments,one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of building City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-71 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:10. permits and one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. Attachment: 1.Discharge Approval Statement City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 CITY COUNCIL 2020 RICHARD GARBARINO, MAYOR MARK ADDIEGO, VICE MAYOR KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER MARK NAGALES, COUNCILMEMBER BUENAFLOR NICOLAS, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER LIZA NORMANDY, COUNCILMEMBER MIKE FUTRELL, CITY MANAGER OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 400 Grand Avenue South San Francisco, CA 94080 Phone: (650) 877-8500 Fax: (650) 829-6609 December 1, 2020 Via Email Brendan Hayes Senior Vice President Fairfield Residential bhayes@ffres.com Re: Certification of Fairfield 200 Airport LP Satisfaction of Condition of Approval and Community Benefit Obligation Upon Full Payment Dear Mr. Hayes: This letter certifies that upon Fairfield 200 Airport LP’s (“Fairfield”) payment of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to the City of South San Francisco (“City”), Fairfield will have fully satisfied its obligations pursuant to Condition #391 of the Conditions of Approval Council Resolution No. 100-2019 approving Fairfield’s multifamily residential project at 200-214 Airport Boulevard in the City (“Project”) and Fairfield’s obligations under Section 3.1(4) of the Community Benefits Agreement between the City and Fairfield. In accordance with the payment instructions contained in the attached Discharge Approval Statement, Fairfield’s payment will be made in two installments—one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of building permits and one $250,000 payment prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for the Project. Fairfield’s obligations referenced herein will be satisfied and discharged upon payment of the final installment. 1 Condition #39: Applicant agrees to participate in the yet to be formed South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District (IA-CFD) at an annual tax rate of no more than $0.25 per gross project square foot on the 200-214 Airport Boulevard Property. In the event an IA-CFD is not formed, Applicant agrees to contribute the equivalent of an annual community benefit fee of no more than $0.25 per gross project square foot on the 200-214 Airport Boulevard property for a term of 30 years. Such payment can be made on an annual basis or be pre-paid as mutually agreed upon by the Applicant and the City of South San Francisco. Page 2 of 2 Subject: Certification of Fairfield 200 Airport LP Satisfaction of Condition of Approval and Community Benefit Obligation Upon Full Payment 400 GRAND AVENUE  P.O. BOX 711  SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94083 Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mike Futrell, City Manager City of South San Francisco CC: Tony Rozzi, Acting Chief Planner Alex Greenwood, CED Director ATTACHMENT—Discharge Approval Statement 3636063.1 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-72 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:10a. Resolution accepting Fairfield 200 Airport LP’s prepayment of $250,000 to partially satisfy its obligations associated with the East of 101 Community Facility District in connection with its development of a mixed-use multifamily residential project at 200 Airport Boulevard. WHEREAS,Fairfield 200 Airport LP (“Developer”)is constructing a new mixed-use multifamily residential project at 200 Airport (“Project”); and WHEREAS,pursuant to Condition #39 of the Conditions of Approval for Resolution No.100-2019 approving the Project and Section 3.1(4)of the Community Benefits Agreement between the City of South San Francisco (“City”)and Developer,Developer agreed to participate in the yet to be formed South San Francisco Industrial Area Community Facilities District (“East of 101 Community Facility District”)at an annual tax rate of no more than $0.25 per gross Project square feet or in the event that the East of 101 Community Facility District is not formed,Developer agreed to contribute the equivalent of an annual community benefit fee of no more than $0.25 per gross Project square feet for a term of thirty (30) years; and WHEREAS,Condition #39 and the Community Benefits Agreement provides that Developer’s payments can be made on an annual or pre-paid basis as mutually agreed upon by the parties; and WHEREAS,the Developer and City have agreed that upon payment of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)made in two installments,Developer will have fully satisfied its obligations pursuant to Condition #39 and Section 3.1(4); and WHEREAS,the Developer has made its initial payment of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) prior to issuance of building permits for the Project and this resolution serves to accept that initial payment on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS,the Developer will make its second installment payment of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project and that payment will be accepted by a subsequent resolution of the City Council. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby takes the following actions: 1.Accepts the Developer’s initial prepayment of $250,000 to partially satisfy its obligations associated with the East of 101 Community Facility District in connection with its development of a mixed-use multifamily residential project at 200 Airport Boulevard. 2.Authorizes the City Manager to take any action and execute any documents necessary for the City’s City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-72 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:10a. acceptance of the Developer’s prepayment consistent with the intent of this resolution. ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 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 #:21-69 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:11. Staff report regarding a resolution approving the filing of a grant application in a total amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2022-2023.(Jacob Gilchrist, Capital Project Director) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the filing of a grant application not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program is funded through the California Drought,Water,Parks,Climate,Coastal Protection,and Outdoor Access For All Act of 2018 (Proposition 68)which passed on June 5,2018.Among its provisions,the bond authorized the Legislature to appropriate $650,275,000 for the creation,expansion,and/or renovation of parks in underserved communities across California. The City’s Community Civic Campus Project meets the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program goals by creating a new park in an area that currently has a critical lack of open space as defined by the California State Parks Community Fact Finder.The State of California defines critical lack of open space as less than 3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents.Based on the State of California’s Community Fact Finder,the Community Civic Campus site is currently at a ratio of 1.54 acres per 1,000 residents within a half mile radius of the project. In August 2019 Council approved a resolution regarding an application in the previous grant cycle. Unfortunately,the Community Civic Campus Project was not awarded funding in the previous round.However, State Parks staff provided feedback and encouraged the City to re-apply.This grant application will target the specific park amenities that are both eligible for funding and will be the most competitive based on the Grant Project Selection Criteria.Staff is currently developing the grant application in coordination with Townsend Public Affairs. Applications for the current round of funding are due March 12,2021.It is a requirement of the grant application that the Governing Body of the project provide an Authorizing Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT This item has no current impact on the City Budget.The project budget for construction will be formally approved by City Council through the regular budget approval process. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The item before you supports the Quality of Life priority area by helping to fund the new Community Civic City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-69 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:11. Campus. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the filing of a grant application not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. Attachments: 1.Community Civic Campus Park Playground Plan City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ S""5'5'0'10'020'SCALE:SCALCALE: 3/16" 3/1 = 1'- = 10"0"SCALE:CALE:3/16"3/16"= 1'-= 1'-0"0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE:SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCASCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3/16"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"= 1'-SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"0"TRUE NORTHHHHUE NORTHE NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHE NORTHTRUE UE TRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHE NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHENORTHUE E NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHENORTHUE E NORTHTRUE NORTHTRUE NORTHENORTHHPROJECT NORTHRJECT NORTORORTHCT NORTHRTHPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHCT NPROJECT NORTHORPROJECT NORTHRTHPROJECJECPROJECT NORTHRTPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NPROJECT NORTHORPROJECT NORTHRTHCT NORTHRTPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHCT NPROJECT NORTHORPROJECT NORTHRTHJECCT NORTHRTPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHCT NPROJECT NORTHORPROJECT NORTHRTHJECCT NORTHRTPROJECT NORTHPROJECT NORTHCT NPROJECT NORTHORPROJECT NORTHRTH5'5'5'5'5'5'5'0'0'0'0'0'0'10'10'10'10'10'10'2020'20'20'20'2020'0'PLAYGROUND PLANPLAY STRUCTURE5-12 BELT SWINGSGROUP SWINGBUCKET SWINGSSHADE STRUCTURESHADE STRUCTUREGROUP SPINNERPLAY STRUCTURE 2-5CLIMBERGROUP SEESAWLOG CRAWL TUNNELLOG STEPPERSWOODEN BRIDGEPLAY HOUSEPLAY STRUCTURE 5-12 YRS WOODEN BRIDGEBUCKET SWINGS AND BELT SWINGSGROUP SEESAW 2-5 YRS GROUP SWING 5-12 YRS LOG STEPPERS 2-5 YRS PLAY STRUCTURE 2-5 YRSGROUP SPINNER 2-5 YRSLOG CRAWL TUNNEL 2-5 YRSPLAY HOUSE 6-23 MONTHSCLIMBER 2-5 YRS South San Francisco : Community Civic Campus Playground APRIL 21, 2020 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-70 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:11a. Resolution approving the filing of a grant application in a total amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for State of California Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program grant funds for park construction at the Community Civic Campus in Fiscal Year 2022-2023. WHEREAS,the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures governing the application; and WHEREAS,said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the application before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS,successful Applicants will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the Grant Scope project. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby approves the filing of an application for the Community Civic Campus; and 1.Certifies that said Applicant has or will have available,prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, sufficient funds to complete the project; and 2.Certifies that if the project is awarded,the Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project, and 3.Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed,understands,and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide; and 4.Delegates the authority to the City Manager,or designee,as agent to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents,including,but not limited to applications,agreements,amendments,and payment requests,which may be necessary for the completion of the Grant Scope of the aforementioned project; and 5.Agrees to comply with all applicable federal,state and local laws,ordinances,rules,regulations and guidelines; and 6.Will consider promoting inclusion per Public Resources Code §80001(b)(8 A-G). ***** City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 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 #:21-145 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12. 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. 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 Construction City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-145 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12. 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.At the time of drafting this report,this portion of the work is largely complete.The next phase of work will focus on clearing the Iris Trail of any hazardous trees.In each of these areas,the trees 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. 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.The status of the trails on Sign Hill will be regularly updated on the City’s webpage under the Sign Hill link for residents to access closure information. 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. 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. Acacia Environmental Construction has completed the erosion control work.Straw wattle and check dam installation was completed prior to the rain event during the week of January 25,2021.Hydro-seeding,and all other erosion control work was completed in mid-February. 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. As required by Public Contract Code section 22050(c)(1), this emergency tree removal and erosion control City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-145 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12. project will continue to 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. Section 22050 requires the City Council determine the continuance of the emergency by “a four-fifths vote.” 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 2/19/2021Page 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 #:21-146 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12a. 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 remain in a precarious and dangerous condition for the public and additional City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/7/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-146 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12a. WHEREAS,the dead trees remain in a precarious and dangerous condition for the public 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 4/7/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-146 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:12a. described in this resolution and the City Manager to execute such contracts on behalf of the City,as approved to 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 4/7/2021Page 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 #:20-848 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13. Report regarding an update on the SSF PUC Housing Partners project and a resolution accepting the dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.owned property located on El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210)to the City of South San Francisco for a public purpose.(Nell Selander, Economic and Community Development Deputy Director) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1.Receive an update on the project made on the SSF PUC Housing Partners project; and 2.Adopt a resolution accepting a dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc.owned property,located on El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210),to the City of South San Francisco. BACKGROUND At the December 11,2019 City Council Meeting,the City Council of South San Francisco (Council)approved the entitlements for a mixed-use development on a vacant 5.9-acre site,known generally as the “PUC Site”. Council also approved a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA),which includes the sale price of $5.5 million for disposition of the property,as well as a Development Agreement (DA).The development partner and buyer, SSF PUC Housing Partners (then known as AGI/KASA and now known as L37/KASA)was selected by Council through an extensive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, in summer 2018. The project represents an opportunity for the City to achieve its long-standing General Plan and El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan planning goals for the area,and to comply with the State policies and regulations that require the site to be developed into high-density housing consistent with adopted zoning.Therefore,the approved entitlements include the following: ·800 residential units,of which 158 units will be affordable to households earning approximately 30%- 80% of the San Mateo County’s Area Median Income (AMI). ·An 8,307 sq. ft. childcare center that can accommodate 70-110 children. ·A 12,992 sq. ft. “market hall” that will provide incubator space for local retail and maker businesses. ·879 parking spaces (with capacity to add 25 additional spaces, if needed). ·Approximately 1 acre of publically accessible open space that includes:a 38,850 sq.ft.public courtyard,improvements to Centennial Trail,a pedestrian bridge connecting the Kaiser property to Centennial Trail and pedestrian trail connecting Mission Road to Centennial Trail,a series of linked open spaces (e.g.,children’s play area,sculpture lawn,adult fitness stations,etc.)that link into Centennial Trail, a picnic area, and a small plaza connected to the Market Hall. ·Construction of Oak Avenue Extension Concept with pedestrian and bicycle access to El Camino Real. ·A Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Plan that requires 35%use of alternative transportation modes (e.g., transit, carpooling, etc.) during peak periods. ·A parking monitoring and management plan to ensure parking compliance. ·Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle improvements. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-848 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13. Once the City approved the entitlements,staff sought approval of the purchase price from the County-wide San Mateo County Oversight Board,in February 2020.The purchase price was accepted and the City of South San Francisco (City)and developer opened escrow.Both the City and developer have been working towards completing the escrow obligations. This report is intended to:(a)provide an update on current progress by the developer on the project,and (b) request that the City Council accept the dedication of a small parcel of land (approximately 15,464 square feet fronting El Camino Real),which currently is owned by Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc.,and which is necessary to complete the development of the project’s approved site plan. Developer & City Obligations The key obligations outlined in the PSA and DA and the progress made on these items is outlined below.The developer has also provided the City with a memorandum regarding progress to date,which is included as Attachment 1. Third Party approvals/rights and Permits/Right of Entry for Oak Ave Phase 1 and Off-Site Improvements.The City is required to gain access (either through easements or acquisitions)to any land needed for the project’s off -site improvements (such as to Centennial Way)or Oak Avenue Phase 1 (including the vehicular connection from Mission Road to Antoinette Lane and the bicycle and pedestrian connection up to El Camino Real).The developer is responsible for funding up to $500,000 for these acquisitions,as well as obtaining any permits needed to build on this additional land.The City and developer have made progress on some aspects of the third party approvals and rights of entry, including the subject of this report - acceptance of the Kaiser parcel. Collaboration with the City’s Civic Campus team.The developer has worked diligently with the City’s team on complicated technical aspects relating to the two projects.Coordination on various items (such as the alignment of Oak Avenue) are ongoing. Buyer’s approval of Preliminary Title Report.The developer has objected to two items relating to easements on the Title Report.Resolution of these issues requires extensive coordination with their surveyor and the relevant owners of the easements but the developer is likely to resolve these soon. FEMA removal of Property from 100 year Floodplain.The developer has been working with FEMA consultants and City Engineering staff to remove both the SSF PUC parcels and the Civic Campus Police Station parcel from the FEMA floodplain. Affordable Housing Agreement.This has been completed and includes the $2 million City loan that was approved by Council at the December 11, 2020 City Council meeting. Environmental Remediation Approvals. Have not yet commenced. Project Permits ready to issue.Construction drawings have not yet been submitted for permits.The developer is working towards completing these and anticipates submitting in spring 2022. Buyer to secure financing commitments and Construction Loan close.As outlined in their update memo (see attachment)the economic impacts caused by the effects of COVID-19 has slowed overall market rate and commercial development as equity partners have begun to protect their capital in this time of uncertainty. Securing financing will take a little longer than expected since the developer and financing partners are waiting City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-848 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13. Securing financing will take a little longer than expected since the developer and financing partners are waiting for more market certainty. Force Majeure Delay As mentioned above,the effects of COVID-19 has slowed the development of market-rate and commercial development.Almost all the developers that the City has agreements with have invoked their force majeure delay in the past year.For most developers this has required an extension to the close of escrow.SSF PUC Housing partners are requesting a similar extension, which can be approved administratively per the DA/PSA. It should be noted that the conveyance of the property cannot extend beyond December 31,2022 due to the recently amended State Surplus Land Act (SLA).If the property is not conveyed by this deadline,the property would then be subject to the Surplus Land Act,requiring the City to terminate the agreement with the developer,adopt a resolution declaring the property as surplus land,and then offering it for sale first to affordable housing providers, other government agencies, and parks and conservation organizations. City staff and the developer are working closely together to ensure that the December 31,2022 deadline is met despite the force majeure delay. DISCUSSION As noted above,the City is required -as part of the DA and PSA for the PUC project -to gain access to land needed for off-site improvements and Oak Avenue Phase 1.The acquisition of the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.(“Kaiser”)parcel,the subject of the associated resolution,is a key component in the Oak Avenue Phase 1 improvements.Over the past two years,City staff has been working with Kaiser staff to facilitate this land donation. Kaiser is willing to irrevocably dedicate a 15,464 square feet portion of their property (“Subject Site”),located on El Camino Real,to the City of South San Francisco (“City”)for use in the future Oak Avenue extension,see Attachment 2.The Subject Site is defined more precisely in the land survey included as part of Exhibit A to the associated resolution. Oak Avenue Extension Concept The City and the developer L37 are pursuing the development of a phased coordination for the construction of the Oak Avenue Extension.In Phase I and constructed as part of the initial project,Oak Avenue extends over Colma Creek,connects to Antoinette Lane and terminates into a shared street with a wide staircase and accessible switchback path that traverses up the bank to El Camino Real.The improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation of the site would integrate connections between the new housing,commercial zones,the new Community Civic Campus,SSF BART and Orange Memorial Park to the south.Phase II,with preliminary designs included in the plan set,would construct a complete road linking El Camino Real with Oak Avenue through the PUC Site but is not proposed for initial construction.The dedication of the subject property proposed by Kaiser would facilitate the Oak Avenue Extension project. California Government Code §65402 requires that,as a precondition to any acquisition of real property by dedication,the City’s Planning Commission must make a determination that the location,purpose and extent of the proposed disposition is in conformity with the City’s General Plan. General Plan Designation In 2011,the City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,which establishes general plan designations,zoning standards,permissible uses,and design standards for the area,including the Kaiser City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 3 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-848 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13. designations,zoning standards,permissible uses,and design standards for the area,including the Kaiser Medical Center.The South San Francisco General Plan classifies the southern portion of the Kaiser site as El Camino Real,Mixed Use North,High Intensity,which is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed-use development.Permitted uses include:Retail and department stores;eating and drinking establishments;hotels;commercial recreation;financial,business,and personal services;residential; educational and social services;and office uses.Public uses are permitted in all land use designations in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan.Parcel A2b is also designated El Camino Real,Mixed Use North, High Intensity in the General Plan.Therefore the proposed dedication would comply with the existing land use designation and would not require any changes to the land use designation on the subject site. Long Range Property Management Plan The City's Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP),as approved by the California Department of Finance on October 1,2015,outlines the permissible uses for the various former Redevelopment Agency's properties.The LRPMP establishes that the properties located on the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission property is designated for a mix of residential, office, open space, commercial, and public uses. General Plan Conformity Finding Staff has concluded that the location,purpose and extent of the proposed dedication of a 15,464 square feet section of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. is in conformity with the City’s General Plan because: ·The General Plan land use designation for the subject site is El Camino Real,Mixed Use North,High Intensity, which supports a mixture of commercial, office, residential, open space, and public uses; ·The subject site would be merged with the adjacent parcel (A2b)that has the same General Plan land use classification,which supports a mixture of commercial,office,residential,open space,and public uses; and, ·The purpose of the dedication of this property is to facilitate the development of a Community Civic Campus project in accordance with the intent of the General Plan land use designation and the Long Range Property Management Plan. On January 21,2021,the City of South San Francisco Planning Commission adopted a Resolution determining the dedication of the Kaiser property conforms with the City’s adopted General Plan in accordance with Government Code Section 65402. FISCAL IMPACT The proposed dedication of the Subject Site from Kaiser to the City of South San Francisco will have no fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. CONCLUSION The purpose of the dedication of the Kaiser-owned Subject Site to the City is to facilitate the development of the PUC project and meet the City’s obligations as detailed in the DA and PSA for the project.The Irrevocable Offer does not require the City to purchase the property from Kaiser.Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting the dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. property, located on El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210), to the City of South San Francisco. Attachments: 1.SSF PUC Partners Project Update Memorandum 2.Location Map City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 4 of 5 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-848 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13. 3.Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 5 of 5 powered by Legistar™ February 17, 2021 Nell Selander Deputy Director Economic & Community Development Department South San Francisco 650.829.6620 Re: SSF PUC Housing Partners Project Update for February 24, 2021 City Council Meeting Dear Ms. Selander, The following is an update from L37-KASA and BRIDGE Housing as to the progress made and to the hurdles faced over the past year advancing the SSF PUC development pursuant to our Development Agreement and Purchase and Sale Agreement (“DA/PSA”). We look forward to attending the February 24, 2021 City Council meeting and answering any questions that the City Council may have regarding our progress and forward outlook. Summary On December 11, 2019, the City Council of South San Francisco approved the entitlements and the DA/PSA, which incorporates the final project consisting of three buildings housing 800 residential units (13 market rate flex live-work units, 158 below market rate units affordable to 30-80% AMI households (20% of the residential units excluding the flex units) and 629 market rate apartment units), improved parks and landscaping, an Oak Avenue vehicular and pedestrian extension and active ground floor uses throughout the two sites, including a childcare facility, and retail and residential spaces (collectively, the “Project”) (see Exhibit A for site plan and renderings). The Flex Units are designed to have flexibility between residential or commercial uses in order to support a more active commercial and small business enterprise opportunity in the Project. The Project is anticipated to be approximately 1.1 million sf. On February 10, 2020, the San Mateo County Oversight Board approved the terms and conditions set forth in the DA/PSA. With e ntitlements secured, L37-KASA and BRIDGE Housing opened escrow and commenced the next phase of developing the SSF PUC parcels. Soon thereafter, the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus reached the US and led to severe impacts to the local and global economies, with lockdowns and remote working dramatically altering the Bay Area office and housing industries, as well as negatively impacting local and state government budgets and economies. Despite these impacts, we have continued to make progress this past year, as detailed below. Even so, the SSF PUC development has not escaped impacts caused by the pandemic, as also explained herein. Though it has been a challenging year for all parties, BRIDGE Housing, L37-KASA and its equity partners at Brookfield remain committed to completing this development and look forward to further progress in 2021. Ongoing Activities and Tasks Despite the broader economic setbacks from the pandemic as noted below, L37-KASA and BRIDGE Housing have made steady progress on the Project. After opening escrow in February 2020, we have held bi-weekly meetings with SSF staff and worked closely with staff to make progress on the milestones set out in the DA/PSA as well as to coordinate our designs with the Civic Campus team to provide them a clear path for the Civic Campus project to move forward. This coordination effort has included settling grading elevations between sites, determining parcel map alignment, locating Centennial Trail connection points and parking lot driveway locations, coordinating access easements for BART and SFPUC across the Civic Campus and Oak Avenue parcels, and most importantly, working closely with our FEMA consultants to update its flood maps to today’s reality that also remove both the SSF PUC parcels and the Civic Campus Police Station parcel from the FEMA floodplain. In addition to coordinating with the Civic Campus team, our civil engineering team has been busy the past year working to design the horizontal portions of our projects. This includes: • locating existing underground utilities, designing rerouting plans an d, where necessary, amending existing easements that both CalWater and San Mateo County Colma Creek have across our parcels; • developing joint trench designs for utility connections along Mission Road; • developing powerline undergrounding plans and engaging PG&E in the same; • surveying the BART tunnel; • providing SSF staff with surveys and plat maps to parcels owned by Kaiser, BART, and other 3rd parties in relation to the Oak Avenue improvements; • advancing Oak Avenue bridge designs to comply with county flood control requirements; and • developing Mission Road sidewalk and underground designs. Our legal team has also been active this past year ensuring progress on our development. We have signed off on SSF’s agreement with BART for the expansion of rights to use and improve BART lands running along our parcels and Oak Avenue. We have also signed off on the access easements for BART and SFPUC. In 2021 we expect to make further progress on the completion of our maintenance agreements with SSF for the improvements to be made on both the Oak Avenue parcel and the BART parcel. BRIDGE Housing has also made steady progress on its efforts, despite the state funding setbacks noted below. BRIDGE and L37-KASA have prepared what it believes will be a successful IIG application package and await CA’s release of the NOFA for IIG. To advance this IIG preparation, BRIDGE has engaged an expert consultant and together we have: • prepared a detailed scoring analysis of our project for the IIG program; • adjusted the unit mix of our two market rate buildings to add more family supportive 2-bedroom units which increase our IIG scoring and potential funds available (see Exhibit B for floorplan changes)1 and; 1 Specifically, L37-KASA has identified 82 larger 1-Bedroom units that can instead be built as 2-bedroom units. These interior changes will have no impact on the exterior look and elevations approved by the City Council, and SSF Planning has preliminarily approved making these interior adjustments to 82 of our 629 units. In addition to increasing our IIG scoring and funding, L37-KASA’s • regularly updated our construction pricing projections for the portions of our project eligible for IIG funding as the market has shifted. Beyond IIG preparations, BRIDGE has made additional progress on developing the affordable housing units. BRIDGE and SSF staff have completed a loan agreement from SSF and drafted the Affordable Housing Agreement. Excitingly, BRIDGE secured a commitment from BART to partners on an HCD Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities (AHSC) funding application for the affordable project. BRIDGE anticipates this application to be submitted Q1-Q2 of 2022 with BART. Finally, BRIDGE staff has engaged in conversations with Housing Choices about dedicating a portion of the Project’s affordable housing units for developmentally disabled residents. Housing Choices has indicated a desire for BRIDGE to dedicate approximately 10% of units to this population. An MOU memorializing this shared goal will be developed in 2021. Pandemic Impacts The economic impacts from the current pandemic have been severe and broadly felt by both public and private entities.2 With many businesses shuttered, and employers shifting staff to remote working – many of these companies now envision a long term trend toward broader acceptance of working from home after the pandemic – many residents in the Bay Area have temporarily (or permanently) relocated out of the Bay Area to more affordable parts of the state and country. Market rate housing and office development in the Bay Area has slowed significantly in 2020 as equity groups have sought to preserve capital during this period of uncertainty. Residential market rate rents have dropped 20-25% across the Bay Area, with higher density housing in parts of San Francisco and Silicon Valley seeing even steeper rent reductions and vacancy rates north of 15-20%. Office rents in the Bay Area have also seen dramatic drops as companies have raced to downsize their office footprints and exposure to historically high commercial rents. These steep rent declines have impacted and slowed the CMBS market which provides a great deal of liquidity to larger commercial real estate transactions and financing. While these impacts have dramatically slowed the commencement of new groundbreakings on market rate residential and office/hotel developments, construction costs have been slower to experience price declines due to existing pipelines still being worked on by general contractors and subcontractors. Current construction pricing has only declined approximately 5-8% from pre-pandemic levels. With current market rents out of alignment with current construction pricing, new Bay Area developments have slowed dramatically and equity groups continue to tread cautiously until economic uncertainty from the pandemic dissipates. State and local government budgets have also been greatly impacted by the pandemic and this has slowed progress on funding affordable housing developments. In May 2020, a significant revision to Governor Newsom’s state budget was made that resulted in a substantial reduction in funding for the IIG program in 2020 and postponement of IIG applications until Fall 2020. A further postponement occurred eliminating the IIG application from 2020 entirely after a State Auditor report found high levels of dysfunction and lack of property management team believes these new 2-bedroom units are better suited to our post-pandemic world where more people are working from home and need more space/rooms from which to effectively work remotely. 2 The National Bureau of Economic Research determined that the US entered a recession beginning in February 2020, with a drop in economic activity steeper than any period during the Great Depression due to drastic lockdowns. Economic activity began to pick up again in late Q3 2020 as lockdowns have been softened, but economists differ regarding projections for recovery, with many seeing a slow drawn out recovery over the next several years and uncertainty as to how quickly a full recovery can be expected. coordination between the various agencies that administer the state’s affordable housing funding programs. State funding for new affordable developments and applications for these funds effectively disappeared in the latter half of 2020. The state agencies involved in funding affordable housing are all now working collaboratively to adopt new scoring and fund allocation procedures that should be better aligned with the state’s funding priorities, while the Governor’s 2021 budget is targeting refilling affordable housing funds and then some to jumpstart housing development and economic recovery post pandemic. We now anticipate IIG applications will once again be accepted in June 2021, about a year later from our original targets.3 Conclusion Going forward, L37-KASA and BRIDGE Housing believe 2021 will be an even more productive year and we should be able to meet our obligations under the DA/PSA and close on the PUC parcels in 2022. Our designs for Mission Road utilities and sidewalks and other horizontal portions of our project should advance in 2021 and receive any necessary approvals from the county and state. We have held several meetings with SSF Building, SSF Planning, Engineering and Water Quality Departments to map out the necessary permits needed and the timing for filing for these permits necessary for meeting our schedule. We will remain in close contact with our general contractor partners to monitor changes in construction pricing and their projected schedules for getting involved on the design-build portions of the Project. BRIDGE and L37-KASA will also be actively applying for state funding throughout 2021 and 2022 as programs get refunded by the state and come back online this year. As this funding gets secured, full designs for the vertical portions of our buildings and public spaces will advance during the second half of 2021. In all, L37-KASA, BRIDGE Housing and Brookfield are eager to advance these projects forward and thrilled that the Civic Campus project was able to recently break ground on its neighborhood creating project. We continue to believe our Project, in conjunction with the Civic Campus project, will be welcome additions to South San Francisco’s vibrant communities. Sincerely, Brian Baker VP of Development for L37 Partners 3 Though not an impact to our progress, L37-KASA and SSF staff have mutually held off certain tasks we need to complete so as to not stretch distressed SSF budgets during the pandemic. For example, we have mutually agreed to not commence acquisition of nearby parcels for Oak Avenue or spend funds on legal fees related to these acquisitions and correlated maintenance agreements between the parties until 2021. Exhibit A Project Site Plan and Renderings SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARK I N G G A R A G E OAK AVE COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC C E N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L GRAND STAIRS SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C2 FROM GRAND AVE SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C2 STOOPS ON MISSION RD SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C2 FROM MISSION ROAD SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C2 FROM COMMUNITY PARK SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C1 FROM MISSION ROAD SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C1 LOBBY AND STOOPS SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING C2 FROM COMMUNITY PARK SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERS VIEW OF BUILDING B MARKET HALL PLAZA SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERSSSF PUC SITE PLANNING COMMISSIONS PRESENTATION October 17th, 2019 5-12 YEARS OLD PLAYGROUND SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERSSSF PUC SITE PLANNING COMMISSIONS PRESENTATION October 17th, 2019 IMPROVED CENTENNIAL TRAIL SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERSSSF PUC SITE PLANNING COMMISSIONS PRESENTATION October 17th, 2019 OAK AVE SHARED STREET AND GRAND STAIRS MISSION RO A D EL CAMINO REAL BUILDIN G B CIVIC CENTER BUILDING ANTOI N E T T E L A N E COLMA CRE E K +51 5% SLOPE WALK +61 +71 0 15’ 30’ 60’N MARKET H A L L MARKET H A L L P L A Z A OAK AVE SHARED PLAZAOAK AVE GRAND STA I R S SSF PUC SITE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION November 13, 2019 COMMUNITY AMENITIES & AFFORDABLE HOUSING 05.22.19SSF PUC OVERALL SITE PLAN CENTENNIAL TRAIL 0 55’ 110’N MISSION ROAD EL CAMINO R E A L ANTOI N E T T E L A N E KAISER PARKI N G G A R A G E OAK AV E COLMA CREE K BUILDING C2 BUILDING C1 BUILDING B BART BUILDING COMMUNITY CIVIC CE N T E R C A M P U S COMMUNITY PARK MARKET H A L L P L A Z A BART TUNNEL BELO W CIVIC CENTER OPEN SPACE POLICE STATION OAK AVE SHARED STREETCHILDCARE MARKET H A L L SSF PUC HOUSING PARTNERSSSF PUC SITE PLANNING COMMISSIONS PRESENTATION October 17th, 2019 OAK AVE SHARED STREET AND GRAND STAIRS Exhibit B Updated Floorplan Comparison Buri Buri Shopping Center MSB 14.33 Acres 5.5 Acres BART ROW BART ROW Future Community Civic Campus Sites A1, A2a, A2b and A3 (purple) A1 A2a A3 B C A2b Chestnut Shopping Center South City Car Wash Proper ty Kaiser Medical Center Missi o n Roa d El Camin o Real Chestnut AvenueW estbo rough Boule vard A n t o i n e t t e L nOak AvenueG r and A v enue Nor th County Municipal Cour t Kaiser-Owned Proper ties Subject Site For Dedication PUC Project Update & Acceptance of Kaiser Property City Council Meeting February 24, 2021 PUC Project Site Plan 2 Kaiser Dedication in Context 3 Land Dedication Detailed 4 Oak Avenue Phase 1 5 Questions? 6 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-847 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13a. Resolution accepting the dedication of approximately 15,464 square feet of Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. owned property, located at 1200 El Camino Real (APN 010-292-210), to the City of South San Francisco for a public purpose WHEREAS,pursuant to Assembly Bill x1 26,all California redevelopment agencies were dissolved effective February 1,2012,and the City of South San Francisco (“City”)serves as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco (“Successor Agency”)commencing upon the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency on February 1,2012,pursuant to Resolution No.8-2012,adopted by the City Council on January 25, 2012; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco's Long Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”),as approved by the California Department of Finance on October 1,2015,outlines the permissible uses for the various former Redevelopment Agency's properties; and WHEREAS,the LRPMP establishes that the properties located on the former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”)property is designated for a mix of residential,office,open space,commercial,and public uses; and WHEREAS,the City is currently undertaking a project to construct a new Community Civic Campus in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area on parcels A1,A2a,A2b,and A3 as described in the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS,as part of the Civic Campus project,the City and the developer L37 are pursuing the development of a phased coordination for the construction of the Oak Avenue Extension,Phase I of which would extend over Colma Creek,connects to Antoinette Lane and terminates into a shared street with a wide staircase and accessible switchback path that traverses up the bank to El Camino Real; and WHEREAS,the improved pedestrian and bicycle circulation of the site would integrate connections between the new housing,commercial zones,the new Community Civic Campus,SSF BART and Orange Memorial Park to the south; and WHEREAS,Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc./Kaiser Medical Center (“Kaiser”)is proposing to dedicate and the City is considering to accept,a 15,464 square feet portion of land currently owned by Kaiser,identified as APN 010-292-210,for inclusion into Phase 1 of the Oak Avenue Extension and the Community Civic Campus located on the adjacent property,as described more particularly in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2021Page 1 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-847 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13a. WHEREAS,in 2011,the City adopted the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan,which established general plan designations,zoning standards,and design standards for the area,including the Kaiser property proposed for dedication; and WHEREAS,the subject site proposed for dedication and the adjacent parcel (Parcel A2b)are both designated El Camino Real, Mixed Use North, High Intensity in the General Plan; and WHEREAS,the proposed dedication would comply with the existing land use designation and would not require any changes to the land use designation on the property proposed for dedication or on the adjacent parcel; and WHEREAS,the proposed dedication would be incorporated into the Oak Avenue Extension project phase, would improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation of the site,and would integrate connections between the new housing,commercial zones,the approved mixed use development of the former PUC property,the new Community Civic Campus, SSF BART and Orange Memorial Park to the south; and WHEREAS,section 65402 of the California Government Code requires that the Planning Commission report to the City Council as to whether the Kaiser property proposed for dedication conforms with the South San Francisco General Plan; and WHEREAS,on January 21,2021,the South San Francisco Planning Commission adopted a resolution confirming that the acceptance of the Subject Site conforms with the City’s adopted General Plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does hereby resolve as follows: 1.The foregoing recitals are true, correct, and incorporated herein by reference; and 2.The proposed dedication is for a public purpose that would allow the City to develop the Oak Avenue extension on the adjacent former PUC properties. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council hereby approves of an irrevocable dedication of a 15,464 square foot portion of land currently owned by Kaiser,identified as APN 010-292-210, and as more specifically identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the South San Francisco City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee,to execute the irrevocable Offer of Dedication on behalf of the City Council in substantially the same form as attached hereto as Exhibit A;to make any revisions amendments,or modifications,subject to approval of the City Attorney,deemed necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution and which do not materially alter or increase the City’s obligations thereunder;and to take any other related actions necessary to carry out the intent of this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2021Page 2 of 3 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-847 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:13a. ***** Exhibit A: Irrevocable Offer of Dedication City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/26/2021Page 3 of 3 powered by Legistar™ EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 010-292-210 AN EASEMENT, OVER A PORTION OF PARCEL B AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 20, 1979 IN BOOK 46 OF MAPS AT PAGE 19; BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF EL CAMINO REAL, AS SHOWN ON THE HEREIN ABOVE MENTIONED PARCEL MAP; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH 47°12’15” WEST, 250.62 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND CROSSING SAID PARCEL B, NORTH 38°42’55” EAST, 77.80 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES; 1. THENCE SOUTH 39°23’15” EAST, 84.17 FEET; 2. THENCE SOUTH 40°43’15” EAST, 100.00 FEET; 3. THENCE SOUTH 39°42’15” EAST, 74.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL B; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER AND WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL B, SOUTH 42°47’45” WEST, 45.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID EASEMENT AREA CONTAINING 15,464 SQUARE FEET OR 0.355 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AS SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBIT “B,” WHICH BY THIS REFERENCE IS MADE A PART HEREOF. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS ACT. Kelly S. Johnson, PLS 9126 Date: June 26, 2020 EL CAMINO REALPARCEL B - 46 PM 19 ACCESS EASEMENT 15,464± SQ. FT. 0.355± ACRES PARCEL B - 46 PM 19 POINT OF BEGINNING PARCEL B 46 PM 19 EL CAMINO REALARROYO DRIVE PARCEL A 46 PM 19 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EXHIBIT BPLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION 636 Ninth Street | Oakland, CA 94607 | P. 510.873.8866 | www.sandis.net CALIFORNIA EASEMENT KAISER PERMANENTE 1200 EL CAMINO REAL 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VICINITY MAP SITE Feet 0 40 80 LEGEND 618108-MAPCHECK KAISER ACCESS EASEMENT Survey Tech: Wayne Holland Date: 06/26/2020 POB North: 2067297.6584' East: 6001977.3212' Segment #1 : Line Course: N47°12'15"W Length: 250.62' North: 2067467.9266' East: 6001793.4214' Segment #2 : Line Course: N38°42'55"E Length: 77.80' North: 2067528.6312' East: 6001842.0815' Segment #3 : Line Course: S39°23'15"E Length: 84.17' North: 2067463.5785' East: 6001895.4925' Segment #4 : Line Course: S40°43'15"E Length: 100.00' North: 2067387.7888' East: 6001960.7299' Segment #5 : Line Course: S39°42'15"E Length: 74.04' North: 2067330.8259' East: 6002008.0284' Segment #6 : Line Course: S42°47'45"W Length: 45.20' North: 2067297.6591' East: 6001977.3201' Perimeter: 631.83' Area: 15,463.89± Sq. Ft. \ 0.355± ACRES Error Closure: 0.0012 Course: N58°31'03"W Error North: 0.00064 East: -0.00104 Precision 1: 526525.00 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-117 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:14. Report to discuss options to allow moderate density housing in residential districts that currently only allow single family dwellings.(Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Senior Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on an option to modify single family zoning to allow more housing with the General Plan update. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION During the General Plan Update process to date,the City’s approach has focused on developing new housing in areas near transit and jobs,while preserving existing residential neighborhoods that traditionally have been characterized by single-family homes. Meanwhile,however,there has been a national policy discussion to address “missing middle”housing with approaches that allow moderate density housing in areas zoned solely for single family homes.Missing middle housing as a term typically refers to housing types including duplex,triplex,fourplex,cottage,townhouse and other smaller multi-unit attached and detached housing types (“multi-plexes”)compatible in scale with single family homes.These housing types generally have small-to medium-sized footprints and are often two stories or less,allowing them to blend into existing neighborhoods.Missing middle housing also refers to housing that is affordable to those earning between 80-120%of the area median income,which is too much to qualify for subsidized housing and too little to afford to purchase high-income properties or rent at market rates. These moderate-density housing types were commonly built in neighborhoods prior to the 1940s (thus the term “missing middle”).After this time period,the adoption of zoning ordinances that separated residential use types resulted in large areas where only single-family dwellings were allowed to be built.South San Francisco is in keeping with this general profile.The broader downtown area has many existing examples of moderate-density housing,particularly along Miller,Grand,Baden and Commercial Aves east of Orange Ave.These buildings were constructed in the early-to mid-1900s,up to the 1960s,and contain four or more units.The majority of these buildings are no more than two stories;example imagery is included in the attached presentation (Attachment 3). By the early 1950s,the City had adopted zoning districts that restricted residential densities.The 1953 Zoning Ordinance includes a R-1 District allowing only single family dwellings,a R-2 District allowing single family dwellings and duplexes,and a R-3 District allowing multi-family units.Based on this,the subdivisions that were developed between 1940 and 1960 (such as Sunshine Gardens,Buri-Buri,and Brentwood)were entirely single-family detached housing.The allowed residential uses in these districts have remained largely unchanged since that time,with R-1 now called RL Low Density Residential,R-2 now called RM Medium Density Residential,and R-3 now called RH High Density Residential.South San Francisco’s low-density residential zoned areas currently allow one single family residence,and were recently updated to allow an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), in keeping with state law. South San Francisco’s existing inventory of housing,as shown in the table below,indicates the percentage of all residential units for each specific housing type,as well as the percent of total land area.Single-familyCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-117 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:14. all residential units for each specific housing type,as well as the percent of total land area.Single-family residential zoning dominates the land area in the City that is currently devoted to housing.A smaller percentage of units and land area is devoted to moderate-density housing types. Housing Type Percent of residential units Percent of total City land area Single family residential 67% of units 33.8% of land area Duplex/triplex/fourplex 8.1% of units 1.5% of land area Multi-family (5+ units)23.4% of units 4.1% of land area Missing Middle Housing Policy Examples Many state and local governments are analyzing options related to housing provision and affordability, including new zoning regulations to allow moderate-density units in areas that previously only allowed single- family units.The intent is that over time,the residential neighborhoods in these communities will have a mix of single-family homes and multi-plexes as properties are developed.Single family homes are still permitted with the new zoning regulations, but they are no longer the only option available. To ensure compatibility with their surroundings,missing middle housing policies typically include zoning standards and design guidelines or form-based codes to control the outward appearance of buildings to maintain the overall neighborhood scale and character.As an example,the City of Eugene,Oregon prepared a handbook that highlights potential design principles and strategies and identifies prototypes for each of the different housing types (see Attachment 1). With appropriate design guidelines,multi-plex buildings can be designed to take the form of a single-family home in space and character,but contain multiple smaller units compared to traditional single-family residence. As an example,in South San Francisco’s typical low-density residential zoning districts,single family homes are allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5.On a 5,000 square foot lot,this floor area ratio would allow 2,500 square feet of built area,which would accommodate an approximately 2,300 square foot unit and a one- car garage.If allowed,a duplex could be developed with two 1,050 square foot residential units and a two-car garage,and a triplex with three 630 square foot units and a three-car garage.If moderate-density housing were allowed in single-family neighborhoods,South San Francisco’s current parking regulations would need to be updated,as parking standards for multi-plex buildings typically require one off-street space per unit,where South San Francisco currently requires two-four off-street parking spaces per residence in low-density zoning districts (depending on the number of bedrooms and house size). Jurisdictions that have adopted modifications to single family zoning to allow multi-plex buildings found support from activists including,affordable housing and tenants’advocates,environmental organizations,and for-profit and nonprofit housing developers.Opponents to these modifications typically express concern with property rights,degradation of traditional single-family neighborhoods,increased parking and traffic impacts and increased demand for services throughout the community. Following are recent examples of middle missing housing policies highlighting different approaches: City of Sacramento The City of Sacramento is currently updating its General Plan.In January 2021,the Sacramento City Council identified a list of key strategies being considered for their 2040 General Plan.One of these key strategies is to permit a greater array of housing types,such as duplexes,triplexes,and fourplexes in existing residential neighborhoods.The proposed strategy would not eliminate the ability to construct single-family dwellings,but City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-117 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:14. neighborhoods.The proposed strategy would not eliminate the ability to construct single-family dwellings,but would allow duplexes,triplexes and fourplexes by-right in traditionally single-unit zone neighborhoods. Sacramento is proposing to regulate the form and size of buildings to ensure that the new housing types would not be incompatible to the surrounding area.All housing types would still have to comply with the Citywide Design Guidelines. See Attachment 2 for more information on Sacramento’s proposal. City of Portland, Oregon The City of Portland adopted the Residential Infill Project in August 2020,legalizing up to four residential units on residential lots.Portland’s regulations are different in that they allow up to six units when at least half are income restricted to families earning less than 60%of the median family income.Portland’s regulations also differentiate lot coverage allowances for the different housing types;one-unit buildings are allowed to cover 50% of the lot, two-unit buildings are allowed 60%, and triplexes and fourplexes up to 70%. State of California In California,recent examples include state legislation related to accessory dwelling units (ADUs)and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs).As of January 21,2021,an ADU and JADU are allowed on a lot with an existing single-family dwelling unit in any configuration provided that the JADU is created entirely within the existing single-unit dwelling.The State is currently considering Senate Bill 9 (SB 9),which would allow for duplexes and lot splits in single-family residential zones to be allowed by-right and would streamline the associated process. General Plan Update Process / Next Steps Staff and the consultant team are continuing with the General Plan Update process.The last major milestone was the City Council’s acceptance of a Preferred Land Use Scenario (PLUS)in November 2020.Subsequent to this action,the General Plan team has transitioned to the following efforts which would be influenced by the missing middle housing topic: ·Preparing draft General Plan policy frameworks for each of the GP Elements (including Land Use, Equity, and Sustainability). ·Updating the City’s Housing Element concurrently with the General Plan update process.The regional housing needs allocation (RHNA)for the next Housing Element cycle is 3,957 units,which includes 872 very low-income units;502 low-income units;720 moderate income units and 1,863 above moderate-income units.Missing middle housing units typically serve moderate to above moderate- income households and could be a tool to meet housing obligations. ·Preparing the Zoning Ordinance Update.One of the new items proposed in the Zoning Ordinance is the inclusion of Form-Based Codes.As discussed above in the examples from other jurisdictions,the use of form-based codes for missing middle housing would better ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. At the outset of the General Plan update process,staff and the consultant team focused efforts to prioritize new housing in areas near transit and jobs.Specifically,new housing land use designations are proposed in the El Camino Real,Lindenville and East of 101 sub-areas as part of the accepted Preferred Land Use Scenario.Staff and the consultant team did not study options to allow missing-middle housing types in low-density residential zoning districts based on early feedback.The public was informed at community meetings that no land use changes were contemplated for the single-family districts.If this approach is recommended for further City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-117 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:14. consideration, staff recommends additional community outreach. It would be possible to incorporate this analysis into the General Plan/Housing Element Update if staff were given such direction in the near timeframe.If the City Council wishes to explore this approach further,staff and the consultant team have prepared a two-phase approach: 1.Phase 1 would include initial technical analysis on missing middle housing in South San Francisco, examples of development regulations from other jurisdictions,and exploration of missing middle scenarios,including anticipated new housing.The project team would facilitate up to two (2)virtual community meetings and a Community Advisory Committee meeting on missing middle housing. Results of the analysis and public engagement would be presented to the City Council for recommendation and initiation of Phase II.Phase I is anticipated to run from April to June and cost $49,600. 2.If initiated by City Council,Phase 2 would include additional Zoning Code analysis and the reissuing of the EIR Notice of Preparation.The Zoning Code would include:micro-scale analysis of the City's Residential Low and Residential Medium areas;the development of additional transect zoning;and the creation of building and frontage types appropriate for these areas.Phase II is anticipated to run from July - August at a cost of $50,400. The total estimated cost for Phase I and Phase II as outlined above is $100,000 and the work is estimated to extend the overall General Plan update process by up to four months. Alternatively,the City Council could pause on proceeding with further analysis at this time and continue to track progress of SB 9,which is currently under consideration at the State Legislature.If SB 9 is enacted,staff would bring forward the necessary zoning code revisions for City Council consideration to ensure consistency with State law. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the City Council provide direction to staff. Attachments: 1.City of Eugene, Oregon Missing Middle Housing Handbook 2.City of Sacramento FAQ on Housing Policy Proposal 3.City Council Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ Handbook DRAFT Table of Contents Introduction • What is the ‘Missing Middle’? • Eugene’s Missing Middle • Why is the Missing Middle important for our community and others? • Goals for enabling Missing Middle housing • Characteristics of Missing Middle housing types Prototypes • Small and Narrow Lot Detached • Secondary Dwelling Unit • Cottage Cluster • Duplex • Plexes • Courtyard • Rowhouse • Alley Access & Site Specic Types: Cluster Subdivision; Flag Lot Resources • Case Studies • Walking Tour & Map • Research (Links, Technical Resources) • Sample Design Code – Single Family Options Design Principles and Strategies • Contribute to the pedestrian environment • Respect the context, character and pattern of the neighborhood (pre-war, post-war, rural) • “Eyes on the Street” and privacy considerations • Scale and siting – open space and the green edge • Parking and vehicle access • Sustainability ..............................................4 .........11 ............................................... 17 ................................................. 29Acknowledgements Photos by David VanLandingham; Cover, pages 11, 17, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 33, 35 Cover: Small apartment building with separate entries to each dwelling. Next door (at left) is a single-family dwelling converted to oces; W 10th and Lawrence Street; Jeerson Westside Neighborhood Planning Division Planning and Development Department 99 W. 10th Avenue Eugene, Oregon 97401 First Draft June 2017 is guide is intended as a resource for community members—builders, designers, and neighbors – involved in conversations about the shape and form of Eugene’s neighborhoods. e focus is on familiarizing the community with missing middle housing types and inspiring residents to consider where these options t within our neighborhoods. e components of this guide serve as tools for area planning projects, neighborhood meetings, and design discussions. e guide includes design principles and strategies for using smaller dwelling types for achieving context-sensitive design, prototypes of each option, and resources for further research. Although the ‘Missing Middle’ concept has come into the national spotlight recently, the examples included here are derived from past projects stretching back several years. ese include the Single Family Options zone, Opportunity Siting, Inll Compatibility Standards, the R-1 Flag Lot Implementation Team, and R-2 Medium Density case studies conducted as part of Envision Eugene. What is the Missing Middle? In 2010, architect Daniel Parolek coined the term to dene the smaller, multi-family or clustered housing types that have been missing from most city’s neighborhood patterns for the last seventy years as development focused on single family housing and larger multifamily types. Missing Middle types were common within most single family neighborhoods in the pre-war era. e dwelling types include duplex, triplex, cottage, courtyard, rowhouse, and other smaller multi-unit attached and detached housing. Post-war prosperity led to a building boom that ushered in an age of auto-dependent suburban development with single-family homes on large lots. Considered less desirable at the time, Missing Middle housing types were prohibited or signicantly limited in single family neighborhoods through zoning codes that categorized them as multifamily. While in multifamily areas, developers generally chose to build larger and denser housing such as apartment complexes. Today, cultural and demographic changes have created interest in using Missing Middle housing to: • Respond to the demand for walkable urban living • Create more options for smaller dwellings • Increase ownership options • Respond to shifting demographics Nationally and locally the population is getting older, households are smaller, and family types are more diverse than in previous decades. Housing is also becoming less aordable to people of middle income. us, the existing single-family housing stock should evolve to meet the changing needs. key transit corridors fullls many goals articulated through Envision Eugene: • Provide housing affordable to all income levels • Plan for climate change and energy resiliency • Promote compact urban development and efficient transportation options • Protect, repair, and enhance neighborhood livability • Protect, restore, and enhance natural resources e current single family zone*(R-1) does not allow most Missing Middle types as an outright use. All of the types are allowed in multi-family zones (with the exception of Secondary Dwelling Units) if meeting minimum density standards. With a goal in Eugene of creating more 20-minute neighborhoods, where residents can nd most daily needs within a 20-minute walk from home, tting these housing types back into the neighborhood mix makes sense. Where are Missing Middle types currently located in our neighborhoods? Where should they be incorporated in the future? * Secondary Dwelling Units (SDUs) are allowed on lots that meet the standards for development and duplexes are allowed on corner lots. Introduction MissingMiddleHousing.com is powered by Opticos Design Illustration © 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. Eugene’s Missing Middle With much of Eugene’s housing stock developed between the 1950s and 1980s many neighborhoods lack options. Residents must choose between single family homes or apartments. With the community’s population growing and aging, Missing Middle inll in walkable areas and near 4 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 5 • Encourage a variety of housing types and sizes that o er options at multiple price points and contribute positively to the character of the neighborhood and walkable streetscape. • Provide housing type options that transition between mixed-use and multi-family zones and single-family zones. • Provide housing alternatives for community members that are older, younger, single-parent households and anyone that would prefer a smaller dwelling. • Provide housing type options that increase density while maintaining consistency of building scale and character with existing single family dwellings. • Provide attractive and highly functional open spaces that bene t residents and enhance the walking experience within the neighborhood. Goals for Enabling Missing Middle Housing Characteristics of Missing Middle Types* • Within an existing or newly developed walkable context of housing, amenities, and transit. • Marketability is dependent on a walkable context and single family characteristics. • Create community through shared spaces. • An emphasis on form rather than density. • Density at the higher end of low density zones and the low end of medium density zones. A minimum of sixteen dwelling units per acre is usually where supportive transit, retail and other amenities become viable. • O -street parking does not drive the site plan. In order to create the best site plans and functional green space parking needs to be reduced to a minimum; that is, one space per unit at most.* Adapted from missingmiddlehousing.com Why is the Missing Middle important for our community and others? Eugene is growing. We are expected to grow by 40,000 residents by 2035. One of the pillars of Envision Eugene is to provide housing a ordable to all income levels. With wages lower than state and national averages - housing costs have signi cantly outpaced income growth. 50% of Eugene households are cost burdened. In other words, spend more than 30% of household income on housing costs. New housing on average is more expensive than older housing stock however providing an available inventory as the population grows is essential to keeping overall costs down. Missing Middle types have the potential to supply diverse housing options as both rental and owner occupied dwellings along a spectrum of a ordability in areas with high walkability. • Promote cohesive architecture that is visually appealing, context sensitive and uses high-quality building materials. • Minimize the impact of vehicular uses on the pedestrian environment and adjacent properties. • Promote massing, scale and architectural features of new dwellings that contribute to the envisioned neighborhood pattern and address compatibility and transitions between developments. • Smaller, well-designed units and sites with comfortable and usable spaces. Missing Middle types are not large suburban houses scaled down. • Simple residential construction makes the building easier to build and moves the design out of the more intensive methods of commercial and multifamily construction. Building compactly in areas with amenities aligns with Eugene’s long held values of environmentalism and state land use laws that prioritize the protection of farm and forest land. Missing Middle housing is one tool, of the many needed, to accommodate growth. It is unique in providing multi- unit housing at a human scale that harmonizes with existing neighborhood pattern and scale. Types maintain compatibility while increasing housing options for an ever more diverse population. MissingMiddleHousing.com is powered by Opticos Design Illustration © 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. 6 Missing Miiddle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 7 Type: Duplex; Triplex Plexes Rowhouses Type: Rowhouse; Townhouse Courtyard Types: Attached dwellings facing a shared open space Small Lot Detached Houses Type: Homes on individual lots that are smaller than average; Narrow House Missing Middle Housing Types Where: Neighborhoods; In ll lots; 20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions Where: In ll, Neighborhood Main Streets & Centers, Bu er Zones; Subdivisions Where: Neighborhood Main Streets & Centers; In ll lots; 20-min. Neighborhoods Where: Neighborhoods; In ll lots; 20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions Density: Example: Friar Tuck; Net Density 10 Density: Example: Turtle Creek; Approx. 13 DU/ac Density: Example: Walnut Park; Approx. 16 DU/ac Density: Example: Lucia; Approx. 28 DU/ac Missing Middle Housing Types in the Urban Form Small Lot Detached Plexes Rowhouses Courtyard KEY Other Residential & Commercial Types Friar Tuck - Little John Lane & Robin Hood Ave. ,Eugene Walnut Park - Keller Street, Eugene Turtle Creek - Hatton Avenue, EugeneLucia - Friendly Street & W 27th Avenue, Eugene Cottage Clusters Secondary Dwelling Units Secondary Dwelling Units Cottage Clusters Where: Neighborhoods; In ll lots; 20-min. Neighborhoods; Subdivisions Type: Small dwellings clustered around shared open space Types: A smaller dwelling associated with a primary residence Where: Neighborhoods; In ll lots; 20-min. Neighborhoods A smaller dwelling associated with a primary A smaller dwelling associated with a primary Greenwood Avenue Cottages, Shoreline, Washington Krause Cottage - Eugene 8 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 9 Example: Greenwood Avenue Cottages; Approx. 12 DU/ac Density: Design Principles & Strategies Duplex Downtown Neighborhood W 12th Avenue Design Principles & Strategies Contribute to the pedestrian environment A goal of Envision Eugene is for 90% of our neighborhoods to function as 20-minute neighborhoods by 2032. A friendly, inviting and comfortable pedestrian environment is essential for a walkable neighborhood. There are some important elements to keep in mind when designing a walkable streetscape: • Provide continuous, accessible sidewalks. • Maximize visual interest and human-scale details in buildings and landscaping. • Orient entries to face and directly connected to the sidewalk. • Minimize large areas of blank wall or garage doors facing the street. • Utilize architectural features such as façade articulation, porches, and quality building materials. • Allow for opportunities for residents to personalize their dwellings and private outdoor space. • Use trees and vegetation along residential streets. Respect the context, character and pattern of the neighborhood The continuation of existing community character and pattern should be carefully considered in walkable neighborhoods; look to established patterns such as street-oriented buildings, fine-grain “rhythms” of development, and green street edges. In less walkable areas with more disjointed, auto- oriented patterns it is important to consider a future that is pedestrian-friendly in areas where change is expected and desired, such as on and near corridors and mixed-use centers. • Arrange building volumes and use setback patterns in ways that reect current neighborhood patterns or that contribute to a future pattern that is more walkable. • Contribute to the neighborhood’s long-term vision and potential. • Minimize contrasts in scale where appropriate. • Consider utilizing architectural features such as window patterns, entry treatments, roof forms, building details, and landscaping, etc. that • Utilize pedestrian scale lighting and accent lighting for accessibility and safety for residents and passers-by. • Provide convenient pedestrian access to destinations and transit with strong connections between entrances and sidewalks. • Provide comfortable places along pedestrian circulation for residents to sit, rest, and interact with other residents and neighbors. acknowledge the surrounding context and neighborhood character. • Use site design that responds to natural features of the site and its surroundings. Eugene Neighborhood 12 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 13 Design Principles & Strategies “Eyes on the Street” and Privacy Considerations • Orient windows, entries, balconies and porches to the public realm to provide “eyes on the street” and opportunities for social interaction. • Provide abundant windows and inviting entrance details. • Consider neighboring patterns of height and outdoor spaces to minimize units overlooking neighboring outdoor space. • Limit impacts on privacy for neighboring properties by minimizing windows and balconies close to interior setbacks. Scale & Siting of Open Space and the Green Edge • Maximize the amenity value of unbuilt areas by providing usable and highly functional shared and private open space. • Maximize usable open space by limiting surface parking. • On sites with limited options for open space emphasize the streetscape with enhanced landscaping and lusher plantings in planter strips and tree wells. Parking and Vehicle Access Sustainability • Use durable building materials. • Use energy-ecient building design and technologies. • Minimize stormwater runo. • Maximize solar access and orientation on the property and minimize impacts to neighboring properties. • Limit o-street parking, utilize shared parking areas and locate parking towards the rear of sites or o alleys. • Locate buildings and their entrances close to sidewalks and avoid situations in which pedestrians must cross parking lots to reach entries from public and shared walkways. • Minimize disruptions to sidewalks. e safety of sidewalks is diminished when there are frequent interruptions for driveways and parking areas abutting the sidewalk. • Screen services such as trash and recycling containers, utility equipment, and garage doors from the public realm with landscaping, low walls, etc. Courtyard Apartments, Portland, Oregon Krause Cottage, Secondary Dwelling Unit, Eugene 14 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 15 Prototypes Rowhouse Jefferson Westside Neighborhood Olive Street Small & Narrow Lot Detached Small & Narrow Lot Detached Houses are a detached one-family dwelling on lots smaller than an average single- family lot or smaller than minimums typically required by code. Narrow houses reference older platting patterns that often featured lots of 25 feet along the street frontage. Small lot sizes vary and, in Eugene, are usually the result of cluster subdivisons or planned unit developments. Lots created through a clustered subdivision can be as small as the dwelling’s footprint but must meet other standards for shared open space. Design Considerations: • Limit the dwelling’s square footage by creating a well-designed, small-unit to respond to a smaller than average lot. is is not an opportunity to use a large suburban housing type. • Maximize usable outdoor space through thoughtful site planning. • Consider the height patterns of the neighborhood. A small footprint should not be compensated with excess height unless compatible with the context. • Use imaginative site designs and alley access when possible to minimize street facing garage entries and parking pads. Where: • Narrow houses work well in the same areas as rowhouses but where there may not be the multiple adjoined lots necessary for a rowhouse development. • Small lots work well in new development, where shared open space can be carefully considered in the overall site design, or in neighborhoods that already have a small or varied lot pattern. Secondary Dwelling Units Secondary Dwellings are separate dwellings that are on the same lot as a primary dwelling. ey can take the form of a backyard cottage or an attached apartment, sometimes referred to as a “granny at.” is dwelling type is limited in size and scale to maintain its secondary character to the main house. Secondary dwellings are generally not considered a Missing Middle type but must be included in any discussion of neighborhood housing mix. Design Considerations: • Secondary Dwelling Units are restricted in size and massing by the land use code. • When designing a detached unit consider the architectural style of the primary dwelling and design with the intent to harmonize the two structures. • Use durable, high-quality materials that produce a pleasing visual combination between the two buildings. Where: • Because of their small size and relationship to a primary structure they are a low impact way of integrating smaller housing types in walkable neighborhoods. Narrow Lot House, Seattle, Washington Friar Tuck, Cal Young Neighborhood, Eugene Secondary Dwelling Unit, Southwest Hills Neighborhood, Eugene Secondary Dwelling Unit, Whiteaker Neighborhood, Eugene 18 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 19 Cottage Clusters Cottage Cluster Houses are a form of detached, one-family dwelling clustered around a common open space where most dwellings face the common open space. One or more dwellings may be on separate lots, or all of the dwellings may be on a single lot. O-street parking, when provide, is often shared. Design Considerations: • Cottages work well in groupings up to about twelve surrounding abundant shared open space. Depending on the site, additional groupings can be nestled around additional open spaces. • To be true to type, cottage housing should be limited in size, mass, and height (smaller than a single family house). For example, 800 - 1,000 square feet and 1-1.5* stories are typical. • Provide for a balance of common and private open space to encourage landscape diversity and to foster a sense of ownership. • Maintain a single family character along the public street - consider providing street facing entries for cottages with street frontage. • Cottages are a particularly social arrangement and foster connections. Where: • Cottage clusters usually need more than one typical inll size lot to fulll the objectives of the type. Areas with larger than average lots sizes or where two or more lots can be assembled work best. “e fundamental unit of organization within the neighborhood is the cluster of a dozen houses.” - Christopher Alexander Hastings Green, Portland, Oregon Greenwood Avenue Cottages, Shoreline, Washington * Half stories consist of habitable living space all or partially within the roof structure with sloping walls and often dormer windows. Sample Cottage Cluster conguration on two average inll lots of 60’ x 120’ 20 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 21 Cottage Cluster Duplex Duplex Houses usually take the form of a single family house in scale and character but contain two units. Some duplex are designed as such with separate entries for each unit while others are the result of interior conversions in older housing stock. Design Considerations: • Duplexes are one of the most compatible inll types due to their single family character. • To integrate seamlessly into a neighborhood use the same form and massing as adjacent dwellings where appropriate. • Maintain a single-family pattern by using shared open space, driveway and parking area. Where: • Duplexes are appropriate on corner lots on neighborhood streets. • Duplexes should be considered in most walkable neighborhood “mixes” to provide more opportunities for people to live near amenities. Duplex Conversion, Downtown Neighborhood, Four-plex, Downtown Neighborhood, EugeneCottage-Style Duplex, Eugene Regency Revival Four-plex, Downtown Neighborhood, Eugene Plexes Triplex and Multiplex Houses often take the form of a single family house in scale and character but contain multiple units. Larger plexes are usually designed with a single entry and central hall conguration while others are the result of interior conversions in older housing stock. Design Considerations: • Plexes are diverse and range in size and number of units. • Plexes are one of the most compatible inll types due to their single family character. • To integrate seamlessly into a neighborhood use the same form and massing as adjacent dwellings where appropriate. • Maintain a single-family pattern by using shared open space, driveway and parking area. When applied, this often translates into a rear yard free of building. Where: • Plexes are one of the most compatible inll types due to their single family character; they work well in most neighborhoods when the character and patterns of adjacent properties is respected. • Plexes should be considered in most walkable neighborhood “mixes” to provide more opportunities for people to live near amenities. Illustration © 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. Illustration © 2015 Opticos Design, Inc. 22 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 23 Courtyard Courtyard Houses are attached dwellings that open onto a shared courtyard that directly connects to the public sidewalk. When designing this type, the street facing “end” unit deserves additional attention to detail. For walkability and compatibility this end should feature architectural elements such as windows, articulation, or a wrap-around porch. Design Considerations: • As the central feature, the courtyard should aim to provide an attractive garden space to enhance livability for residents and add interest to the street character. • Design the open space as a welcoming semi-public entryway. • Provide pleasant views and natural light for residents from the shared space. • Maintain the massing of the single-family pattern where the end-unit or building meets the street. Where: • Similar to cottage clusters, courtyards usually need more than one typical inll size lot to fulll the objectives of the type. Areas with larger than average lots sizes or where two or more lots can be assembled work best. Courtyard, Jeerson Westside Neighborhood, Eugene Landscaped Courtyard, Portland, Oregon Sample Courtyard conguration on two average inll lots of 60’ x 120’ 24 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 25 Courtyard Rowhouses Rowhouses are a form of attached single-family dwelling where three or more units share common walls. Each unit features an individual street-facing entry. Design Considerations: • Rowhouses are one of the most common Missing Middle types in many cities but fairly rare in Eugene. • Rowhoses have a unique ability to create design continuity along streets. • Rowhouses are a slightly higher density than other Missing Middle types discussed in this handbook. • Parking should be shared and behind the buildings to ensure that garage doors and garage entries do not predominate the frontage, interrupt sidewalks, and consume green space. Where: • Encourage rowhouse projects that provide a walkable, urban fabric and street edge near corridors, neighborhood centers and parks. • Rowhouses have the potential to provide a transitional building type between mixed-use or multifamily zones and single-family areas. “For much of human history, walking distance dened the scale of community” - Ross Chapin Rowhouses, Fairmont Neighborhood, Eugene Rowhouses, Jeerson Westside neighborhood, Eugene 26 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 27 Rowhouse Alley Access & Site Specic Types Alley Access, Flag Lots, and Cluster Subdivisions are site congurations that lend themselves to some of the smaller Missing Middle housing types presented in this handbook. Alley access lots and ag lots generally occur as inll sites in neighborhoods with larger lots and maintained alleys. A cluster subdivision is new development with small individual lots and more abundant shared open space. Design Considerations for Alley Access & Flag Lots: • Limit the dwelling’s square footage by creating a well-designed, small-unit to respond to a smaller than average lot. • Consider the height patterns of the neighborhood. A small footprint should not be compensated with excess height unless compatible with the context. • Design welcoming entries that respond to the site’s unique conditions. For example, by facing and directly connecting to the alley as if it were a street. Where: • On inll sites in neighborhoods with larger lots and maintained alleys. Design Considerations for Cluster Subdivision: • Limited the size and mass of the dwellings to provide for the intended abundance of shared spaces. • Cluster subdivisions must provide a minimum of four units. • Shared open space may be landscaped or as natural areas that celebrate the natural features and views from a site. Where: • On larger sites where shared open space can provide a prominent design feature and resident amenity. Resources Plex Downtown Neighborhood W 10th Avenue Alley Access Lot, River Road Neighborhood, Eugene Cluster Subdivision, Cal Young Neighborhood, Eugene 28 Missing Middle Handbook Walking Tour & Map 11. Duplex (next door to the west is a triplex) 10. Duplex with courtyard apartment behind 9. Courtyard 11. 10. 6. 8. Duplex A walking tour through one of Eugene’s pre-war neighborhoods is a good oppotunity to spot Missing Middle types and see how they function “on the ground.” Here is a suggested route within blocks of the city center with just some of the types identified - see if you can find more! 9. 2. 4. 8. 12. 3. Plex 5. Secondary dwelling over garage 1. Tri-plex 7. Alley access secondary dwelling 12. Alley access 2. Plex with incompatible apartments behind 6. Plex 3. 5. W 12th Avenue W 11th Avenue W 11th Alley Charnelton StreetCharnelton AlleyWashington StreetLincoln StreetLawrence Street1. 7. 30 Missing Middle Handbook Missing Middle Handbook 31 KEY Single-Family Dwellings - some with secondary dwelling units 7. Single Family Home with Secondary Dwelling 4. Cottage Cluster Research National Missing Middle Housing: http://missingmiddlehousing.com Congress for a New Urbanism (CNU): https://www.cnu.org Urban Land Institute: https://uli.org Pocket Neighborhoods by Ross Chapin; Book available at the Eugene Public Library: https://www.eugene-or.gov/130/Eugene-Public-Library Oregon State of Oregon Character-Compatible, Space-Ecient Housing Options for Single-Dwelling Neighborhoods: https://www.oregon.gov/LCD/TGM/Pages/ SpaceEcientHousing.aspx City of Portland • Inll Design Toolkit: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/49254 • Courtyard Housing Design Competition: http://www.courtyardhousing.org/ • Narrow House Design Competition: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/ casestudies/study_101711_1.html Wood Village Case Study: http://www.oregonmetro.gov/ Washington e Housing Partnership (Seattle): Materials and sample codes now accessed through Pocket Neighborhoods: http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net (see Pocket Neighborhoods book above) • Cottage Housing Development • Cottage Housing in your Community: A Guide to Drafting Cottage Housing Ordinances Sample Design Code - Single Family Options Duplex Crescent Village Northeast Neighborhood 32 Missing Middle Handbook Sample Design Code - Single Family Options Th e Single Family Options sample code is a design code that was developed for an area planning project in the South Willamette area. Th e code is not adopted but it does provide sample design standards for many Missing Middle housing types. Link: https://www.eugene-or.gov/2685/Proposed-Design-Code-Information Missing Middle Handbook 35 1 2040 General Plan Proposed Key Strategies: Permit a Greater Array of Housing Types in Single-Unit Neighborhoods The General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Update (2040 General Plan Update) was initiated in February 2019. The project consists of four main phases of work. To wrap-up Phase 2 – Options Exploration, on January 19, City Council is being asked to consider the Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes and Other Key Strategies. These Key Strategies represent substantial policy changes being considered for the 2040 General Plan. One of the proposed key strategies is to permit a greater array of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in existing residential neighborhoods. To help better understand the key strategy of permitting a greater array of housing types, below are some frequently asked questions with thorough explanations. Is there a proposal to “eliminate single-family zoning?” No. The proposed Key Strategy of permitting a greater array of housing types in the existing single-unit neighborhoods would not “eliminate single-family zoning.” There will be no restriction or change to allowing the construction of single-family/single-unit homes where they are currently permitted today. All homeowners can keep their single-family homes and developers can continue to build single-family housing. In fact: •70% of Sacramento’s residential neighborhoods are zoned for single-family only, with duplexes only allowed on corner lots. •43% of the city’s total land area is zoned for single-family. What action is City Council being asked to consider on January 19 pertaining to the 2040 General Plan Update? The General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Update (2040 General Plan Update) was initiated in February 2019. The project consists of four main phases of work. To wrap-up Phase 2 – Options Exploration, on January 19, City Council is being asked to consider the Draft Land Use Map, Proposed Roadway Changes and Other Key Strategies. The staff report will be posted to the City’s website on January 15 and can be found here. These Key Strategies represent substantial policy changes being considered for the 2040 General Plan. One of the proposed key strategies is to permit a greater array of housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes in existing residential neighborhoods. Attachment 12-Permit a Greater Array of Housing Types in Single-Unit Neighborhoods-FAQs Page 98 of 157 2 In Phase 3 - Draft Plan Preparation, the Key Strategies will be used to guide the detailed preparation of the Draft 2040 General Plan Elements, the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, and the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR). These documents will be available for public review in Summer 2021 and will include all of the proposed strategies which will be organized by goals, policies, and implementation programs. Council will then be asked to adopt the 2040 General Plan at the end of 2021. What are the steps and timeline for implementation? Once the 2040 General Plan is adopted by City Council, currently anticipated for December 2021, the City’s Planning and Development Code (i.e. zoning code) will need to be updated in 2022 to be consistent with the adopted 2040 Land Use Map and Key Strategies. One of the anticipated changes to the Planning and Development Code would be to allow duplexes (currently allowed on corner lots), triplexes, or fourplexes by-right in traditionally single-unit zone neighborhoods (i.e. R-1 Zones). Once the changes to the Planning and Development Code are adopted by City Council anticipated for late 2022, the missing-middle housing types of duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes would be allowed in residential zones (i.e. R-1). Why is this being considered now? Since the planning efforts for the 2040 General Plan Update first launched in early 2019, some of the key themes expressed from the community is for the City to take action to address the availability and affordability of housing, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to address the impacts of climate change, and to advance equity and inclusion. The proposed Key Strategies respond to these key themes. In November 2019, City Council adopted the Vision and Guiding Principles for the 2040 General Plan. One of the adopted guiding principles is to “cultivate a broad mix of housing types in residential zones throughout the city to provide options for residents of all income levels, while protecting existing residents and communities from displacement.” The proposed Key Strategies respond to the adopted guiding principles. The Key Strategies were developed through significant community engagement. Phase 2 (November 2019 – November 2020) public engagement included input from approximately 2,200 participants, including stakeholder focus group workshops, a Virtual Citywide Workshop, Community Plan Area Virtual Workshops, a scientific survey, and input from various Boards and Commissions. Page 99 of 157 3 How is land use and zoning an equity issue? One of the reasons why many of Sacramento’s higher-resourced residential neighborhood remain largely racially segregated is because many of the “desirable” neighborhoods remain zoned exclusively for single-unit homes, a more expensive product type. There were racially restrictive covenants in many of our neighborhoods (Land Park, East Sacramento, Elmhurst, Pocket, etc.) until the early 20th century, and government-sponsored redlining was practiced until outlawed by the Fair Housing Act in 1968 (although discriminatory practices continued long-after 1968). Past discriminatory practices of racially restrictive covenants and government-sponsored redlining have created barriers to homeownership and intergenerational wealth-building for many minority families, and subsequent single-family zoning in high opportunity neighborhoods has reinforced it. The exclusion of lower-cost housing types (e.g. duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes) prevent lower-income residents from moving to neighborhoods with the best parks, schools, and other desirable amenities. Allowing a greater array of housing types in Sacramento’s residential neighborhoods will help create more equitable and inclusive neighborhoods by addressing the remnant forces of government policies of exclusion and racial segregation. The Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Housing Policy Toolkit (June 2020) provides a detailed overview of the role of zoning in exclusionary housing practices that can be found on pages 21-27. What is allowed in my single-family neighborhood now? Single-unit homes (i.e. single-family), duplexes on any corner lot, and up to two Accessory Dwelling Units (not to exceed 1,200 square feet). Has my neighborhood always been zoned R-1 to only allow single-family units? If you live in an older neighborhood, likely not. Land use and zoning policies have evolved over the years as the City grew. Various areas of the city have their own unique story, but as an example, here is a summary of allowable housing types in the Elmhurst Neighborhood: • From 1923-1929 “apartment houses” (or multi-family as this housing product is more commonly known) were allowed. • By 1936 zoning changes had restricted most of the neighborhood to 2 units maximum per lot, with the properties facing T Street restricted to just 1 unit. • In 1956 the remainder of the neighborhood was zoned to exclusively the R-1 zone (single-family). Page 100 of 157 4 Are housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes appropriate in residential neighborhoods? Yes. These missing-middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes are already found throughout the City’s “single-family” neighborhoods and you may not even be aware of it. In fact, there are over 2,300 of these housing types scattered throughout the City’s neighborhoods that were established before 1960. This proposed Key Strategy of permitting a greater array of housing types in residential neighborhoods is a thoughtful approach for allowing neighborhood scale housing options that fit into the fabric of existing neighborhoods. What do duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes look like? How big and tall can they be? The proposed land use change of using floor area ratio (instead of density [dwelling units per acre]) focuses on regulating the form and size of buildings, with less emphasis on the number of units in the building. The building envelope and size would be in line with what you see in our neighborhoods today, however, a few more people could now be living in these homes. These housing types would comply with Citywide Design Guidelines and the Planning and Development Code’s development standards would continue to control the outward appearance of buildings (i.e. size and height) and maintain the overall neighborhood scale and character. As an example, the current development standards for the single-unit dwelling zone (R-1), include: • Height: 35 ft. maximum • Minimum setbacks (from street/structures): 20 ft. front, 15 ft. rear, 5 ft. side • Lot coverage: 40% maximum How about some actual photos of these housing types that are currently in the City? Great idea. Please see Attachment A below to view some representative examples of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes currently found in the City’s “single-family” neighborhoods. What about parking? Residential neighborhoods zoned R-1 typically require a minimum of 1 off-street parking space per unit. Most of the neighborhoods in the core of the City are in Traditional Parking District. Therefore, under current parking standards, a duplex would need 2 off-street parking spaces, a triplex would need 3, etc. However, per State law, no parking spaces can be required for Accessory Dwelling Units. Page 101 of 157 5 Who is expected to live in these housing types? The proposed key strategy of permitting a greater array of housing types in existing single-unit neighborhoods, is one of many actions the City is considering to encourage lower-cost, “missing-middle” housing. “Missing-middle” housing are buildings with multiple units-compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes. These “missing-middle” housing types are traditionally lower-cost housing options and are considered by the State to be affordable to those with moderate incomes like our community members that work in our schools, restaurants, small businesses, or for the State. But, doesn’t the City have an affordable housing shortage? Yes. This proposed key Strategy is just one small slice of the larger affordable housing pie. It will take many policies, programs, and a strong funding commitment from the federal, state, and local governments to begin to tackle the tremendous need. The State requires the City to accommodate and plan for 45,580 new housing units by 2029, including 17,000 housing units that are affordable to our lower-income residents. The 2021-2029 Housing Element -an 8 Year Housing Strategy will include a variety of policies and programs to address this need. This draft document will be available for public review in the next month. To learn more, visit the City’s webpage. Who else is doing this? Other cities like Portland and Minneapolis have also changed their land use and zoning regulations to allow a wider range of small-scale multi-unit housing in all of their residential neighborhoods. The Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Housing Policy Toolkit (June 2020) is a menu of policy options and best practices for removing governmental constraints to new housing at the local level in the Sacramento Region. One of SACOG’s recommendations is to expand “missing-middle” zoning and to allow for duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on all residentially zoned land. The California Department of Housing and Community Development will be launching its Prohousing Designation Program in the coming months. Jurisdictions that receive a Prohousing Designation will receive incentives in the form of additional points or other preferences in the scoring of competitive State funding grant programs for affordable housing. One of the ways local governments can demonstrate that they are “prohousing” is through implementation of the proposed Key Strategy of allowing a greater array of housing types in residential neighborhoods. It is critical that the City of Sacramento receive these State grant funds to continue to construct affordable housing. Page 102 of 157 6 How can I continue to participate in the 2040 General Plan Update process? The Draft 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan is anticipated to be available for public review in Summer 2021. Visit www.sac2040gpu.org or sign-up for email updates. Last Updated: 1/13/21 Page 103 of 157 7 Attachment A Examples of duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes currently found in the City’s “single-family” neighborhoods. Two examples of existing duplexes: 1. An existing duplex in the Curtis Park neighborhood. 2. An existing duplex in the Land Park neighborhood. Page 104 of 157 8 Two examples of existing triplexes: 1. An existing triplex in the Curtis Park neighborhood. 2. An existing triplex in the North Oak Park neighborhood. Page 105 of 157 9 Two examples of existing fourplexes: 1. An existing fourplex in the Land Park neighborhood. 2. An existing fourplex in the East Sacramento neighborhood. Page 106 of 157 Missing Middle HousingGeneral Plan Update March 10, 2021 Tonight’s Roadmap Provide background and context on missing middle housing Present existing missing middle housing types within the City Highlight potential process for how missing middle might be implemented into the General Plan and Zoning Code The Challenge Missing Middle Housing A range of small to medium sized buildings with multiple residential units Missing Middle Housing Compatible in scale and form with detached single-family homes Can help create a more walkable neighborhood A few examples of missing middle housing include: Duplex, triplex, or fourplex Courtyard building Cottage court Townhouse Live-work unit Images Courtesy: Opticos SSF Missing Middle Housing Examples Images Courtesy: Google Earth Building Design Characteristics of Missing Middle Housing Walkable context Small-footprint buildings Lower perceived density Smaller units Fewer off-street parking spaces Simple construction Image Courtesy: Perkins&Will Why Communities Are Re-Introducing Missing Middle Housing Demand for housing choice + multigeneration housing Community building Affordability Opportunities for ownership housing + wealth building Climate friendly How Much Missing Middle Housing is in SSF Existing Land Use Map Existing Land Uses in the City Single Family Residential (36%) Multifamily Residential (4%) Retail and Services (6%) Office and R&D (12%) Industrial (19%) Public and Institutional (7%) Parks, Open Space + Common Greens (10%) Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex (2%) Vacant, Utilities, and Transportation (4%) Mixed Use (<1%) Residential Land Uses Single Family Residential Residential 5+ Units Other Residential Duplex, Triplex, Fourplex Residential Units and Land Area by Type 13,000 units 62% of citywide total 2,000 10% of citywide total100 <1% of citywide total 5,900 28% of citywide total South San Francisco Residential Land Area Proportion of Missing Middle Housing by Planning Sub-Area 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Westborough Avalon Brentwood El Camino Real Sunshine Gardens Orange Park Paradise Valley and Terra Bay Sign Hill Winston Serra Downtown City Average 8% How Does South San Francisco Compare? Source: Racial Segregation in the San Francisco Bay Area, Othering and Belonging Institute Percentage of Single-Family Residential Zoning Percentage of All Other Residential Zoning Regional Average 82% South San Francisco 72% San Carlos 89% Hillsborough 100% Berkeley 49% Racial Composition of Bay Area Cities by % Single-Family Zoning Cities with High Single Family % Asian or Pacific Islander (21%) Hispanic / Latino (16%) White (53%) Other (5%) Black or African American (3%) Cities with Low Single Family % Asian or Pacific Islander (30%) Hispanic / Latino (22%) White (34%) Other (6%) Black or African American (8%) South San Francisco Asian or Pacific Islander (41%) Hispanic / Latino (34%) White (19%) Other (4.6%) Black or African American (2%) In Practice Examples in Practice: Minneapolis Adopted Comprehensive Plan in 2019 Focuses on increasing housing supply and diversity across the City Allows duplex and triplex in all single family neighborhoods Comprehensive zoning code update in process Eliminates off street parking minimums Examples in Practice: Portland Oregon eliminated single family zoning in 2019 (HB 2001) Allows for more housing types, including duplex, triplexes and fourplexes Limits construction in areas susceptible to hazard (landslide, flooding) Establishes building design standards, including height and size Removes minimum parking requirements from some sites Examples in Practice: Sacramento General Plan and Zoning Code update underway City Council voted in January 2021 to study the upzoningof all single-family neighborhoods Key strategy is to permit a greater array of housing types in single-unit neighborhoods Potential Next Steps Potential Next Steps Phase I (if directed) Analyze the possibility of existing single-family parcels be divided into up to 4 units Evaluate where in South San Francisco these housing types might be appropriate, including considering hazard areas, proximity to amenities, and parcel characteristics Facilitate 2 community meetings and 1 Community Advisory Committee meeting on missing middle housing Review findings and community input with City Council for recommendation Phase II (if directed) Release updated CEQA Notice of Preparation Develop form-based design and development standards which address the building type, frontage, scale, and massing 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNjctKfT3RuuzI1_XEXZkRzKGsn…1/3 Email address * Ethan J Mizzi Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 Comments received by the 5:00 p.m. deadline will be forwarded to the City Council and read into the record by the City Clerk. Comments received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300 words in total can be read in three minutes. Name Address: Phone number Organization: Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Regular CC Item #14 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNjctKfT3RuuzI1_XEXZkRzKGsn…2/3 Items not on the agenda Item Number 1 Item Number 2 Item Number 3 Item Number 4 Item Number 5 Item Number 6 Item Number 7 Item Number 8 Item Number 9 Item Number 10 Item Number 11 Item Number 12 Item Number 13 Item Number 14 Item Number 15 Item Number 16 Item Number 17 Public Comment - 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. * 2/24/2021 Regular City Council Meeting (7:00 p.m.) - 02/24/2021 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1lLhiOWd50C8wiMgWWGV9CCz5fIPaPPGq6MEzbWnCbfg/edit#response=ACYDBNjctKfT3RuuzI1_XEXZkRzKGsn…3/3 Yes No Email Phone No Response Needed Good evening Mayor Addiego, Vice-Mayor Nagales and members of the Council. My name is Ethan Mizzi and I would like to comment tonight on the proposed up-zoning of the City. Not only would this be the first step in writing the wrongs of the past in regards to racist exclusionary zoning, but this would greatly help us meet and hopefully exceed our RHNA goals so we can help quell the housing crisis. I would like to say that although I 100% support zoning the current Single Family zoned areas for fourplexes, I would still prefer you all to consider zoning for at least fiveplexes because there are a lot of state density bonuses that fourplexes don't come with. Also please consider looking into allowing for more density in our residential neighborhoods by changing height restrictions so you can build taller than 2 stories. I'm very thankful and very proud that South City is looking to be the first City on the Peninsula to end single family zoning. We will be a trendsetter for not just the County but the whole Peninsula. We will be the first City with "San Francisco" in its name to end single family zoning, and that surely would be an achievement for us. Thank you and stay safe. This form was created inside of City of South San Francisco - Oce of the City Clerk. Would you like your comment read during the Public Comment section of the agenda? If you select NO, your comment will be read before the Council discusses the item. * Would you like to receive a response from members of the City Council? If yes, please select your preferred method of communication and provide your information above. * Submit your comment below. * Forms From:Acosta, Rosa To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:FW: COUNCIL MEETING OF 2-24 ITEM 14-PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM Date:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 7:15:31 AM From: LAURA FANELLA [] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:32 AM To: Acosta, Rosa Subject: COUNCIL MEETING OF 2-24 ITEM 14-PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM I write to you today regarding item 14 with the hope you will reconsider even considering this option at the very least in the tract home areas. I came to Sunshine Gardens in 1976 to raise my family, chose this area specifically for the quality of life and the quality of the homes. Many of us have sacrificed, worked hard and long to get this far. It’s unfair to move the goal posts at our expense. How about you make those of us that have lived here most of our lives a priority? I think 45 years as a productive resident to this city deserves some accommodation. As I am now retired and finally able to enjoy my home, it seems others have other ideas for my quality of life. Too many like me have left the city—can we take that into account? Is that really want you want your legacy to be—yep we ran all the diehard residents out of town but hey we have lots of multi-family buildings to replace them! Please stop this before it gets any further and if you insist on such a change start with your own homes! LAURA FANELLA Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Reg CC Item # 14 From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:City Council Agenda 2/24/21 Item 14 Date:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:19:34 PM I am opposed to allowing moderate density housing in residential districts that currently only allow single family dwellings. SSF has hundreds of housing units in their construction pipeline, focused on access to transit corridors. Citizens in our community have expressed opposition to the increasing density and the consequences for the surrounding neighborhoods in past council sessions. More than 1800 signatures opposing the density of the PUC development’s were presented to the council. Another expensive “Community Engagement” consultant will be a waste of public money. You KNOW what the South San Francisco community wants. It is NOT more density! Changing density in single family neighborhoods is going too far. You have an obligation to listen to your constituents, whom you represent, over the platform of other state politicians pushing to increase housing density. I am proud of my neighborhood, my new neighbors of all ethnicities, races and ages, young families with children playing, retirees, some renters, some homeowners. Preserve our single family neighborhoods for the next generations. If you are looking to make bold changes to our city, find a way to get the owner of the Spruce and El Camino property to finally do something with that blighted land. Cathy Rosaia South San Francisco City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-149 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15. Report regarding an ordinance requiring large grocery and drug stores in South San Francisco to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00)per hour in “hazard pay”during the coronavirus (COVID-19)pandemic (Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic & Community Development, and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION At the direction of City Council,staff drafted a proposed ordinance mandating “hazard pay”for grocery and drug store workers within the City.Should Council desire to adopt a hazard pay ordinance,staff recommends adopting the proposed ordinance as an urgency ordinance.Because the proposed ordinance is an urgency ordinance,a four-fifths vote of the City Council is required for adoption.If the Council chooses to proceed with adoption,staff recommends Council additionally introduce the ordinance for a first reading and proceed to adopt the measure as a non-urgency ordinance.The non-urgency ordinance could also be introduced if the four- fifths threshold for an urgency ordinance cannot be reached. BACKGROUND A.Update on Hazard Pay Ordinances in California As indicated in the staff report for the February 10 meeting (see Attachment A),at least a dozen local jurisdictions in California are currently considering a version of a “hazard pay”ordinance that would provide extra hourly pay to certain types of retail workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in recognition of the heightened health risks associated with their work. At the time the last staff report was drafted,three cities had adopted a hazard pay urgency ordinance:Oakland, Long Beach,and Montebello.Since then,three more cities have adopted hazard pay urgency ordinances:San Leandro,West Hollywood,and Coachella.In addition,Irvine and San Jose have both introduced non-urgency ordinances that are awaiting a second reading. The ordinances in these cities compare as follows: [table on following page] City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-149 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15. Around the County since the last staff report,the city council in Belmont has decided not to pursue a hazard pay ordinance,while the council in the City of San Mateo has considered an ordinance and directed staff to draft an ordinance for adoption on March 1.News reports have also indicated that San Mateo County Supervisor David Canepa intends to introduce a $5 hazard pay ordinance by early March. B.Update on Litigation At the time of the last staff report,the California Grocers Association had sued each of the three cities that had then adopted a hazard pay ordinance. The grocers have now also sued West Hollywood and San Leandro. All of the grocers association’s lawsuits are substantively identical,raising the same claims that the ordinances are invalid because they are preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (for allegedly interfering with collective bargaining)and because they are unconstitutional (for allegedly violating equal protection and City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-149 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15. contracts clauses of the United States constitution). As of the date of this staff report,there has been no further activity to report in the litigation.The anticipated hearing on the preliminary injunction motion-which would be the first test of the grocers association’s claims- was scheduled for February 19,2021,but was postponed until February 23,2021 after the case was assigned a new judge.If a decision is issued prior to the February 24 City Council meeting,we will provide an oral update at the meeting. C.Update on response from affected retailers Since the last staff report,Kroger has announced the closure of two additional stores,this time in the Seattle area, in response to a local hazard pay ordinance. PROPOSED ORDINANCES Based on Council’s direction during the February 10,2021 meeting,staff revised the proposed ordinance as follows: ·Rate of Hazard Pay. The proposed rate of pay was increased to $5 per hour. ·Threshold size for grocery stores subject to the ordinance.The size of stores subject to the ordinance was lowered from 15,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet or larger. ·Types of retailers covered.The proposed ordinance now applies to drug stores,as well as grocery stores.In addition,the definition of grocery store has been modified to include not only stores that primarily sell household foodstuffs,but also very large stores (85,000 square feet or larger)that dedicate at least 10% of space to food sales. This was intended to capture large warehouse stores such as Costco. ·Two Weeks’Retroactivity.The proposed ordinance,as an urgency ordinance,would continue to take effect immediately (the day following the Council’s adoption);however,the ordinance was modified to apply retroactively to any work on or after February 11,2021,the date the ordinance would have taken effect if it had been adopted at the last meeting. ·Non-urgency alternative.As before,the proposed ordinance is drafted as an urgency measure, reflecting Council’s direction to take action on this matter quickly.The recitals contained in the ordinance establish the basis for the urgency,including citing studies reflecting the dangers faced by the workers who would be eligible for the hazard pay and how the additional compensation would further the immediate preservation of the public health and safety.A regular ordinance has also been included for City Council introduction,if the City Council decides to proceed with adoption of an ordinance.The non-urgency version would provide a back-up,in the event that a court determined that there was not a sufficient basis to support the urgency ordinance.Additionally,should the vote threshold for an urgency ordinance not be met, the non-urgency ordinance is available for introduction and first reading. FISCAL IMPACT The potential fiscal impact to the City is unknown.The proposed ordinance does not create any substantive obligations on the City,and staff does not anticipate any additional City staff time or resources are necessary. There would be currently un-estimated litigation costs associated with defending a likely challenge to the City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-149 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15. There would be currently un-estimated litigation costs associated with defending a likely challenge to the ordinance. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This effort potentially aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing quality of life. CONCLUSION Should the City Council desire to adopt a hazard pay ordinance for grocery workers within the City,staff recommends City Council adopt the proposed ordinance as an urgency ordinance.If the City Council chooses to proceed,staff recommends the City Council additionally waive reading and introduce the proposed ordinance as a non-urgency ordinance.The non-urgency version of the ordinance is also available for consideration, if the four-fifths threshold for the urgency ordinance cannot be reached. Attachment: 1. Staff Report from February 10, 2021, meeting 2. Redline Urgency Ordinance 3696374.1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Report regarding an urgency ordinance requiring large grocery stores in South San Francisco to pay employees an additional four dollars ($4.00)per hour in “hazard pay”during the coronavirus (COVID-19)pandemic (Alex Greenwood, Director of Economic & Community Development, and Sky Woodruff, City Attorney) RECOMMENDATION At the request of City Council,staff drafted a proposed ordinance mandating “hazard pay”for grocery workers within the City.Should Council desire to adopt a hazard pay ordinance,staff recommends adopting the proposed ordinance as an urgency ordinance.Because the proposed ordinance is an urgency ordinance,a four- fifths vote of the City Council is required for adoption.Alternatively,staff recommends Council consider the proposed ordinance after a scheduled February 19,2021 hearing in a pending lawsuit against a similar Long Beach ordinance,as the outcome of the hearing may alert staff to any legal issues that the courts see with this type of ordinance. BACKGROUND A.Hazard Pay Ordinances in California At least a dozen local jurisdictions in California are currently considering a version of a “hazard pay”ordinance that would provide extra hourly pay to certain types of retail workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in recognition of the heightened health risks associated with their work.The ordinances are prospective and would not apply retroactively.Jurisdictions considering these measures include Los Angeles County,Santa Clara County,San Francisco,the City of Los Angeles,San Jose,Santa Monica,West Hollywood,Pomona, Santa Ana, Berkeley, and San Leandro. The ordinances considered by these jurisdictions all take a similar approach.They require large stores to pay all non-managerial workers an additional hourly wage during the COVID-19 pandemic;smaller,mom-and-pop stores are excluded.Within this framework,however,the proposals being considered vary between cities in how they are tailored in terms of:(1)the specified rate of pay,(2)what types of retail stores are covered,(3)the specific size or other threshold requirements that determine which retailers are covered,and (4)how long the hazard pay is required. As of the date of this staff report, three cities have adopted hazard pay through urgency ordinances: ·On Jan. 19, Long Beach adopted a hazard pay rate of $4 per hour; ·On Jan.27,Montebello (a city in eastern Los Angeles County with a population of approximately 70,000 people) adopted a hazard pay rate of $4 per hour; ·On Feb. 2, Oakland adopted a hazard pay rate of $5 per hour. The proposed ordinance is drafted as an urgency measure,reflecting Council’s initial direction to take action on this matter quickly,if it chooses to proceed.The recitals contained in the ordinance establish the basis for the urgency,including citing studies reflecting the dangers faced by the workers who would be eligible for the hazard pay and how the additional compensation would further the immediate preservation of the public health File #:21-95,Version:1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-95,Version:1 hazard pay and how the additional compensation would further the immediate preservation of the public health and safety. B.Active Litigation The California Grocers Association has sued all of the cities that have adopted a hazard pay ordinance.The lawsuits are substantively identical.Each claims that the hazard pay ordinance is invalid because it is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (for allegedly interfering with collective bargaining)and because it is unconstitutional (for allegedly violating equal protection and contracts clauses of the United States constitution). The City Attorney’s Office is still reviewing the strength of these claims. In each of these cases,the Grocers Association seeks to enjoin the ordinance from taking effect.In Long Beach,the group requested a temporary restraining order,which was denied by the court.A hearing is set for February 19,2021 in Los Angeles federal court on the grocers’motion for a preliminary injunction,which will determine whether the grocers’are likely to prevail on their claims.No hearings have been set in the Oakland or Montebello cases. The grocers have also threatened to sue other jurisdictions that adopt similar ordinances. C.Arguments made by supporters Supporters of hazard pay ordinances,including the United Food and Commercial Workers,note that grocery and other front-line retail workers are essential workers in the COVID-19 pandemic.These workers bear a heightened risk infection,given that many work in enclosed settings where they are required to make close contact with large numbers of members of the public.Even with mask mandates in effect,this has led to a number of outbreaks in grocery stores and other retail outlets across the state.Workers shouldering this risk are low-wage workers, who are primarily women and people of color, and their families. Supporters have argued that,while health risks have risen for front-line workers,many of their employers have seen substantial increases in sales and profits during the pandemic.According to a November 2020 Brookings Institution report,for instance,13 of the largest retailers in the country saw their profits rise 40 percent in 2020 over the previous year.This includes Kroger (Ralphs/Food 4 Less)and Albertsons (Safeway/Lucky),which both saw profits more than double in the first two quarters of 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Front-line workers saw little of those increased profits,according to the study;while all of the retailers studied had provided temporary hazard pay at the start of the pandemic (typically $2 per hour),this extra pay had largely ended by June 2020.Thus,over the course of the pandemic in 2020,a worker at a Kroger or Albertsons store saw an average pay increase of $0.87 or $0.83 per hour, respectively. D.Responses from affected retailers Staff has begun outreach to potentially affected local businesses to solicit their feedback on a potential hazard pay ordinance,including:Safeway,Grocery Outlet,Seafood City,Smart &Final,Costco,and others.Staff will update the City Council with responses received. Across the state,however,the Grocers Association has vocally opposed these ordinances.It has argued that retailers on whole have invested in safety measures,incentive pay,and improved health benefits for workers since the pandemic began.It has also argued that consumers will bear the brunt of the mandated pay increase, with the impact felt most by low-income families and those struggling since the pandemic began.For instance, in a letter to Oakland and San Jose city councils co-signed with a number of other trade groups,the Association City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 2 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-95,Version:1 in a letter to Oakland and San Jose city councils co-signed with a number of other trade groups,the Association argued that a $5 per hour hazard pay mandate would lead to an average increase in food costs of $400 per year for a family of four. The association has also warned that pay increases will lead to store closures or employers cutting shifts and reducing hours.This week,for instance,Kroger announced it was closing two stores in Long Beach-a Food 4 Less and a Ralphs-because of the city’s ordinance.(The stores had been underperforming,a Kroger spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times.) As the Grocers Association has noted,some retailers have continued to provide-and have increased-incentive pay during the epidemic.For instance,Trader Joe’s has provided all hourly,non-managerial workers $2 per hour in “thank you”pay throughout the pandemic.It announced on Feb.2 that it will increase this extra pay to $4 per hour in response to new hazard pay ordinances in California and Washington.(According to a message from the CEOs,workers will forgo their usual $0.65-$0.75 annual,permanent raises in 2021,and will receive the extra pay until they “generally . . . are eligible for vaccinations as ‘grocery workers.’”) E.Potentially Impacted Businesses Based on an initial review of Business License data,staff estimates there are 18 to 20 grocery store establishments in the city.This includes larger establishments such as Safeway,Costco,Trader Joe’s,Pacific Supermarket,Grocery Outlet,and Smart &Final;and it also includes smaller groceries such as La Tapatia, School House Grocery,Seafood City,and Mike &Ken’s Grocery.The City’s business license program does not have a specific category for groceries,so these establishments are included in several different business categories,such as “Retail General Merchandise.”In addition,the 18-20 grocery stores noted above would not include several types of businesses that can sometimes offer services very similar to groceries,such as retail bakeries, convenience stores, liquor stores, or wholesale produce markets with a retail component. As discussed below,the proposed ordinance could be constructed to exclude businesses with less than 500 employees nationwide.With such a provision,the ordinance would potentially apply to about eight or nine establishments. PROPOSED ORDINANCE At the request of Council, staff has drafted a proposed ordinance using the Oakland ordinance as a base. ·Rate of Hazard Pay.The proposed rate of pay is $4 per hour,in addition to workers’existing hourly base salary.This matches the rate adopted in Long Beach and Montebello;it is $1 lower than the Oakland’s pay and $1 more than the proposed rate in San Jose. ·Types of retailers covered.The proposed ordinance applies only to grocery stores,which are defined as stores that “primarily sell household foodstuffs for offsite consumption.”It is unclear whether Costco meets this definition.The proposed ordinance does not follow Montebello’s approach (also being considered by Los Angeles County) to include drug stores, as well. ·Threshold for grocery stores subject to the ordinance.The proposed ordinance is limited to grocery stores that (1)are over 15,000 square feet in size and located within the geographic limits of the city, and (2)employ 500 or more employees nationwide,regardless of where those employees are employed, or is a franchisee associated with a store that employs more than 500 employees in the aggregate. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 3 of 4 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-95,Version:1 ·Enforcement.Enforcement of the proposed ordinance mirrors the City’s minimum wage ordinance, adopted in 2019 and codified in chapter 8.71 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.This includes a private right of action.(By contrast,the Oakland ordinance includes specific provisions related to enforcement by that city’s workplace and employment standards department.) ·Duration of ordinance.The duration of the proposed ordinance is tied to the City’s status under the state health order.It would require covered employers to pay hazard pay for any period in which the City is within a widespread (purple),substantial (red)or moderate (orange)risk level (or its equivalent), and until the City’s risk level returns to minimal (yellow). FISCAL IMPACT The potential fiscal impact to the City is unknown.The proposed ordinance does not create any substantive obligations on the City,and staff does not anticipate any additional City staff time or resources are necessary. There would be currently un-estimated litigation costs associated with defending a likely challenge to the ordinance. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN This effort potentially aligns with Priority #2 which is focused on enhancing quality of life. CONCLUSION Should the City Council desire to adopt a hazard pay ordinance for grocery workers within the City,staff recommends City Council adopt the proposed ordinance as an urgency ordinance.In the alternative,staff recommends the City Council consider the proposed ordinance after the scheduled February 19th hearing in the Long Beach lawsuit. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 4 of 4 powered by Legistar™ ..Title Urgency Ordinance amending Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay” to require large grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional four five dollars ($45.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic ..body WHEREAS, on March 19, 2020, the California State Public Health Officer, designated specific sectors and their workers, including grocery and drug stores, as Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers (“essential workers”) to ensure the “continuity of functions critical to public health and safety, as well as economic and national security”; and WHEREAS, since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, grocery and drug store workers in the City of South San Francisco have continued to report to work and serve their communities, despite the ongoing hazards and danger of being exposed to and infected by the novel coronavirus, helping to ensure individuals throughout the City of South San Francisco have had access to the food and medicine they need during this pandemic; and WHEREAS, essential grocery and drug store workers are not highly paid and cannot choose to work from home—they must come to work to do their jobs, which involve heightened risk of exposure and infection of COVID-19 through substantial interaction with customers on an ongoing basis and indoors where there is less air circulation; and WHEREAS, according to an October 29, 2020 study published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine, a comprehensive test of workers at one grocery store resulted in 20 percent of grocery workers testing positive for COVID-19, even though three of four workers were asymptomatic; and WHEREAS, according to an August 2020 article in The Washington Post, at least 130 U.S. grocery workers had died from COVID-19, and more than 8,200 have tested positive for the virus; and WHEREAS, according to a January 2021 article in The Washington Post, the United Food and Commercial Workers estimates 109 of its members have died to from COVID-19 and more than 20,000 have tested positive; and WHEREAS, despite the efforts of grocery and drug stores to take precautions and keep customers and employees safe, including requiring masks, social distancing, and sanitizing cash registers, food conveyor belts, and shopping carts, there have been highly publicized outbreaks of COVID- 19 among grocery store employees in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the health threats that these grocery and drug store workers face cannot be overstated; and WHEREAS, Latinos comprise about 40 percent of California’s population but 55 percent of positive cases, according to state data as of February 4, 2021, and according to health experts, one of the main reasons Latinos are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 is because many work in jobs deemed “essential,” that require them to leave home and interact with the public, many in the retail food industry, which includes grocery stores; and WHEREAS, on August 28, 2020, the State released the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy” that assigns counties into color-coded tiers based on a county’s case rate and test positivity rate, and that permits operations of certain businesses and activities based on a county’s tier; WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an emergency regional stay at home order on December 3, 2020, as a result of the critically low availability Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) beds; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2021, the California Department of Public Health reported another COVID-19 variant that had grown more common across the state since December, with worrisome signs that this variant may be highly transmissible; and WHEREAS, despite the rescinding of the statewide December 3, 2020 emergency order, the State is believed to be in the height of the pandemic with a stay at home order in many regions of the state, including the Bay Area region, where ICU capacity is 18.124 percent, and region are a long way from minimal risk where there would be one (1) daily new case per 100,000 or less than two (2) percent positivity; and WHEREAS, based on the case rate and positivity rate, San Mateo county is currentlyhas been listed in the “purple” and most elevated risk tier under the State blueprint, representing “widespread” risk throughout the county, since November and continues to be listed in this tier; and WHEREAS, grocery and drug stores are the primary points of distribution for food, medicine, and other daily necessities for the residents of the City of South San Francisco and are therefore essential to the vitality of our community; WHEREAS, given this essential role, grocery and drug stores have largely remained open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many workers continuing to perform their job duties in person; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco recognizes that grocery and drug store workers must be justly compensated for the clear and present dangers of doing their jobs during the pandemic, and increases in wages result in more money being spent to stimulate our local economy; and WHEREAS, grocery and drug store workers—should they and members of their family become infected—risk being unable to work and earn an income, and an inability to pay for housing, childcare and healthcare costs; and WHEREAS, the United States’ largest grocery and drug store retail companies have earned record profits during the pandemic, and this increase in profit has not transferred to workers, according to a Brookings Institution analysis published in November 2020; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has adopted ordinances to address COVID-19-related impacts, including eviction protections for tenants; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco has in the past adopted ordinance affecting the wages and conditions of employment locally; and WHEREAS, premium pay, paid in addition to regular wages, is an established type of compensation for employees performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship that can cause extreme physical discomfort and distress; and WHEREAS, there are several large grocery and drug store chains operating in South San Francisco that employ workers in South San Francisco, and have at least 500 employees nationwide, with workers who are facing the hazards of COVID-19 in the workplace every day; and WHEREAS, in December 2020 and January 2021, a growing list of cities across California, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Jose, Berkeley, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Montebello, and San Leandro began announcing legislation for hazard pay for essential grocery and drug store workers during the pandemic, including during the period where counties are in the Purple, Red, or Orange level of Community Transmission for COVID- 19 under State Health orders; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 8 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code to adopt Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay” to require large grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional four five dollars ($45.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36937 authorizes the City Council to introduce and adopt an ordinance it declares to be necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace, health, and safety at one and the same meeting if passed by at least four-fifths affirmative votes; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is a temporary pay ordinance intended to compensate certain essential workers at high risk of COVID-19 infection within the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and thus to serve the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council expressly intends this hazard pay requirement to apply retroactively to February 11, 2021, including all work performed on that date, in order to serve the public health, safety, and welfare in recognition that the risks posed to grocery and drug store workers continued during the time period when the City Council actively considered taking action to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing this hazard pay; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. Findings The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the Ordinance by this reference. SECTION 2. Urgent Need The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and/or welfare and a need for immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety that warrants this urgency measure, which finding is based upon the facts stated in the Recitals above, and in the staff report presented to the City Council on February 10, 2021, and February 24, 2021, as well any oral and written testimony at the February 10, 20201 and February 24, 2021, City Council meetings. This Ordinance and the hazard pay requirement that is established thereunder is declared by the City Council to be an urgency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. The facts constituting such urgency are all of those certain facts set forth and referenced in this Ordinance and the entirety of the record before the City Council. SECTION 3. Amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 8.77 (“COVID-19 Hazard Pay”) is hereby added to Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.77.010. Title. This chapter shall be known as the “Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Emergency Ordinance.” 8.77.020. Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the City of South San Francisco under the laws of the State of California, including, but not limited to, the police powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and California Labor Code section 1205. 8.77.030. Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the construction and meaning of the terms used in this Chapter: A. “Base Wage” means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees as of the effective date of this Chapter less Hazard Pay owed under this Ordinance or any other premium hourly rate already paid to compensate Covered Employees for working during the pandemic (referred to herein as “employer-initiated hazard pay”). B. “City” means the City of South San Francisco. C. “Covered Employee” means any individual who qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission, and who works in a Large Grocery Store or, a Large Drug Store, or an affiliated business operated by a Covered Employer on the same premises as a Large Grocery Store or Large Grocery Store, on either a full-time or part-time basis. D. “Covered Employer” means any Person who (a) directly or indirectly or through an agent, affiliated business, or any other Person owns or operates a Large Grocery Store or Large Drug Store, and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Covered Employee; and (b) employs 500 or more employees nationwide regardless of where those employees are employed, or is a Franchisee associated with a Franchisor or a network of Franchises with Franchisees that employ more than 500 employees in the aggregate, regardless of where those employees are employed. To determine the number of employees employed by a Large Grocery Store or Large Drug Store, the calculation shall be based upon: a. The actual number of employees who worked for compensation during the two workweeks preceding the effective date of this chapter; and b. All employees who worked for compensation shall be counted, including but not limited to: i. Employees who are not covered by this chapter; ii. Employees who worked within the geographic limits of the City; iii. Employees who worked outside the geographic limits of the City; and iv. Employees who worked in full-time employment, part-time employment, joint employment, temporary employment, or through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity. E. “Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay” means a premium hourly rate to compensate Covered Employees for the hardships and/or risks associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic. If a Covered Employer pays such Employer–Initiated Hazard pay on a flat rate basis, the premium hourly rate is derived by dividing the flat rate payment for a workweek by the number of hours worked in the workweek. F. “Franchise” means a written agreement by which: 1. A Person is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan prescribed or suggested in substantial part by the grantor or its affiliates; and 2. The operation of the business is substantially associated with a trademark, service mark, tradename, advertising, or other commercial symbol; designating, owned by, or licensed by the grantor or its affiliate; and 3. The Person pays, agrees to pay, or is required to pay, directly or indirectly, a Franchise fee. G. “Franchisee” means a Person to whom a Franchise is offered or granted. H. “Franchisor” means a Person who grants a franchise to another Person. I. “Hazard Pay” means an additional $54.00 per hour wage bonus in addition to each Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium wage for each hour worked within the City. J. “Holiday Premium” means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees for performing work during a holiday or holiday season. K. “Hours Worked” means the time during which a Covered Employee is subject to the control of a Covered Employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, and on-call. L. “Large Drug Store” means a retail or wholesale store that is over 15,000 square feet in size, that is located within the geographic limits of the City, and that sells primarily a general range of drugs, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and related products, including food products, which may be fresh or packaged. ML. “Large Grocery Store” means (1) a retail or wholesale store that is over 105,000 square feet in size, that is located within the geographic limits of the City, and that sells primarily household foodstuffs for offsite consumption, including the sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods, or prepared foods.; Other household supplies or other products shall be secondary to the primary purpose of food sales or (2) a retail or wholesale store that is over 85,000 square feet and with 10% of its sales floor area dedicated to sale of non-taxable foodstuffs including, but not limited to, the sale of fresh produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods and/or prepared foods. NM. “Person” means any individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. ON. “Retaliatory Action” means any adverse action taken by an employer that negatively and significantly affects the terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to termination, demotion, suspension, harassment, threats, unequal discipline, reduction in pay (including Base Wage or Holiday Premium Wages) or work hours, or refusal to hire or promote. 8.77.040. Payment of Hazard Pay to Covered Employees. A. Hazard Pay. Covered Employers shall pay Covered Employees a wage of no less than the premium hourly rate set under the authority of this Chapter. The premium hourly rate for each Covered Employee shall be four five dollars ($45.00) per hour for all hours worked at a Large Grocery Store or, Large Drug Store, or an affiliated business operated by a Covered Employer on the same premises as a Large Grocery Store or Large Grocery Store, in addition to the Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium, whichever is applicable at the time of hours worked. The Hazard Pay rate shall not include compensation already owed to Covered Employees, Holiday Premium rates, gratuities, service charge distributions, or other bonuses. B. Credits. Covered Employers providing employer-initiated hazard pay will be credited for doing so in accordance with Section 8.77.050. C. Duration of Hazard Pay. Covered Employers shall pay Hazard Pay to all Covered Employees for any pay period during which the City of South San Francisco is within a “Widespread” (purple), “Substantial” (red), or “Moderate” (orange) risk level, or its equivalent, under an operative public health order issued by the State of California and until such time as the City’s risk level returns to “Minimal” (yellow) or its equivalent under an operative state health order. 8.77.050. Credit for Employer–Initiated Hazard Pay. A. Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay shall be credited against the four five dollars ($54.00) per hour for the hourly amount paid to each Covered Employee (e.g., a Covered Employer offering two dollars ($2.00) per hour in Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay owes an additional t hreewo dollars ($32.00) per hour in Hazard Pay per this chapter.) B. To receive credit for paying a Covered Employee Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay, a Covered Employer must demonstrate that, as of the effective date of this chapter and in any subsequent covered workweeks, the Covered Employer paid such Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay to the Covered Employee. C. No Covered Employer shall be credited prospectively for any past payments. No Covered Employer shall be credited for any hourly premiums already owed to Covered Employees, such as but not limited to, Holiday Premiums. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit any employer from paying more than four five dollars ($54.00) per hour in Hazard Pay. 8.77.060. Waiver The provisions of this chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual Covered Employee and a Covered Employer. All the provisions of this Chapter, or any part thereof, may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement, but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. 8.77.070. Prohibitions. A. It shall be unlawful for a Covered Employer or any other Person to interfere with, restrain or deny the existence of, or the attempt to exercise, any rights protected under this chapter. B. Employers shall not take Retaliatory Action or discriminate against any employee or former employee because the individual has exercised rights protected under this chapter. Such rights include, but are not limited to, the right to request Hazard Pay pursuant to this chapter; the right to file a complaint with the city or inform any person about an employer’s alleged violation of this chapter; the right to participate in an investigation, hearing or proceeding or cooperate with or assist the city in its investigations of alleged violations of this chapter, and the right to inform any person of their rights under this chapter. Protections of this chapter shall apply to any employee who mistakenly, but in good faith, alleges noncompliance with this chapter. Taking adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee's exercise of rights protected under this chapter shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. 8.77.080. Enforcement A. Enforcement by the City. A violation of this chapter by a Covered Employer may be remedied by any means available to remedy a violation of this code. B. Private Right of Action. A Covered Employee claiming harm from a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the Covered Employer in court to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies available to correct any violation of this chapter, including, but not limited to, back pay, reinstatement, injunctive relief, or civil penalties as provided herein. A Covered Employee who is a prevailing party in an action to enforce this chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and costs. C. Remedies. The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to: 1. Reinstatement, the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of state law. 2. Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, as amended by state law, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, as amended by state law, to the date the wages are paid in full. 3. Reimbursement of the city’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorneys’ fees, if the city undertakes enforcement action. The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. 8.77.090. Retention of Records. Each Covered Employer shall maintain for at least three years for each Covered Employee, a record of his or her or their name, hours worked and pay rate. Each Covered Employer shall provide each Covered Employee with a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request. 8.77.100. Conflict. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. The term “Conflict,” means a conflict that is preemptive under federal or state law. 8.77.110. Notice. A. The city shall, as expeditiously as possible, publish and make available on its website a notice suitable for Covered Employers to inform employees of their rights under this emergency chapter. Such notice shall be translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. B. Every Covered Employer shall, within three days after the city has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section, provide the notice to employees in a manner calculated to reach all employees, including, but not limited to, posting in a conspicuous place at the workplace; via electronic communication; or posting in a conspicuous place in a Covered Employer's web-based or app-based platform. The Covered Employer’s notification shall be provided in all languages spoken by more than ten percent (10%) of Covered Employees. C. Every Covered Employer shall, within three days after the City has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section or at the time of hire, whichever is later, provide each Covered Employee the Covered Employer and owner or manager’s name; address; telephone number; and whether it is part of a franchise associated with a franchisor or network of franchises. If the information the Covered Employer provided to the Covered Employee changes, the Covered Employer shall provide the updated information in writing within ten days of the change. D. Every Covered Employer shall provide notice to employees when the Risk Level in the City either moves from Widespread (purple), Substantial (red) or Moderate (orange) to Minimal (yellow), or from Minimal (yellow) to Widespread (purple), Substantial (red) or Moderate (orange) under a State of California Health Order. Notice shall be given in a manner calculated to reach all employees, including, but not limited to, posting in a conspicuous place at the workplace; via electronic communication; or posting in a conspicuous place in a Covered Employer's web-based or app-based platform. The Covered Employer's notification shall be provided in all languages spoken by more than ten percent (10%) of Employees 8.77.110. No Preemption of Higher Standards. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the city. SECTION 4. Emergency Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Sunset Section 3 of this Ordinance shall remain in effect during any period the City of South San Francisco is within a Widespread (purple), Substantial (red) or Moderate (orange) Risk Level and shall become ineffective during any period when the Risk Level in the City of South San Francisco returns to Minimal (yellow) under State of California Health Orders. SECTION 5. Severability If any provision or part of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision or part to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 6. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act The City Council hereby finds approval of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. SECTION 7. Publication and Effective Date As set forth in the recitals and findings above, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public peace, health, safety and welfare, and is adopted on an urgency basis. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 36937(b), this Ordinance is effective immediately. Further, all the provisions of the Ordinance shall be given retrospective application to February 11, 2021, including the requirement of hazard pay for work on and after that date, the prohibitions on certain conduct by Covered Employers, and the enforcement of the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall post in the Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. 3696355.1 REPORT OF THE CHIEF LEGISLATIVE ANALYST February 19, 2021DATE: Honorable Members of the City CouncilTO: Sharon M. Tso Chief Legislative Analyst Council File No. 20-1609 Assignment No. 21-02-0086 FROM: Grocery, Drug, and Retail Store COVID-19 Hazard Pay Economic Impact SUMMARY On February 2, 2021, the City Council requested that the City Attorney draft an ordinance that will provide all hourly, non-managerial employees at grocery, drug, and retail stores (with a grocery or drug component) in the City with 300 or more employees nationally and 10 or more employees on-site, with a total of five dollars per hour premium hazard pay in addition to their base wage for the next 120 days. The Council further directed the Office of Wage Standards (Bureau of Contract Administration), with assistance of the City Attorney, to promulgate rules and regulations for implementing the ordinance. Additionally, the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) was instructed to report on the ordinance’s economic impact, potential legal challenges, strategies to counter such challenges, and the impact on disadvantaged communities. Subsequent to Council action, the City Attorney transmitted the draft ordinance to the Council on February 5, 2021. To prepare this report, our Office reviewed the actions of other cities, interviewed stakeholders, and analyzed research papers on the matter. This report includes a discussion of the draft ordinance, grocery industry economics, potential economic impacts (including on underserved communities), and potential legal challenges. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council note and file this report as it is for informational purposes only. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund. Any costs associated with the enforcement of the ordinance by the Bureau of Contract Administration will be absorbed by the department. DISCUSSION As a result of the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus, on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State of Emergency in California and Mayor Garcetti declared a State of Emergency in the City of Los Angeles. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced the closure of schools and 1 Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Reg CC Item #15 many businesses, including, but not limited to, movie theaters, bars, restaurants and event venues. On March 19, 2020, Mayor Garcetti issued a “Safer at Home” emergency order, requiring all residents to stay inside their homes and immediately limit all movement outside their homes beyond what is necessary to take care of essential needs. On March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued an executive order that required all residents to stay home, except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of essential sectors as critical to protect the health and well-being of all Californians. In accordance with this order, the State Public Health Officer designated a list of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers. Among this list were workers supporting groceries, pharmacies, convenience stores, and other retail stores that sell food or beverage products. From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, grocery and drug store employees have continued to be essential workers, who face health and safety risks as they support the community’s access to food, medicine, and other indispensable services. With restaurants either forced to close or opened for outdoor dining at limited capacity, grocery and drug stores have increasingly been the source of America’s meals. The Census Bureau reported that the grocery sector has seen an 11.2 percent increase in sales from 2019 while other types of retail stores have seen less pronounced sales increases or declines. Grocery and drug store employees work in environments where they come into close contact with large numbers of customers over the course of the workday, and these working conditions have resulted in localized outbreaks of COVID-19 across the City’s grocery and drug stores. A Harvard study of over 100 employees at one grocery store in Boston, Massachusetts found that employees in customer-facing roles are five times as likely to test positive for COVID-19 as their colleagues in other positions. In another study, researchers at the University of California, San Francisco analyzed death records and estimated excess mortality among Californians 18-65 years of age by occupational sector and occupation, including race and ethnicity. They found that for the period March-October 2020, working age adults experienced a 22 percent increase in mortality compared to historical periods. Excess mortality was highest in food/agriculture workers (39 percent increase), transportation/logistics workers (28 percent increase), facilities (27 percent increase) and manufacturing workers (23 percent increase). Latino Californians experienced a 36 percent increase in mortality, with a 59 percent increase among Latino food/agriculture workers. Black Californians experienced a 28 percent increase in mortality, with a 36 percent increase for Black retail workers. The researchers conclude that in-person essential work is a likely venue of transmission and must be addressed through strict enforcement of health orders and the protections of in-person workers. They add that vaccination programs prioritizing food/agriculture workers are likely to have disproportionately large benefits for reducing COVID-19 mortality. In April 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance #186591, which provided grocery, drug, and food delivery workers with a series of protections: • Right to schedule changes; • Additional work hours offered to current employees before hiring new employees; • The option of a “no-contact” delivery method; and • Retaliatory actions prohibited. 2 The ordinance has a sunset date upon the later of either the Governor or the Mayor lifting the COVID-19 emergency order. Grocery, drug, and retail store employees do not currently have a right to hazard pay, a type of additional compensation for workers performing hazardous duty or involving physical hardship. Due to the essential nature of work provided by these workers and due to the risk these workers face due to higher potential for exposure to COVID-19, the Council seeks to ensure that these workers receive hazard pay commensurate to their risk. Draft Ordinance1. On February 5, 2021, the City Attorney released a draft hazard pay ordinance (C.F. 20-1609) that would require grocers, drug, and retail stores meeting certain criteria to provide hazard pay as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance mandates that all non-managerial employees at grocery, drug, and retail stores in the City be paid five dollars per hour premium hazard pay in addition to their base wage for the next 120 days. According to the California Grocers Association, it is common for store managers and assistant managers to be paid on a salaried (non-hourly) basis. Should the Council wish to include managers and supervisors that are paid on an hourly basis in the hazard pay proposal, the City Attorney should be requested to amend the ordinance. As proposed, the following grocery, drug, and retail employers would be required to provide the premium hazard pay: • A grocery retail store with more than 300 employees nationwide, and more than 10 employees on-site in the City, that primarily sells food or household goods, including the sale of produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods, and/or prepared foods; or • A drug retail store with more than 300 employees nationwide, and more than 10 employees on-site in the City, that sells a variety of prescription and nonprescription medicines and miscellaneous items, including, but not limited to, drugs, pharmaceuticals, sundries, produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods dry foods, beverages, prepared foods, and other merchandise; or • A retail store with more than 300 employees nationwide, and more than 10 employees on-site in the City, that is over 85,000 square feet and: o Dedicates 10 percent or more of its sales floor to groceries, including, but not limited to, produce, meats, poultry, fish deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods, and/or prepared foods; or o Dedicates 10 percent or more of its sales floor to drug retail, including, but not limited to, drugs, pharmaceuticals, sundries, produce, meats, poultry, fish, deli products, dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, prepared foods, and other merchandise. The ordinance also includes a private right of action (which allows a private citizen to bring a judicial action) and an urgency clause, in which case the ordinance would go into effect 3 immediately upon publication. The Office of Wage Standards, under the Bureau of Contract Administration, would be responsible for promulgating the rules, regulations, and enforcement of the ordinance. Hazard Pay Efforts by Other Cities and Existing Hazard Pay for City of Los Angeles Employees 2. Besides Seattle, the majority of cities contemplating hazard pay for grocery and other retail employees are located in California. Five cities have adopted ordinances that provide a range of hazard pay from $3-$5 per hour. They are Long Beach ($4), Seattle ($4), San Jose ($3), Montebello ($4), and Oakland ($5). Nearly all of the cities and counties that have adopted or are drafting ordinances have an employee threshold of 300 and sunset after 120 days. For a detailed chart of each city’s ordinance, see Attachment A. While some of the cities listed here provided a staff report on their respective proposal, those reports did not provide a robust level of economic analysis. The City provides its employees with numerous types of hazard pay when the working environment has been determined to be hazardous. For example, employees performing the following work are entitled to 5.5 percent hazard pay above the base salary rate: • Working on a ladder, scaffolding, hydraulic lift platform, etc. • Spraying asphalt, chemicals, paint, etc. • Working in a deep sewer • Cleaning a homeless encampment or illegal dump site Other hazard pay examples include Airport Security Officers that work to direct traffic (11.5 percent hazard pay) and Canine Police Officers (16 percent hazard pay). Grocery Industry Economics and Response to COVID-193. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, major grocery, drug, and retail chains have provided some form of extra COVID-19 related compensation. Research by the Brookings Institution (Brookings) found that Target, Amazon, Kroger, Albertsons, and Costco provided $2 per hour in hazard pay and some provided additional bonuses. Walgreens and CVS only provided bonuses. By July 2020, all of these companies had canceled their hourly hazard pay, while some continued to provide bonuses. Rather than continue its hourly hazard pay, Target moved up a planned increase of its nationwide starting salary to $15 in July 2020 (it had committed to the increase by the end of 2020 in 2017). Target also continues to provide bonuses. Since the beginning of the pandemic, Trader Joe’s has provided employees with $2 per hour hazard pay and recently increased the hazard pay to $4 per hour. As a result of COVID-19, the grocery, drug, and retail industry has faced a number of additional infrastructure and labor costs, including: • Providing employees with personal protective equipment • Increased sanitation and cleaning protocols 4 • Installation of protective equipment, including plastic barriers, and social distancing markers • Supplemental paid leave • Hiring and training workers or paying overtime wages to existing workers who fill in for those out on paid leave • Biweekly or weekly COVID-19 testing costs • E-commerce staffing and capital costs Labor costs are discussed further in the economic impact section. Additional details concerning hazard pay, bonuses and other benefits provided by retail companies to their employees is described in Attachment B. Industry Overview According to Sageworks (a financial information company), the grocery industry is a low profit margin industry. Companies in this sector achieve success through the substantial volume of goods they sell. According to the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, there are approximately 26,000 grocery workers in the City, of which 35 percent belong to a union. According to ZipRecruiter, the average pay for a grocery store worker in Los Angeles is $17.51 per hour. In their research paper on hazard pay, Brookings reported on the performance of large retailers in 2019 compared to 2020. The table below shows the change in the net income after taxes (after subtracting all costs) of select companies: Figure 1. Net income after taxes (profit) of large grocery, drug, and retail companies in $ millions (first three financial quarters)._____________________________________________________________________________ $ Change2019 Profit 2020 Profit % ChangeCompany $399 $995 $596Albertsons 149% $1,332 $2,662 $1,330 100%Kroger $8,320 $14,109 $5,789 70%Amazon $2,003 $2,227 $224Costco (only two quarters)11% $2,447 $2,988 $541 22%Target $10,740 $15,601 $4,861Walmart 45% $4,887 $6,206 $1,319 27%CVS Walgreens (only two quarters)$1,695 $885 -$810 -48% Source: Brookings Institution Report and company quarterly reports. Brookings reported that the size, scale, and e-commerce capabilities of these large companies enabled many of them to vastly outperform their 2019 profit, with the exception of Walgreens. 5 In order to compare the performance of grocery companies pre-COVID and post-COVID, a more appropriate measurement is the net profit margin, which defines how much profit is generated as a percentage of revenue. Put another way, it illustrates how much of each dollar in revenue collected by a company translates into profit. Sageworks reported that the 2017 average net profit margin for the Grocery Stores NAICS code (4451) was 2.2 percent, which is among the lowest among American industries1. Taken separately, the net income (profit) of these large retailers is impressive, but it is the net profit margin figure that allows comparison between companies and the industry average to determine the performance of the companies. Net profit margin for 2020 is discussed further below. Publicly Traded Grocers For the publicly traded grocers, we focus on the performance of Kroger (Ralphs and Food 4 Less) and Albertsons (including Vons and Pavilions). These companies are the first and third largest grocery chains in the United States respectively and have a combined 100 stores in the City. These chains have full service stores that are on average 50,000 square feet and have between 100 and 175 employees per store. In 2019, the net profit margin of Kroger and Albertsons was near or below the industry average. The chart below shows the change in net profit margin for both companies from 2019 to 2020 and compares it to the 2017 average net profit margin for grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores (Kroger divided 2020 into three unequal quarters, so they did not have a fourth quarter result for 2020.): Figure 2. Kroger and Albertsons 2019 vs. 2020 Net Profit Margin After Taxes # Kroger ■ Albertsons 2017 Average 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 2019 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 Source: Company quarterly earnings as reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission At the beginning of the pandemic, net profit margins spiked in the first quarter of 2020 as customers stocked up on essential food and home items. In the most recent financial report for i NAICS codes are used to categorize industries. NAICS code 4451 includes grocery stores, supermarkets, and convenience stores. Convenience stores are not included in the draft ordinance. 6 the 3rd Quarter 2020, the net profit margin for Kroger returned to the first quarter of 2019 level, with Albertsons seeing a slight increase over the same period in 2019. While the 2017 average net profit margin of 2.2 percent does contain convenience stores, we use this average as the best available benchmark to grade the performance of Kroger and Albertsons during the last two years. Both companies did not earn above average profits until the first quarter of 2020 during the COVID-19 shopping spike and by the third quarter had dropped below the average. For additional historical context of the economic performance of both Kroger and Albertsons, the following chart shows the fiscal year net profit margin after taxes for both companies between 2015-2019. Only Kroger produced above industry average results during this timeframe (in 2018). Albertsons had a negative net profit margin in 2015 and 2016. Figure 3. Kroger and Albertsons Fiscal Year Net Profit Margin After Taxes # Kroger ■ Albertsons 2017 Average 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% -1.00% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Source: Company fiscal earnings as reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Independent Grocers For privately held grocers, we use the 2020 Independent Grocers Financial Survey for information on this industry segment, which provides data on the nation’s privately held grocery stores. Independent stores are smaller in footprint at an average of 27,000 square feet. Independent stores have an average of 72 employees per store. Labor and benefit costs are 18.42 percent of sales in the western region, meaning that grocers must spend $18.42 in labor and benefit costs in order to receive $100 in sales. The Independent Grocers Financial Survey provides net profit margin before taxes versus the Kroger and Albertsons data above which provides after tax performance. The following chart shows the western region independent grocers net profit before taxes from 2015 to 2019: 7 Figure 4. Western Region Independent Grocers Net Profit Margin Before Taxes 2015-2019 9 Net Profit Margin Before Taxes — — 2015-2019 Average 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 The average net profit before taxes was 1.85 percent for independent grocers for the five years before the pandemic. The data also shows that while the western region grocers experienced a net profit of 2.44 percent in 2019, during that year 25 percent of companies had a negative net profit. Much like the publicly traded grocers, COVID-19 resulted in independent grocers experiencing two of the biggest weeks in the history of food retailing in terms of trips, sales, and basket size (the quantity of goods purchased in a single trip). After the March 2020 surge, the number of trips to stores fell well below 2019 levels as shoppers quarantined at home. The Independent Grocers Financial Survey reports that overall sales were up 13.3 percent for the first six months of 2020 vs. the same period in 2019. No net profit margin data is available for 2020. Potential Economic Impacts4. Businesses that will be required to provide hazard pay To provide the Council with context of the impact of the hazard pay draft ordinance, our Office prepared a list of the potential grocery, drug, and retail chains that could be affected (Attachment C). For the major local and nationwide chains, there is no question these companies have over 300 employees and thus would be subject to providing hazard pay. For the smaller chains, we assume these chains are privately owned and thus their average employee count per store is 72 (based on the Independent Grocers Survey discussed above). To determine how many smaller chains would be included, we must make an educated assumption on the average number of employees for the independent grocery chains located in Los Angeles with more than one location. We also must add employees to account for the corporate or other support (back office) employees who do not work in the store (but who are counted toward the nationwide 300 8 employee threshold). We inferred that 80 employees per store is a more likely average for the purposes of this analysis. We multiplied the nationwide number of stores by 80 to arrive at an estimated total nationwide employee count for each chain. We note that Attachment C includes drug stores and retail chains. In these industries, there is less of a middle market, with the majority of the stores being either a nationwide chain or small mom and pop establishments (which would not be covered by the ordinance). We reiterate that this list is simply a projection to gauge the degree of how many chains could be included in the hazard pay requirement, and is not the final list of companies that will be required to comply. For the retail chains, we did not analyze which chains have 10 percent or more of their sales floor dedicated to grocery or drug retail. Large Retailers Large retailers like Walmart and Target would be subject to the draft ordinance, however, as written, the ordinance requires hazard pay on a store by store basis. Target, for example, would be required to include hazard pay for its employees that work at stores larger than 85,000 square feet that dedicate at least 10 percent of the sales floor to grocery or drug retail. Target has several stores that operate in a smaller footprint, including: • 59,000 square foot store at 415 S. La Brea Ave. (CD 4) • 25,000 square foot store at 8900 Sepulveda Blvd. (CD 11) • 39,600 square-foot (future) location at 7021 Hollywood Blvd. (CD 13) • 49,000 square-foot (future) location at 17401 Ventura Blvd. (CD 5) • 24,000 square-foot (future) location at 330 Westlake Ave. (CD 13) Because these stores are under 85,000 square feet, Target would not be required to provide hazard pay to the employees working in these stores. Should the Council wish to include smaller footprint stores of major retailers, the City Attorney would need to amend the draft ordinance to include a provision that if a retailer has one store located in the City that meets the hazard pay ordinance, all stores located in the City would be required to provide hazard pay, regardless of store size. Economic Impacts Implementing the proposed ordinance could have several economic impacts. In order to determine these impacts, we have prepared projections based on certain factors, including the reaction to the City of Long Beach ordinance (which requires hazard pay of $4 for grocery employees), research of the wages of impacted employees, and the number of companies located in the City that could be required to implement hazard pay under the proposed ordinance. Below are the potential economic impacts: • Higher wages for grocery, drug, and retail store workers. According to ZipRecruiter, the average pay for grocery store workers in Los Angeles is $17.51 per hour. A $5 per hour hazard pay would increase the average salary to $22.51 per hour, an increase of 29 percent from the base wage. Employees would have a temporary earnings boost and more spending power, which could trigger a temporary increase in the demand for goods. This 9 extra demand for goods could result in more business activity in the City, benefiting other City businesses. Employees could also use the higher wages to pay down debt or increase their savings rate. The pay increase will be temporary, lasting for 120 days, unless the ordinance is extended. • Temporarily increases labor costs as a percentage of sales. As discussed above, labor and benefit costs are 18.42 percent of sales in the western region for independent grocers, meaning that grocers must spend $18.42 in labor and benefit costs in order to receive $100 in sales. For the national grocery industry as a whole, including the publicly traded companies, labor expenses account for 13.2 percent of sales, according to a 2019 study conducted by Baker-Tilly, a tax consulting firm. An increase of the base wage rate by $5 will increase the labor costs as a percentage of sales 4-5 percent to between 17 percent of sales for publicly traded companies and 24 percent of sales for independent companies. Companies would be required to take action to reduce costs or increase revenue as the labor increase will eliminate all current profit margin. The increase will be temporary, lasting for 120 days, unless the ordinance is extended. • Potentially higher prices for consumers. Affected companies could raise prices to counteract the additional wage cost. Economic analysis from the California Grocers Association (which analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor) shows that if grocers pass on the entirety of the hazard pay labor cost to consumers, a typical family of four could see grocery prices increase by $33 per month, for a total of $132 in extra costs over the 120 days the ordinance would be in effect. Based on our limited discussions with grocers, there is a lower likelihood that grocers would pass on 100 percent of the labor costs to consumers. Shoppers are extremely price conscious, particularly in chains that serve low-income communities. However, prices could increase on average to a lesser degree. According to a December 2020 survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, 39 percent of Los Angeles County households making under $40,000 reported reducing the number of meals or cutting back on food as a result of the turmoil caused by COVID-19. Increased food costs may cause further negative impact on these lower income households. • Potentially delayed store openings, renovations, and wage increases/promotions. It is more likely that grocery chains will put a temporary hold on expansion plans and reduce or eliminate wage increases/promotions (this is more likely with non-union stores). • More pressure on struggling stores (especially independent grocers), which could lead to store closures. The Independent Grocers Financial Survey reported that in 2019, 25 percent of western region companies reported a negative net profit. According to the California Grocers Association, between one-sixth to one-third of association stores reported negative earnings. More profitable stores often subsidize unprofitable stores within the same chain. Smaller chains with fewer stores will have less capacity to rely on their profitable stores to make up the increase in labor costs. This will be especially acute 10 in smaller chains with a majority of stores located in jurisdictions that have passed hazard pay mandates. The publicly traded grocers have stores throughout the country and have more capacity to rely on the profits of stores throughout the nation to subsidize the local labor cost increase. To contain costs, companies may close stores. In response to the City of Long Beach ordinance that provides $4 per hour in hazard pay, Kroger, the parent company of Ralphs and Food 4 Less, announced it was permanently closing two stores located there. It has been reported that both of these stores have historically underperformed for some time before the City Long Beach hazard pay was enacted. Kroger also closed two stores in Seattle in response to the city’s $4 hazard pay policy. Closures of stores affect three groups: Employees - experience a reduction in earnings and could slow or stop certain spending, negatively impacting the local economy. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Long Beach closures will affect 200 workers. Product Vendors/3rd Party Service Providers - vendors that support the store, for example food vendors, custodial, and security, will see reduced demand for their services. Vendors might lay off or reduce hours of their employees as a result. o Customers - will have to find new grocery locations. The closures of stores could lead to an increase in “food deserts” that lack access to fresh groceries. The California Healthy Places Index (HPI) is a new tool developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California that combines economic, education, housing, health care access, neighborhood, environment, transportation, and social factors into an index score at the census tract level. While the Long Beach Ralphs location set for closure is in a tract with a HPI score of 85.5 (meaning the area has healthier community conditions than 85.5 percent of other California census tracts), the Food 4 Less set for closure has an HPI score of 29.2 (and adjacent to an area with a score of 9.9) signifying that this location is located in a disadvantaged neighborhood. We are researching the number of affected stores that are located in or near a food desert and will provide that information in a separate report. • Reduced hours, wages, or jobs. To offset higher labor costs, companies might reduce working hours, benefits, wage rates, or lay-off employees. Potential Legal Challenges5. As requested by the Council, we are providing an overview of current legal challenges to similar ordinances. The California Grocers Association (CGA), the trade association for the state’s 11 approximately 300 grocery retailers and 150 grocery supply companies, recently filed suit against the City of Long Beach in opposition to the city’s adopted $4 per hour grocery hazard pay ordinance. In its lawsuit, the CGA asserts that the Long Beach ordinance is invalid on several grounds: Violates the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by regulating zones of activity that Congress intentionally left to be controlled by the free play of economic forces. Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and California Constitution by improperly singling out certain grocery businesses for disparate treatment while ignoring employers or essential frontline workers outside the industry. No significant and legitimate public purpose exists for the ordinance. The stated purpose for the ordinance (to protect public health, address economic insecurity, and promote job retention) is not rationally related to the discriminatory treatment of CDA’s members. While the city has the ability to enact ordinances to further the health and safety of its citizens, including minimum wage laws, this ordinance is not a minimum labor standard, rather a mandatory hourly bonus, regardless of the wage negotiated during collective bargaining or other agreements. Violates the Contracts Clause of the United States and California Constitution. Interferes with collective bargaining. The CGA filed a request for a temporary restraining order, which was rejected by the Court. The case is scheduled for a Court hearing on February 23rd for a hearing on a preliminary injunction, which would stop the law while the case is pending. The CGA has also sued the cities of Oakland and Montebello, who have adopted similar actions. At your request we conferred with the City Attorney to discuss the legal strategies that could be used to lessen the likelihood of legal action against the City in relation to this proposal. If the Council wishes to discuss the legal strategies related to the proposed ordinance, we recommend that the City Attorney be requested to address these issues in closed session. Clay McCarter Analyst Attachments:A. Other Jurisdictions Hazard Pay Actions B. Bonuses and other benefits provided by retail companies C. Projected Companies That Will Be Required to Include Hazard Pay Under the Draft Ordinance 12 Attachment A Other Jurisdictions Hazard Pay Actions Ordinance Sunset DateJurisdictionHazard Pay Impacted Businesses Eligible EmployeesStatus Grocery or drug retail, including retail stores with 85,000 square feet or more that dedicate 10 percent of the sales floor to grocery or drug retail. Must employ over 300 employees nationally and 10 or more employees on-site. City of Los Angeles (Proposed) Draft ordinance submitted to Council all hourly, non-managerial employees$5.00 120 days 70% or more of the business activity involves the selling of groceries, and the company employs over 300 covered employees nationally, and has more than 15 employees per site. Employed at a grocery store, except managers, supervisors, and confidential employees.$4.00Long Beach Adopted 120 days Grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores and other retail locations that sell food or beverage products located in unincorporated Los Angeles County and are publicly traded or have at least 300 employees nationwide and more than 10 employees per store. Ordinance in the process of being drafted Los Angeles County $5.00 All workers 120 days 120 days or until the city declares the coronavirus local emergency to be over, whichever is longer. Ordinance in the process of being drafted Grocery store chains that are publicly traded or have at least 300 employees nationwide and more than 10 employees per store. West Hollywood $5.00 Frontline workers 13 Ordinance Sunset DateJurisdictionHazard Pay Impacted Businesses Eligible EmployeesStatus Adopted an action to prepare an order or ordinance consistent with any such measures imposed in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. Grocery stores, convenience stores, liquor stores and other retail locations that sell food or beverage products located in unincorporated Los Angeles County and are publicly traded or have at least 300 employees nationwide and more than 10 employees per store.$5.00Santa Monica All workers 120 days Grocery and drug stores that are publicly traded or have at least 300 employees nationwide and more than 15 employees per store Employees not including managers, supervisors or confidential employees$4.00MontebelloAdopted 180 days 14 Ordinance Sunset DateJurisdictionHazard Pay Impacted Businesses Eligible EmployeesStatus Retail establishment that employs at least 15 employees on site and employs 300 or more employees nationally and a. (i) devotes 70% or more of its sales floor area to retailing a general range of food products, which may be fresh or packaged, or (ii) receives 70% or more revenue from retailing a general range of food products; b. is more than 85,000 square feet and devotes 10% or more of its sales floor area to the sale of merchandise that is non-taxable pursuant to Section 6359 of the Revenue and Taxation Code; or c. is retail pharmacy that sells a variety of prescription and nonprescription medicines Individual who performs at least two hours of work in a calendar week but does not include managerial, supervisory, or confidential employees of a covered employer. Ordinance in the process of being drafted $4.00Irvine 120 days 15 Ordinance Sunset DateJurisdictionHazard Pay Impacted Businesses Eligible EmployeesStatus Hazard Pay is required during a Widespread (purple), Substantial (red) or Moderate (orange) Risk Level, and until such time as Risk Levels return to Minimal (yellow). Any individual working in a qualified grocery store who qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage. Grocery stores with 500 or more employees nationwide and a retail/wholesale store over 15,000 square feet.$5.00OaklandAdopted Ordinance is valid from the period of the effective date through and until such time as the County returns to the Yellow-Tier 4 designation of COVID-19 or 120 days from the effective date of the ordinance Grocery stores (defined by NAICS Code 445110 - Supermarkets and Other Grocery Stores, except Convenience Stores, with a total floor area over 25,000 square feet, and publicly traded entities or businesses with over 300 employees. Ordinance in the process of being drafted $5.00Berkeley All employees 16 Ordinance Sunset DateJurisdictionHazard Pay Impacted Businesses Eligible EmployeesStatus Until the Santa Clara County Health Officer has lifted mandatory directives for implementing the State's Regional Stay at Home Order related to the Retail establishments that sell meats, poultry, dairy products, fresh fruits and vegetables and have at least 300 employees nationwide. Includes a credit for retail establishments that currently provide pay increases related to the COVID-19 pandemic.$3.00AdoptedSan Jose COVID-19 pandemic. Grocery business with more than 500 employees worldwide. "Grocery business" would include a retail store that is either: 1. Over 10,000 square feet in size and that is primarily engaged in retailing groceries for offsite consumption; or 2. Over 85,000 square feet and with 30 percent or more of its sales floor area dedicated to the sale of groceries. Valid for as long as the city's coronavirus civil emergency remains in effect. All employees except executive, administrative, or professional roles.$4.00SeattleAdopted 17 Attachment B Bonuses and Other Benefits Provided by Retail Companies to Their Employees 2• Target (an increase by $1 billion from 2019 employee benefits) o Bonus Payments ■ April 2020: $250-$1,500 to 20,000 employees ■ July 2020: $200 to all hourly employees in stores and distribution centers ■ October 2020: $200 to 350,000 employees ■ January 2021: $500-$2,000 to 375,000 employees o Free virtual healthcare visits o 30-day paid leave for vulnerable team members susceptible to the coronavirus o Paid leave options for team members who are symptomatic, have a confirmed case of coronavirus, or have been quarantined due to exposure. o Mental health resources • Amazon ($2.5 billion on special bonuses and incentives in 2020) o Bonus Payments ■ June: $150-$500 for warehouse, Whole Foods, and delivery workers ■ December 2020: $150 or $300 for operations employees o An employee diagnosed with COVID-19 receives up to two weeks of pay o Established a $25 million relief fund for employees facing financial hardship or quarantine • Walmart o Bonus Payments ■ March 2020: $150 or $300 ■ June 2020: $150 or $300 ■ November 2020: $150 or $300 ■ December 2020: $150 or $300 o Employees required to quarantine will receive up to two weeks of pay • Albertsons o Bonus Payments ■ June 2020: equal to $4 per hour for the average hours worked between March 15 and June 13 ■ December 2020: equal to $5 per hour for weekly average hours worked during the recent 12-week period • Costco o Bonus Payments ■ None • Kroger (over $1 billion in new benefits in 2020) o Bonus Payments ■ March 2020: $150 or $300 ■ May 2020: $200 or $400 ■ June 2020: $200 or $400 ■ February 2021: $100 for employees who get vaccinated o Store credits and fuel points 2 The source of all employer COVID-19 investments is their respected websites. 18 o Two weeks paid time off for employees diagnosed with COVID-19, placed under quarantine, or practicing self-isolation o $15 million available to provide financial assistance to employees who face hardship due to COVID-19 o Mental health resources • Walgreens Bonus Payment ■ March 2020: $150 or $300 o • CVS Bonus Payments ■ March 2020: $150-$500 14-day paid leave for any employee who tests positive for COVID-19 or needs to be quarantined as a result of potential exposure Employee Relief Fund o o o 19 Attachment C Projected Companies That Will Be Required to Include Hazard Pay Under the Draft Ordinance Number of Locations Employees (estimated)Mid-Size Grocery Stores * Super King 8 640 Mitsuwa 11 880 Nijiya 12 960 Lassens 11 880 Zion 7 560 Han Kook 4 320 Erewhon 6 480 Big Saver 10 800 Eataly 8 640 Island Pacific Market 16 1,280 Marukai 4 320 Numero Uno 24 1,920 Super A Foods 8 640 *The number of store locations is multiplied by 80 to determine total employees Bristol Farms H Mart Mother's Large Grocery Stores Northgate Sprouts Kroger (Ralphs/Food 4 Less) Albertsons (Vons/Pavilions) Aldi/Trader Joe's Grocery Outlet Gelsons Vallarta Superior Smart and Final Jons Market El Super Whole Foods 99 Ranch Costco Seafood City Large Retail Stores Walmart/Sam's Club Target Large Drug Stores Walgreens CVS (including Longs Drugs) Rite Aid 20 21 From: To:All at City Clerk"s Office Subject:City Council Agenda 2/24/21 item 15 Date:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 1:33:34 PM I am opposed to the $5/hr hazard pay proposal for large grocery and drug stores during the pandemic. Those business expenses will be passed through to consumers who have already seen grocery prices rise dramatically in the last several years. We have already seen chain stores closing some stores in communities who have mandated hazard pay. Although I believe your intentions may be honorable, the unintended consequences of such a proposal may be more harmful than beneficial. COVID 19 infections and hospitalizations are declining, thank goodness. If the City Council could work with the County to find spaces to have more access to vaccination centers (school, church and biotech parking lots, for example) as the vaccines become more available, that would be of greater assistance to our citizens. Cathy Rosaia South San Francisco Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Reg CC Item #15 From: To:All Council Cc:All at City Clerk"s Office; Futrell, Mike Subject:Grocery Premium Pay - 2/24/21 Agenda Date:Tuesday, February 23, 2021 12:41:25 PM Attachments:02-23-21 ICYMI City of LA Analysis.docx Councilmembers, I am bringing to your attention two new pieces of information for your consideration. First is the Los Angeles City Legislative Analyst confirms in their Economic Impact Report numerous negative consequences to grocery workers, neighborhoods, and the grocery industry of additional grocery pay. These are the same impacts we have identified and shared with you previously. There is no reason to believe these same impacts won’t occur in South San Francisco if an ordinance is passed. (attached) The second item is San Mateo County has announced that grocery workers are now prioritized to receive and will be receiving the vaccine as of now. We urge you to not move forward with your ordinance at this time to avoid negative consequences and instead join grocers in aggressively supporting vaccinating grocery workers to provide them true safety from the pandemic. (link below) San Mateo County Covid-19 Vaccination for Essential Workers https://www.smcgov.org/press-release/county-moves-expand-covid-19-vaccinations-eligible- essential-workers Government Code Section 54957.5 SB 343 Agenda: 2/24/2021 Reg CC Item #15 For Immediate Release: February 23, 2021 Contact: Nate Rose, Senior Director of Communications, CA Grocers Association (916) 628-8122 nrose@cagrocers.com Kathy Fairbanks (916) 813-1010 kfairbanks@bcfpublicaffairs.com In Case You Missed It Los Angeles City analysis acknowledges negative consequences of extra pay mandate “could raise prices” “lead to store closures.” Sacramento – An analysis by the Chief Legislative Analyst for the City of Los Angeles found that the $5/hour extra pay mandate could result in various unintended consequences impacting workers and customers. From pages 10-11: • “Companies would be required to take action to reduce costs or increase revenue as the labor increase will eliminate all current profit margin.” • “Affected companies could raise prices to counteract the additional wage cost.” • “More pressure on struggling stores (especially independent grocers), which could lead to store closures.” • “The closures of stores could lead to an increase in “food deserts” that lack access to fresh groceries.” • “To offset higher labor costs, companies might reduce working hours, benefits, wage rates, or lay-off employees.” “Extra pay mandates will have severe unintended consequences on not only grocers, but on their workers and their customers,” said Ron Fong, president & CEO, California Grocers Association. “A $5/hour extra pay mandate amounts to a 28 percent increase in labor costs. That’s huge. Grocers will not be able to absorb those costs and negative repercussions are unavoidable. “One unintended consequence would be higher costs for groceries. A recent study found that the $5/hour increase would amount to a $400/year increase in grocery costs for a family of four. This additional cost could lead to more food insecurity and will disproportionately hurt low-income families, seniors and disadvantaged communities already struggling financially. “Alternatively, stores could close down. We’ve already seen that happen in Long Beach where two stores announced closures this week. Council members’ misguided actions backfired on about 200 grocery workers at those two stores who lost jobs. “Grocery store workers are frontline heroes, and that’s why grocers have already undertaken a massive effort to institute measures to make both workers and customers safer in stores. These ordinances will not make workers any safer.” Feb. 11, 2021 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE County Moves to Expand COVID-19 Vaccinations To Eligible Essential Workers With vaccine supply limited, County continues efforts and partnerships with providers to immunize health care workers and seniors Redwood City – The County of San Mateo beginning February 22 will expand COVID-19 vaccinations to teachers and child care providers, first responders and food and agricultural workers who are eligible under the state’s Phase 1B as supply allows. “People are understandably clamoring for the vaccine, and we need to move as swiftly as possible to make that happen as soon as possible,” said San Mateo County Supervisor Carole Groom. “We must do everything we can under the constraints we have to limit the enormity of the pandemic as COVID-19 continues to ravage our community.” Following the state’s tier system, the County in partnership with private providers has focused on immunizing health care workers, residents of long-term care facilities and seniors since the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines became available in December. As of this week a third of seniors ages 65 and older in San Mateo County have received the first dose of vaccine. This effort will expand on February 22 to include eligible essential workers such as educators, child care providers, law and enforcement and food and agricultural workers, which includes certain grocery store employees, as limited vaccine supply allows. “Getting vaccines into the arms of San Mateo County residents is our highest and most urgent priority,” said County Supervisor Dave Pine, who along with Groom serves on a Board COVID-19 subcommittee. “While we are doing everything possible to ensure everyone who is eligible for the vaccine receives one, we are facing serious supply limitations that complicate our efforts. We ask for patience and understanding in these very trying times.” County of San Mateo Joint Information Center Media Line: 650-779-9939 smc_jic@smcgov.org Waiting until February 22 to expand eligibility allows the County and partners to continue to focus on vaccinating health care workers and residents 65 and over who are at greatest risk of death from the coronavirus. More than 8 out of 10 of the 447 deaths in San Mateo – 84 percent – are individuals who were 65 or older. The County, through San Mateo County Health and the County-run San Mateo Medical Center, works closely with private health care providers, community-based organizations and other partners to vaccinate eligible residents. As vaccine supply allows, the County on February 22 will provide pathways to immunization for newly eligible residents who are unable to access the vaccine through their usual health care provider. The County is working with organizations representing educators, child care workers, law enforcement, and restaurant and agricultural workers to support vaccination plans that are based on an equity framework. The County will encourage local health care providers to vaccinate priority populations in low-income neighborhoods whenever possible before opening appointments to the broader eligible population. A total of 84,783 individuals (0ut of the county population of approximately 780,000) have received a first dose of vaccine as of Sunday. Nearly 20,000 have completed the two-dose vaccine series. “We need to swiftly vaccinate as many people as we possibly can and this includes essential workers,” Board President David J. Canepa said. “We need to focus on ending COVID 24/7 so that we can stimulate the economy and start to return to normal.” Sign Up for Vaccine Eligibility Alerts While COVID-19 vaccine supply remains limited, residents can sign up for the County’s notification tool to receive alerts when the state makes them eligible and information about how you may get an appointment. For eligible residents, completing the form also adds them to an outreach list for available vaccine appointments at County-sponsored vaccination sites (this form, however, does not replace any signup or appointment mechanism offered by other providers in San Mateo County). Testing Widely Available in San Mateo County Testing for COVID-19 is widely available across San Mateo County, including a newly opened dedicated site at the College of San Mateo. The County of San Mateo offers no-cost testing for everyone who lives or works in the county – regardless of symptoms. Drive-through testing for adults and children is available at locations in North Fair Oaks, San Bruno, Daly City and East Palo Alto, in addition to the College of San Mateo. For details and to make an appointment, visit the County’s testing site. Note days and times as well as ages of eligible children vary by location. The site also includes a link to a State of California searchable map of testing locations. And remember: To protect yourself, follow these recommendations:  Wear a mask over your nose and mouth  Stay at least 6 feet away from others  Avoid crowds  Avoid poorly ventilated spaces  Wash your hands often Get more information about these and other steps you can take to protect yourself and others from COVID-19. ### City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. Urgency Ordinance amending Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.77 “COVID -19 Hazard Pay”to require grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic WHEREAS,on March 19,2020,the California State Public Health Officer,designated specific sectors and their workers,including grocery and drug stores,as Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers (“essential workers”)to ensure the “continuity of functions critical to public health and safety,as well as economic and national security”; and WHEREAS,since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,grocery and drug store workers in the City of South San Francisco have continued to report to work and serve their communities,despite the ongoing hazards and danger of being exposed to and infected by the novel coronavirus,helping to ensure individuals throughout the City of South San Francisco have had access to the food and medicine they need during this pandemic; and WHEREAS,essential grocery and drug store workers are not highly paid and cannot choose to work from home-they must come to work to do their jobs,which involve heightened risk of exposure and infection of COVID-19 through substantial interaction with customers on an ongoing basis and indoors where there is less air circulation; and WHEREAS,according to an October 29,2020 study published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine,a comprehensive test of workers at one grocery store resulted in 20 percent of grocery workers testing positive for COVID-19, even though three of four workers were asymptomatic; and WHEREAS,according to an August 2020 article in The Washington Post,at least 130 U.S.grocery workers had died from COVID-19, and more than 8,200 have tested positive for the virus; and WHEREAS,according to a January 2021 article in The Washington Post,the United Food and Commercial Workers estimates 109 of its members have died to from COVID-19 and more than 20,000 have tested positive; and WHEREAS,despite the efforts of grocery and drug stores to take precautions and keep customers and employees safe,including requiring masks,social distancing,and sanitizing cash registers,food conveyor belts, and shopping carts,there have been highly publicized outbreaks of COVID-19 among grocery store employees in the San Francisco Bay Area,and the health threats that these grocery and drug store workers face cannot be overstated; and WHEREAS,Latinos comprise about 40 percent of California’s population but 55 percent of positive cases, according to state data as of February 4,2021,and according to health experts,one of the main reasons Latinos are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 is because many work in jobs deemed “essential,”that require them toCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 is because many work in jobs deemed “essential,”that require them to leave home and interact with the public, many in the retail food industry, which includes grocery stores; and WHEREAS,on August 28,2020,the State released the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy”that assigns counties into color-coded tiers based on a county’s case rate and test positivity rate,and that permits operations of certain businesses and activities based on a county’s tier; WHEREAS,Governor Gavin Newsom issued an emergency regional stay at home order on December 3,2020, as a result of the critically low availability Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) beds; and WHEREAS,on January 17,2021,the California Department of Public Health reported another COVID-19 variant that had grown more common across the state since December,with worrisome signs that this variant may be highly transmissible; and WHEREAS,despite the rescinding of the statewide December 3,2020 emergency order,the State is believed to be in the height of the pandemic with a stay at home order in many regions of the state,including the Bay Area region,where ICU capacity is 24 percent,and region are a long way from minimal risk where there would be one (1) daily new case per 100,000 or less than two (2) percent positivity; and WHEREAS,based on the case rate and positivity rate,San Mateo county has been listed in the “purple”and most elevated risk tier under the State blueprint,representing “widespread”risk throughout the county,since November and continues to be listed in this tier; and WHEREAS,grocery and drug stores are the primary points of distribution for food,medicine,and other daily necessities for the residents of the City of South San Francisco and are therefore essential to the vitality of our community; WHEREAS,given this essential role,grocery and drug stores have largely remained open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many workers continuing to perform their job duties in person; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco recognizes that grocery and drug store workers must be justly compensated for the clear and present dangers of doing their jobs during the pandemic,and increases in wages result in more money being spent to stimulate our local economy; and WHEREAS,grocery and drug store workers-should they and members of their family become infected-risk being unable to work and earn an income,and an inability to pay for housing,childcare and healthcare costs; and WHEREAS,the United States’largest grocery and drug store retail companies have earned record profits during the pandemic,and this increase in profit has not transferred to workers,according to a Brookings Institution analysis published in November 2020; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco has adopted ordinances to address COVID-19-related impacts, including eviction protections for tenants; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco has in the past adopted ordinance affecting the wages and conditions of employment locally; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. WHEREAS,premium pay,paid in addition to regular wages,is an established type of compensation for employees performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship that can cause extreme physical discomfort and distress; and WHEREAS,there are several grocery and drug store chains operating in South San Francisco that employ workers in South San Francisco,and have at least 500 employees nationwide,with workers who are facing the hazards of COVID-19 in the workplace every day; and WHEREAS,in December 2020 and January 2021,a growing list of cities across California,including Oakland, Los Angeles,Long Beach,San Jose,Berkeley,West Hollywood,Santa Monica,Montebello,and San Leandro began announcing legislation for hazard pay for essential grocery and drug store workers during the pandemic, including during the period where counties are in the Purple,Red,or Orange level of Community Transmission for COVID-19 under State Health orders; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to amend Title 8 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code to adopt Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay”to require grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and WHEREAS,California Government Code Section 36937 authorizes the City Council to introduce and adopt an ordinance it declares to be necessary as an emergency measure to preserve the public peace,health,and safety at one and the same meeting if passed by at least four-fifths affirmative votes; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance is a temporary pay ordinance intended to compensate certain essential workers at high risk of COVID-19 infection within the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,and thus to serve the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare; and WHEREAS,the City Council expressly intends this hazard pay requirement to apply retroactively to February 11,2021,including all work performed on that date,in order to serve the public health,safety,and welfare in recognition that the risks posed to grocery and drug store workers continued during the time period when the City Council actively considered taking action to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing this hazard pay; and NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1.Findings The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the Ordinance by this reference. SECTION 2.Urgent Need The City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health,safety and/or welfare and a need for immediate preservation of the public peace,health,or safety that warrants this urgency measure,which finding is based upon the facts stated in the Recitals above, and in the staff report presented to the City Council on February 10,2021,and February 24,2021,as well any City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. and in the staff report presented to the City Council on February 10,2021,and February 24,2021,as well any oral and written testimony at the February 10, 2021 and February 24, 2021, City Council meetings. This Ordinance and the hazard pay requirement that is established thereunder is declared by the City Council to be an urgency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,health or safety.The facts constituting such urgency are all of those certain facts set forth and referenced in this Ordinance and the entirety of the record before the City Council. SECTION 3.Amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 8.77 (“COVID-19 Hazard Pay”)is hereby added to Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.77.010.Title. This chapter shall be known as the “Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Emergency Ordinance.” 8.77.020.Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the City of South San Francisco under the laws of the State of California,including,but not limited to,the police powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and California Labor Code section 1205. 8.77.030.Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the construction and meaning of the terms used in this Chapter: A.“Base Wage”means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees as of the effective date of this Chapter less Hazard Pay owed under this Ordinance or any other premium hourly rate already paid to compensate Covered Employees for working during the pandemic (referred to herein as “employer-initiated hazard pay”). B.“City” means the City of South San Francisco. C.“Covered Employee”means any individual who qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law,as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission,and who works in a Grocery Store or a Drug Store on either a full-time or part-time basis. D.“Covered Employer”means any Person who (a)directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other Person owns or operates a Grocery Store or Drug Store,and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any Covered Employee;and (b)employs 500 or more employees nationwide regardless of where those employees are employed.To determine the number of employees employed by a Grocery Store or Drug Store, the calculation shall be based upon: a.The actual number of employees who worked for compensation during the two workweeks preceding the effective date of this chapter; and b. All employees who worked for compensation shall be counted, including but not limited to: City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. i. Employees who are not covered by this chapter; ii. Employees who worked within the geographic limits of the City; iii. Employees who worked outside the geographic limits of the City; and iv.Employees who worked in full-time employment,part-time employment,joint employment, temporary employment,or through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity. E.“Drug Store”means a retail or wholesale store that is located within the geographic limits of the City,and that sells primarily a general range of drugs,pharmaceuticals,cosmetics and related products, including food products, which may be fresh or packaged. F.“Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay”means a premium hourly rate to compensate Covered Employees for the hardships and/or risks associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic.If a Covered Employer pays such Employer-Initiated Hazard pay on a flat rate basis,the premium hourly rate is derived by dividing the flat rate payment for a workweek by the number of hours worked in the workweek. G.“Grocery Store”means (1)a retail or wholesale store that is located within the geographic limits of the City,and that sells primarily household foodstuffs for offsite consumption,including the sale of fresh produce,meats,poultry,fish,deli products,dairy products,canned foods,dry foods,beverages,baked foods,or prepared foods;or (2)a retail or wholesale store that is over 85,000 square feet and with 10%of its sales floor area dedicated to sale of non-taxable foodstuffs including,but not limited to,the sale of fresh produce,meats, poultry,fish,deli products,dairy products,canned foods,dry foods,beverages,baked foods and/or prepared foods. H.“Hazard Pay”means an additional $5.00 per hour wage bonus in addition to each Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium wage for each hour worked within the City. I.“Holiday Premium”means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees for performing work during a holiday or holiday season. J.“Hours Worked”means the time during which a Covered Employee is subject to the control of a Covered Employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, and on-call. K.“Person”means any individual,corporation,partnership,limited partnership,limited liability partnership,limited liability company,business trust,estate,trust,association,joint venture,agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. L.“Retaliatory Action”means any adverse action taken by an employer that negatively and significantly affects the terms and conditions of employment,including but not limited to termination, demotion,suspension,harassment,threats,unequal discipline,reduction in pay (including Base Wage or Holiday Premium Wages) or work hours, or refusal to hire or promote. 8.77.040.Payment of Hazard Pay to Covered Employees. A.Hazard Pay.Covered Employers shall pay Covered Employees a wage of no less than the premium hourly rate set under the authority of this Chapter.The premium hourly rate for each Covered Employee shall be five dollars ($5.00)per hour for all hours worked at a Grocery Store or Drug Store,in addition to the Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium,whichever is applicable at the time of hours worked.The Hazard Pay rate shall not include compensation already owed to Covered Employees, City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. hours worked.The Hazard Pay rate shall not include compensation already owed to Covered Employees, Holiday Premium rates, gratuities, service charge distributions, or other bonuses. B.Credits.Covered Employers providing employer-initiated hazard pay will be credited for doing so in accordance with Section 8.77.050. C.Duration of Hazard Pay.Covered Employers shall pay Hazard Pay to all Covered Employees for a 90-day period after the effective date of this Chapter, plus any period of required retroactive Hazard Pay. 8.77.045 Paid Leave for COVID-19 Vaccination of Covered Employees. Upon a Covered Employee presenting a Covered Employer with evidence that the Covered Employee has a confirmed appointment to be vaccinated against COVID-19 during the Covered Employee’s scheduled work hours,the Covered Employer shall provide the Covered Employee with paid leave at the Covered Employee’s rate of pay under Section 8.77.040(A).The paid leave required by this section shall be in an amount sufficient for the Covered Employee to obtain the vaccination, but shall not exceed four hours. 8.77.050.Credit for Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay. A.Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay shall be credited against the five dollars ($5.00)per hour for the hourly amount paid to each Covered Employee (e.g.,a Covered Employer offering two dollars ($2.00)per hour in Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay owes an additional three dollars ($3.00)per hour in Hazard Pay per this chapter.) B.To receive credit for paying a Covered Employee Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay,a Covered Employer must demonstrate that,as of the effective date of this chapter and in any subsequent covered workweeks, the Covered Employer paid such Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay to the Covered Employee. C.No Covered Employer shall be credited prospectively for any past payments.No Covered Employer shall be credited for any hourly premiums already owed to Covered Employees,such as but not limited to,Holiday Premiums.Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit any employer from paying more than five dollars ($5.00) per hour in Hazard Pay. 8.77.060. Waiver The provisions of this chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual Covered Employee and a Covered Employer.All the provisions of this Chapter,or any part thereof,may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement,but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. 8.77.070. Prohibitions. A.It shall be unlawful for a Covered Employer or any other Person to interfere with,restrain or deny the existence of, or the attempt to exercise, any rights protected under this chapter. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. B.Employers shall not take Retaliatory Action or discriminate against any employee or former employee because the individual has exercised rights protected under this chapter.Such rights include,but are not limited to,the right to request Hazard Pay pursuant to this chapter;the right to file a complaint with the city or inform any person about an employer’s alleged violation of this chapter;the right to participate in an investigation,hearing or proceeding or cooperate with or assist the city in its investigations of alleged violations of this chapter,and the right to inform any person of their rights under this chapter.Protections of this chapter shall apply to any employee who mistakenly,but in good faith,alleges noncompliance with this chapter.Taking adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee's exercise of rights protected under this chapter shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. 8.77.080.Enforcement A.Enforcement by the City.A violation of this chapter by a Covered Employer may be remedied by any means available to remedy a violation of this code. B.Private Right of Action.A Covered Employee claiming harm from a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the Covered Employer in court to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies available to correct any violation of this chapter,including,but not limited to,back pay,reinstatement,injunctive relief,or civil penalties as provided herein.A Covered Employee who is a prevailing party in an action to enforce this chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees,witness fees and costs. C.Remedies. The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to: 1.Reinstatement,the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld,and payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued,and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of state law. 2.Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b)of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code,as amended by state law,which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200)of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, as amended by state law, to the date the wages are paid in full. 3.Reimbursement of the city’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorneys’ fees,if the city undertakes enforcement action.The remedies,penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies,penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. 8.77.090. Retention of Records. Each Covered Employer shall maintain for at least three years for each Covered Employee,a record of his or her or their name,hours worked and pay rate.Each Covered Employer shall provide each Covered Employee with a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. 8.77.100.Conflict. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. The term “Conflict,” means a conflict that is preemptive under federal or state law. 8.77.110.Notice. A.The city shall,as expeditiously as possible,publish and make available on its website a notice suitable for Covered Employers to inform employees of their rights under this emergency chapter.Such notice shall be translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. B.Every Covered Employer shall,within three days after the city has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section,provide the notice to employees in a manner calculated to reach all employees,including,but not limited to,posting in a conspicuous place at the workplace;via electronic communication;or posting in a conspicuous place in a Covered Employer's web-based or app-based platform. The Covered Employer’s notification shall be provided in all languages spoken by more than ten percent (10%) of Covered Employees. C.Every Covered Employer shall,within three days after the City has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section or at the time of hire,whichever is later,provide each Covered Employee the Covered Employer and owner or manager’s name;address;and telephone number.If the information the Covered Employer provided to the Covered Employee changes,the Covered Employer shall provide the updated information in writing within ten days of the change. 8.77.110.No Preemption of Higher Standards. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards.This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages)or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the city. SECTION 4.Emergency Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Sunset Section 3 of this Ordinance shall remain in effect for 90 days. SECTION 5.Severability If any provision or part of this ordinance,or the application thereof to any person or circumstance,is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision or part to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 6.Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act The City Council hereby finds approval of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.,“CEQA,”and 14 Cal.Code Reg.§§15000 et seq.,“CEQA Guidelines”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. SECTION 7.Publication and Effective Date; Retroactive Application City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-150 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15a. As set forth in the recitals and findings above,this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the public peace, health,safety and welfare,and is adopted on an urgency basis.Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code section 36937(b), this Ordinance is effective immediately. Further,all the provisions of the Ordinance shall be given retrospective application to February 11,2021, including the requirement of Hazard Pay for work on and after that date,the prohibitions on certain conduct by Covered Employers, and the enforcement of the Ordinance. The City Clerk shall post in the Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. ***** Introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco held the 26 th day of August 2020. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/28/2021Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. Ordinance amending Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to add Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay”to require large grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00) per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic WHEREAS,on March 19,2020,the California State Public Health Officer,designated specific sectors and their workers,including grocery and drug stores,as Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers (“essential workers”)to ensure the “continuity of functions critical to public health and safety,as well as economic and national security”; and WHEREAS,since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic,grocery and drug store workers in the City of South San Francisco have continued to report to work and serve their communities,despite the ongoing hazards and danger of being exposed to and infected by the novel coronavirus,helping to ensure individuals throughout the City of South San Francisco have had access to the food and medicine they need during this pandemic; and WHEREAS,essential grocery and drug store workers are not highly paid and cannot choose to work from home-they must come to work to do their jobs,which involve heightened risk of exposure and infection of COVID-19 through substantial interaction with customers on an ongoing basis and indoors where there is less air circulation; and WHEREAS,according to an October 29,2020 study published in the journal Occupational and Environmental Medicine,a comprehensive test of workers at one grocery store resulted in 20 percent of grocery workers testing positive for COVID-19, even though three of four workers were asymptomatic; and WHEREAS,according to an August 2020 article in The Washington Post,at least 130 U.S.grocery workers had died from COVID-19, and more than 8,200 have tested positive for the virus; and WHEREAS,according to a January 2021 article in The Washington Post,the United Food and Commercial Workers estimates 109 of its members have died to from COVID-19 and more than 20,000 have tested positive; and WHEREAS,despite the efforts of grocery and drug stores to take precautions and keep customers and employees safe,including requiring masks,social distancing,and sanitizing cash registers,food conveyor belts, and shopping carts,there have been highly publicized outbreaks of COVID-19 among grocery store employees in the San Francisco Bay Area,and the health threats that these grocery and drug store workers face cannot be overstated; and WHEREAS,Latinos comprise about 40 percent of California’s population but 55 percent of positive cases, according to state data as of February 4,2021,and according to health experts,one of the main reasons Latinos are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 is because many work in jobs deemed “essential,”that require them toCity of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 1 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. are especially vulnerable to COVID-19 is because many work in jobs deemed “essential,”that require them to leave home and interact with the public, many in the retail food industry, which includes grocery stores; and WHEREAS,on August 28,2020,the State released the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy”that assigns counties into color-coded tiers based on a county’s case rate and test positivity rate,and that permits operations of certain businesses and activities based on a county’s tier; WHEREAS,Governor Gavin Newsom issued an emergency regional stay at home order on December 3,2020, as a result of the critically low availability Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) beds; and WHEREAS,on January 17,2021,the California Department of Public Health reported another COVID-19 variant that had grown more common across the state since December,with worrisome signs that this variant may be highly transmissible; and WHEREAS,despite the rescinding of the statewide December 3,2020 emergency order,the State is believed to be in the height of the pandemic with a stay at home order in many regions of the state,including the Bay Area region,where ICU capacity is 24 percent,and region are a long way from minimal risk where there would be one (1) daily new case per 100,000 or less than two (2) percent positivity; and WHEREAS,based on the case rate and positivity rate,San Mateo county has been listed in the “purple”and most elevated risk tier under the State blueprint,representing “widespread”risk throughout the county,since November and continues to be listed in this tier; and WHEREAS,grocery and drug stores are the primary points of distribution for food,medicine,and other daily necessities for the residents of the City of South San Francisco and are therefore essential to the vitality of our community; WHEREAS,given this essential role,grocery and drug stores have largely remained open throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, with many workers continuing to perform their job duties in person; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco recognizes that grocery and drug store workers must be justly compensated for the clear and present dangers of doing their jobs during the pandemic,and increases in wages result in more money being spent to stimulate our local economy; and WHEREAS,grocery and drug store workers-should they and members of their family become infected-risk being unable to work and earn an income,and an inability to pay for housing,childcare and healthcare costs; and WHEREAS,the United States’largest grocery and drug store retail companies have earned record profits during the pandemic,and this increase in profit has not transferred to workers,according to a Brookings Institution analysis published in November 2020; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco has adopted ordinances to address COVID-19-related impacts, including eviction protections for tenants; and WHEREAS,the City of South San Francisco has in the past adopted ordinance affecting the wages and conditions of employment locally; and City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 2 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. WHEREAS,premium pay,paid in addition to regular wages,is an established type of compensation for employees performing hazardous duty or work involving physical hardship that can cause extreme physical discomfort and distress; and WHEREAS,there are several large grocery and drug store chains operating in South San Francisco that employ workers in South San Francisco,and have at least 500 employees nationwide,with workers who are facing the hazards of COVID-19 in the workplace every day; and WHEREAS,in December 2020 and January 2021,a growing list of cities across California,including Oakland, Los Angeles,Long Beach,San Jose,Berkeley,West Hollywood,Santa Monica,Montebello,and San Leandro began announcing legislation for hazard pay for essential grocery and drug store workers during the pandemic, including during the period where counties are in the Purple,Red,or Orange level of Community Transmission for COVID-19 under State Health orders; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to amend Title 8 of the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code to adopt Chapter 8.77 “COVID-19 Hazard Pay”to require large grocery and drug stores in the City to pay employees an additional five dollars ($5.00)per hour in hazard pay during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; and WHEREAS,under article XI,section 7 of the California Constitution,the City has the power to adopt regulations and ordinances to preserve the public peace,health,and safety of workers and residents of the City; and WHEREAS,this Ordinance is a temporary pay ordinance intended to compensate certain essential workers at high risk of COVID-19 infection within the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak,and thus to serve the public peace, health, safety, and public welfare; and WHEREAS,the City Council expressly intends this hazard pay requirement to apply retroactively to February 11,2021,including all work performed on that date,in order to serve the public health,safety,and welfare in recognition that the risks posed to grocery and drug store workers continued during the time period when the City Council actively considered taking action to adopt an urgency ordinance establishing this hazard pay. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1.Findings The City Council finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated into the Ordinance by this reference. SECTION 2.Amendments to the Municipal Code Chapter 8.77 (“COVID-19 Hazard Pay”)is hereby added to Title 8 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to read as follows: 8.77.010.Title. City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 3 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. This chapter shall be known as the “Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Emergency Ordinance.” 8.77.020.Authority. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the powers vested in the City of South San Francisco under the laws of the State of California,including,but not limited to,the police powers vested in the City pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution and California Labor Code section 1205. 8.77.030.Definitions. The definitions set forth in this Section shall govern the construction and meaning of the terms used in this Chapter: A.“Base Wage”means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees as of the effective date of this Chapter less Hazard Pay owed under this Ordinance or any other premium hourly rate already paid to compensate Covered Employees for working during the pandemic (referred to herein as “employer-initiated hazard pay”). B.“City” means the City of South San Francisco. C.“Covered Employee”means any individual who qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California minimum wage law,as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the California Industrial Welfare Commission,and who works in a Large Grocery Store or a Large Drug Store on either a full-time or part-time basis. D.“Covered Employer”means any Person who (a)directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other Person owns or operates a Large Grocery Store or Large Drug Store,and employs or exercises control over the wages,hours or working conditions of any Covered Employee;and (b)employs 500 or more employees nationwide regardless of where those employees are employed,or is a Franchisee associated with a Franchisor or a network of Franchises with Franchisees that employ more than 500 employees in the aggregate, regardless of where those employees are employed.To determine the number of employees employed by a Large Grocery Store or Large Drug Store, the calculation shall be based upon: a.The actual number of employees who worked for compensation during the two workweeks preceding the effective date of this chapter; and b. All employees who worked for compensation shall be counted, including but not limited to: i. Employees who are not covered by this chapter; ii. Employees who worked within the geographic limits of the City; iii. Employees who worked outside the geographic limits of the City; and iv.Employees who worked in full-time employment,part-time employment,joint employment, temporary employment,or through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity. E.“Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay”means a premium hourly rate to compensate Covered Employees for the hardships and/or risks associated with working during the COVID-19 pandemic.If a Covered Employer pays such Employer-Initiated Hazard pay on a flat rate basis,the premium hourly rate is City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 4 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. derived by dividing the flat rate payment for a workweek by the number of hours worked in the workweek. F.“Franchise” means a written agreement by which: 1.A Person is granted the right to engage in the business of offering,selling,or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan prescribed or suggested in substantial part by the grantor or its affiliates; and 2.The operation of the business is substantially associated with a trademark,service mark,tradename, advertising,or other commercial symbol;designating,owned by,or licensed by the grantor or its affiliate; and 3. The Person pays, agrees to pay, or is required to pay, directly or indirectly, a Franchise fee. G.“Franchisee” means a Person to whom a Franchise is offered or granted. H.“Franchisor” means a Person who grants a franchise to another Person. I.“Hazard Pay”means an additional $5.00 per hour wage bonus in addition to each Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium wage for each hour worked within the City. J.“Holiday Premium”means the hourly wage paid to Covered Employees for performing work during a holiday or holiday season. K.“Hours Worked”means the time during which a Covered Employee is subject to the control of a Covered Employer, including all the time the employee is suffered or permitted to work, and on-call. L.“Large Drug Store”means a retail or wholesale store that is over 10,000 square feet in size,that is located within the geographic limits of the City,and that sells primarily a general range of drugs, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and related products, including food products, which may be fresh or packaged. M.“Large Grocery Store”means (1)a retail or wholesale store that is over 10,000 square feet in size,that is located within the geographic limits of the City,and that sells primarily household foodstuffs for offsite consumption,including the sale of fresh produce,meats,poultry,fish,deli products,dairy products, canned foods,dry foods,beverages,baked foods,or prepared foods;or (2)a retail or wholesale store that is over 85,000 square feet and with 10%of its sales floor area dedicated to sale of non-taxable foodstuffs including,but not limited to,the sale of fresh produce,meats,poultry,fish,deli products,dairy products, canned foods, dry foods, beverages, baked foods and/or prepared foods. N.“Person”means any individual,corporation,partnership,limited partnership,limited liability partnership,limited liability company,business trust,estate,trust,association,joint venture,agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign. O.“Retaliatory Action”means any adverse action taken by an employer that negatively and significantly affects the terms and conditions of employment,including but not limited to termination, demotion,suspension,harassment,threats,unequal discipline,reduction in pay (including Base Wage or Holiday Premium Wages) or work hours, or refusal to hire or promote. 8.77.040.Payment of Hazard Pay to Covered Employees. A.Hazard Pay.Covered Employers shall pay Covered Employees a wage of no less than the premium hourly rate set under the authority of this Chapter.The premium hourly rate for each Covered City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 5 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. premium hourly rate set under the authority of this Chapter.The premium hourly rate for each Covered Employee shall be five dollars ($5.00)per hour for all hours worked at a Large Grocery Store or Large Drug Store,in addition to the Covered Employee’s Base Wage or Holiday Premium,whichever is applicable at the time of hours worked.The Hazard Pay rate shall not include compensation already owed to Covered Employees, Holiday Premium rates, gratuities, service charge distributions, or other bonuses. B.Credits.Covered Employers providing employer-initiated hazard pay will be credited for doing so in accordance with Section 8.77.050. C.Duration of Hazard Pay.Covered Employers shall pay Hazard Pay to all Covered Employees for any pay period during which the City of South San Francisco is within a “Widespread”(purple), “Substantial”(red),or “Moderate”(orange)risk level,or its equivalent,under an operative public health order issued by the State of California and until such time as the City’s risk level returns to “Minimal”(yellow)or its equivalent under an operative state health order. 8.77.050.Credit for Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay. A.Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay shall be credited against the five dollars ($5.00)per hour for the hourly amount paid to each Covered Employee (e.g.,a Covered Employer offering two dollars ($2.00)per hour in Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay owes an additional three dollars ($3.00)per hour in Hazard Pay per this chapter.) B.To receive credit for paying a Covered Employee Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay,a Covered Employer must demonstrate that,as of the effective date of this chapter and in any subsequent covered workweeks, the Covered Employer paid such Employer-Initiated Hazard Pay to the Covered Employee. C.No Covered Employer shall be credited prospectively for any past payments.No Covered Employer shall be credited for any hourly premiums already owed to Covered Employees,such as but not limited to,Holiday Premiums.Nothing herein shall be interpreted to prohibit any employer from paying more than five dollars ($5.00) per hour in Hazard Pay. 8.77.060. Waiver The provisions of this chapter may not be waived by agreement between an individual Covered Employee and a Covered Employer.All the provisions of this Chapter,or any part thereof,may be waived in a bona fide collective bargaining agreement,but only if the waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement in clear and unambiguous terms. 8.77.070. Prohibitions. A.It shall be unlawful for a Covered Employer or any other Person to interfere with,restrain or deny the existence of, or the attempt to exercise, any rights protected under this chapter. B.Employers shall not take Retaliatory Action or discriminate against any employee or former employee because the individual has exercised rights protected under this chapter.Such rights include,but are not limited to,the right to request Hazard Pay pursuant to this chapter;the right to file a complaint with the city or inform any person about an employer’s alleged violation of this chapter;the right to participate in an investigation,hearing or proceeding or cooperate with or assist the city in its investigations of alleged violations of this chapter,and the right to inform any person of their rights under this chapter.Protections of this chapter shall apply to any employee who mistakenly,but in good faith,alleges noncompliance with this City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 6 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. this chapter shall apply to any employee who mistakenly,but in good faith,alleges noncompliance with this chapter.Taking adverse action against an employee within 90 days of the employee's exercise of rights protected under this chapter shall raise a rebuttable presumption of having done so in retaliation for the exercise of such rights. 8.77.080.Enforcement A.Enforcement by the City.A violation of this chapter by a Covered Employer may be remedied by any means available to remedy a violation of this code. B.Private Right of Action.A Covered Employee claiming harm from a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the Covered Employer in court to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies available to correct any violation of this chapter,including,but not limited to,back pay,reinstatement,injunctive relief,or civil penalties as provided herein.A Covered Employee who is a prevailing party in an action to enforce this chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees,witness fees and costs. C.Remedies. The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to: 1.Reinstatement,the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld,and payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of fifty dollars to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued,and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of state law. 2.Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subdivision (b)of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code,as amended by state law,which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200)of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, as amended by state law, to the date the wages are paid in full. 3.Reimbursement of the city’s administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorneys’ fees,if the city undertakes enforcement action.The remedies,penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies,penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. 8.77.090. Retention of Records. Each Covered Employer shall maintain for at least three years for each Covered Employee,a record of his or her or their name,hours worked and pay rate.Each Covered Employer shall provide each Covered Employee with a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee’s reasonable request. 8.77.100.Conflict. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied to create any power or duty in conflict with any federal or state law. The term “Conflict,” means a conflict that is preemptive under federal or state law. 8.77.110.Notice. A.The city shall,as expeditiously as possible,publish and make available on its website a notice suitable for Covered Employers to inform employees of their rights under this emergency chapter.Such notice shall be City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 7 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. translated into Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog. B.Every Covered Employer shall,within three days after the city has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section,provide the notice to employees in a manner calculated to reach all employees,including,but not limited to,posting in a conspicuous place at the workplace;via electronic communication;or posting in a conspicuous place in a Covered Employer's web-based or app-based platform. The Covered Employer’s notification shall be provided in all languages spoken by more than ten percent (10%) of Covered Employees. C.Every Covered Employer shall,within three days after the City has published and made available the notice described in subsection A of this section or at the time of hire,whichever is later,provide each Covered Employee the Covered Employer and owner or manager’s name;address;telephone number;and whether it is part of a franchise associated with a franchisor or network of franchises.If the information the Covered Employer provided to the Covered Employee changes,the Covered Employer shall provide the updated information in writing within ten days of the change. D.Every Covered Employer shall provide notice to employees when the Risk Level in the City either moves from Widespread (purple),Substantial (red)or Moderate (orange)to Minimal (yellow),or from Minimal (yellow)to Widespread (purple),Substantial (red)or Moderate (orange)under a State of California Health Order.Notice shall be given in a manner calculated to reach all employees,including,but not limited to, posting in a conspicuous place at the workplace;via electronic communication;or posting in a conspicuous place in a Covered Employer's web-based or app-based platform.The Covered Employer's notification shall be provided in all languages spoken by more than ten percent (10%) of Employees 8.77.110.No Preemption of Higher Standards. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards.This Chapter does not preempt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages)or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the city. SECTION 3.Emergency Grocery and Drug Store Worker Hazard Pay Sunset Section 3 of this Ordinance shall remain in effect during any period the City of South San Francisco is within a Widespread (purple),Substantial (red)or Moderate (orange)Risk Level and shall become ineffective during any period when the Risk Level in the City of South San Francisco returns to Minimal (yellow)under State of California Health Orders. SECTION 4.Severability If any provision or part of this ordinance,or the application thereof to any person or circumstance,is held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision or part to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 5.Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act The City Council hereby finds approval of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§21000 et seq.,“CEQA,”and 14 Cal.Code Reg.§§15000 et seq.,“CEQA Guidelines”) under Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines. SECTION 6.Publication and Effective Date; Retroactive Application Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 8 of 9 powered by Legistar™ File #:21-151 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:15b. Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933,a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney.At least five (5)days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted,the City Clerk shall (1)publish the Summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance.Within fifteen (15)days after the adoption of this Ordinance,the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary,and (2)post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption. Further,all the provisions of the Ordinance shall be given retrospective application to February 11,2021, including the requirement of Hazard Pay for work on and after that date,the prohibitions on certain conduct by Covered Employers, and the enforcement of the Ordinance. 3696359.1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/25/2021Page 9 of 9 powered by Legistar™ City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:21-66 Agenda Date:3/10/2021 Version:1 Item #:1. Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency designated representatives: Leah Lockhart, Human Resources Director, Donna Williamson, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Employee organization: AFSCME, Local 829; Confidential Unit - Teamsters Local 856; Mid-management Unit - Teamsters Local 856; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 39 City of South San Francisco Printed on 3/5/2021Page 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 #:21-143 Agenda Date:2/24/2021 Version:1 Item #:17. Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(4)) Initiation of Litigation: Three potential cases (Sky Woodruff, City Attorney and Jacob Gilchrist, Director of Capital Projects) City of South San Francisco Printed on 2/19/2021Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™