Agenda, first session — San Bruno City Council, September 24, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
September 24, 2024
7:00 PM
City Councilmembers and members of the public may attend in person at the San Bruno Senior Center, or by teleconference, via Zoom or telephone.

IN PERSON* MEETING LOCATION
San Bruno Senior Center
1555 Crystal Springs Road
San Bruno, CA 94066
*Please turn off all electronic devices before the start of the meeting to prevent disruptions*
Zoom Link**
https://sanbrunocagov.zoom.us/j/84642053184?
pwd=qJtNR23veogbkKu0IIoaFdAayKqsEU.1
Phone Line: 16465588656
Webinar ID: 846 4205 3184
Webinar Password: 580388
*Teleconference broadcasting is offered in the meeting via Zoom as a courtesy to the public.
**No public comment accepted via Zoom.

PUBLIC COMMENT: In person attendees who want to provide public comment, will be asked to fill out a speaker card and turn it into the City Clerk. Public comment may also be emailed to [email protected] . Comments received via email will not be read
aloud during the meeting.

ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals requiring special accommodations or modifications to participate in this meeting should contact the City Clerk’s Office 48 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 6167061 or [email protected] .
*Any disclosable public writings related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City to at least a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at the City Clerk's Office at City Hall located at 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California during normal business hours. In addition, the City may also post such documents on the City’s Website at sanbruno.ca.gov/AgendaCenter .

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Individuals allowed up to three minutes, subject to the Mayor’s discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. It is the Council’s policy to refer matters raised in this forum to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate. The Brown Act prohibits the Council from discussing or acting upon any matter not agendized pursuant to State Law.

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
There is a single public comment period for all items in this section a. Proclamation Recognizing October 2024 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month b. Proclamation Recognizing October 2024 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month c. Proclamation Recognizing October 2024 as National Filipino American Heritage Month d. Receive Annual Update from the Crime Prevention Committee

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
All items are considered routine or implement an earlier Council action and may be enacted by one motion; there will be no separate discussion, unless requested. There will be a single public comment period for all items in this section unless a Councilmember requests to pull an item for a separate vote. a. Approve the Draft Special Meeting Minutes for August 6, 2024; September 10, 2024 and Regular Meeting Minutes for July 23, 2024
b. Approve Accounts Payable for September 9, 2024 and September 16, 2024 c. Accept Payroll for September 8, 2024
d. Approve Investment Report Dated August 31, 2024
e. Approve Reconciliation of General Ledger to Bank Report Dated June 30, 2024 f. Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno’s Response Letter to the 2023 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space” g. Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno’s Response Letter to the 2023 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” h. Consider Adoption of a Resolution:

Approving the Design of the 202324 and 202425 Street Rehabilitation Project Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with McKim Corporation for the 202324 and 202425 Street Rehabilitation Project in an amount not to exceed $5,441,764.13;
Approving a Construction Contingency of $820,000;
Transferring the remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 202324 Street Rehabilitation Project to the 202425 Street Rehabilitation Project; Approving a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $7,580,000; and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act i. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Updating the “City of San Bruno Employee Hourly Pay Schedule 2024” Effective September 23, 2024
j. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre k. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Design for the Florida Park Project; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. for the Florida Park Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,343,506; Approving a Construction Contingency of $201,500; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Project Management Contract with Wilsey Ham in an Amount Not to Exceed $229,674 for Comprehensive Project Management; and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
l. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Establishing White Curb Markings on Cherry Avenue and Grundy Lane, and a Midblock Crosswalk on Grundy Lane Related to the YouTube Phase 1 Office Development Project and Finding That Such Changes Were Fully Analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report for the Bayhill Specific Plan Including the Phase I Development m. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Agreement with the Menlo Park Fire Protection District to Designate the City of San Bruno a Participating Agency in the Federal Emergency Management Agency California Urban Search and Rescue Task Force 3 and an Addendum to Such Memorandum of Agreement to Provide for a Canine Search Specialist
n. Consider Adoption of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Bruno Amending Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code for Minor Amendments Related to Modifications, Temporary Use Permits, and Architectural Review” and Finding Such Action Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act

7. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Public comment will be requested after each topic in this section a. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Recommendation of the Service Award Committee to Award the Recognition of Extraordinary Service Award to Harry Costa by Naming the Stage at Centennial Plaza After Him (Posthumously) with Placement of the Plaque on or Near the Stage; and Approving the Recommendation of the Service Award Committee to Award the Recognition of the Extraordinary Service Award to Mike Palmer with Placement of the Award Plaque Near Diamond 1 in City Park

8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT

9. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

10. ADJOURNMENT – The next Regular City Council Meeting will be held on October 8, 2024 at 7:00 pm
POSTING: I declare a copy of this agenda was posted at City Hall, 567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, among other locations in the city limits of San Bruno, on September 19, 2024, by 6:00 pm.

1 of 237
"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
AGENDA
SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
September 24, 2024
7:00 PM
City Councilmembers and members of the public may attend in person at the San Bruno Senior Center, or by teleconference, via Zoom or telephone.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT

9. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

2 of 237

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ROLL CALL

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT

9. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS

1 Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4
“The City with a Heart”

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
August 6, 2024
5:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 pm.

2. ROLL CALL

3. Councilmembers Alvarez, Hamilton, M. Medina, Vice Mayor Salazar and Mayor R. Medina w
ere all present.

4. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
a. Consider Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Bruno A
pproving a Written Argument in Favor of a City Measure that Authorizes the I
ssuance of General Obligation Bonds to Finance Municipal Improvements and A
uthorizing the City Council to File Such Written Argument Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Salazar presented the draft Argument in Favor of Measure to the City Council.

No members of the public wished to speak on this item.

City Council Members and City Manager Alex McIntyre, City Attorney Trisha Ortiz and Chief Financial Officer Nick Pegueros discussed the sentence r
eferencing Measure G.

City Manager Alex McIntyre, Chief Financial Officer Nick Pegueros, City A
ttorney Trisha Ortiz and City Clerk Lupita Huerta answered questions.

City Attorney Trisha Ortiz read the title of the item.

M/S Salazar / M. Medina to adopt the resolution as read by the City Attorney. The m
otion passed unanimously.

5. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting adjourned at 5:22 pm to the next Regular City Council Meeting on August 27, 2024 at 7:00 pm.

These City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Lupita Huerta, City Clerk, and
pr
esented to the City Council for approval at the regular meeting of September 24, 2024. ______________________________ ______________________________ Lupita Huerta
City Clerk
Rico E. Medina
Mayor
4 of 237
Item 6a.

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Tom Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
September 10, 2024
6:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Alvarez, Hamilton, M. Medina, Vice Mayor Salazar and Mayor R.

Medina were all present.

3. CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency designated representatives: City Manager
Employee organizations: Teamsters Local 856, IBT Miscellaneous; Teamsters Local 350, IBT Mid-Management; and San Bruno Management Employees Association No reportable action was taken.

4. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting adjourned at 6:43 pm to the next Regular City Council Meeting on September 10, 2024 at 7:00 pm.

These City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Lupita Huerta, City Clerk, and presented to the City Council for approval at the regular meeting of September 24, 2024.

______________________________   ______________________________ Lupita Huerta
City Clerk
Rico E. Medina
Mayor

5 of 237

"The City With a Heart"
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
Michael Salazar, Vice Mayor
Sandy Alvarez, Councilmember, District 1
Tm Hamilton, Councilmember
Marty Medina, Councilmember, District 4

MINUTES

SAN BRUNO CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
July 23, 2024
7:00 PM

1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 pm.

2. ROLL CALL
Councilmembers Alvarez, Hamilton, M. Medina, Vice Mayor Salazar and Mayor R.

Medina were all present.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor R. Medina led the pledge.

4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public provided public comment:
• Maria Concha
• Ray Moser
• Rebecca Molano

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
a. The nomination period for the November 2024 General Municipal Election is now open and closes at 5:00 pm on Friday, August 9, 2024. This November, Districts 2 and 3, as well as the At Large Mayor, will be up for election. For information about the November 2024 election, or if interested in running for office, please visit sanbruno.ca.gov/Elections or contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-616-7061.
b. Each Friday night in August, enjoy good music and fun company at the Summer Concert Series! Concerts start at 6:00 pm near the tennis courts in San Bruno City Park c. Join us on the 500 block of San Mateo Avenue Tuesday, August 6th from 5:00 to 9:00 pm for National Night Out, presented by the City and the San Bruno Improvement Group and Community. The event is a night of fun, building police-community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie to make our neighborhoods safer and a better place to work and live. This is followed by other neighborhood events d. We are pleased to announce the Soft Opening of the new Recreation and Aquatic Center on July 24th. We invite the public to visit the facility and explore our state-of-the-art fitness center, indoor swimming pool, gymnasium, and rentable spaces for parties and events. For program details and operating hours, please visit the City of San Bruno website. Additionally, we encourage you to mark your calendars for the Grand Opening of the facility on August 24th.

6 of 237

City Council – Minutes
July 23, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

e. There is no regular City Council meeting on the second Tuesday in August. The next regular City Council meeting will be held on August 27, 2024 at 7:00 pm f. Receive Presentation from Caltrain
Caltrain Executive Director Michelle Bouchard and Caltrain’s External Affairs Manager Brent Tietjen presented the item to the City Council and answered questions.

No members of the public wished to speak under Announcements/Presentations.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Approve the Draft Special Meeting Minutes for July 9, 2024 and Regular Meeting Minutes for July 9, 2024
b. Approve Accounts Payable for July 1, 2024, and July 8, 2024 c. Accept Payroll for June 16, 2024 and June 30, 2024
d. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with CSG Forte for Payment Processing Services e. Consider Adoption of a Resolution:
• Approving the Design of the 2023-24 Slurry Seal Project; • Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with American Asphalt Repair & Resurfacing Company, Inc. for the 2023-24 Slurry Seal Project in the amount not to exceed $668,398.08;
• Approving a Construction Contingency of $100,000;
• Transferring the budget in the amount of $160,000 from the 2022-23 Slurry Seal Project to the 2023-24 Slurry Seal Project;
• Approving a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $1,017,000 and • Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
f. Consider Adoption of a Resolution:
• Approving the Design of the Winter Storm Hazard Mitigation Project adjacent to Water Tank 1 by Cunningham Way;
• Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Farallon Company Engineering for the Winter Storm Hazard Mitigation Project within City-owned Property, Located near the 400-block of Cunningham Way in an amount not to exceed $213,980;
• Approving a Construction Contingency of $32,097;
• Approving a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $429,486; and • Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
g. Consider Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map for the Properties at 111 San Bruno Avenue West and 761-767 Huntington Avenue h. Consider Adoption of a Resolution:
• Accepting and Appropriating Peninsula Clean Energy Member Agency Energy Grant Funding and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute any Funding Agreements with Peninsula Clean Energy Authority in the Amount of $506,409 for Phase 1 of the Regulated Output (R.O.) Streetlight Replacement Project (CIP #60035)
• Accepting and Appropriating Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant Funding and Authorizing the City Manager to

7 of 237

City Council – Minutes
July 23, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

Execute any Funding Agreements with the Department of Energy in the Amount of $76,430, When Received, for Phase 1 of the Regulated Output (R.O.) Streetlight Replacement Project (CIP #60035)
• Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase the Solar Streetlights in an Amount Not to Exceed $686,000; and
• Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
i. Consider Adoption of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Bruno Amending Chapter 2.36 (Personnel System) of the San Bruno Municipal Code Regarding Personnel Regulations”
j. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54221 (b) and 54221 (f)(1)(B) that Certain Real Property Owned by the City Located at 618 San Mateo Avenue in the City of San Bruno (APN 020-131-240) is Exempt Surplus Land and Not Necessary for the City’s Use, Finding that Such Declaration is Exempt from Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act, and Taking Related Actions
No items were pulled for a separate vote.

Item e – Councilmember M. Medina pulled item for comments and questions.

Public Works Director Matt Lee answered questions.

Item h – Councilmember Hamilton pulled item for comment.

No members of the public wished to speak under the Consent Calendar.

M/S Salazar / Hamilton to approve Consent Calendar. Motion passed unanimously.

7. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
a. Consider Introducing, Reading by Title Only, and Waiving Further Reading of an Ordinance Amending San Bruno Municipal Code Section 2.04.030 Regarding City Council Regular Meeting Location, Section 2.08.040 Regarding Planning Commission Regular Meeting Location, and Section 2.20.010 Regarding City Clerk Office Hours City Clerk Lupita Huerta presented the item to the City Council.

No members of the public wished to speak under this item.

City Manager Alex McIntyre answered questions.

M/S Hamilton / Salazar to approve as read by the City Clerk. Motion passed unanimously.
b. Consider Adoption of an Uncodified Ordinance Ordering the Submission of a Proposition Incurring Bonded Indebtedness to the Qualified Voters of the City of San Bruno at the General Municipal Election to be held on November 5, 2024, for the Purpose of Financing the Cost of the Acquisition, Construction and Improvement of Certain Municipal Improvement Projects Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City c. Consider Adoption of a Resolution Placing a Measure to Approve the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Finance Municipal Improvements Constituting Public Infrastructure of the City on the November 5, 2024, Ballot, and Requesting Consolidation with the Statewide General Election and Setting Procedural Details and Adoption of a Resolution Setting Priorities for Filing Written Arguments and Authorizing Rebuttals for a City Measure that Approves the Issuance of General Obligation Bonds to Finance

8 of 237

City Council – Minutes
July 23, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

Municipal Improvements
Chief Financial Officer Nick Pegueros presented Items b and c in one presentation to the City Council and answered questions.

No members of the public wished to speak under Items b nor c.

City Manager Alex McIntyre answered questions.

City Attorney Trisha Ortiz answered questions.

Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Salazar draft Argument in Favor of Measure and bring matter back at a Special Meeting.

M/S M. Medina / Hamilton to adopt the resolution adding in Section 1 - Vice Mayor Salazar and Councilmember Hamilton authoring an argument in favor of, along with all other provisions. Motion passed unanimously.

M/S Hamilton / Salazar to adopt the ordinance. Motion passed unanimously.

M/S Hamilton / Alvarez to adopt the resolution as read by the City Attorney. Motion passed unanimously.

8. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORT OUT
The following members of the City Council provided comments:
• Councilmember Hamilton
• Mayor R. Medina

9. COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS
The following members of the City Council provided comments:
• Councilmember Hamilton
• Councilmember M. Medina
• Councilmember Alvarez
• Mayor R. Medina

10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:21 pm to the next Regular City Council Meeting on August 27, 2024, at 7:00 pm.

These City Council meeting minutes were prepared by Lupita Huerta, City Clerk, and presented to the City Council for approval at the regular meeting of September 24, 2024.

______________________________   ______________________________ Lupita Huerta
City Clerk
Rico E. Medina
Mayor

9 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 9, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nick Pegueros, Chief Financial Officer
Kathleen O’Malley, Accounting & Customer Service Representative SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Warrant Register
This is to certify that the claims listed on pages 1 to 2 inclusive, and/or claims numbered from 210790 through 210879 inclusive, totaling $327,625.43 have been checked in detail and approved by the proper officials, and in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts. The table below summarizes the total paid by Fund.

Fund Fund Name Amount
001 General Fund $174,315.28
132 Agency On Aging $854.91
133 Restricted Revenues $744.00
141 Community Development $3,304.14
142 Recreation & Aquatics Center (RAC) $792.32
201 Parks and Facilities Capital $6,033.50
207 Technology Capital $5,250.00
611 Water Fund $14,323.99
621 Stormwater Fund $4,482.85
631 Wastewater Fund $5,878.39
641 CityNet Services Fund $63,117.16
701 Central Garage $13,963.73
702 Facility Maintenance Fund $18,752.91
703 General Equipment Revolving $821.30
707 Technology Development $14,990.95
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $327,625.43
Respectfully submitted,
_________________________
Chief Financial Officer Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 78263BE5-28CD-4542-B0CE-8E30A4F11132 9/10/2024
10 of 237
Item 6b.
9/9/2024 9:51:14AM
Positive Pay Listing
City of San Bruno
apPosPay Page: 1
Bank: apbank 432000438Document group: komalley
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
0106896 A-1 RHINO LININGS 210790 3,821.569/9/2024
0110783 ALEX MCINTYRE 210838 56.109/9/2024
0111680 ALEX NOFTE 210847 53.349/9/2024
0108804 ALLIED PROPANE SERVICE, INC. 210791 226.039/9/2024 0104542 ALTA LANGUAGE SERVICES, INC. 210792 132.009/9/2024 0096700 ANDY'S WHEELS & TIRES 210793 457.609/9/2024
0111676 ANN COLLINS 210810 72.669/9/2024
0016123 AT&T 210794 594.269/9/2024
0000345 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS 210797 2,247.639/9/2024
0111681 BAOZHI XU 210879 29.139/9/2024
0108691 BEAR CLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 210798 9,971.959/9/2024 0109646 BIO CAR CARE 210800 540.009/9/2024
0093170 BOOKPAGE 210801 744.009/9/2024
0097912 CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 210802 415.009/9/2024 0018831 CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL STATISTICS, INC. 210844 1,030.009/9/2024 0110323 CAPF 210803 944.009/9/2024
0106548 CAPITAL ONE TRADE CREDIT 210804 170.799/9/2024 0016324 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 210806 66.949/9/2024
0016324 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 210805 534.839/9/2024 0109639 CLAREMONT BEHAVIORAL SVCS,INC. 210807 753.759/9/2024 0110074 COGENT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 210809 8,000.009/9/2024 0109957 CORETECH LEASING, INC. 210811 7,749.429/9/2024 0110941 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEMENT, INC. 210856 57.959/9/2024 0110432 CORPORATION OF THE FINE ARTS MUSEUM 210849 150.009/9/2024 0000911 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES 210812 586.139/9/2024 0015857 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 210813 42,396.009/9/2024
0105811 CSAC EXCESS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 210817 13,889.429/9/2024 0018188 DAU PRODUCTS 210814 4,619.069/9/2024
0109577 DIRECTWORX 210815 2,395.639/9/2024
0000073 ENGINEERING DATA SOFTWARE, INC 210816 1,395.169/9/2024 0111363 FARALLON COMPANY ENGINEERING 210818 2,941.009/9/2024 0102627 FASTRK VIOLATION PROCESSING DEPT. 210876 24.009/9/2024 0000944 FEDEX 210819 39.559/9/2024
0001782 FLOWERS ELECTRIC & SVC.CO.INC. 210820 6,493.439/9/2024 0018117 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 210821 9,971.119/9/2024
0110360 GOT GOPHERS, INC. 210822 1,800.009/9/2024
0000162 GRAINGER 210823 2,238.369/9/2024
0000541 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 210824 1,393.199/9/2024
0095966 GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SVC. 210825 649.149/9/2024 0017900 GREAT LAKES DATA SYSTEMS INC 210826 2,300.009/9/2024 0111678 HAROLD HARLAN 210828 35.329/9/2024
0111686 HEIDI ROMAN 210859 100.179/9/2024
0096344 HUNT & SONS, INC. 210830 7,793.069/9/2024
0109121 INFORMATION PROFESSIONALS,INC. 210831 480.009/9/2024 0015531 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYS. OF SF 210832 749.399/9/2024 0018553 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS 210872 911.539/9/2024 0111682 JANETTE NEVES 210846 103.579/9/2024
0111683 JOHN STUMP 210867 60.849/9/2024
0018050 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN 210833 5,495.869/9/2024 0111674 KENNETH HALL 210827 1,000.009/9/2024
0109978 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. 210834 195.029/9/2024 0110309 LOOKINGPOINT, INC. 210835 3,802.189/9/2024
0018177 LOWE'S 210836 7,513.239/9/2024
Page: 1
Docusign Envelope ID: 78263BE5-28CD-4542-B0CE-8E30A4F11132

11 of 237

9/9/2024 9:51:14AM
Positive Pay Listing
City of San Bruno
apPosPay Page: 2
Bank: apbank 432000438Document group: komalley
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
0111679 MARC BERMUDEZ 210799 1,597.519/9/2024
0111666 MARIELLE ATANACIO 210795 97.859/9/2024
0109532 MATRIX HG, INC. 210837 14,755.009/9/2024
0018496 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 210839 2,653.819/9/2024 0111387 MICHAEL AVILES 210796 32.599/9/2024
0111673 MICHAEL HUNG 210829 1,000.009/9/2024
0092285 MICROMARKETING LLC 210840 70.989/9/2024
0016863 MIDWEST TAPE, LLC 210841 10,000.009/9/2024
0103600 MOMENTUM TELECOM, INC. 210842 7,758.669/9/2024 0110565 MTECH, INC. 210843 821.309/9/2024
0102920 NBS 210845 5,604.009/9/2024
0111055 O'REILLY AUTO PARTS 210850 311.219/9/2024
0110243 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 210848 347.629/9/2024 0000012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 210851 5,788.459/9/2024 0109463 PENINSULA REGISTRATION SVCS 210852 92.009/9/2024 0108277 PIVOT GROUP LLC 210853 9,200.009/9/2024
0111229 PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION 210854 8,050.009/9/2024 0111684 PREMIUM BRANDS SERVICES 210855 79.589/9/2024
0106293 ROBERT HALF 210858 5,287.609/9/2024
0018597 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 210860 2,736.009/9/2024 0018461 SERRAMONTE FORD, INC. 210861 87.839/9/2024
0103732 SFO MEDICAL CLINIC 210862 522.009/9/2024
0097626 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. 210863 148.139/9/2024 0018962 SHOE DEPOT INC. 210864 1,179.159/9/2024
0016458 SIADAT ENTERPRISES INC. 210865 311.759/9/2024 0000102 SONITROL/PACIFIC WEST SECURITY, INC. 210878 270.009/9/2024 0018028 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD(SWRCB) 210857 4,516.509/9/2024 0111232 STRATEGIC CULTURE 210866 35,619.259/9/2024
0105796 SUNRISE FOOD DISTRIBUTOR INC. 210868 854.919/9/2024 0018073 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 350 210869 3,010.009/9/2024
0015691 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 210870 12,604.009/9/2024
0017527 TIFCO INDUSTRIES INC. 210871 570.809/9/2024
0001362 TV GUIDE MAGAZINE, LLC 210873 145.419/9/2024
0111677 V. BLOUNT 210874 119.599/9/2024
0095749 VERIZON WIRELESS 210875 5,058.169/9/2024
0104233 WAVE 210877 20,100.009/9/2024
0105955 WEST COAST CODE CONSULTANTS, INC. 210808 6,033.509/9/2024 Total count: 90
GrandTotal: 327,625.43
Page: 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 78263BE5-28CD-4542-B0CE-8E30A4F11132

12 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 16, 2024

TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager

PREPARED BY: Nick Pegueros, Chief Financial Officer
Kathleen O’Malley, Accounting & Customer Service Representative

SUBJECT: Accounts Payable Warrant Register

This is to certify that the claims listed on pages 1 to 3 inclusive, and/or claims numbered from 210880 through 211016 inclusive, totaling $513,685.97 have been checked in detail and approved by the proper officials, and in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts. The table below summarizes the total paid by Fund.

Fund Fund Name Amount
001 General Fund $100,245.25
132 Agency On Aging $1,217.58
137 Developer Project Contributions $23,412.63
142 Recreation & Aquatics Center (RAC) $15,721.13
203 Street Improvement Projects $7,682.50
207 Technology Capital $4,200.00
611 Water Fund $46,289.02
621 Stormwater Fund $18,747.81
631 Wastewater Fund $58,112.85
641 CityNet Services Fund $118,141.31
651 Parking Fund $3,369.35
701 Central Garage $10,703.13
702 Facility Maintenance Fund $4,309.39
703 General Equipment Revolving $14,497.04
707 Technology Development $47,724.67
711 Self-Insurance $39,312.31
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $513,685.97

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Chief Financial Officer Date
Docusign Envelope ID: 42866B44-0C8E-4E58-92A3-3B01A68FC16E 9/16/2024

13 of 237

9/16/2024 11:39:46AM
Positive Pay Listing
City of San Bruno
apPosPay Page: 1
Bank: apbank 432000438Document group: komalley
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
0106896 A-1 RHINO LININGS 210880 4,737.039/16/2024
0096852 ABAG PLAN CORPORATION 210881 39,312.319/16/2024 0106799 ACCELA INC. 210882 17,036.299/16/2024
0104680 ACCESS 24 COMMUNICATIONS INC. 210883 492.559/16/2024 0000858 ADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 210884 2,033.289/16/2024 0001170 AIRGAS USA, LLC 210885 245.639/16/2024
0000163 AIRPORT AUTO PARTS INC. 210886 890.799/16/2024 0018976 ALPHA ANALYTICAL LAB. INC. 210887 1,590.009/16/2024 0111697 ALYSIA KORSMEYER 210941 24.959/16/2024
0110697 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES 210888 1,293.079/16/2024 0096700 ANDY'S WHEELS & TIRES 210889 2,668.569/16/2024 0096113 AR AUTO GLASS 210890 575.009/16/2024
0014617 AT&T 210891 120.009/16/2024
0016123 AT&T 210892 1,261.879/16/2024
0018465 AT&T MOBILITY 210893 43.249/16/2024
0000345 BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS 210894 915.659/16/2024
0110745 BETTERHELP, INC. 210895 425.009/16/2024
0109646 BIO CAR CARE 210896 1,300.009/16/2024
0111695 BRETT RAMPATTA 210967 29.159/16/2024
0000098 BRODART CO. 210897 120.659/16/2024
0017600 BURTON'S FIRE INC. 210898 329.909/16/2024
0102989 CALIFORNIA DIESEL & POWER 210899 8,756.129/16/2024 0106437 CALIX, INC. 210900 807.809/16/2024
0106676 CBS SPORTS NETWORK 210901 1,234.089/16/2024
0106106 CBT NUGGETS, LLC 210902 2,895.009/16/2024
0013965 CH BULL CO. 210903 2,936.419/16/2024
0017284 CHEMSEARCHFE 210905 900.989/16/2024
0103854 CHRISTINE E HOPKINS 210938 6,955.009/16/2024
0111696 CHRISTOPHER WONG 211009 11.519/16/2024
0016324 CINTAS CORPORATION #464 210906 492.099/16/2024 0000227 CITY OF SAN BRUNO-UTILITY 210907 208.419/16/2024 0018911 COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 210908 11,231.609/16/2024 0015857 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 210910 82.259/16/2024
0104729 CRESTMOOR AUTO CENTER 210911 180.249/16/2024
0106011 CWEA-SFBS 210912 350.009/16/2024
0109577 DIRECTWORX 210913 1,669.229/16/2024
0096829 DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC 210914 999.009/16/2024 0111672 EAN SERVICES, LLC 210915 2,244.559/16/2024
0110433 ECS IMAGING INC. 210916 13,650.009/16/2024
0106036 EDGAR HERNANDEZ 210937 36.009/16/2024
0017300 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FEE 210919 7,888.009/16/2024 0000046 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS INC 210920 288.239/16/2024 0000944 FEDEX 210921 34.669/16/2024
0001782 FLOWERS ELECTRIC & SVC.CO.INC. 210925 588.839/16/2024 0018117 FLYERS ENERGY, LLC 210926 5,261.339/16/2024
0017720 FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC. 210928 20,420.269/16/2024 0102869 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 210929 25.009/16/2024
0016363 GCS ENVIRONMENTAL & EQUIPMENT SVC. 210918 637.359/16/2024 0111700 GERARDO TOPACIO 210993 13.459/16/2024
0104135 GLOBAL TRACKING COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 210994 376.959/16/2024 0108425 GOOD CITY COMPANY 210931 18,196.099/16/2024
0107686 GOSERCO, INC. 210932 3,634.149/16/2024
0000162 GRAINGER 210933 2,384.759/16/2024
Page: 1
Docusign Envelope ID: 42866B44-0C8E-4E58-92A3-3B01A68FC16E

14 of 237

9/16/2024 11:39:46AM
Positive Pay Listing
City of San Bruno
apPosPay Page: 2
Bank: apbank 432000438Document group: komalley
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
0095966 GREAT AMERICA FINANCIAL SVC. 210934 2,002.969/16/2024 0017900 GREAT LAKES DATA SYSTEMS INC 210935 2,403.509/16/2024 0096837 GYM DOCTORS 210936 260.009/16/2024
0018838 INFOSEND, INC. 210939 5,276.529/16/2024
0111601 KAITHARA GEORGE 210930 728.849/16/2024
0109706 KNOWBE4 INC. 210940 5,427.509/16/2024
0110252 KRISELLE ZEVADA 211016 415.009/16/2024
0017570 LEHR AUTO ELECTRIC 210942 1,890.109/16/2024
0018777 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MANAGEMENT 210971 720.809/16/2024 0111577 LISA ANNE MENCONI 210945 253.009/16/2024
0106507 MAYNE TREE EXPERT COMPANY,INC. 210943 195.009/16/2024 0111584 MERAKAI LLC 210946 12,606.949/16/2024
0016041 METROMOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 210947 370.509/16/2024 0111603 MICHAEL YIH 211012 5.109/16/2024
0092285 MICROMARKETING LLC 210948 39.799/16/2024
0001709 MILLBRAE LOCK 210950 8.909/16/2024
0103600 MOMENTUM TELECOM, INC. 210951 7,765.699/16/2024 0104730 MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES 210952 2,807.499/16/2024 0105725 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ATHLETICS 210953 8,748.359/16/2024 0107155 NETSWEEPER INC. 210954 500.009/16/2024
0103301 NHL NETWORK US, LP 210955 731.369/16/2024
0110243 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC 210957 205.709/16/2024 0105812 OLIVER REICH 210969 1,402.009/16/2024
0111694 OSCAR VASQUEZ 211000 19.889/16/2024
0103933 OWEN EQUIPMENT SALES 210958 10,789.759/16/2024 0111701 PABLO ORDUNA FERNANDEZ 210922 20.189/16/2024
0000012 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 210959 26,662.829/16/2024 0092223 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 210909 466.429/16/2024 0001154 PENINSULA LIBRARY SYSTEM 210960 9,793.849/16/2024 0001327 PENINSULA PUMP & EQUIPMENT INC 210961 10,291.269/16/2024 0108589 PERFORMANCE FOODSERVICE-LEDYARD 210927 952.679/16/2024 0000294 PITNEY BOWES 210962 330.089/16/2024
0108277 PIVOT GROUP LLC 210963 4,600.009/16/2024
0018756 POLLARDWATER 210964 1,014.859/16/2024
0111229 PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION 210965 4,200.009/16/2024 0097558 PURCHASE POWER 210966 401.009/16/2024
0111702 RACHEL MILES 210949 10.269/16/2024
0000175 RECOLOGY SAN BRUNO 210968 3,987.249/16/2024
0106491 REDWOOD CITY FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION 210924 400.009/16/2024 0103531 RICOH USA, INC. 210970 1,022.809/16/2024
0110390 ROBERT CHAPMAN 210904 1,400.729/16/2024
0106293 ROBERT HALF 210972 4,230.089/16/2024
0111703 ROSS OBRIEN 210956 12.839/16/2024
0013581 ROVI GUIDES, INC. 210973 7,895.639/16/2024
0016213 ROZZI REPRODUCTION&SUPPLY INC. 210974 7,682.509/16/2024 0018839 RYAN JOHANSEN 210975 2,000.009/16/2024
0111671 RYAN MCCORMACK 210944 324.009/16/2024
0096659 SAN BRUNO PET HOSPITAL 210977 1,082.519/16/2024 0104549 SAN MATEO CTY TRANSIT DISTRICT 210978 466.429/16/2024 0018718 SCOTT BUSCHMAN PHOTOGRAPHY 210979 846.699/16/2024 0097626 SHARP ELECTRONICS CORP. 210980 6,712.929/16/2024 0000216 SHOWTIME NETWORKS INC. 210981 561.769/16/2024 0104787 SINGER ASSOCIATES, INC. 210982 5,216.549/16/2024 0105745 SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING 210983 5,500.009/16/2024 Page: 2
Docusign Envelope ID: 42866B44-0C8E-4E58-92A3-3B01A68FC16E

15 of 237

9/16/2024 11:39:46AM
Positive Pay Listing
City of San Bruno
apPosPay Page: 3
Bank: apbank 432000438Document group: komalley
Vendor Code & Name Check # Check Date Amount
0103492 SMITHSONIAN NETWORKS 210984 105.099/16/2024
0017508 SOUTH CITY LUMBER AND SUPPLY 210985 24.229/16/2024 0109626 SOUTHERN FIBERNET COMMUNICATIONS LLC 210923 30,970.609/16/2024 0105796 SUNRISE FOOD DISTRIBUTOR INC. 210986 264.919/16/2024 0018670 T-MOBILE USA, INC. 210992 165.009/16/2024
0110995 T2 SYSTEMS CANADA INC. 210987 2,669.859/16/2024 0111689 TALAS 210988 589.829/16/2024
0110892 TEAMCIVX, LLC 210989 6,500.009/16/2024
0002025 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES 210917 4,010.179/16/2024 0111699 TESS WEINBERGER 211004 5.559/16/2024
0103559 THE MLB NETWORK, LLC 210990 1,542.609/16/2024 0000036 THOMSON REUTERS 210991 457.089/16/2024
0106660 TRIDENT K9 CONSULTING INC. 210995 550.009/16/2024 0017133 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS INC 210996 7,209.319/16/2024 0103736 TURF STAR, INC. 210997 147.839/16/2024
0001362 TV GUIDE MAGAZINE, LLC 210998 48.479/16/2024
0105133 UTILITY TELECOM, INC. 210999 216.689/16/2024
0095749 VERIZON WIRELESS 211002 225.009/16/2024
0095749 VERIZON WIRELESS 211001 3,500.999/16/2024
0111698 VIRGINIA SALAMAT 210976 13.459/16/2024
0104233 WAVE 211003 10,050.009/16/2024
0110533 WELLABLE LLC 211005 903.009/16/2024
0096767 WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. 211006 4,056.009/16/2024 0000612 WESTVALLEY CONSTRUCTION CO.INC 211007 30,992.819/16/2024 0013841 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS INC 211008 1,875.789/16/2024 0108261 WOODARD & CURRAN 211010 8,396.259/16/2024
0109476 WORLDPAC INC 211011 74.899/16/2024
0110037 ZAYO GROUP, LLC 211013 2,168.249/16/2024
0104033 ZCORUM, INC. 211014 12,731.479/16/2024
0109122 ZERO TURN POWER WASHING 211015 18,726.009/16/2024 Total count: 137
GrandTotal: 513,685.97
Page: 3
Docusign Envelope ID: 42866B44-0C8E-4E58-92A3-3B01A68FC16E

16 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DA
TE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Anh Tran, Management Analyst II
SUBJECT: Payroll Acceptance
City Council acceptance of the City payroll distributed September 13, 2024 is recommended. The Labor Summary report reflecting the total payroll amount of $2,032,731.72 for bi-weekly pay period ending September 8, 2024, by fund is shown below:

Fund Amount
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND 1,390,058.14
Fund: 121 - FEDERAL/STATE GRANTS 11,132.29
Fund: 122 - SOLID WASTE/RECYCLE 3,272.39
Fund: 132 - AGENCY ON AGING 1,335.65
Fund: 137 - DEVELOPER PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 4,842.27
Fund: 141 - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 76,880.20
Fund: 142 - RECREATION AND AQUATICS CENTER 94,504.78
Fund: 201 - PARKS AND FACILITIES CAPITAL 886.99
Fund: 203 - STREET IMPROVE. PROJECTS 14,948.97
Fund: 611 - WATER FUND 119,581.18
Fund: 621 - STORMWATER FUND 37,655.12
Fund: 631 - WASTEWATER FUND 88,725.42
Fund: 641 - CITYNET SERVICES FUND 89,625.76
Fund: 701 - CENTRAL GARAGE 19,307.89
Fund: 702 - FACILITY MAINT.FUND 45,637.96
Fund: 707 - TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 31,392.83
Fund: 711 - SELF INSURANCE 2,943.88
Total: 2,032,731.72
___
______________________________
Nick Pegueros, CFO Date

17 of 237
Item 6c.

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nick Pegueros, Chief Financial Officer
PREPARED BY: Esther Garibay, Financial Services Manager SUBJECT: Month End Investment Report – August 2024
The table below summarizes the investment portfolio’s total book value by Investment type.

Investment Type Total Book Value
TriCounties Bank $13,930,942
Wells Fargo Bank /Sweep Money Market 19,262,331
CalTrust Liquid Money Market Fund 11,590,459
CalTrust Medium Term Fund 20,269,621
Local Agency Investment Fund 15,672,446
San Mateo County Pool 22,649,972
Government Agency Investments 99,883,475
Municipal Bonds 26,494,219
Certificate of Deposit 500,000
Money Market Investments 11,582,572
Total Investments $241,836,037
All securities held by the City of San Bruno as of August 2024 are in compliance with the City’s Investment Policy adopted on September 12, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,
__________
Chief Financial Officer Date
Docusign Envelope ID: D1E6D40E-D229-4378-B3EB-2D65C4C106AB 9/16/2024
18 of 237
Item 6d.

City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
Investments
Coupon
Rate CUSIP Book Value Market Value YTM Maturity Date
% of
Portfolio
Short Term Investments
TriCounties Bank Cash Balance 13,930,942 13,930,942 4.39% N/A 6% Wells Fargo General Acct /Sweep Money Market 19,262,331 19,262,331 5.16% N/A 8% CalTrust Liquidity Money Market Fund 11,590,459 11,590,459 5.39% N/A 5% CalTrust Medium Term Fund 20,269,621 20,269,621 4.19% N/A 8% Total CalTrust 31,860,080 31,860,080 13% Pooled Investments
Local Agency Investment Fund 12,154,278 12,154,278 4.58% NA 5% Glenview Fire Local Agency Investment Fund 3,518,168 3,518,168 4.58% NA 1% Total LAIF 15,672,446 15,672,446 6% San Mateo County Pool 22,649,972 22,649,972 3.72% 9% US Bank Portfolio/Securities
Money Market Investments
U.S. Government Money Market 31846V567 5,754,904 5,754,904 5.18% NA 2% U.S. Treasury Bills
U.S. Treasury Bills 5.25% 912797KK2 1,974,941 1,997,400 5.28% September 12, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Bills 5.15% 912797LP0 1,949,358 1,973,080 5.02% December 12, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Bills 4.85% 912797LN5 1,903,369 1,932,380 4.74% June 12, 2025 1% Total Money Market and US Treas. Bills Investments 11,582,572 11,657,764 5% Certificate of Deposit
Morgan Stanley Bank Brokered CD 1.95% 61690UPF1 250,000 248,073 1.84% November 29, 2024 0.10% Morgan Stanley Private Bank Brokered CD 1.90% 61760A3L1 250,000 248,045 1.80% November 29, 2024 0.10% Total Certificate of Deposit 500,000 496,118 0% Total Short Term Investments 115,458,342 115,529,652 Municipal Bonds
California St Univ Revenue Txbl Ref Ser B 2.18% 13077DHM7 1,547,193 1,512,598 1.51% November 1, 2024 1% California St Federally Taxable Var 3.38% 13063DGB8 1,105,910 995,073 0.69% April 1, 2025 0% California St Federally Taxable Var 3.38% 13063DGB8 1,466,885 1,319,870 0.65% April 1, 2025 1% University Calif Revs Taxable Gen Bds 0.88% 91412HGE7 1,513,455 1,459,740 0.65% May 15, 2025 1% Los Angeles Calif Comm Coll Dist GOB Unlimited Tax 0.77% 54438CYK2 2,000,000 1,931,320 0.77% August 1, 2025 1% California St Univ Revenue 0.89% 13077DML3 1,459,170 1,438,905 1.64% November 1, 2025 1% California St Taxable Various GOB 2.65% 13063DMA3 1,068,690 975,710 1.07% April 1, 2026 0% Pasadena USD non-callable GOB 2.07% 702282QD9 1,043,920 964,150 1.09% May 1, 2026 0% Los Angeles Unified SD non-callable 1.46% 544547FC9 2,009,340 1,908,380 1.35% July 1, 2026 1% Southern California St Public Pwer Auth 1.26% 842475P82 1,555,751 1,504,363 1.77% July 1, 2026 1% San Jose CA Redev Agy Successor Agy Tax Allocation 3.18% 798170AJ5 1,405,984 1,296,186 1.51% August 1, 2026 1% San Jose CA Redev Agy Successor Agy Tax Allocation 3.18% 798170AJ5 1,223,083 1,127,568 2.09% August 1, 2026 1% Cupertino UHSD Taxable non-callable GOB 2.15% 231237P28 1,057,240 960,670 0.96% August 1, 2026 0% Santa Monica CCD taxable non-callable GOB 1.04% 802385RR7 755,235 706,763 0.90% August 1, 2026 0% Los Angeles Calif Comm Coll Dist GOB Unlimited Tax 1.17% 54438CYL0 998,010 943,660 1.22% August 1, 2026 0% San Dieguito CA Union High Sch Dist 1.86% 797508HF8 987,050 955,760 2.17% August 1, 2026 0% California St Taxable BID non-callable 2.38% 13063DRD2 736,400 677,118 1.28% October 1, 2026 0% California St Taxable BID non-callable 2.38% 13063DRD2 743,022 683,207 1.37% October 1, 2026 0% California St Univ Revenue 1.14% 13077DQE5 949,640 937,190 1.14% November 1, 2026 0% Los Angeles CA Dept of ARPTS ARPT Revenue 1.10% 544445TW9 991,001 1,034,876 3.74% May 15, 2027 0% University Calif Rgts Med Center Poold Rev Taxable Srs M 2.56% 913366JB7 1,877,240 1,917,300 4.68% May 15, 2027 1% Total Municipal Bonds Investments 26,494,219 25,250,406 11%

Page 1 ends

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Portfolio Summary
August 31, 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: D1E6D40E-D229-4378-B3EB-2D65C4C106AB

19 of 237

City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066
Investments
Coupon
Rate CUSIP Book Value Market Value YTM Maturity Date
% of
Portfolio
US Treasuries & Agencies
U.S. Treasury Notes 1.25% 912828YE4 1,013,750 1,000,000 0.75% August 31, 2024 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.38% 91282CCX7 1,991,563 1,996,780 0.52% September 15, 2024 1% Federal Home Loan Bank 5.40% 3130AXMR6 10,000,000 10,001,100 5.40% October 28, 2024 4% Federal Home Loan Bank 5.38% 3130AXMP0 1,999,220 2,000,160 5.42% October 30, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.50% 912828YM6 3,611,016 3,479,000 0.54% October 31, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.38% 91282CFQ9 1,484,121 1,497,855 5.40% October 31, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 2.25% 912828G38 2,115,000 1,988,360 0.53% November 15, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.75% 912828YY0 2,081,563 1,979,020 0.58% December 31, 2024 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.38% 912828Z52 2,055,313 1,971,320 0.60% January 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.13% 912828ZC7 2,036,016 1,964,620 0.63% February 28, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.50% 912828ZF0 1,989,219 1,952,780 0.64% March 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.25% 91282CHD6 983,633 997,670 5.32% May 31, 2025 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.25% 912828ZW3 1,963,750 1,932,040 0.71% June 30, 2025 1% Federal Farm Credit Bank 5.13% 3133ERDY4 2,000,258 2,005,880 5.11% May 9, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.25% 91282CAB7 1,305,746 1,276,094 0.60% July 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.25% 91282CAJ0 1,958,750 1,920,180 0.75% August 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 5.00% 91282CHV6 1,990,938 2,011,380 5.25% August 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.25% 91282CAM3 1,967,446 1,914,920 0.63% September 30, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 5.00% 91282CJB8 1,991,953 2,013,520 5.22% September 30, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.26% 91282CAT8 1,465,547 1,432,215 0.76% October 31, 2025 1% Federal Farm Credit Bank 4.88% 3133EPC37 1,295,239 1,308,788 5.07% November 13, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.38% 91282CAZ4 1,962,891 1,907,180 0.78% November 30, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.00% 91282CGA3 990,610 997,230 4.69% December 15, 2025 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.38% 91282CBC4 1,971,878 1,902,420 0.69% December 31, 2025 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.38% 91282CBH3 970,234 948,750 1.10% January 31, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.57% 912828P46 2,075,391 1,930,000 0.84% February 15, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.51% 91282CBQ3 1,966,172 1,896,400 0.85% February 28, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.63% 91282CGR6 2,001,328 2,015,620 4.58% March 15, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.75% 91282CBT7 1,884,859 1,804,411 0.91% March 31, 2026 1% Federal Farm Credit Bank 4.63% 3133EP7C3 1,986,960 2,015,840 4.98% April 1, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.75% 91282CBW0 1,987,813 1,895,160 0.88% April 30, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.63% 912828R36 1,456,000 1,345,092 0.80% May 15, 2026 1% Federal Home Loan Bank 0.88% 3130AN4T4 1,148,747 1,088,395 0.90% June 12, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.63% 91282CCP4 992,773 939,100 0.77% July 31, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.75% 91282CCW9 1,997,813 1,878,980 0.77% August 31, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.63% 912828YG9 1,034,219 954,770 0.92% September 30, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes (WIT) 0.88% 91282CCZ2 997,227 940,310 0.93% September 30, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.63% 91282CJC6 988,477 1,014,260 5.04% October 15, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes (WIT) 1.13% 91282CDG3 995,391 942,588 1.22% October 31, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes (WIT) 1.13% 91282CDG3 996,367 943,512 1.20% October 31, 2026 0% U.S. Treasury Notes (WIT) 1.25% 91282CDK4 1,501,684 1,416,090 1.23% November 30, 2026 1% Federal Farm Credit Bank 4.83% 3133EPM28 2,000,000 2,000,020 4.83% December 11, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.25% 91282CDQ1 1,647,422 1,555,455 1.28% December 31, 2026 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 4.00% 91282CJT9 3,968,125 4,012,040 4.34% January 15, 2027 2% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.25% 912828Z78 1,995,685 1,892,420 1.55% January 31, 2027 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 1.88% 91282CEC1 1,982,500 1,907,340 2.06% February 28, 2027 1% U.S. Treasury Notes 2.50% 91282CEF4 1,475,156 1,452,135 2.86% March 31, 2027 1% Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp 5.75% 3134H1F32 5,000,000 4,995,900 5.75% April 15, 2027 2% U.S. Treasury Notes 0.50% 912828ZN3 1,326,680 1,375,080 2.86% April 30, 2027 1% Federal Farm Credit Bank 4.63% 3133EPC45 1,294,557 1,340,586 4.72% November 13, 2028 1% Federal Home Loan Bank 4.50% 3130AVBD3 1,986,480 2,059,840 4.65% March 29, 2029 1% Total U.S. Treasuries & Agencies 99,883,475 98,010,606 41% TOTAL PORTOFLIO 241,836,037 238,790,664 3.457% 100% There is adequate cash flow and maturity of investments to meet the City's needs for the next six months.

Prepared By:

Reviewed By: Page 2
August 31, 2024

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Portfolio Summary
Docusign Envelope ID: D1E6D40E-D229-4378-B3EB-2D65C4C106AB

20 of 237

Monthly Portfolio Allocation by Investment
Sector ($Millions) Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 TriCounties Bank Interest Bearing $16.3 $11.9 $76.1 $68.2 $66.1 $65.8 $67.7 $64.8 $64.8 $67.9 $21.9 $12.2 $9.7 $10.1 $11.5 $22.0 $15.2 $15.7 $13.2 $14.7 $18.8 $17.6 $19.1 $10.2 $13.9 Wells Fargo Bank/Sweep MM - - - - - - - - - - $42.0 $42.2 $24.4 $25.4 $22.7 $23.9 $22.9 $23.9 $20.9 $22.1 $27.7 $23.9 $26.7 $21.4 $19.3 CalTrust Liquid MM Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $2.0 $2.0 $12.1 $22.1 $22.2 $25.3 $25.4 $15.5 $11.6 Caltrust Medium Term Fund - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $20.1 $20.3 Local Agency Investment Fund 26.0 26.0 21.0 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.2 33.4 33.4 33.7 51.5 44.5 44.8 29.8 29.8 30.2 30.2 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.7 15.6 San Mateo County Pool 26.9 27.2 24.4 25.0 33.7 35.8 36.1 36.7 36.7 43.2 43.6 38.6 40.4 40.7 36.6 37.2 45.2 47.7 41.9 36.8 32.7 28.7 25.2 22.5 22.6 Government Agency/Treasury Bonds 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 74.4 94.3 95.9 97.9 92.5 90.5 88.6 95.9 98.4 98.4 101.9 99.9 Municipal Bond Investments 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 27.6 26.5 Certificates of Deposit 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 US Bank - Money Market 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 6.4 6.6 6.6 5.9 6.1 4.2 9.8 12.1 17.2 5.4 7.2 11.7 8.4 11.6 Total $171.6 $167.5 $223.8 $228.6 $235.3 $237.3 $239.7 $237.5 $237.5 $247.6 $244.0 $235.3 $234.8 $229.5 $243.6 $241.1 $243.4 $248.0 $247.0 $244.7 $246.3 $244.7 $250.2 $243.8 $241.8 Average Rate of Return 1.03% 1.10% 0.82% 0.95% 1.07% 1.16% 1.18% 1.26% 1.36% 1.38% 2.28% 2.54% 2.44% 2.44% 2.70% 2.97% 3.04% 3.18% 3.19% 3.33% 3.40% 3.44% 3.52% 3.52% 3.46% August 31, 2024
Portfolio Summary Metrics

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
$0
$50
$100
Monthly Portfolio
Allocation by Investment
Sector ($Millions)
San Mateo County Pool
Government Agency/Treasury Bonds
Certificates of Deposit
US Bank - Money Market
TriCounties Bank Interest Bearing
Wells Fargo Bank/Sweep MM
CalTrust Liquid MM Fund
Local Agency Investment Fund
Municipal Bond Investments
Caltrust Medium Term Fund 0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%
Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23 Nov-23 Dec-23 Jan-24 Feb-24 Mar-24 Apr-24 May-24 Jun-24 Jul-24 Aug-24 Investment Portfolio - Average Rate of Return
Docusign Envelope ID: D1E6D40E-D229-4378-B3EB-2D65C4C106AB

21 of 237

Cash Fund Total
15,277,303.66 10,301,308.65
12,611,966.57 12,611,966.57
14,445,292.92 14,445,292.92
10,892,935.71 10,892,935.71
1,403,725.79 1,403,725.79
494.74 494.74

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
4,408.09 4,408.09
1,007,413.86 1,007,413.86
658,857.26 658,857.26
203,692.71 203,692.71
1,423.99 1,423.99
511,363.69 511,363.69

0.90 0.90
4,122,278.51 4,122,278.51

0.00 0.00
2,268,058.96 2,503,687.01
885,850.15 885,850.15
1,504,354.92 1,504,354.92
10,433,089.60 10,433,089.60

0.00 0.00
2,403,255.02 2,403,255.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
700,648.55 700,648.55
705,298.40 705,832.42
4,481,118.92 4,481,118.92
22,876.68 22,876.68
376,687.78 376,687.78
6,051,502.05 6,051,502.05
331,787.51 331,787.51
4,894,452.76 4,894,452.76
11,264,752.56 11,264,752.56

0.00 0.00
10,694,590.76 10,694,590.76
17,048,812.16 17,048,812.16
2,144,531.01 2,144,531.01
110,223.34 110,373.62
49,844,946.95 50,311,973.61
2,495,636.63 2,495,636.63
47,883,756.63 49,379,964.27
5,719,472.07 5,719,472.07
1,075,879.81 1,075,879.81
54,232.07 54,232.07
375,307.38 375,307.38
2,643,683.95 2,643,683.95
731,403.43 731,403.43
2,611,399.53 2,702,518.03

0.00 0.00
250,898,767.98 248,213,438.12
* Reconciliation of Pooled Cash & Investments to Portfolio Book Value I
nvestment Portfolio Value 231,153,901.32
Cash on hand - Checking Account 19,116,009.51
Payroll and Accounts Payable Outstanding Checks (1,007,592.96) Deposits in Transit 1,636,450.11
General Ledger Cash Balance as of June 30, 2024 250,898,767.98 Prepared By: ____________________________________________________ Reviewed By: ____________________________________________________ 891 RECOLOGY SAN BRUNO 0.00
Grand Total: (2,685,329.86)
Totals are through period: 13
707 TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 0.00
711 SELF INSURANCE 91,118.50
702 FACILITY MAINT.FUND 0.00
703 GENERAL EQUIPMENT REVOLVING 0.00
651 PARKING FUND 0.00
701 CENTRAL GARAGE 0.00
631 WASTEWATER FUND 1,496,207.64
641 CITYNET SERVICES FUND 0.00
611 WATER FUND 467,026.66
621 STORMWATER FUND 0.00
207 TECHNOLOGY CAPITAL 0.00
302 LEASE DEBT SERVICE 150.28
201 PARKS AND FACILITIES CAPITAL 0.00
203 STREET IMPROVE. PROJECTS 0.00
166 COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND 0.00
190 DISASTER RECOVERY FUND 0.00
164 UTILITIES FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 0.00
165 BAYHILL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEVELOPMENT 0.00
162 GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IMPACT F 0.00
163 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 0.00
160 COMMUNITY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 0.00
161 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 0.00
152 CITY OF SB AS SUCCESSOR HOUSING AGENCY 0.00
153 RDA OBLIGATION RETIREMENT FUND 534.02
142 RECREATION & AQUATICS CENTER (RAC) 0.00
151 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE SB RDA - OPS 0.00
140 DEVELOPER IN-LIEU UNDERGROUNDING 0.00
141 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 0.00
137 DEVELOPER PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS 0.00
138 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES 0.00
133 RESTRICTED REVENUES 235,628.05
136 EMERGENCY DISASTER RESERVE 0.00
131 IN-LIEU FEES 0.00
132 AGENCY ON AGING 0.00
122 SOLID WASTE/RECYCL. 0.00
130 IMPACT FEES 0.00
113 POLICE SPECIAL REVENUE 0.00
121 FEDERAL/STATE GRANTS 0.00
104 MEASURE W TRANSPORTATION TAX 0.00
111 POLICE ASSET FORFEITURE 0.00
102 MEASURE A TRANSPORTATION TAX 0.00
103 STREET SPECIAL REVENUE 0.00
009 PARKING FUND 0.00
101 GAS TAX 0.00
005 MEASURE G DISTRICT SALES TAX 0.00
006 AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT 0.00
003 ONE-TIME REVENUE 0.00
004 CAP IMPROV/ONE-TIME INITIATIVE RSRV 0.00
Investments
001 GENERAL FUND (4,975,995.01)
002 GENERAL FUND RESERVE 0.00
glCashInv.rpt Cash and Investments Report Page: 1
9/18/2024 2:21:25PM
City of San BrunoThrough period: 13
Through June 2024
Docusign Envelope ID: 9AC6DC38-ADA4-45FB-9D3D-F38628017583 9/18/2024
9/18/2024
22 of 237
Item 6e.

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ryan Johansen, Police Chief
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno’s Response Letter to the 2023 - 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space”
BACKGROUND:

On July 9, 2024, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space.” The purpose of the report is to determine how San Mateo County can address the issue of exterior trash areas of food service businesses being unsightly and unsanitary. Grand Jury members conducted interviews and surveys and found inconsistent and non-existent standards for exterior waste storage areas, the report includes recommendations for a more proactive approach to handling the garbage and parklet sanitation problems.

The Grand Jury requests responses from the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for each finding and recommendation. From the councils for all 20 cities and towns in the County, requested responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Recommendation 4. By law, responses must be submitted within 90 days and must meet the following requirements:

Response to Findings. For all findings made by the Grand Jury, the City shall report that the City “agrees” with the finding or “disagrees” wholly or partially with the finding and shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

Response to Recommendations. For all recommendations made by the Grand Jury, the City shall report one of the following actions:
a) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action;
b) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation;
c) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date; or
23 of 237
Item 6f.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

6 5
7 d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

Responses to Grand Jury Reports are filed with the Superior Court and are placed on the Grand Jury website. The City’s responses to this Grand Jury Report are due by October 7, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

The Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space” calls for a more proactive approach to handling the garbage and parklet sanitation problems around restaurant exteriors in San Mateo County, and suggestions for preventative maintenance.

The City’s draft response letter is provided in Attachment 1, and the Grand Jury Report is Attachment 2.

The seven findings are referenced as F1 through F7 in the Grand Jury Report, and cover statements about inspections by the County Health Department or Vector Control and the conditions of the trash areas. Of the seven findings the City is required to answer F1 through F6. The draft response agrees with five of the findings since the City has no basis to disagree with the Grand Jury Report, and partially disagrees with one finding.

The four recommendations are referenced as R1 through R4 in the Grand Jury Report and call for the County to amend its Food Facility Checklist, require operators/owners of restaurants to have a written diagram of their approved waste storage/retention area posted, and inspectors to require owners/operators to add receptacles or increase the frequency of pickups. The City is required to respond to R1 and concluded that the recommendation requires further analysis that will be completed within six months.

In summary, staff has no basis to disagree with the Grand Jury’s high-level concern that a significant number of restaurant exterior waste storage areas and areas below parklets in San Mateo County had clearly deficient, unsanitary, unsightly and odorous conditions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with preparing this response to the Grand Jury Report.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The approval of a response letter to a Grand Jury Report is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno Response Letter to the 2023 – 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space” ALTERNATIVES:

Approve a modified version of the response letter.

24 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

6 5
7 ATTACHMENTS:

1. The City of San Bruno’s Response of the City of San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space”

2. 2023 – 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space

25 of 237

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Rico E. Medina OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
September 24, 2024
Honorable Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: Response of the City of San Bruno to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space"
Dear Judge Amarra Lee,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report titled “Restaurant Exteriors: The Neglected Space.” The City of San Bruno’s (City) response to the findings and recommendation of the report are listed below.

Responses to Grand Jury Findings:

F1. Sanitary conditions of the exterior of restaurant facilities fall outside current inspections of the County Health Department. The varying unsatisfactory conditions in the waste removal areas of the facilities shows something is lacking in the regulatory process.

Response: The City agrees with the finding. However, as part of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit requirements for stormwater, Sections C.4 and C.5 require the City to inspect, require effective stormwater pollutant control, and implement progressively stricter enforcement to achieve compliance with stormwater requirements. Sanitary conditions around restaurants could cause stormwater violations and thus they may be addressed through these stormwater regulations.

F2. Sanitary conditions of parklets fall outside of current inspections by the County Health Department or Vector Control.

Response: The City agrees with the finding. The City of San Bruno currently does not have any permitted parklets.

F3. Sanitary conditions of exterior areas used for waste storage and disposal fall outside current inspections by local jurisdictions; local jurisdictions are, by and large, only reactive to an actual complaint.

Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding. In San Bruno, it is accurate that a code enforcement officer’s handling of issues involving the sanitary conditions of a restaurant are generally reactive in response to a complaint. When responding to such a complaint, the 26 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
2023 – 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Response

Page 2 of 2 ends

September 24, 2024
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
2 7
1 8
sanitary condition of exterior areas used for waste storage and disposal would be within the scope of that response. But as described above, the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit authorizes the City to proactively regulate and enforce measures for stormwater pollutant control.

F4. Most restaurant exterior areas are “out of sight” of the public and as a result complaints are less frequent.

Response: The City agrees with the finding. However, some of the restaurants in San Bruno’s downtown area have outdoor uncovered garbage dumpsters, or store cooking grease in view of the public.

F5. Because they lack oversight, unacceptable conditions in restaurant trash areas are likely not to be rectified.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

F6. Waste water from the cleaning of trash areas and from rain flow into the storm drain systems.

Response: The City agrees with the finding.

Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations:

R4. By June 30, 2025, inspectors for all jurisdictions with restaurants should be empowered to require owners/operators to add receptacles or increase the frequency of pick-ups.

Response: The City partially disagrees with the finding, and thus this recommendation requires further analysis. Existing San Bruno Municipal Code regulations provide the framework to designate unsanitary conditions described in the Grand Jury Report as a “nuisance”, as well as the authority to abate them. Further analysis would need to be conducted to determine how the City could amend the City Municipal Code to require restaurants to add receptacles or increase the frequency of pick-ups, as recommended by the Grand Jury Report, as well as evaluating the ability to do so under the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit. City staff estimates the analysis will be completed by January 9, 2024.

This response was approved by the San Bruno City Council at a public meeting prior to it being submitted to the court.

Sincerely,
Rico E. Medina
Mayor

27 of 237

1 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
RESTAURANT EXTERIORS: THE NEGLECTED SPACE
ISSUE
The exterior trash areas of food service businesses are often unsightly and unsanitary. How can this issue be addressed?

SUMMARY
Restaurant garbage and food waste is not always contained in designated exterior bins, and may overflow, attracting animals and other undesirable pests. While restaurant interiors are subject to County of San Mateo Health System standards and inspections, restaurant building exteriors are subject to a variety of standards and inspection programs, because each local jurisdiction has its own regulations for sanitation and safety for exteriors. For restaurant exteriors, responsibility for enforcement of local code and for inspection schedules varies from city to city. Generally, inspections are done when complaints are received. The extent of the issues may vary based on the municipality or district, day of the week (garbage collection day), or whether the building backs are visible to the public.

Grand Jury members conducted interviews with County officials, city officials, and waste handlers and performed their own spot checks (admittedly not scientific). A written survey (Appendix B) was sent to all twenty cities and towns in the County.

The Grand Jury found a significant number of restaurant exterior waste storage areas and areas below parklets had clearly deficient, unsanitary, unsightly and odorous conditions. The investigation found that the “standards” for these areas, i.e., how these conditions were monitored, and how codes and policies were enforced, to be inconsistent at best and non-existent in some instances. A quantification of the waste storage area problem proved difficult as many sites and their condition were dependent on the day of the week and their garbage pick-up days.

This Grand Jury report includes recommendations for a more proactive approach to handling the garbage and parklet sanitation problems around restaurant exteriors in San Mateo County, and suggestions for preventive maintenance.
28 of 237
ATTACHMENT 2
2 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

BACKGROUND

People spent 20.7% more money at restaurants than on groceries in 2022. That figure rose to

29.5% in the first two months of 2023 according to Commerce Department data.1 This significant increase in use of restaurants and “micro” and “mobile” food services, not surprisingly, resulted in an increase in organic (food stuff) waste, paper, glass and general garbage.

Members of the Civil Grand Jury initiated this review of the health and safety conditions surrounding the immediate areas designated for waste removal after observing an increase in rodents around parklets. Initial walkthroughs behind restaurants determined that the problem related to waste management in general as well as to the parklets. Photos contained in Appendix A depict some of the disturbing findings.

REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

California Health & Safety Code, Chapter 7 known as the “Retail Food Code” regulates, at the State level, the protections required for public health and safety of a “Food Facility”.2 The Code

1 https://www.census.gov/retail/marts/www/marts_current.pdf 2 H&S Code 113789 (a) “Food facility” means an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food for human consumption at the retail level, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) An operation where food is consumed on or off the premises, regardless of whether there is a charge for the food.
(2) A place used in conjunction with the operations described in this subdivision, including, but not limited to, storage facilities for food-related utensils, equipment, and materials. (b) “Food facility” includes permanent and nonpermanent food facilities, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Public and private school cafeterias. (2) Restricted food service facilities.
(3) Licensed health care facilities, except as provided in paragraph (12) of subdivision (c). (4) Commissaries.
(5) Mobile food facilities.
(6) Mobile support units.
(7) Temporary food facilities.
(8) Vending machines.
(9) Certified farmers’ markets, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114370.

29 of 237

3 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

has extensive requirements for the handling of food, preparation and service of patrons. They can best be described as affecting the “inside” of the Food Facility.

The exterior or waste disposal areas are only mentioned in Article 4, Section 114245.4. “If provided, an outdoor storage area or enclosure used for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be constructed of nonabsorbent material such as concrete or asphalt and shall be easily cleanable, durable and sloped to drain.”3 Refer to Appendix C for the California Health & Safety Code Article 4.

The enforcement of these State Regulations is assigned to “Enforcement Officers”4 of an “Enforcement Agency”5 which is delegated to more local organizations at the county or other local level. Section 1143906 gives the power to inspect facilities, take samples and prepare a written report of deficiencies.

HEALTH DEPARTMENT INSPECTIONS

The San Mateo County Health Department is primarily responsible for the inspection of restaurants and enforcement of the Health Codes related to them. The Inspection checklist (Appendix D) has 60 categories for inspection and only one (FO42) relates to waste disposal or garbage. In interviews, the Grand Jury found the Health Inspector does not generally inspect the areas behind the facility and does not inspect areas not immediately adjacent to the facility at all.

The County relies on the individual cities for enforcement of their nuisance laws in these areas.

As part of its Municipal Code, each City or jurisdiction maintains provisions for enforcement actions against properties (and operators) that maintain unhealthy, noxious, or dangerous conditions under their police powers to abate public nuisances. (See Bibliography)

LAND USE / USE PERMITS

It is beyond the scope of this investigation to analyze the municipal codes of each of the twenty jurisdictions in San Mateo County which have restaurant uses. Most cities require “use permits”

(10) Farm stands, for purposes of permitting and enforcement pursuant to Section 114375. (11) Fishermen’s markets.

3 Sections 114244 to 114245.3 inclusive speak only to the Food Facility which is defined as the interior of the facility.
4 113774. “Enforcement officer” means the director, agents, or environmental health specialists appointed by the Director of Health Services, and all local health officers, directors of environmental health, and their duly authorized registered environmental health specialists and environmental health specialist trainees.
5 113773. “Enforcement agency” means the department or the local health agency having jurisdiction over the food facility.
6 114390 :
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=104.&title=& part=7.&chapter=13.&article=2

30 of 237

4 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

(conditional or otherwise) for restaurants in certain locations. As part of the building permit process, cities have the ability to require and specify the type, location, and frequency of waste disposal. More importantly, all have a general requirement that these areas be maintained at the owner/operator expense in a good and sanitary manner.

WASTE HAULERS / SANITATION COMPANIES

By far the biggest recipient of waste and disposal in the County is Recology San Mateo County serving the cities of Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, and San Mateo, the town of Hillsborough, County of San Mateo, North Fair Oaks, and West Bay Sanitary District. Recology of the Coast provides service to Pacifica.

GreenWaste provides service to the town of Atherton.

South San Francisco Scavenger Company (SSFSC) serves businesses and residents in South San Francisco, Millbrae, Brisbane and San Francisco International Airport. Half Moon Bay, Daly City and the unincorporated North County has an agreement with Republic Services, Inc. to provide recycling, compost and garbage collection services.

Each hauler negotiates independently on rates and pick-up policy. The Grand Jury reviewed the Franchise Agreement used by Recology. The agreement provides that the hauler shall replace or repair bins, dumpsters and other containers as needed or upon request.

DISCUSSION

SURVEY

The Grand Jury sent a survey to twenty jurisdictions (see Appendix B). Five jurisdictions relied solely on the County Health Department for enforcement of regulations related to restaurant waste facilities; two inspected and enforced only at the permit renewal stage; and nine assigned the duty to their code enforcement mechanism generally through Planning, Public Works or dedicated Code Enforcement personnel. Only three of the jurisdictions conducted inspections independent of a complaint. The majority, nine of fourteen, only inspected upon receipt of a complaint. (See Appendix B for the tabulated Survey results).

In summary, survey responses demonstrate that the Cities rely on the County Health Department for inspections of restaurant interiors and, in general, only respond to exterior conditions upon receipt of a complaint.

OBSERVATIONS

The condition at any one site is dependent on the frequency of trash removal. The site may be fine right after removal but, as the week goes on, the situation worsens. There does not appear to be any site-specific requirements (or at least any that are enforced) for residual cleaning such as power washing. Few sites inspected had any method of controlling wash down or steam cleaning waste from flowing into the storm sewers. The type of restaurant also impacts its output, e.g., some generate grease, oil and animal fat, which require special containers.

31 of 237

5 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

The current requirements for trash enclosures by local jurisdictions are applied only to new applications, resulting in many outdated, legacies facilities and, without regular inspection, there is no monitoring of maintenance or repair. These areas are high impact areas and the enclosures and bins, dumpsters and cans are subject to heavy use. The Grand Jury found many bins, dumpsters and cans to be in damaged and filthy condition.

Economic forces impact maintenance and overflow conditions. An operator of a restaurant pays for disposal service by volume (size and number of containers) and frequency (number of pick- ups in one week). Increases in business generate higher volumes so what was working in the past may not be sufficient for the current or future situation. It is logical that operators of food facilities would see added frequency of pickups or added containers as a negative and an expense. This is a financial impact question.

IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY

Normal sanitation issues apply; smell, unsightliness and vermin7. Vector Control does not inspect trash or similar areas unless specifically requested. The Grand Jury interviews revealed instances of the presence of rats, mice and raccoons in trash areas and parklets. Insect infestation is also of concern. All this presents a health hazard to the public, the workers at these restaurants, and the trash collectors.

ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING REQUIREMENTS

The County Health Department inspections do not include the areas outside of the building. The enforcement of the nuisance provisions by local jurisdictions is reactive and only called into play upon a complaint. Oversight of the condition of receptacles (dumpsters, bins, cans) is minimal, at best, and often non-existent.

SPECIAL CASES

Mobile Food Facilities (Food Trucks): The Permit Checklist for food trucks does not mention waste disposal. Food Truck regulation is an evolving body of regulation and should be reviewed at a later date.
https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/20170915_mff_selfinspectionche cklist.pdf?1536778880

Farmer’s Markets: Several markets were visited by Jurors. Only the Farmer’s Market in San Carlos was the subject of an interview. This particular market occurs on a Sunday. It is organized

7 H&S Code 113939. “Vermin” means cockroaches, mice, rats, and similar pests that carry disease.

H&S Code 13939.1. “Vermin infestation” means the presence of vermin within the food facility as evidenced by actual live bodies, fresh droppings or vomitus, urine stains, or gnaw marks, that could result in contamination to the food, equipment, packaging, or utensils.

32 of 237

6 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

by a private company (a community-based organization, CBO) which recruits and manages the individual Farmers and Vendors. The company polices the area at the breakdown of the Market on Sunday afternoon. The city of San Carlos has a street sweeper go over the area on Monday morning. These actions appear to be sufficient as the area was observed to be clean and free from refuse.

Parklets: Like Food Trucks, parklet regulation is evolving and should be reviewed in more detail at a later date. There are currently no separate inspection line items for parklets in the County Health Department checklist. Parklets increased significantly as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, which have proven efficient and desirable in many areas. At the outset, their construction was not heavily regulated and there were no specific building code requirements for inspection and cleaning under floors. As these facilities have become permanent, building permit requirements have increased. Problem areas identified in our investigation are:

1. Open floor segments can permit food and other waste falling under the floor of the parklet to the street;

2. Many have open side(s) permitting vermin to go under the parklet to feed on scraps;

3. Street drainage (from road crown and gutter flow) can exacerbate the problems of waste under the floor, including leaves and other refuse.

METHODOLOGY

The Jurors made several site visits over a period of eight months and took photographs. The Grand Jury conducted interviews with some officials of some cities and with several San Mateo County officials including the Health Department and Vector Control. A survey was sent to each city/town in San Mateo County.

FINDINGS

F1: Sanitary conditions of the exterior of restaurant facilities fall outside current inspections of the County Health Department. The varying unsatisfactory conditions in the waste removal areas of the facilities shows something is lacking in the regulatory process.

F2: Sanitary conditions of parklets fall outside of current inspections by the County Health Department or Vector Control.

F3: Sanitary conditions of exterior areas used for waste storage and disposal fall outside current inspections by local jurisdictions; local jurisdictions are, by and large, only reactive to an actual complaint.

F4: Most restaurant exterior areas are “out of sight” of the public and as a result complaints are less frequent.

F5. Because they lack oversight, unacceptable conditions in restaurant trash areas are likely not to be rectified.

F6. Waste water from the cleaning of trash areas and from rain flow into the storm drain systems.

33 of 237

7 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

F7. Effective inspection of parklet sanitation can be severely hampered by closed skirting and lack of under floor access. Spacing between planking and lack of solid flooring can lead to accumulation of organic debris and possible infestation by vermin.

RECOMMENDATIONS
R1. By June 30, 2025, the County should amend its Food Facility Checklist to include the condition of trash area flooring, bins, dumpsters and enclosures, and note any needed repair, replacement or cleaning.

R2. By June 30, 2025, the County should amend its Food Facility Checklist to include the entire exterior waste storage area, retention areas and parklets, including flooring and underfloor areas.

R3. By June 30, 2025, the County should require operators/owners of restaurants to have a written diagram of their approved waste storage/retention area posted so the inspector can evaluate the condition of the facilities.

R4. By June 30, 2025, inspectors for all jurisdictions with restaurants should be empowered to require owners/operators to add receptacles or increase the frequency of pick-ups.

Note: The Grand Jury is not able to recommend changes to building codes or planning criteria to cities or the County. However, in our review we did find the City of Palo Alto has a publication with clear and comprehensive regulations/recommendations for these areas. “Comprehensive Guidelines for Commercial Trash Enclosures:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/planning-amp-development-services/palo- alto-trash-enclosure-area-guidelines-march-2017.pdf”

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests responses as follows:

From the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, to all Findings and Recommendations.

From the councils for all 20 cities and towns in the County, to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 and Recommendation 4.

The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of each governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act.

34 of 237

8 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides (emphasis added):

(a) For purposes of each subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the port of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefore.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation, therefore.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

California Health and Safety Code:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=HSC&tocTitle=+Heal th+and+Safety+Code+-+HSC

The following is a representative selection of Municipal Codes relevant to the investigation:

● Daly City:
https://library.municode.com/ca/daly_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8HES A
● Belmont:
https://library.municode.com/ca/belmont/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CICO_CH1 1HESA
● Hillsborough:
https://library.municode.com/ca/hillsborough/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT8H ESA
● San Mateo (City): https://law.cityofsanmateo.org/us/ca/cities/san-mateo/code/7 ● East Palo Alto Code Enforcement: https://www.cityofepa.org/building/page/code- enforcement

35 of 237

9 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

● San Carlos:
https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanCarlos/#!/SanCarlos08/SanCarlos0827.html#8. 27 ● South San Francisco:
https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8- chapter_8_16 and
https://library.qcode.us/lib/south_san_francisco_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8 ● Burlingame: https://library.qcode.us/lib/burlingame_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_8 ● Pacifica Food Establishments:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6SAHE _CH5GACORE
● Pacifica Garbage:
https://library.municode.com/ca/pacifica/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6SAHE _CH5GACORE_ART1GACO
● Redwood City: RWC has multiple segments of their code that would apply to this topic.

The link to the Code in General is:
https://library.municode.com/ca/redwood_city/codes/city_code?nodeId=REDWOOD_C

ALIFORNIAMUCO

36 of 237

10 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

APPENDIX A
Photographs of exteriors

Figure 1: San Mateo, September 2023

Figure 2: Millbrae, September 2023

37 of 237

11 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Figure 3: Millbrae, September 2023

Figure 4: Millbrae, September 2023

38 of 237

12 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Figure 5: Millbrae, September 2023

Figure 6: Millbrae, September 2023

39 of 237

13 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Figure 7: San Carlos, December 2023

Figure 8: San Carlos, November 2023

40 of 237

14 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Figure 9: San Carlos, December 2023

Figure 11: San Carlos, October 2023

41 of 237

15 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

APPENDIX B
Survey

1. Please list your name, title or job description and the city/town you represent.

Surveys were sent to managers of the twenty cities and towns in San Mateo County.

Responses were as follows:

City/Town Response Received
Atherton No
Belmont Yes
Brisbane No
Burlingame Yes
Colma No
Daly City Yes
East Palo Alto Yes
Foster City Yes
Half Moon Bay No
Hillsborough Yes
Menlo Park Yes
Millbrae No
Pacifica Yes
Portola Valley No
Redwood City Yes
San Bruno Yes
San Carlos Yes
San Mateo No
South San Francisco Yes
Woodside Yes

42 of 237

16 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

2. What sanitation standards are applied to the garbage/trash areas of restaurants, bars and food services?

Respondents cited the County ordinance code and various municipal codes and standards. One entity had no response and another responded their city/town has no restaurants.

3. What standards are applied to sanitation, trash and street cleaning related to the "parklets" or other outdoor areas used for food service?

Most respondents cited state, county or municipal standards. One city noted they have specific regulations for parklets. Another city said they have no standards because parklets are the responsibility of restaurants.

4. What department(s) of the City enforce these standards?

Enforcement of standards may be done by:
● County Health
● Building/Fire/Public Works
● Planning & Building, Dept of Water & Wastewater Resources ● Planning
● Public Works
● Police, Code Enforcement
● Engineering Division
● Community & Economic Development. Department

5. Are regular inspections made or is inquiry only made upon complaint?

Most responded inspections are complaint-based. A few municipalities conduct regular, periodic inspections.

6. Upon inquiry by the City (either by inspection or complaint) what standards are applied to determination of a violation, or recommendation to an owner?

Standards listed included:
● County Health
● Parklet Standards
● Municipal Codes
● California Building Code, California Fire Code, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

43 of 237

17 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

7. What agencies or organizations outside of the City are involved in maintaining standards, such as Recology, Republic Services or South San Francisco Scavenger?

● Recology
● Recology of the Coast
● Greenwaste Recovery
● Republic
● County Health
● No response, but noted there is a city contract with a power washing service and that information is made available to parklet owners

44 of 237

18 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

APPENDIX C
California Health & Safety Code Article 4

Health and Safety Code - HSC, DIVISION 104. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH [106500 - 119406] , PART 7. CALIFORNIA RETAIL FOOD CODE [113700 - 114437] , CHAPTER 7.

Water, Plumbing, and Waste [114189 - 114245.7]
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&division=104. &title=&part=7.&chapter=7.&article=4

ARTICLE 4. REFUSE

114244.
(a) Each food facility shall be provided with any facilities and equipment necessary to store or dispose of all waste material.
(b) Waste receptacles shall be provided for use by consumers. (c) A receptacle shall be provided in each area of the food facility or premises where refuse is generated or commonly discarded, or where recyclables or returnables are placed.

114245
(a) An area designated for refuse, recyclables, returnables, and a redeeming machine for recyclables or returnables shall be located so that it is separate from food, equipment, utensils, linens, and single-service and single-use articles and a public health hazard or nuisance is not created.
(b) Receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall not be located so as to create a public health hazard or nuisance or interfere with the cleaning of adjacent space.

114245.1
(a) All refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be kept in nonabsorbent, durable, cleanable, leakproof, and rodent proof containers and shall be contained so as to minimize odor and insect development by covering with close-fitting lids or placement in a disposable bag that is impervious to moisture and then sealed. (b) Refuse containers inside a food facility need not be covered during periods of operation.
(c) All refuse shall be removed and disposed of in a sanitary manner as frequently as may be necessary to prevent the creation of a nuisance. (d) Storage areas, enclosures, and receptacles for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be maintained in good repair.
(e) Refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be removed from the premises at a frequency that will minimize the development of objectionable odors and other conditions that attract or harbor insects and rodents.

114245.2. Cardboard or other packaging material that does not contain food residues and that is awaiting regularly scheduled delivery to a recycling or disposal site may be

45 of 237

19 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

stored outside without being in a covered receptacle if it is stored so that it does not create a rodent harborage problem.

114245.3. If located within the food facility, a storage area for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall meet the requirements for floors, walls, ceilings, and vermin exclusion as specified in this part.

114245.4. If provided, an outdoor storage area or enclosure used for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be constructed of nonabsorbent material such as concrete or asphalt and shall be easily cleanable, durable, and sloped to drain.

114245.5. Receptacles and waste handling units for refuse and recyclables shall be installed so that accumulation of debris and insect and rodent attraction and harborage are minimized and effective cleaning is facilitated around and, if the unit is not installed flush with the base pad, under the unit.

114245.6.
(a) Receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be thoroughly cleaned in a way that does not contaminate food, equipment, utensils, linens, or single-service and single-use articles, and wastewater shall be disposed of as specified under Section 114241.
(b) Soiled receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables, and returnables shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to prevent them from developing a buildup of soil or becoming attractants for insects and rodents.

114245.7.
(a) Except as specified in subdivision (b), suitable cleaning implements and supplies such as high-pressure pumps, hot water, steam, and detergent shall be provided as necessary for effective cleaning of receptacles and waste handling units for refuse, recyclables, and returnables.
(b) If approved, off-premises-based cleaning services may be used if on-premises cleaning implements and supplies are not provided.

46 of 237

20 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

APPENDIX D
San Mateo County Inspection Checklist

https://www.smchealth.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/297097foodestab.pdf

Environmental Health
Services Food Program
2000 Alameda
de las Pulgas
Suite #100
San Mateo,
CA 94403
(650) 372-6200 FAX
(650) 627-8244
smchealth.org/food

FOOD FACILITY CHECKLIST

The goal of food safety is to promote health and prevent food-borne disease through education, training and regulation. This checklist reflects areas that are evaluated during a routine inspection. Use this as a guide to improve your facility’s sanitation and compliance with the requirements from the California Retail Food Code.

FOOD RECEIVING YES NO N/A
Raw or frozen raw molluscan shellfish (e.g. clams, mussels, scallops, oysters) properly labeled and labels maintained on site for at least 90 days.

Temperature of live molluscan shellfish at or below 45ºF.

Food only from approved sources.

Potentially hazardous foods delivered at a temperature of 41°F Frozen foods delivered in frozen condition with no evidence of thawing or refreezing.

Food at improper temperature or in unacceptable condition rejected.

Foods, especially refrigerated and frozen foods, placed in proper storage locations promptly.

FOOD STORAGE YES NO N/A
Foods protected from contamination, dirt, vermin, insects, chemicals, etc.

Prepackaged and bulk foods properly labeled.

Food stored at least 6 inches above floor in approved locations within the facility.

Returned and damaged goods stored separate from other items.

Raw meat and fish inside refrigerators and freezers stored below and away from ready-to-eat foods (e.g. salads, produce, beverages).

Foods kept covered while in storage.

Food which becomes contaminated or adulterated is discarded.

47 of 237

21 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

FOOD PREPARATION YES NO N/A
Frozen foods thawed by one of the following methods:
● Under cold running water
● In a refrigerator
● In a microwave
● As part of the cooking process

Hot potentially hazardous foods cooled as quickly as possible by one or more of the following methods prior to placement in a refrigerator or freezer:
● In an ice bath with stirring
● With a rapid cool stirring device
● In a blast chiller
● By adding ice
● In shallow heat conducting pans on ice
● Separating food into smaller or thinner portions

YES NO N/A
Food preparation sinks used only for preparation activities, and not hand washing, janitorial activities, or other uses.

Sulfites not added to potentially hazardous foods.

Potentially hazardous foods shall be thoroughly cooked to a minimum internal temperature of:
● 165°F for poultry, comminuted poultry, game birds, stuffed meats, stuffed pasta, and reheated foods.
● 157°F for ground beef, other comminuted meats, and foods containing comminuted meat. (Or 155°F for a minimum of 15 seconds)
● 155°F for pork.
● 145°F for eggs, food containing raw eggs, and other cooked potentially hazardous food.

FOOD SERVING YES NO N/A
Prepackaged foods properly labeled with common name, list of ingredients, net weight, name and address of manufacturer, etc.

Uneaten food returned from customer is discarded and not reused or reserved.

Self-serve buffets, salad bars, snack counters, bulk food dispensers, and self- serve units. Provide adequate protection for food and utensils from contamination by customers (e.g. sneezing, coughing, and handling).

Tongs, ladles, spoons, etc. used for food service rather than direct contact with hands.

48 of 237

22 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

TEMPERATURE CONTROL/THERMOMETERS YES NO N/A
Potentially hazardous foods kept at or below 41°F, or at or above 135°F.

When cooling or heating potentially hazardous foods, the time spent in the DANGER ZONE (41 °F - 135°F) is kept to a minimum.

Easily readable thermometers (accurate to + 2°F) in the warmest part of each refrigeration and freezer unit.

Metal probe-type thermometer on premise if potentially hazardous food served.

Thermometers are sanitized before and after use, and periodically calibrated. (Employees should be able to demonstrate that they know how to calibrate a probe thermometer)

UTENSIL WASHING/STORAGE YES NO N/A
Utensils protected from contamination, dirt, vermin, insects, chemicals, etc.

Multi-service customer utensils (e.g. plates, glasses, silverware) sanitized by mechanical dish machine as per manufacturer specifications, or if manually washed, sanitized by one of the following methods:
● 100 ppm chlorine for 30 seconds
● 25 ppm iodine for 60 seconds
● 200 ppm quaternary ammonium for 60 seconds
● 180°F water for 30 seconds

Test strips or thermometer available for measuring the method of sanitizing utensils.

YES NO N/A
Three- compartment sink with dual integral drain boards available for utensil washing (except where 2 compartment exemptions is applicable).

Compartments are large enough to accommodate the largest utensil in use.

Utensils are clean and in good repair.

Kitchen and serving utensils are routinely cleaned and sanitized.

Utensils are commercial-grade and meet applicable National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) at CAL CODE standards.

All mechanical dishwashers are provided with dual integral drain boards.

Proper sanitizer and chemical levels, and temperature maintained at all times during operation of dish machines.

Single-service customer utensils used only once and disposed of in a sanitary manner.

Serving utensils (e.g. scoops, spoons, ladles, etc.) for potentially hazardous foods, while in use are kept at or below 41°F or above 135°F, or in a dipper well continually provided with clean water.

TOILET FACILITIES YES NO N/A
Employee toilet facilities provided.

Customer toilet facilities provided where required.

49 of 237

23 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Tight-fitting self-closing doors provided.

Food, utensils, equipment, supplies, etc., not stored in toilet facilities.

Toilet paper, single-use sanitary towels (or air dryer) and hand cleanser provided from approved dispensers.

Hot and cold water, under pressure, provided from a mixing faucet (or combination faucet) at hand sink.

Ventilation provided.

HANDWASHING FACILITIES YES NO N/A
Within or adjacent to restrooms and kitchens.

Provided with single service sanitary towels (or air dryers) and hand cleanser from and approved dispensers.

Hot and cold water, under pressure, provided from a mixing faucet (or combination faucet) at hand sink.

Kept readily accessible at all times
Facilities provided exclusively for hand washing in food prep areas that are sufficient
in number and conveniently located. (construction/remodels on or after January 1, 1996)

CHEMICALS/PESTICIDES YES NO N/A
Properly labeled.

Stored away from food and utensils. Stored in separate enclosure if stored in food preparation area.

Pesticides specifically approved for use within food facilities.

Chemicals, pesticides, hazardous materials properly used. MSDS data available for employees.

JANITORIAL FACILITIES YES NO N/A
Area provided for storage of cleaning supplies and equipment which is separate from food preparation, food storage, utensil cleaning, and utensil storage areas.

Janitorial sink or basin provided with hot and cold water.

Backflow prevention device provided for sink.

Cleaning equipment (e.g. mops, buckets, brooms, etc.) kept away from food and utensils.

LIGHTING YES NO N/A
Minimum intensity of 20 foot-candles (ftc) in food preparation and utensil cleaning areas.

Minimum intensity of 10ftc elsewhere but intensity of at least 20 ftc available during cleaning operations.

Shatter-proof light covers in food preparation, food storage (except where food is in unopened, original containers), and utensil cleaning areas.

50 of 237

24 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

VERMIN/INSECTS YES NO N/A
Facility free of rodents and insects.

Harborage and entrances eliminated. Droppings and dead insects cleaned up.

Facility kept fully enclosed. Entrances protected by tight-fitting, self-closing doors or air curtains. Openable windows protected by screens.

Pest control performed by licensed pest control operator.

GARBAGE/REFUSE DISPOSAL YES NO N/A
Facilities provided for garbage disposal and storage.

Containers are leak proof and rodent proof with tight-fitting lids.

Garbage placed in securely fastened plastic bags before placement in dumpster.

Garbage removed frequently.

WATER SUPPLY YES NO N/A
Water supply from an approved source.

Hot and cold water provided in adequate amounts.

EMPLOYEE HABITS YES NO N/A
Employees wash hands before beginning work, between working with raw food and ready-to- eat foods, after coughing or sneezing, after touching soiled equipment or utensils, after using restrooms, and after engaging in any other activity that contaminates the hands.

Employees wear clean garments or uniforms.

Employees do not use tobacco products where food is prepared, served, or stored, or where utensils are cleaned or stored.

Employees do not work if ill.

Employees have been instructed in safe food handling practices.

Employees routinely check temperatures of potentially hazardous foods during storage, preparation and serving, and check utensil cleaning chemical levels, water temperatures, and water pressures.

EMPLOYEE CHANGE/STORAGE FACILITIES YES NO N/A
Area provided for employee changing which is separate from toilets, food storage, food preparation, utensil cleaning, and utensil storage areas.

PLUMBING YES NO N/A
All sewage and wastewater disposed of to an approved sewer or septic system.

Indirect waste drainage via a floor sink or funnel drain provided for all equipment that discharges wastes (e.g. prep sinks, utensil sinks, steam tables, salad bars, Chinese ranges, ice machines, ice storage bins, beverage machines, steam- jacketed kettles, display cases, refrigeration/freezer units, etc.)

Indirect waste receptacles readily accessible for cleaning and inspection, and not located inside cabinets.

51 of 237

25 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Floor drains absent from food storage areas.

Plumbing kept clean, fully operative, and in good repair.

Grease interceptors and septic tanks regularly cleaned out by licensed plumbers.

EQUIPMENT YES NO N/A
Equipment clean and in good repair.

Equipment easily cleanable and meets applicable NSF and the California Retail Food Code standards.

Unused equipment removed from premises.

Approved ventilation/exhaust equipment provided over cooking equipment and high temperature dish machines.

WALLS, FLOORS, CEILINGS YES NO N/A
Floors are smooth, durable, non-absorbent, and easily cleanable in areas where:
● food prepared, packaged, or stored;
● where utensils are cleaned or stored;
● where garbage is stored;
● where janitorial facilities are located;
● in toilet and hand washing facilities;
● in employee change and storage areas.

Floor material extends up the walls and toe kicks at least 4 inches with a minimum of 3/8 inch radius at the wall/floor and wall/toe-kick junctures in all areas mentioned above except where exempted (e.g. where foods are stored in their unopened original containers.

Walls and ceilings smooth must be durable, non-absorbent, and easily cleanable in all areas except where exempted (e.g. dining areas, closed food storage areas, and certain portions of bar areas).

Walls and ceiling finishes light colored in food preparation, utensil cleaning areas, and inside walk-in refrigeration units.

SIGNS YES NO N/A
Official Food Placard must be posted and clearly visible at the entrance of facility.

Valid health permit posted in a conspicuous location.

No Smoking signs posted in food preparation, food storage, utensil cleaning, and utensil storage areas.

YES NO N/A
Hand washing signs posted in toilet rooms.

If facility has sit-down dining, Choking First Aid poster placed where it is readily accessible to employees.

52 of 237

26 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION YES NO N/A
Any construction, remodeling, alterations, and the installation of new equipment must be approved by the Health Department before commencing work.

Applicable building and fire codes are met.

Manager certification/ Food handler certifications are available on site.

Tobacco permit available if applicable

COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS:

Release Date: July 9, 2024
2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

53 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Matthew Lee, P.E., Public Works Director
Ana Morales, Management Analyst
SUBJECT: Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno’s Response Letter to the 2023 - 2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”
BACKGROUND:

On July 11, 2024, the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”. The purpose of the report is to determine how effective San Mateo County has been at meeting composting goals and what improvements could be done. Within the report, the Grand Jury developed eight findings and eight recommendations.

The Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies for some or all of the findings and recommendations: Town of Atherton, City of Brisbane, City of Daly City, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Millbrae, City of Pacifica, RethinkWaste JPA, City of San Bruno, San Mateo County, City of South San Francisco, and Town of Woodside. The City of San Bruno (City) is being requested responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. By law, responses must be submitted within 90 days and must meet the following requirements:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date; or
d) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

Responses to Grand Jury Reports are filed with the Superior Court and are placed on the Grand Jury website. The City’s responses to this Grand Jury Report are due by October 9, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

The Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” calls for responsible local public entities to implement solutions to increase organic waste participation and diversion rates. Specifically, the Grand Jury recommends:
1) Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host monthly in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and landlords and develop and implement other compliance strategies.
2) Jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures. 3) To increase transparency and accountability, cities and the County should regularly publish waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

The City’s draft response letter is provided as Attachment 1, and the Grand Jury Report is provided as Attachment 2.

The eight findings are referenced as F1 through F8 in the Grand Jury Report and cover organic waste participation and diversion rates. Of these eight, the City is being requested responses to Findings 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The draft response agrees with three findings, partially disagrees with two findings, and wholly disagrees with two findings.

The eight recommendations are referenced as R1 through R8 in the Grand Jury Report, and call for new compliance strategies, additional strategies for transparency and accountability, and developing and implementing new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures. Of these eight, the City is being requested responses to Recommendations 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Two recommendations have yet to be implemented and will be implemented by the Grand Jury’s suggested timeline. Staff suggests that four recommendations not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable.

In summary, staff agrees with the Grand Jury’s recommendation that local public entities should implement solutions to increase organic waste participation and diversion rates, but disagrees with some of the recommendations due to effectiveness, resource availability and inapplicability.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with preparing this response to the Grand Jury Report.

Implementing all Grand Jury recommendations would result in an unknown fiscal impact, as the cost and benefit of the recommendations have not been determined.

55 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The approval of a response letter to a Grand Jury Report is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Approval of the City of San Bruno’s Response Letter to the 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” ALTERNATIVES:

Approve a modified version of the response letter.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. The City of San Bruno’s Response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”

2. 2023-224 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”

56 of 237

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
Rico E. Medina OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
Mayor
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
September 24, 2024
Hon. Amarra A. Lee
Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Bianca Fasuescu
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Subject: Response of the City of San Bruno to the 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” Dear Judge Amarra Lee,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report titled “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County”. The City of San Bruno’s (City) response to the findings and recommendations of the report are listed below.

Response to Findings:

F1. High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

Response: Partially disagree. As noted in the report, there is no charge for the green container for multi-family customers in San Bruno. Per the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.0401, the City may waive a commercial business's obligation (including multifamily residential dwellings) to comply with some or all of the organic waste requirements via a de minimis or physical space waiver. In December 2022 the City began accepting organics waiver requests. As of this date, only three businesses who applied for a physical space waiver have been approved. However, they were approved because they generated minimal amounts of organic material not due to the sole fact of just space constraints.

F2. Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

Response: Agree.

F3. City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non- compliant.
1 https://ecode360.com/44253078#44253078
57 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Response

Page 2 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
Response: Wholly disagree. We believe outreach has been sufficient. The City mailed out SB1383 compliance letters in 2022 and is in the process of sending out updated letters in 2024 to those apartments and commercial business who remain non-compliant.

Additionally, the City is currently working on a process for more robust measures such as fines, which would help increase compliance. Lastly, the City is working on two SB1383 organics outreach campaigns for 2024 that will target San Bruno residents via Facebook, Instagram, X, and/or Google Ads.

F4. Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

Response: Agree.

F5. Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

Response: Agree.

F6. Assessing progress on organic waste diversion in Atherton, Brisbane, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside is difficult because they and their haulers do not separate waste tons by property type on their annual or quarterly reports.

Response: Partially disagree. In their quarterly and annual reports, Recology San Bruno separates recycling and organics tons into curbside and commercial tons. Curbside represents most single-family and multi-family customers. Commercial represents most commercial customers.

F7. An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

Response: Wholly disagree. Using contamination statistics and waste evaluations to measure diversion rates by property type does not seem accurate or efficient. Waste evaluations are done on a property-specific basis at a single point in time. Also, contamination statistics are done for only targeted subsets of customers. The route audit targeted subset of customers for the SB1383 required annual audit are chosen randomly and are a small percentage of all customers. It would be difficult to calculate diversion rates by property type based on these sources. In order for the method to be reliable, both waste evaluation and analyzing contamination statistics from route audits would have to be done for all rate payers. It would be cost prohibitive to the point of a feasible alternate method to separating waste tons by property type.

Response to Recommendations:

R1. Beginning March 1, 2025, cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host regular in- person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and multi-family dwellings, and identify other new compliance strategies.

58 of 237

2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Response

Page 3 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. It is not clear that such summits would have a meaningful impact on compliance or be cost-effective. Other measures such as fines for non-compliance would be more effective.

R4. Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

Response: The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented beginning November 30, 2024. Recology San Bruno provides citywide diversion tonnage data in their quarterly and annual reports.

R5. Beginning December 31, 2024, cities should separate waste tons and diversion rates into the three (or two) property types (business, residential, multi-family) in their annual or quarterly reports.

Response: The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented beginning December 31, 2024. Recology San Bruno will enhance their quarterly and annual reports to categorize waste tons into commercial and curbside, similar to what they already do for recycling and organics tons. This will allow calculation of diversion rates for commercial and curbside.

R6. Starting April 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should conduct waste evaluations on highly contaminated routes more often.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. Recology San Bruno is able to separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type.

R7. Starting May 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should analyze problematic routes’ past and present contamination trends to track their progress.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. Recology San Bruno is able to separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type.

R8. By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. Recology San Bruno currently offers organics containers in various sizes to multi-family and commercial customers. Additionally, per the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.0401, the City may waive a commercial business's obligation (including multifamily residential dwellings) to comply with some or all of the organic waste requirements via a de minimis or physical space waiver. In December 2022 the City

59 of 237

2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Response

Page 4 of 4 ends

September 24, 2024
567 El Camino Real, San Bruno, California 94066-4299
Voice: (650) 616-7060 ∙ Fax: (650) 742-6515
www.sanbruno.ca.gov
began accepting organics waiver requests. As of this date, only three businesses who applied for a physical space waiver have been approved. However, they were approved because they generated minimal amounts of organic material not due to the sole fact of just space constraints.

This response was approved by the San Bruno City Council at a public meeting on September 24, 2024.

Sincerely,
Rico E. Medina
Mayor

60 of 237

2023-2024 SAN MATEO COUNTY

CIVIL GRAND JURY

THE STATE OF COMPOST COMPLIANCE IN

SAN MATEO COUNTY
61 of 237
ATTACHMENT 2

1 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

ISSUE

California regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) mandate separating compostable materials like food waste from garbage to reduce methane emissions. How effective has San Mateo County been at meeting composting goals, and what can be done to improve?

SUMMARY

Starting January 1, 2022, regulations adopted pursuant Senate Bill 1383 (2016) required California businesses and residents to participate in organic waste collection. According to a 2022 San Mateo Daily Journal article, 70% of Burlingame’s businesses and multi-family dwellings did not have organic waste collection services. San Bruno had 86% of businesses and 45% of multi-family dwellings without organic waste collection (Browning 2022). From December 2023 to April 2024, officials were interviewed and data was collected from the County, cities, the RethinkWaste Joint Powers Authority (JPA), and haulers to assess current compliance.

A statewide goal is to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Disposal means sending all waste, organic, recyclable, or trash, to the landfill. Diversion means sending organic waste or recyclables to conversion centers, where they become compost, mulch, or consumer recycled content, as opposed to sending them to landfills. Any stand-alone references to diversion in this report refers to converted organic waste and recycling combined. “Organic waste diversion” only refers to only converted organic waste. This report’s goal is to identify where consumers and producers are failing to fully contribute to organic waste diversion consistent with their abilities.

The report’s recommendations are that the responsible local public entities implement solutions to increase organic waste participation and diversion rates. Notably, jurisdictions should have begun penalizing generators for non-compliance beginning January 1, 2024 (California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022)). Most multi-family dwellings and businesses in San Mateo County have lower organics collection enrollment compared to single-family homes. High enrollment rates for all three property types, however, do not necessarily result in high diversion rates and more organic waste in the waste stream. For example, in 2023, Foster City’s multi- family dwellings had a 98.81% participation rate; but, organics made up only 5.49% of total waste (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023).

There are several reasons behind multi-family dwellings and businesses having low participation and diversion rates. Green cart enrollment costs, and insufficient space for the three-cart system are the largest factors. Contamination brought about by improperly sorting organics into bins

62 of 237

2 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

also plays a role. In some multi-family dwellings, trash chutes do not offer an opportunity to sort and appropriate bins are not conveniently located. Further, local governments cannot reliably assess their progress on Senate Bill (SB) 1383 compliance because JPAs, haulers, and cities have different data reporting formats. And residents and the press must retrieve waste statistics from haulers because most cities do not have or post them.

To address these problems, the Grand Jury recommends that:

1. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste should host monthly in-person green cart enrollment summits for non-compliant businesses and landlords and develop and implement other compliance strategies.

2. Jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

3. To increase transparency and accountability, cities and the County should regularly publish waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

BACKGROUND

On September 19, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1383 to reduce California’s methane emissions. This law classifies any person or entity responsible for creating organic waste as an “organic waste generator” (Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18982 (2020)). Generators must comply with the law by subscribing to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service or self-hauling organic waste (§ 18984.9 (2020)). If residents or businesses do not subscribe or self-haul, “a jurisdiction shall impose penalties for violations” ranging from $50-$500 depending on one or more infractions (§ 18997.2 (2020)). SB 1383 defines jurisdictions as “a city, county, a city and county, or a special district that provides solid waste collection services.” (§ 18982 (2020)).

The new law builds on previous solid waste management legislation. Assembly Bill 939 was the first law of its kind to provide a solid waste diversion goal for cities and counties. Each jurisdiction had to divert 50% or more of solid waste from the landfill starting January 1, 2000 through source reduction, recycling, and composting (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 41780 (1989)). SB 1016 later replaced Assembly Bill (AB) 939 with a per capita disposal rate equivalent to the 50% annual diversion rate (§ 41780.05 (2008)). In 2011, lawmakers directed businesses that generate four or more cubic yards of commercial solid waste weekly and multifamily dwellings of five units or more to recycle (§ 41780.05).

63 of 237

3 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Equation 1. Diversion Rate
[(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)

California passed SB 1383 to tackle the pervasiveness of organic and recyclable waste in landfills. In 2021, CalRecycle estimated landfill composition to be 28.4% organic waste (11,305,710 tons), 15.5% paper (6,193,825 tons), and 13.7% plastic (5,445,299 tons) (2022a).

Failing to divert the majority of reusable materials has polluted the environment Californians share. From August 2016 to October 2018, landfills were the largest source of methane, contributing 41% of point source emissions (California Air Resources Board 2019). California’s track record on recycling and waste emissions has not improved over the years either, as emissions have increased by 24.4% since 2000 (CARB 2023). If mandatory organic waste collection successfully diminishes landfill emissions, it will support the struggle against climate change.

SB 1383 aims to reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025 (Cal. Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016)). Signing up for a green composting bin is a key to achieving this goal. Jurisdictions that do not have the standard three-cart system of garbage (usually gray, brown, or black cart), recyclables (blue cart), and organics (green cart) can still participate under certain conditions. For example, a two-cart system with only blue and gray carts can have the latter contain organics and garbage. Haulers must deliver the mixed waste gray carts “to a facility that meets or exceeds the organic waste content recovery requirements…” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 18984.2 (2020)).

Of the 20 cities in San Mateo County, the state orders 18 to comply with SB 1383. CalRecycle issued a low-population waiver to Colma and Portola Valley on January 1, 2022 (n.d1.). They are exempt from enforcing both laws, and were not interviewed for this report.

An earlier investigation on the conditions of landfill capacity inspired this report. In the 2018- 2019 Grand Jury year, jurors released the report “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” They used data from a 2014 CalRecycle analysis to note that organic waste comprised 71% of all waste sent to the landfill in the County (SMC Civil Grand Jury 2019).

Additionally, Republic Services, which operates Ox Mountain Landfill, projected that the landfill would close by 2034 based on disposal rates (2019). Although the report highlighted the connection between SB 1383 and landfill capacity, jurors geared their recommendations predominantly on revising the County Integrated Waste Management Plan. This 2023-2024 report: “The State of Compost Compliance in San Mateo County” is different. It examines how

64 of 237

4 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

increasing composting participation in multi-family dwellings and businesses can contribute to solving the landfill problem.

Economic Factors Impacting SB 1383 Progress

On September 8, 2022, Shereen D’Souza, former CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency) Deputy Secretary, told the Milton Marks Commission that the state missed its 2020 recycling goal. Ms. D’Souza referred to the 50% reduction in organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2020 under Health & Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016). This goal was the precursor to the current 75% organic waste disposal reduction from 2014 levels by 2025 described above. The Deputy Secretary remarked, “Until this year, CalRecycle’s regulations to meet the organic waste reduction targets were not enforceable” (D’Souza 2022). She adds, “So, it makes sense that the 2020 diversion rate required in 1383 was not met” (2022).

In the same interview, former CalRecycle Director, Rachel Machi Wagoner, described how far California missed the mark. Ms. Wagoner said, “As a matter of fact, in 2020, we were roughly a million tons over our 2014 baseline” (2022). Businesses and residents sent more organics to landfills in 2020 than six years prior. It might be assumed that the COVID-19 pandemic pushed Californians to consume more than usual at home given the lockdowns. Yet, 2020 was also a recessionary year, which decreased some workers’ incomes.

Industrial production and civilian consumption rates are the most consequential causes of landfill pollution. CalRecycle observed that “a strong correlation between disposal and economic growth” prevails (2020). In 1989, California’s GDP “was $0.72 trillion” and “statewide traditional landfill disposal was 44 million tons” (CalRecycle 2020). In 2018, California’s GDP “rose to $3 trillion” (CalRecycle 2020), while landfill and “disposal-related activities” (see Glossary) climbed to 46,255,505 tons (CalRecycle 2024).

65 of 237

5 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Source: Real Gross Domestic Product: All Industry Total in California (CARGSP) | FRED | St.

Louis Fed

During the Great Recession (2007-2009), landfill disposal plummeted by 20.7% in California (CalRecycle 2020). In 2020, the state’s overall disposal (landfill added to disposal-related activities) tonnage fell by 7.46% when compared to the 2019 peak (CalRecycle 2024). Per capita disposal rates, and by extension overall disposal, have risen in the state since 2014 (2024). As the chart and table below illustrates, the timing of SB 1383 enforcement appears to not have a significant impact on California reaching its 2020 objective. Curiously, the 2020 surge of organic waste in landfills occurred while overall disposal fell.

66 of 237

6 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; note, values are found in Appendix 1, Figure 2 or 3 on each report

Table 1. State Compost Tonnages and Percentage of Overall Waste 2018-2022

2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
% of total
waste
12% 12.28% 12.3% 12.41% 14.73%*
Compost
Tons
≈9,312,000 9,522,164 9,522,164 9,522,164 ≈11,200,00
0*
Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, 2019 State of Disposal and Recycling and Exports in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2020, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021
*Jurors could only find evidence of this number through an Associated Press (California is forging ahead with food waste recycling. But is it too much, too fast?) article, which cited Rachel Wagoner. The State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022 offers a combined amount for “Source Reduction, Recycling, and Composting,” but not for its individual components.

67 of 237

7 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Overall disposal tonnages throughout the 2006-2022 period have not increased alongside the population. Again, waste deposited at landfills fell 20.7% during the Great Recession in spite of the population growing by 1.56% (CalRecycle 2020; California Department of Finance 2012).

Even more peculiar is that overall disposal hit rock bottom in 2012, shedding 2.58% of its 2009 volume (2020). Nonetheless, the state’s 2012 population rose by 2.59%, an inverse of landfill trends, from its 2009 value (California Department of Finance 2022, 2012). Since population growth and SB 1383 implementation inadequately explain waste patterns, macroeconomic events are the significant factor governing waste generation. A former CalRecycle executive has expressed concern over this fact and opined which economic actors spawn the most waste.

Sources: 2018 State of Disposal and Recycling in California, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2021, State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2001–2010, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2011–2020, E-4 Population Estimates for the State, 2021–2024
Note: Population figures are for January 1 of each year according to the California Department of Finance

Former CalRecycle Director Rachel Machi Wagoner issued an urgent warning in the agency’s “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020” report. Ms. Wagoner blamed “an economy driven by resource extraction and single-use disposable products” for California being on track to miss its 75% recycling goal by 2025 (CalRecycle 2021). She

68 of 237

8 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

claimed, “Consumers placing items in the right bin alone will not solve systemic problems like unrecyclable product designs and a lack of end markets for complex materials” (2021). A solution the Director proposes is getting “local and private partners” to efficiently collect and remanufacture the goods “California produces and uses” into new commodities (2021).

Wagoner’s call for reaching the 2025 target focuses on getting manufacturers to sell goods with recyclable content. Annual reports from CalRecycle partially support this statement because manufacturers generate the highest proportions of refuse.

Businesses and multi-family dwellings with five or more units produce more landfill waste than residential properties statewide. For the last three and a half years, 47% to 50% of all refuse in the state originated from the commercial sector (CalRecycle 2024). Self-haulers contributed 20% of garbage. Residential properties contributed 30% to 33% (2024). An important distinction is that the California Code of Regulations labels multi-family dwellings of less than five units as residential areas (§ 18982 (2020)). Multi-family dwellings with five or more units, then, fall under the commercial category.

Source: State of Disposal and Recycling Report 2022; * = Data from Q3 and Q4 2019 only

69 of 237

9 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

METHODOLOGY

Interviews

The Civil Grand Jury interviewed officials from nine cities: Atherton, Brisbane, Daly City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and Woodside.

Instead of interviewing the nine remaining cities directly, the Grand Jury spoke with an official from the RethinkWaste JPA. Each city has one council member on the Board of Directors (RethinkWaste n.d. (no date)). Jurors interviewed San Mateo County twice to gather information on unincorporated areas outside and inside the RethinkWaste service area. Lastly, three haulers were interviewed (Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno) because their cities had incomplete data.

Online Public Documents

The CalRecycle and California Air Resources Board websites provided the state’s most recent recycling rates and landfill composition. RethinkWaste was the only public entity that disseminated diversion rates for cities and a few unincorporated areas on their agency website.

This jurisdiction provided calendar year quarterly records and diversion rates separated by the three property types (single-family, multi-family dwellings, and businesses). This makes comparing performance across cities straightforward.

Private Electronic Documents

During the investigation, various documents unavailable online were collected. These resources included diversion rate tables, participation rate tables, sample citations, waivers, and non- compliance notices from 2022 to 2023. The Grand Jury asked haulers, city governments, and the County government permission to use this data. Some differences were noted in the ways cities ask haulers to collect data, which made it difficult to compare jurisdictions. A few haulers combine multi-family dwellings’ participation rates with either single-family homes or commercial properties. Other haulers furnish quarterly reports over fiscal years instead of calendar years.

DISCUSSION

The County’s political, legal, and economic organization largely account for the contrast in diversion and participation rates among the three property types. Based on the 2022 1-Year American Community Survey, 729,181 people live in San Mateo County, down 4.61% from 2020 (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a). Yet, U.S. Census Bureau population estimates for Woodside

70 of 237

10 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

and several unincorporated areas were unavailable in 2021 and 2022. California’s Department of Finance includes these jurisdictions for its January 1, 2024 estimates, putting the total County population at 741,565 people. 61,538 of these residents live in unincorporated communities, and they could be the County’s fifth largest city (2024). This large number of unincorporated residents poses a challenge to County waste management.

Source: E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change — January 1, 2023 and 2024

Two special districts and one JPA unite geographically adjacent public agencies to coordinate and plan for waste management. The South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA), known as RethinkWaste, has 11 member agencies spanning from Burlingame to East Palo Alto.

Each city and grouping of unincorporated areas share a single hauler and transfer facility despite having separate franchise agreements. On the coast, the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and the Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD) follow a similar pattern for unincorporated areas exclusively. Jurors will cover these institutions in the next subsection.

Multi-family dwellings and single-family homes have unequal responsibilities for organics collection enrollment and proper waste disposal. Residents of single-family homes and multifamily complexes of less than five units individually subscribe to their jurisdiction’s organic waste collection service. In contrast, multi-family dwellings owners or managers are

71 of 237

11 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

responsible for enrolling in organic waste collection services on behalf of tenants and employees.

Multi-family dwelling and business owners “must supply and allow access to an adequate number, size, and location of containers” with the correct labels or colors (CalRecycle n.d3.).

Furthermore, they must annually educate tenants and employees on proper organic waste sorting.

Lastly, owners or managers must distribute information to new tenants within 14 days of occupying the premises (n.d4.).

Cities have pursued a policy of maximizing single-family homes’ participation rates.

Homeowners in every San Mateo County city benefit from having blue and green carts included in the price of garbage collection (Table 2 links). Unfortunately, tenants countywide do not have green carts included in the price of garbage collection, except in San Bruno (Table 2 links).

Hence, rental property owners or managers must add a green cart for the same or discounted price as their gray cart. This barrier to participation poses another threat to the county’s waste diversion efforts.

San Mateo County’s tenants play a decisive role in diverting as much waste as possible. In 2022, renters in San Mateo County made up 38.77% (278,126 out of 717,387) of the total population in occupied housing units (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). Five cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the current state baseline of 58.27%. Another seven cities have an owner-occupied population proportion less than the national average of 68.37% (U.S. Census Bureau 2022b). The County’s substantial renter population indicates their waste disposal practices and green cart participation can either enhance or counteract homeowners’ or businesses’ diversion endeavors. Although cities can be commended for expediting green cart enrollment for homeowners, they could have worked with haulers to make tenant organic waste collection easier.

72 of 237

12 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: 2022 1-Year ACS Data: U.S. Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 1-Year ACS Data: California Occupied Housing Unit Populations, 2022 5-Year ACS Data: City Occupied Housing Unit Populations
* = ACS 1-Year Estimate; all other values are from vintage year 2022 from the ACS 2018-2022 5-Year Estimate. See the link for explanation: When to Use 1-year or 5-year Estimates Note: Again, Woodside does not appear on either the 1-Year or 5-Year ACS

San Mateo County’s Waste Management Landscape

Most haulers currently have franchise agreements with JPAs, cities, and the County to collect, transport, and dispose of waste. Franchise areas consist of municipalities or special districts that use their bulk purchasing power to negotiate waste collection rates with a hauler (SMC Sustainability Department n.d. (no date)). Each of the franchised haulers also operate in unincorporated areas as part of or apart from existing agreements. Kunz Valley Trash has a non- exclusive franchise agreement with San Mateo County (n.d2.), and alongside Peninsula Sanitary Service, Inc., operates solely in unincorporated communities. The following table lists the six haulers operating in San Mateo County, along with their properties. All haulers offer the full range of waste collection; Kunz Valley Trash clients do not have bins and instead must place their waste in bags (n.d1.).

73 of 237

13 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 2. Haulers Serving San Mateo County Cities
Legend: * = Unincorporated areas or Special Districts; Bold = Haulers’ local affiliates Haulers Areas Served* Properties Franchise Agreements

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
GreenWaste Service
Areas)
Atherton
Portola Valley
Woodside
Los Trancos Woods*
Sky Londa*
Our Facilities -
GreenWaste
Atherton 2020
Woodside 2019
Kunz Valley Trash

(Sources: Kunz
Valley Trash:

Services, Kunz
Valley Trash
Service Guide)
La Honda*
Loma Mar*
Pescadero*
San Gregorio*

Each place is exempt
from SB 1383 because
of a low-population
waiver for census tract
6138 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Non-Exclusive with San Mateo
County (Pending Publication)

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
PSSI: What Belongs
in Each Container)
Stanford Lands*
(includes the SLAC
National Accelerator
Lab)

74 of 237

14 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
About The Program
– RethinkWaste)
Coast:

Granada Community
Services District*
Montara Water &
Sanitary District*
Pacifica

San Bruno:

San Bruno

San Mateo:

Ladera*
RethinkWaste JPA*
San Bruno
Transfer
Station
Granada Community Services
District 2018
San Bruno 2023
Montara Water and Sanitary
District 2013
RethinkWaste Agreements

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
Republic Services
Daly City:

Recycling and
Trash)
Daly City:

Broadmoor*
Colma
Daly City
Olympic Country Club*
San Bruno Mountain
Park*
Unincorporated Colma*

Half Moon Bay:

Half Moon Bay
Corinda Los
Trancos
Landfill

Newby Island
Daly City 2015
Half Moon Bay 2017

(Sources: SMC
Sustainability
Department:

Curbside Collection,
South SF Scavenger
Residential)
Brisbane
Brisbane Quarry*
California Golf Club*
Country Club Park*
Millbrae
South San Francisco
SFO*

SFO - Census tract
9843 - is exempt from
SB 1383 (San Mateo
County 2021)
Blue Line
Transfer
Station
Brisbane 2019
South SF 2013

RethinkWaste covers the most area and population out of all County entities dedicated to waste management. The organizational chart below names the 11 member agencies. The West Bay

75 of 237

15 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sanitary District provides waste collection to a handful of accounts in Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, and Portola Valley (n.d.). RethinkWaste and San Mateo County are the only public entities that own transfer stations - Shoreway Environmental Center and Pescadero Transfer Station, respectively (RethinkWaste n.d., SMC Sustainability Department n.d.).

Chart 1. RethinkWaste Member Agencies and Contractors

Sources: About – RethinkWaste, Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department

Cities and their Properties’ Organic Waste Streams

Historically, businesses have generated more refuse than homeowners in the County, even though the latter produces more waste overall. During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, however, single-family homes made more refuse and overall waste than businesses. From 2011- 2019, homeowners in the RethinkWaste JPA diverted more organic waste tons than garbage tons sent to the landfill (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). The bar chart below also demonstrates that homeowners have continuously recycled more than businesses. In 2020 and subsequent years, though, residences still diverted more waste in spite of overtaking businesses

Member Agencies
Contractors
County Franchised Area
Baywood Park (Crystal Springs area),
Burlingame Hills, Devonshire Canyon, San
Mateo Highlands, Sequoia Tract, Trailer
Rancho, Emerald Lake Hills, Harbor
Industrial, Kensington Square, Oak Knoll,
Peninsula Golf Club, and Palomar Park
County Service Area 8 (North Fair
Oaks)

76 of 237

16 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

in trash sent to landfill. Employees from Republic Services and RethinkWaste were interviewed to explain why this area of the County has this trend and how it differs from other regions.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020 Note: Atherton was a member of RethinkWaste until January 1, 2021; years before 2021 include their tonnages.

RethinkWaste homeowners have higher diversion rates and refuse tons compared to businesses because of takeout and yard waste tonnages. A RethinkWaste representative explained, “We still have a lot of people working from home. We have a lot of businesses that continue to be remote and… are not fully staffed in the way that they were pre-pandemic” (2023). This comment partly reflects two phenomena shown on the chart above. First, it aligns with businesses diverting increased amounts of organic waste throughout the 2010s, only for tonnages to fall in 2020.

Second, it accounts for the record organic waste diversion homeowners contributed in 2020.

Expanding on the RethinkWaste view, businesses constantly diverted more organic waste throughout the 2010s because people ate at restaurants more often. Similarly, falling unemployment rates during the period (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024) meant more workers ate lunch at their jobs. Once more, the chart displays both factors at work because businesses have been steadily increasing their tons of diverted organic waste post-pandemic. As for the homeowners, the unprecedented organic waste diverted in 2020 probably came from

77 of 237

17 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

increased takeout from eateries and bulk purchases from grocery stores. It is obvious these activities existed before the pandemic, but food consumption alone does not explain why single- family homes eclipse businesses in regard to organic waste.

Yard trimmings inflate the weight of organic waste for single-family homes in the RethinkWaste JPA and other cities on the bay compared to coastal communities. This was noted by an official from Republic Services - a hauler covering Daly City, Colma, and Half Moon Bay. The official noted, “Even though more residents are participating in recycling, ... [Daly City does] not have the yards that, let’s say, a San Mateo or a Redwood City house [does]” (2024). The interviewee resumed, “Because diversion is calculated based on weights, they don’t have that yard waste, the grass clippings and stuff that add a lot of weight to the material” (2024). Daly City’s 2023 waste statistics support this claim, as recycling, rather than organics, is the majority of diverted material. Half Moon Bay’s single-family homes probably have greater lawn space than Daly City since the opposite is true.

Sources: Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report, Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report
*Daly City’s data is from Q1 and Q2 of fiscal year 2023-2024 (July 1, 2023 to January 30, 2024) Note: Data for both cities are not publicly available. Jurors received the information from Republic Services.

78 of 237

18 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

A lack of lawns, gardens, or yards among certain single-family homes does not mean they are stuck with low diversion rates. The Republic Services official made an observation that can apply to all property types, regardless of green space dimensions. Our interviewee stressed that cities “can throw [green] carts out at everybody,” but residents may not use them or contaminate the cart “so much that it becomes trash” (2024). Single-family homes can improve their current organic waste diversion practices just like their counterparts in multi-family dwellings.

Nevertheless, Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside have an easier job hitting higher diversion rates because of their huge green spaces. Moreover, they are the only cities with a high diversion organic waste processing facility thanks to their hauler’s two-cart system (GreenWaste n.d.).

The table below, however, shows that neither green spaces nor a two-cart system recover all organics. Each city has 100% participation in commercial and residential accounts due to the two-cart system, which allows food and refuse in gray carts. An employee from the town of Woodside acknowledged that people “... could be putting food waste into the yard trimmings,” but if they follow the process, “there shouldn’t be contamination” (2024). Likewise, the composting facility may have “residuals that don’t compost and those go to the landfill” (2024).

A similar scenario would be waste at the materials recovery facility (MRF) that is not recyclable or compostable, which also gets sent to the landfill.

Table 3. Diverted Organic Waste and Trash: Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside 2023 Atherton Portola Valley Woodside
Trash 1,232.14 tons 1,996.72 tons 2,112.81 tons
Food Waste
Composted
1,581.16 tons 2,649.88 tons 2,799.38 tons
Trash 94.77 tons 1.24 tons 20.35 tons
Yard Waste
Composted
9,381.98 tons 123.4 tons 2,014.71 tons
Source: GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023
Legend: Green = Green Cart Contents, Gray = Gray Cart Contents

The exact percentage of yard trimmings or food waste that became trash due to contamination is unknown. But, improper waste sorting is a possibility even in communities with predominantly single-family housing. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside only have 20, 36, and 51 commercial accounts within their boundaries respectively (GreenWaste 2023). Still, these minute figures, compared to the thousands of residential accounts, drastically affected diversion rates.

Atherton’s total diversion rate stood at 87.39%, while Portola Valley and Woodside had 60.37% and 69.69%, respectively (GreenWaste 2023). After looking at these statistics, it could be

79 of 237

19 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

deduced that contamination exists in single-family homes and businesses, though one setting may encourage this behavior more than the other.

Yard waste may not be the sole determinant of the differences between cities' organic waste diversion. Cities in the northern part of the county have participation rates and waste streams not entirely influenced by yard waste. Daly City and the five cities in the chart below have owner- occupied housing populations above the state average (U.S. Census Bureau 2022a, 2022b). As a result, they have more single-family waste management accounts than commercial and multi- family dwellings combined (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.). Still, four out of five cities have diversion rates below 45% even though their single-family participation rates are above 90% (South SF Scavenger 2024, San Bruno 2024, Pacifica n.d.).

If homeowners truly separate waste better than renters or restaurant clientele, then their efforts should have raised overall diversion rates closer to 50% at least. These cities do not separate waste streams by property type to identify if their single-family homes generate more waste than businesses or multi-family dwellings.

Sources: San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023, South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates, and Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion and Participation Rates * = Pacifica published data based on their fiscal year, which ran from May 2022 to April 2023

80 of 237

20 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Indeed, giving everyone a green cart or adopting a two-cart model does not mean more organic waste will escape the landfill. Supplying homeowners, renters, and businesses with equal green cart access, and appropriate waste separation, is still important. These fixes are in our Findings and Recommendations sections. The broader point is that SB 1383 compliance works well if cities and counties modify their outreach and recordkeeping practices to bolster organic waste diversion. If San Mateo County and its cities consistently track businesses’ and multi-family dwellings’ waste trends, and base their outreach around this data, then organic waste diversion should be straightforward.

Data Discrepancies

While not a primary focus of the investigation, the Grand Jury learned of a major discrepancy in the way South San Francisco Scavenger and its client cities compile tonnage data. Brisbane’s 2022 Electronic Annual Report (EAR) to CalRecycle, which measures several compliance activities, puts the diversion rate at 64% (Edgar and Associates 2023a). The hauler contracted a consulting firm, Edgar and Associates, to prepare the report (Interview with Brisbane 2022).

When the hauler gave the Grand Jury its diversion rate report for 2023, the metric stood at

39.11% (South SF Scavenger). South San Francisco’s 2022 EAR had dual diversion rates of 74% and 66% (Edgar and Associates 2023b), while the hauler’s 2023 document recorded 42.91% (South SF Scavenger 2024). This report based each cities’ tons and diversion rates, shown in the chart above, on the hauler’s data.

Inconsistent diversion rate reporting continued in other cities and communication channels.

Brisbane’s “Waste and Recycling” page on its official website asserts that the city diverts “76% of the waste generated by residents and businesses” (n.d.). South San Francisco Scavenger also provided conflicting data with Millbrae’s 2023 diversion rates. The fourth quarter report the hauler sent the city listed a 37.65% diversion rate, but the version they gave to jurors read

54.14% (South SF Scavenger 2023). Cities in the South San Francisco Scavenger area exemplify the risks of relying on haulers too much for data collection. Having conflicting figures for waste diversion does not help cities accurately assess the progress they have made for SB 1383 compliance.

Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco should reconcile tonnage reports with their haulers to verify which figures are correct. Assuming the cities did experience a massive decline in waste diversion in a year, this occurrence would still be unusual. An investigation into diversion rates does not adversely affect the per capita disposal rates these cities send to the state. Fixing these errors is important so city governments know what proportion of all waste is organics, recycling, or garbage over time. It is highly likely these mistakes come from the sophisticated way Edgar and Associates converts the per capita disposal rates to regular diversion rates. They present their equation below.

81 of 237

21 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Equation 2. Edgar and Associates Diversion Rate Conversion from Per Capita Disposal Rates

(Source: Edgar and Associates 2023a)

Republic Services, Recology of San Mateo County, and GreenWaste have a much simpler equation that does not involve converting the per capita disposal rate. These haulers merely add the total tons of recycling, organics, and rubbish they collect to get a diversion rate.

[(R+O)/(R+O+S)] * 100 = Diversion Rate %
R: Recycling tons, O: Organic tons, S: Solid Waste tons (Sources: Republic Services 2024a and 2024b, Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, GreenWaste 2023)

If the difference in calculations explains the unequal diversion rates, the simpler diversion rate formula would be preferable. Cities should negotiate with their haulers to have them compute these percentages in quarterly or annual reports separate from the EAR. Such a change reduces Edgar and Associates’ EAR workload and leaves cities with one reliable waste diversion

82 of 237

22 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

measure. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco will also have the opportunity to compare their metrics with fellow governments that use the same methods. The simpler method, using Scavenger’s tons, should yield the same diversion rates jurors obtained in the last chart.

If diversion rates are unequal because of varying tonnage measurements from the hauler, cities should investigate Scavenger’s transfer station scales. Scavenger’s 2023 fourth quarter report to Millbrae had 1,116.78 tons more in its total tonnage than in the annual report it gave to jurors.

Another scenario would be that the hauler gave the Grand Jury and Millbrae different data.

Either way, Millbrae (and its sister cities, if applicable) should scrutinize weights measured at the transfer station to pinpoint if Scavenger furnishes contradictory data.

In the previous graph, five cities were included as not dividing their waste streams by property type. Atherton, Portola Valley, and Woodside are similar in this regard because they only divide recyclables by single-family homes and businesses (GreenWaste 2023). We recommend cities of the GreenWaste, South San Francisco Scavenger, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno areas begin dividing their data by the three property types. The County cannot continue having contradictory forms of waste generation reporting. Aggregate waste reports prevent local governments from seeing how severely economic turmoil causes businesses’ diversion rates to tumble. On the same note, South San Francisco, Recology of the Coast, and Recology San Bruno cities do not know how serious renter turnover might affect multi-family diversion rates.

Cities in these hauler areas should have a comfortable transition into segregating organics, recycling, and solid waste streams by three property types. Pacifica, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, and Brisbane have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the national average. Meanwhile, South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae have owner-occupied housing populations larger than the state average. In other words, these cities are mostly residential, and their haulers can discern where refuse and organic tons originate. If haulers have the technical and infrastructural capabilities to portray a waste management story, cities should not be in the dark. Jurors and cities had to ask haulers for either participation rates or diversion rates throughout the investigation.

If haulers and cities do not have the resources necessary to split waste into three property types, they can come up with a long-term plan to do so. Currently, jurisdictions must conduct “annual visual inspections” called “route reviews,” in which they randomly inspect “containers for contamination on all collection routes” (CalRecycle n.d2.). Following these inspections, jurisdictions must “notify all generators on the sampled hauler routes and provide education on proper material separation” (n.d2.). In San Mateo County, Republic Services, Recology of the Coast, and South San Francisco Scavenger “lid flip” bins to check for contamination (Interviews 2024). Republic Services leaves tags on contaminated residential bins and calls businesses and multi-family dwellings about it (Interviews 2024).

83 of 237

23 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Waste evaluations are conducted at least in two distinct seasons of the year [per 14 CCR section 18984.5(c)]” (CalRecycle n.d2.). If jurisdictions find more than 25% contamination in any container type, they can perform “a targeted route review of containers… to determine sources of contamination (n.d3.). Later, they notify and provide education to those generating contamination” (n.d3.). Local governments should increase the frequency of waste evaluations, specifically on routes with high levels of contamination. Jurisdictions will use their outreach capabilities more efficiently this way.

All documentation of route reviews must be stored in the state’s Implementation Record (CalRecycle n.d2.). Some of the information included are Notices of Violation and penalty order copies. These documents must be accompanied by a list of dates acknowledging entities have complied with warnings or sanctions (CalRecycle n.d2.). Jurisdictions must include “a description of the hauler route and addresses covered by a route review” (n.d2.).

Instead of simply preserving time sensitive data, the Grand Jury suggests jurisdictions analyze past and current contamination trends in problem routes. Cities that struggle splitting diversion rates and waste tons by property type can use this method to track their progress at minimizing organic waste contamination. Perhaps cities will improve their organic waste diversion results if they implement these changes.

Local governments cannot leave their residents in the dark as well. If citizens pay for waste collection service, they have the right to know how well each property type separates waste.

None of the entities interviewed, except RethinkWaste, had copies of annual or quarterly waste reports on their government websites. Brisbane, Woodside, and Pacifica are some examples of cities that had no idea why their haulers do not separate waste by three property types (2024).

Jurors propose cities publish any past, present, and future waste statistics on their government websites following this report’s release.

The Civil Grand Jury recommends setting a waste reporting standard across the County. Without a common measurement, cities might not reduce 75% of organic waste disposal from 2014 levels by 2025. Jurors understand the state imposed this goal on itself and not on individual jurisdictions. Nonetheless, if the County adopts a mentality of consistently increasing diversion rates, citizens will reap the social savings. If cities keep increasing the price of garbage collection (DiNapoli 2024, Mata 2024) for the same amount of landfill tons, then methane emissions will not abate.

Barriers Exclusive to Businesses and Multi-Family Dwellings

Multi-family dwellings and businesses cannot match the participation and diversion rates of single-family homes due to socioeconomic and infrastructural problems. One Sustainability

84 of 237

24 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Department official said since “tenants sometimes cycle in and out every year… the resources involved to do… outreach [for] a multi-family building” is very “intensive” (2024). Another important component is that residents who live in apartments with trash chutes “have to find different ways to compost or set up bins in separate areas” (2024). Meanwhile, businesses may welcome irregular clients who “don’t know what the rules are” (2024). In spite of these disadvantages, multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have steadily increased their compost and recycling tons over the last decade (Recology San Mateo County 2024, 2023, 2021). Some city governments have even worked around these problems altogether.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2022, Recology San Mateo County Annual Report 2020

Rising recycling and organic tons for multi-family dwellings over the years indicate that tenants strive to segregate waste properly. Unlike businesses, waste generation in multi-family dwellings does not rise and fall based on economic booms or busts. Crucially, renter turnover has not created drastic ebb and flow patterns for tonnage. Aside from landlord willingness, building age is very likely to be multi-family dwellings’ greatest barrier to increasing green bin participation.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 65.36% of existing renter-occupied housing units are from before 1980 (2022c). Cities must consider the difficulty of setting up green bins among older apartment buildings using trash chutes.

85 of 237

25 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

San Bruno pursues a novel strategy for multi-family dwellings’ organic waste collection compared to other cities. A Recology of San Bruno official finds that larger apartment complexes have a harder time complying. The hauler works with landlords to find the best location for green carts “to make it very simple for the residents” (2024). Better yet, the local government treats “multi-family as residential, and there is no cost for the multi-families in San Bruno to participate” (2024). Including green bin service in the price of standard refuse collection has brought 73% of multi-family dwellings in compliance with SB 1383 (San Bruno 2024). As of March 13, 2024, 109 multi-family dwellings remain non-compliant (Recology of San Bruno).

Interviews with several cities confirm that they require new property developments to provide enough space for the three-cart system. Pacifica, Daly City, Millbrae, and all RethinkWaste cities have their planning departments partner with haulers to review building plans (2024). A South San Francisco city employee stated that the city and hauler reviews waste enclosure spaces for new businesses but not multi-family dwellings (2024). Given that Woodside does not have multi- family dwellings, the city scrutinizes building plans for new commercial properties only (2024).

City officials from Brisbane and Half Moon Bay were uncertain about how municipal departments handle new development reviews (2024).

If cities can prepare future infrastructure with the waste enclosures they need, it should be possible for them to start doing the same for existing, non-compliant multi-family dwellings.

RethinkWaste is already ahead of the curve on this front and hopes to build on the San Bruno model. On March 14, 2024, RethinkWaste’s Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) announced that Recology of San Mateo “was open to a town hall format” to increase participation. At the next TAC meeting, the agency declared it will send invitational emails to businesses and multi- family dwellings for “virtual or in-person” SB 1383 compliance presentations held in June (2024). It is unknown at this point if any landlords or business owners have accepted such invitations or if the agency has begun holding these meetings.

RethinkWaste presently makes phone calls and letters to non-compliant property types (2024).

City employees from Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Daly City have disclosed that outreach activities include releasing newsletters, emails, and social media posts (2024). A Half Moon Bay staff member reported that the city received a grant from CalRecycle to give non-compliant businesses green bins across downtown (2024). A Recology of the Coast official says they distribute flyers and mailers and work with a compliance officer in Pacifica (2024).

The Civil Grand Jury appreciates the massive resource and labor mobilization from haulers and cities to perform these activities. Yet, these actions have consumed significant time in relation to meaningful effects. The scatter plots and tables below for jurisdictions inside and outside the RethinkWaste area describe the unfinished participation progress for multi-family dwellings and

86 of 237

26 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

businesses. Even if the visual data included properties with waivers, hauler data reveals that many properties are still without organics collection. Daly City, Half Moon Bay, and their hauler, Republic Services, did not give the Grand Jury reliable participation rate data.

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)

87 of 237

27 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report, Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables (see Appendix)

Both scatter plots affirm the assumption that high participation rates to organic waste collection does not increase the share of organic waste in total tonnages. The weak coefficients of determination (R2) tell us that green bin enrollment explains less than 50% of changes in organic waste proportions for businesses and multi-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings in the RethinkWaste area have the most alarming statistic: less than 10% of their total waste tons are organic waste. It would appear that cities may have consciously or unconsciously prioritized one property type over another. For instance, San Mateo County enrolled twice as many multi-family dwellings for green cart service in the County Franchised Area (CFA) than its businesses.

The scatter plots also reveal that San Mateo County has stranded North Fair Oaks in the SB 1383 compliance process. Businesses and multi-family dwellings in the community have the lowest participation rates and organic waste proportions in the entire RethinkWaste JPA. It is unacceptable for a County tract with a compact area to have less resources than its neighbors. At the Discussion’s onset, the hurdles unincorporated regions pose for compliance were described.

North Fair Oaks has similar participation statistics like its coastal counterparts in the Granada Community Services District (GCSD) and Montara Water and Sanitary District (MWSD).

RethinkWaste and San Mateo County can combine their resources to level the playing field within the JPA.

88 of 237

28 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 4. Recology San Bruno Participation Rates 2023

Source: Recology of San Bruno Interview

Table 5. Brisbane, Millbrae, and South San Francisco Participation Rates

Source: Source: South SF Scavenger 2023 Participation and Diversion Rates

89 of 237

29 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Table 6. Recology of the Coast Participation Rates FY 2022-2023

Source: Recology of the Coast Interview

One recommendation is that RethinkWaste and non-JPA cities have a mass enrollment summit for multi-family dwellings and businesses. Solving the problem means holding these meetings at regular intervals until there is 100% green cart participation rate for both property types. On-site enrollment, rather than virtual presentations, holds property managers and business owners accountable. Public agencies need to receive input from the parties to address the troubles keeping them from enrolling. Cities, the County, and RethinkWaste can advise these individuals on cost-effective green cart adoption. Jurisdictions should explicitly state that monetary penalties are inevitable unless they attend these green bin enrollment summits.

If renters perfectly segregated their waste, a high percentage of the stream would be organic material, much like that of homeowners. Daly City’s multi-family dwellings, surprisingly, were the only ones in the County to have higher diversion rates than single-family homes thanks to thousands of diverted tons of organic waste. Multi-family dwellings diverted 57% of their waste while single-family homes diverted 48% (Republic Services 2024a). When interviewed, a representative from Republic Services said that an arduous program explained the phenomenon.

Presently, the hauler pulls “organics out of the trash,” which is “not a very good” and “costly system” (2024). The representative predicted the “program is likely going… away, so we’ll be doing something different with our multifamily” (2024).

90 of 237

30 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Despite this inefficient system causing high diversion rates for multi-family dwellings, it proves that tenants generate more organic waste than rubbish. Jurisdictions should not consider getting renters to sort waste properly a lost cause, for this data proves that contamination is responsible for low diversion rates. High subscription rates for green cart service and apartment buildings with distant waste enclosures contribute to low participation rates. The Sustainability Department interviewee remarked, “Sometimes these landlords…vary in how easy they are to implement things like [organic waste collection]” (2024). The official added, “especially if it hits their bottom line about increased costs for adding compost to recycling service” (2024). It is highly recommended that haulers put signage on green carts if they do not have this practice already.

91 of 237

31 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Sources: Recology San Mateo County Q4 2023 Report

92 of 237

32 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

FINDINGS

F1. High green cart enrollment costs and insufficient bin space are the dominant contributors to low participation rates among multi-family dwellings and businesses.

F2. Green bin contamination among compliant multi-family dwellings and businesses prevents them from diverting more organic waste.

F3. City, County, and RethinkWaste compliance outreach efforts for multi-family dwellings and businesses could improve because a significant portion of these properties remain non-compliant.

F4. Multi-family dwellings and businesses produce a significant amount of the County’s organic waste.

F5. Citizens cannot conveniently access reliable diversion and participation rates because JPAs and cities do not make the information available on their government websites.

F7. An alternate and reliable method to separating waste tons by property type would be analyzing contamination statistics from route audits and waste evaluations.

F8. Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae cannot properly track their waste trends since their hauler and contractor have contradictory diversion rate formulas and tonnage measurements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R2. Beginning January 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should investigate their Electronic Annual Report contractor’s diversion rate conversion formulas and their hauler’s waste scales.

93 of 237

33 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

R3. By July 1, 2025, Brisbane, South San Francisco, and Millbrae should begin using the simpler diversion rate calculation the report mentioned or develop a contingency plan if their hauler’s scales are inaccurate.

R4. Beginning November 30, 2024, cities should publish quarterly or annual waste reports with diversion and participation rates on their government websites.

R6. Starting April 1, 2025, cities that cannot separate waste tons and diversion rates by property type should conduct waste evaluations on highly contaminated routes more often.

R8. By February 1, 2025, jurisdictions should develop and implement new ways to make green bins usable in multi-family dwellings’ and businesses’ narrow or small waste enclosures.

REQUESTS FOR RESPONSES

Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05 the Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies.

Jurisdiction Findings Recommendations
Town of Atherton 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7
City of Brisbane 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Daly City 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Half Moon Bay 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of Millbrae 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 City of Pacifica 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
RethinkWaste JPA 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8

94 of 237

34 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

City of San Bruno 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
San Mateo County 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 1, 4, 8
City of South San Francisco 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Town of Woodside 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 4, 5, 6, 7

The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirement of the Brown Act.

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS

California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides the following regulations (emphasis added).

1.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
a.) The respondent agrees with the finding.
b.) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding; in which case the response shall specify the portion of the disputed finding and shall include an explanation of the reasons.

2.) For purposes of subdivision of Section 933, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
a.) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
b.) The recommendation has yet to be implemented but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
c.) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall be at most six months from the Grand Jury report's publication date.
d.) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore.

95 of 237

35 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

GLOSSARY

CalRecycle (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery) State department formed in 2010 that manages recycling and waste management programs to reduce waste and reuse all materials. Enforces the Integrated Waste Management Act and Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act so Californians can use less, recycle more, and take resource conservation to higher and higher levels. (Source: About Us CalRecycle)

County Service Area
County Service Areas (CSAs) are entities that provide government services by counties within unincorporated areas. It allows communities to fund a service by charging a direct assessment or property-related fee for services such as water and/or sewer service, road and/or drainage maintenance, street lighting, fire protection and/or landscaping. The County Board of Supervisors acts as the governing body for the County Service Areas. (Source: Special Districts in San Mateo County)

Disposal-Related Activities
Alternative daily cover
(ADC) and Alternative
intermediate cover (AIC)

The use of materials to cover
disposed waste in a landfill
cell at the end of the landfill
operating day (daily cover) or
at some other interval
(intermediate cover) to
control odors, fire, vectors,
litter, and scavenging. Green
and non-green ADC exist.

Engineered Municipal Solid
Waste (EMSW), waste-tire
derived fuel, and other
beneficial reuse (construction
or landscaping) at landfills
(such as construction
activities, landscaping, and
erosion control).

Transformation

The use of incineration,
pyrolysis, distillation, or
biological conversion to
combust unprocessed or
minimally processed solid
waste to produce electricity.

Transformation does not
include gasification,
composting, or biomass
conversion.
(Source: State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022)

Franchise Area
Franchised areas are communities where municipalities or special districts have used their bulk purchasing power to negotiate rates with a hauler to provide waste collection services. (Source:

Curbside Collection - SMC Sustainability Department)

96 of 237

36 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

High Diversion Organic Waste Processing Facilities (HDPFs) “High diversion organic waste processing facility” means a facility that is in compliance with the reporting requirements of Section 18815.5(d) and meets or exceeds an annual average mixed waste organic content recovery rate of 50 percent between January 1, 2022 and December 31, 2024, and 75 percent after January 1, 2025 as calculated pursuant to Section 18815.5(e) for organic waste received from the “Mixed Waste Organic Collection Stream” as defined in Section 17402(a)(11.5). (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, § 18982)

Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
A joint powers agency (JPA) consists of two or more public agencies that jointly exercise any power common to both through a joint powers agreement or contract. The agreement may set up a governing board composed of representatives of the contracting agencies and defines the JPA's governance and functions. (Source: Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County)

Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission
The Little Hoover Commission, formally known as the Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy, is an independent state oversight agency created in 1962. The Commission’s mission is to investigate state government operations and policy, and – through reports and legislative proposals – make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature to promote economy, efficiency and improved service in state operations. In addition, the Commission has a statutory obligation to review and make recommendations on all proposed government reorganization plans. (Source: About the Commission)

Organic Waste
“Organic waste” means solid wastes containing material originated from living organisms and their metabolic waste products including, but not limited to, food, green material, landscape and pruning waste, organic textiles and carpets, lumber, wood, paper products, printing and writing paper, manure, biosolids, digestate, and sludges. (Source: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, Cal.

Code Regs. tit. 14 § 18982 (2020))

RethinkWaste (South Bayside Waste Management Authority) In 1982, eleven local governments (Belmont, Burlingame, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo, San Mateo County and the West Bay Sanitary District) in San Mateo County formed RethinkWaste, AKA the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA). It is a joint powers authority that owns and manages the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos, California. The site receives all the

97 of 237

37 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

recyclables, green waste and garbage collected from the Member Agencies. Other responsibilities include supporting and managing service providers that collect, process, recycle and dispose of materials on behalf of the JPA. (Source: About RethinkWaste)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brisbane, Cal., n.d. “Waste and Recycling.” Accessed June 10, 2024. https://www.brisbaneca.org/publicworks/page/waste-and-recycling.

Browning, Corey. 2022. “New Compost Requirements in San Mateo County.” San Mateo Daily Journal, August 11, 2022. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/new-compost- requirements-in-san-mateo-county/article_8baa7ce6-45f6-11ec-9be7-8325579e56c6.html.

California Air Resources Board. 2023. “California Greenhouse Gas Emissions from 2000 to 2021: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.” Released December 14, 2023. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/2000_2021_ghg_inventory_trends.pdf.

California Air Resources Board. 2019. “Aerial methane survey finds a fraction of point sources responsible for more than a third of California’s methane emissions.” Released November 6, 2019. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/aerial-methane-survey-finds-fraction- point-sources-responsible-more-third-californias-
methane#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20survey%2C%20just,of%20California's%2 0total%20methane%20emissions.

California Department of Finance. 2024. “E-1 Cities, Counties, and the State Population and Housing Estimates with Annual Percent Change - January 1, 2023 and 2024.” Released May 1, 2024. https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates-e1/.

California Department of Finance. 2022. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011–2020, with 2010 Census Benchmark.” Last Revised May 2022. https://dof.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E- 4_2010-2020-Internet-Version.xlsx.

California Department of Finance. 2012. “E-4 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 & 2010 Census Counts.” Last Revised November 9, 2012. https://dof.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/sites/352/Forecasting/Demographics/Documents/E4_2000- 2010_Report_Final_EOC_000.xlsx.

98 of 237

38 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

California Health and Safety Code § 39711 (2014).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&divisio n=26.&title=&part=2.&chapter=4.1.&article=.

California Health and Safety Code § 39730.6 (2016).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&secti onNum=39730.6.

California Public Resources Code § 41780 (1989).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =41780.

California Public Resources Code § 42652.5 (2022).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&sectionNum =42652.5.

CalRecycle. 2024. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2022.” Released February 8, 2024. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1907.

CalRecycle. 2022a. “2021 Disposal Facility-Based Waste Characterization Data Tables.” Released November 2022. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Docs/Web/122544.

CalRecycle. 2022b. “Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Progress Report.” Accessed May 9, 2024.
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/DiversionDisposal.

CalRecycle. 2021. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2020.” Released December 28, 2021. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1754.

CalRecycle. 2020. “State of Disposal and Recycling in California for Calendar Year 2018.” Released April 6, 2020. https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Download/1453.

CalRecycle. n.d1. “Department-Approved Waivers for Reporting Entities.” Accessed May 5, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/waivers/approved/#LPWcities.

CalRecycle. n.d2. “Jurisdiction Enforcement.” Accessed June 21, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/enforcement/jurisdiction/.

CalRecycle. n.d3. “New Statewide Mandatory Organic Waste Collection.” Accessed May 19, 2024. https://calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/slcp/collection/.

99 of 237

39 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

DiNapoli, Alyse. 2024. “Garbage rates are set to jump in San Mateo.” San Mateo Daily Journal, April 18, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/garbage-rates-are-set-to- jump-in-san-mateo/article_87aa257e-eb21-11ee-a6a5-2f28cac97939.html.

D’Souza, Shereen. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 28:31-28:44. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023a. “City of Brisbane Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Edgar and Associates, Inc. 2023b. “City of South San Francisco Annual Report 2022.” Published August 1, 2023.

Granada Community Services District. n.d. “Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://granada.ca.gov/sewer-authority-mid-coastside.

GreenWaste. 2023. “2023 Annual Summary.” Accessed March 19, 2024.

GreenWaste. n.d. “Base Services and Example Service Scenarios.” Accessed April 5, 2024.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d1. “Pricing Increase/Franchise Addition.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/flyer.pdf.

Kunz Valley Trash. n.d2. “Services.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://www.kunzvalleytrash.com/services.asp.

Mata, Ana. 2024. “Redwood City set to hike garbage rates.” San Mateo Daily Journal, March 7, 2024. https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/redwood-city-set-to-hike-garbage- rates/article_2926b68c-d6b5-11ee-9986-9f933c36af5a.html.

Pacifica. n.d. “Below are the tonnages collected by Recology from May, 2022 through April 2023.” Released April 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2024. “Quarterly Report to the SBWMA for 4th Quarter 2023.” Released December 30, 2024.

Recology San Mateo County. 2023. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2022.” Released February 14, 2023. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/RSMC-Annual-Report- 2022.pdf.

100 of 237

40 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Recology San Mateo County. 2021. “Annual Report to the SBWMA for Year 2020.” Released February 14, 2021. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Recology-Annual- Report-2020.pdf

Republic Services. 2024a. “Quarterly Report for the City of Daly City Second Quarter Fiscal Year 2023/24.” Released January 30, 2024.

Republic Services. 2024b. “Quarterly Report for the City of Half Moon Bay Fourth Quarter Calendar Year 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” May 9, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet- 05092024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. 2024. “SBWMA Technical Advisory Committee Meeting.” March 14, 2024. https://rethinkwaste.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/RethinkWaste-TAC-Packet- 03142024.pdf.

RethinkWaste. n.d. “About.” Accessed May 5, 2024.
https://rethinkwaste.org/about/rethinkwaste/about/.

San Bruno. 2024. “City of San Bruno Data on Waste and Recycling Categories.” Released March 13, 2024.

San Mateo County. 2021. “Low Population Waiver Application for Unincorporated Portions of Counties (Special Districts Providing Solid Waste Collection Services): 9843 and 6138.” Signed December 21, 2021.

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury. 2019. “Planning for the County’s Waste Management Challenges.” Released July 30, 2019.
https://www.sanmateo.courts.ca.gov/system/files/waste_management.pdf.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2024. “Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance.” Updated April 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste- reduction/foodware#start-dates.

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. 2022. “Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated July 2022. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/foodware/facilities/faq/.

101 of 237

41 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

San Mateo County Sustainability Department. n.d. “Curbside Collection.” Accessed May 14, 2024. https://www.smcsustainability.org/waste-reduction/curbside-collection/.

San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). n.d. “Joint Powers Agencies Providing Municipal Services in San Mateo County.” Accessed May 18, 2024. https://www.smcgov.org/lafco/joint-powers-agencies-providing-municipal-services-san-mateo- county.

Short-Lived Climate Pollutants, California Code of Regulations (West) title 14, §§ 18982, 18984.2, 18984.9, 18984.11, 18984.12, 18993.1, 18993.3, 18997.2 (2020). https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulations ?guid=IB9B3A3D35B4D11EC976B000D3A7C4BC3&originationContext=documenttoc &transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&bhcp=1.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2024. “2023 Participation and Diversion Rates.” Compiled March 16, 2024.

South San Francisco Scavenger. 2023. “Quarterly Report: Period Ending December 31, 2023.” Accessed April 2, 2024.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. “Unemployment Rate [UNRATE], retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.” Last Updated May 3, 2024. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNRATE.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022a. “ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 16, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table?g=050XX00US06081&y=2022.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022b. “Total Population in Occupied Housing Units by Tenure by Year Householder Moved Into Unit: San Mateo County, California.” Accessed May 22, 2024. https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT1Y2022.B25026?q=san%20mateo%20county%202022&t= Year%20Householder%20Moved%20Into%20Unit.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2022c. “Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units.” Accessed June 9, 2024.
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST1Y2022.S2504?q=san%20mateo%20county&t=Year%20Str ucture%20Built&y=2022.

West Bay Sanitary District. n.d. “Areas of Coverage.” Accessed June 11, 2024. https://westbaysanitary.org/about-us/areas-of-coverage/.

102 of 237

42 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Wagoner, Rachel Machi. “Hearing on Organic Waste Recycling (Part 3), September 8, 2022.” Milton Marks Commission interview, 57:00-57:11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJbMlCaI9lc.

APPENDIXES

A. GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023

B. Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report

C. Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report

D. San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023

E. South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates

F. Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates

G. Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

103 of 237

43 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix A
GreenWaste Annual Summary 2023

104 of 237

44 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

105 of 237

45 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

106 of 237

46 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix B
Republic Services Daly City Q2 FY 2023-2024 Report

107 of 237

47 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix C
Republic Services Half Moon Bay Q4 2023 Report

108 of 237

48 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix D
San Bruno - Data on Waste and Recycling Categories 2023

109 of 237

49 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix E
South SF Scavenger 2023 Diversion Rates

110 of 237

50 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix F
Pacifica FY 2022-2023 Diversion Rates

111 of 237

51 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Appendix G
Recology San Mateo County February 2024 Participation Rate Tables

112 of 237

52 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

113 of 237

53 2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

Release Date: July 11, 2024
2023-2024 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

114 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Hae Won Ritchie, P.E., City Engineer/Deputy Public Works Director Dalia Manaois, P.E., Principal Civil Engineer
Jake Zhang, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution:
• Approving the Design of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project;
• Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with McKim Corporation for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project in an amount not to exceed $5,441,764.13;
• Approving a Construction Contingency of $820,000;
• Transferring the remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project to the 2024- 25 Street Rehabilitation Project;
• Approving a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $7,580,000; and • Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to repair and apply preventative maintenance treatment to local, collector, and arterial streets. As part of the PMP, the condition of City streets is routinely assessed and recommendations are made on the streets to be selected for rehabilitation to cost effectively maximize pavement longevity. Street condition is measured in terms of pavement condition index (PCI), a numerical index between 0 and 100 in which 0 represents a failed street and 100 represents a newly paved street. The City has a current average Citywide PCI of 62.

Similar to other cities throughout the Bay Area, the City utilizes the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) Streetsaver program to serve as a database for tracking the condition of the City’s streets and to recommend streets to be selected for treatment. Streetsaver analyzes the pavement lifecycle of each individual street segment to suggest the appropriate treatment to apply. Treatments vary from applying preventative maintenance on streets in good condition to reconstruction of failed streets. Reconstruction of failed streets is the most expensive treatment and can cost ten to twenty-five times as much as applying preventative maintenance to non- failed streets. Preventative maintenance is considered to be the most effective treatment due to this cost differential.

The proposed 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (“Project”) is a rehabilitation 115 of 237
Item 6h.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

8 7
1 project that will repair portions of existing pavement and prevent rapid deterioration to maximize pavement longevity at various locations and install accessible curb ramps within project limits.

On February 27, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for design and construction support services in the amount not to exceed $387,648 for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project. Bellecci & Associates, Inc. completed the final design in August 2024.

Project locations and limits consist of the streets listed below. These streets are shown in Attachment 3, Location Map.

Base Bid
Street Name From To
Acacia Avenue Crystal Springs Avenue Angus Avenue West
Allen Drive Longview Drive College Drive
Angus Avenue West 1 Elm Avenue Acacia Avenue
Angus Avenue West 2 Linden Avenue Elm Avenue
Angus Avenue West 3 El Camino Real Linden Avenue
Anza Way Santa Lucia Avenue North End
Balboa Way South End North End
Cabrillo Way South End North End
Cedar Avenue Niles Avenue Jenevein Avenue
Charleston Avenue Trenton Drive Crestmoor Drive
Cherry Avenue Niles Avenue Jenevein Avenue
Crystal Court Santa Lucia Avenue End
Cypress Avenue Crystal Springs Avenue Kains Avenue
De Soto Way Bayview Avenue Santa Lucia Avenue
Eldorado Court Crestmoor Drive Cul-de-Sac
Essex Court Trenton Drive End
Fernwood Drive Valleywood Drive End
Glen Avenue Santa Lucia Avenue End
Glenbrook Lane Rosewood Drive Cul-de-Sac
Kent Court Crestmoor Drive Cul-de-Sac
Linden Avenue Jenevein Avenue Kains Avenue
Maple Avenue Niles Avenue End
Mendicino Court Cul-de-Sac Sneath Lane
Moreland Drive City Limits Riverside Drive
Niles Avenue Oak Avenue Hawthorne Avenue
Pacific Height Boulevard Sharp Park Road Spyglass Drive Parkview Drive Santa Lucia Avenue Glen Avenue
Plumas Court Sneath Lane Cul-de-Sac
Portola Way End De Soto Way

116 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

8 7
1 Base Bid
Street Name From To
San Felipe Avenue El Camino Real City Park
Seacliff Way Pacific Heights Boulevard End
Spyglass Drive End End
Sunset Drive Moulton Drive Ysabel Drive
Williams Avenue Cypress Avenue Chestnut Avenue
The plans and specifications are available for the public to review at Department of Public Works Engineering Section in City Hall.

DISCUSSION:

The 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project Design was completed in August 2024.

In August 2024, staff issued a notice inviting bids for the construction of the Project. Notice to bidders was sent to contractors listed in the City’s contractor directory, posted on the City’s website and provided to construction bid distribution centers. The Project was advertised twice in the San Mateo County Times newspaper on August 23, 2024, and August 30, 2024. Staff held a non-mandatory pre-bid meeting on August 30, 2024. On September 9, 2024, staff conducted the bid opening for the project and received six (6) sealed bids as follows:

Contractor Total Bid Price

1. McKim Corporation $ 5,441,765

2. G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. $ 5,806,449

3. Ghilotti Bros., Inc. $ 5,977,732

4. O'Grady Paving, Inc. $ 6,057,382

5. DeSilva Gates Construction LLC $ 6,171,128

6. Interstate Grading & Paving, Inc. $ 6,315,168
Engineer’s Estimate $ 6,221,798
After a thorough review of the bid proposal from the lowest apparent bidder for responsiveness, compliance with bid specifications, and reference checks, staff recommends awarding the contract to McKim Corporation. McKim Corporation is a responsible bidder and submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $5,441,765, which was $780,033 lower than the engineer’s estimate. McKim Corporation has satisfactorily completed numerous paving construction work for public agencies including the Cities of Monterey, Watsonville, Capitola, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy. Based on their experience and performance, staff has determined that McKim Corporation meets the qualifications to perform the work for the Project as specified in the contract documents.

The City will be entering into an agreement for material and compaction testing services for the Project in the amount not to exceed $90,000.

Construction of the Project will have impacts on residents in the project vicinity such as temporary roadway closures, noise, dust, and accessibility in and out of private properties.

Parking will also be restricted within each roadway as construction work is occurring. At the end of each day, the roadways will be reopened, and on-street parking will be re-

117 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

8 7
1 established. Notification will be provided to the affected community via road signage including no parking signs.

Should the project be awarded, staff anticipates that construction will start in early Fall 2024 and be completed in early Summer 2025.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60039) and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60048) are projects within the approved CIP budget in the combined amount of $7,650,729. The approximate total cost of the project is $7,580,000, which is $70,729 lower than the total budget. To simplify project and contract administration, staff recommends transferring the entire remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60039) to the 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60048).

The estimated project costs are as follows:

Staff Project Management $ 325,000.00
Construction Contract (McKim Corporation) $ 5,441,764.13 Construction Contingency (15%) $ 820,000.00
Construction Material Testing $ 90,000.00
Construction Management and Inspection $ 900,000.00 Estimated Legal Fees $ 2,000.00
Estimated Total Project Cost (rounded) $ 7,580,000.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

This project falls within the Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(c) Class 1, which exempts the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities including existing streets involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Adoption of a Resolution:
• Approving the Design of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project; • Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with McKim Corporation for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project in an amount not to exceed $5,441,764.13;
• Approving a Construction Contingency of $820,000;
• Transferring the remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 2023- 24 Street Rehabilitation Project to the 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project; • Approving a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $7,580,000; and • Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act

118 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

8 7
1 ALTERNATIVES:

1. Reject all bids and direct staff to re-advertise the Project. This action will delay the completion of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project and construction costs may increase.

2. Do not award the construction contract and do not complete the Project.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. CIP Budget

3. Location Map

119 of 237

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING THE DESIGN OF THE 2023-24 AND 2024-25 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT;

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MCKIM CORPORATION FOR THE 2023-24 AND 2024-25 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $5,441,764.13; APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY OF $820,000; TRANSFERRING THE REMAINING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $2,240,000 FROM THE 2023-24 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT TO THE 2024-25 STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT; APPROVING A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,580,000;

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes the Pavement Management Program (PMP) to repair and apply preventative maintenance treatment to local, collector, and arterial streets; and
WHEREAS, as part of the PMP, the condition of City streets is routinely assessed and recommendations are made on the streets to be selected for rehabilitation to cost effectively maximize pavement longevity; and
WHEREAS, the proposed 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (“Project”) is a rehabilitation project that will repair portions of existing pavement and prevent rapid deterioration to maximize pavement longevity at various locations and install accessible curb ramps within project limits; and
WHEREAS, on February 27, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Bellecci & Associates, Inc. for design and construction support services in the amount not to exceed $387,648 for the 2023-24 and 2024- 25 Street Rehabilitation Project; and
WHEREAS, the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project Design was completed in August 2024; and
WHEREAS, in August 2024, staff issued a notice inviting bids for the construction of the Project; and
WHEREAS, notice to bidders was sent to contractors listed in the City’s contractor directory, posted on the City’s website and provided to construction bid distribution centers; and
WHEREAS, the Project was advertised twice in the San Mateo County Times newspaper on August 23, 2024, and August 30, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2024, staff conducted the bid opening for the project and received six (6) sealed bids; and
WHEREAS, after a thorough review of the bid proposal from the lowest apparent bidder for responsiveness, compliance with bid specifications, and reference checks, staff recommends awarding the contract to McKim Corporation; and 120 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
2 WHEREAS, McKim Corporation is a responsible bidder and submitted the lowest responsive bid in the amount of $5,441,765, which was $780,033 lower than the engineer’s estimate; and
WHEREAS, the City will be entering into an agreement for material and compaction testing services for the Project in the amount not to exceed $90,000; and WHEREAS, should the project be awarded, staff anticipates that construction will start in early Fall 2024 and be completed in early Summer 2025; and WHEREAS, the 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60039) and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60048) are projects within the approved CIP budget in the combined amount of $7,650,729; and
WHEREAS, the approximate total cost of the project is $7,580,000, which is $70,729 lower than the total budget; and
WHEREAS, to simplify project and contract administration, staff recommends transferring the entire remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60039) to the 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project (Project #60048); and
WHEREAS, this project falls within the Categorical Exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section15301(c), which exempts the repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing use.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Bruno City Council hereby:

1. Approves the Design of the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with McKim Corporation for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project in an amount not to exceed $5,441,764.13;

3. Approves a Construction Contingency of $820,000;

4. Transfers the remaining budget in the amount of approximately $2,240,000 from the 2023-24 Street Rehabilitation Project to the 2024-25 Street Rehabilitation Project;

5. Approves a Total Project Budget in the Amount of $7,580,000;

6. Determines the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 24, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

121 of 237

City Council Adopted Budget - Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Streets Capital Improvement Program
Project Summary

TOTAL APPROVED FUNDING

PROJ ECT NAME
FY25 ADOPTED

BUDGET ACTUALS AS
OF 6/ 30/ 23 FY24 BUDGET
TOTAL

BUDGET &

ACTUALS

FUTURE YEARS,

UNFUNDED
Accessible Pedestrian Ramps at Various
Locations $50,000 $325,073 $484,215 $859,288 $300,000
BART Right-Of-Way Transfer - 68,586 53,294 121,880 -
Bicycle and Pedest rian Im provem ent s
Program - 762,696 4,799,304 5,562,000 1,615,000
Bayhill Drive and El Camino Real - - 285,000 285,000 1,615,000 Huntington Ave Improvements - 731,458 3,685,542 4,417,000 - Near Mills Park Development - - 100,000 100,000 -
San Bruno Bicycle Route Installation - 31,238 728,762 760,000 - Crystal Springs Road Utility
Undergrounding Project Phase I - 21,698 978,302 1,000,000 4,800,000 Downtown Parking Program - 16,387 314,613 331,000 -
Elm and Linden Avenue Bicycle Boulevards - - 100,000 100,000 400,000 Pavem ent Managem ent Program 5,340,729 672,799 14,707,191 20,720,719 - FY22 Street Reconstruction Project - 456,357 2,798,972 3,255,329 - FY23 Street Rehabilitation Project - 216,443 7,673,557 7,890,000 - FY24 Street Reconstruction Project - - 1,088,061 1,088,061 - FY24 Slurry Seal - - 836,600 836,600 -
FY24 Street Rehabilitation Project - - 2,310,000 2,310,000 - FY25 Street Rehabilitation Project 5,340,729 - - 5,340,729 - 180
122 of 237
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Adopted Budget - Fiscal Year 2024-25 (FY25) Project No. 60032, 60039, NEW
The Street Rehabilitation Project is designed to assess and improve the condition of streets that are beyond the scope of preventative maintenance, as determined by the Pavement Management Program. This initiative involves a thorough evaluation of the pavement's current state,
followed by comprehensive rehabilitation efforts. Key to this process is the removal of old or damaged asphalt
concrete and its subsequent replacement. This step is
crucial for eliminating existing surface defects that can compromise the integrity and safety of the road

SOURCE OF FUNDS

TOTAL BUDGET
& ACTUALS

FUTURE YEARS,

UNFUNDED
General Fund $4,590,729
$216,443 $9,983,557 $15,540,729 $0
Special Revenue Funds 750,000
Enterprise Funds 0
Outside Funding 0
Total $5,340,729 $216,443 $9,983,557 $15,540,729 $0

ACTUALS AS OF
6/ 30/ 23
FY25 APPROVED

TOTAL APPROVED FUNDING
FY24 BUDGET

TIMELINE
Initial funding year 2017=18
T arget Completion On-going

TOTAL NON-GENERAL FUND SOURCES, ALL YEARS
Measure A $650,000
Measure W 1,400,000
Streets Capital
Pavement Management Program - Street Rehabilitation
192
123 of 237
124 of 237
ATTACHMENT 3

125 of 237

126 of 237

127 of 237

128 of 237

129 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director & CFO SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Updating the “City of San Bruno Employee Hourly Pay Schedule 2024” Effective September 23, 2024 BACKGROUND:

The City regularly reviews its staffing model and has identified several modifications to job classifications to improve service provision to the community. This includes changes in the City Manager’s Office, Administrative Services, and Community Development departments. In order to establish positions to accommodate these changing needs, the City must adopt a salary schedule with the names and compensation ranges. These positions are fully funded within the City Council’s Fiscal year 2024-25 (FY25) Adopted Budget and do not require any action by City Council beyond addition to the salary schedule.

The City Manager has authority to establish the position classifications as the Personnel Officer, in accordance with the San Bruno Municipal Code section titled 2.36 Personnel System. The City Council retains authority to approve the budget staffing plan and pay plan, including the City’s salary schedule.

DISCUSSION:

City Manager’s Office
The City Council appointed an ad hoc committee to review the employment agreement of the City Manager. The ad hoc committee recommends an increase to the annual salary for City Council consideration on September 24, 2024. The change reflects an increase of 3.75% to the annual salary which equates to a total of $332,000. The update is reflected in the salary schedule and is effective July 1, 2024.

Administrative Services Department
The City’s accounting function does not include authorized classifications that offer staffing flexibility. To provide both internal development paths within the accounting function and to allow the City to distribute duties across a wider range of positions, the Department recommends the establishment of the Accounting Supervisor to provide a level between Accountant and Accounting Manager. This change is equivalent to the Financial Services Manager.
130 of 237
Item 6i.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

8 2
6 Clerical changes
To bring the name of the supervisory Finance generalist series in line with contemporary naming conventions, the salary schedule also includes a name change of Financial Services Manager to Finance Manager. This does not change the pay range.

With the consolidation of the Human Resources, Finance and IT Divisions to Administrative Services Department, the Human Resources Director/Chief People Officer is removed from the salary schedule as this position’s duties have been redistributed within Administrative Services.

Community Development Department
Identified as part of the FY25 budget adoption process, the Community Development Department recommends a change in each the Planning and Building divisions. In the Planning Division, the recommendation is for an additional final step in the professional Planner classification series with a Principal Planner. This addition to the job family series allows for flexibility when assigning planning responsibilities, ranging from the routine at the Assistant Planner level up through the most complex at the Principal Planner level and also allowing internal progression paths.

In the Building Division, a change is recommended from Building Division Supervisor to Deputy Building Official in recognition of its position as the second-in-command of the function and a title which is currently more common. Commensurate with this is a change to the range to align it with the Principal Planner, a position with similar span of control within the organization.

Summary of changes
The recommendations do not change the number of budgeted full-time equivalent FTEs. The changes to positions, titles, and ranges are reflected in the full salary schedule, and changes are presented below.

Position title Change type Previous Updated Change
(%)
City Manager Compensation $153.85 per
hour
$159.62 per hour 3.75%
Accounting
Supervisor
Add position N/A $49.76-61.07 per hour;
internal alignment with
Financial Services
Supervisor
N/A
Deputy Building
Official
Position title Building Division
Supervisor
Deputy Building
Official
N/A
Deputy Building
Official
Compensation N/A $64.01-78.55 per hour;
internal alignment with
Principal Planner
N/A
Finance Manager Position title Financial
Services
Manager
Finance Manager N/A
Principal Planner Add position N/A $64.01-78.55 per hour N/A Human Resources
Director/Chief
People Officer
Remove
position
Human
Resources
Director/Chief
People Officer

N/A N/A

131 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

8 2
6 FISCAL IMPACT:

The changes to the salary schedule have no fiscal impact as they have been fully funded in the City Council’s FY25 Adopted Budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The action is not a project subject to CEQA.  City Council’s action is not considered a “Project” per CEQA Guidelines and therefore no further environmental analysis is required.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider Adoption of a Resolution Updating the “City of San Bruno Employee Hourly Pay Schedule 2024” Effective September 23, 2024.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Amended Employee Hourly Pay Schedule 2024

132 of 237

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - __

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO UPDATING THE “CITY OF SAN BRUNO EMPLOYEE HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE 2024” EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 23, 2024
WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno is committed to maintaining and enhancing its service delivery to the community while addressing financial challenges; and WHEREAS, the ad hoc committee appointed by the City Council recommends a 3.75% increase to the base salary for the City Manager position effective July 1, 2024; and WHEREAS, the accounting function currently has limited flexibility in assigning duties and creating an internal promotional path; and
WHEREAS, the planning function currently has a job family of planner which has internal flexibility except in the case of the most complex projects; and WHEREAS, the contemporary market positioning for several supervisory positions provides an opportunity to bring the position titles in line with other agencies; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2024-25 budget combined departments and removed the long-term need for the Human Resources Director/Chief People Officer position; and WHEREAS, the City Council must adopt a resolution to set the salary schedule, incorporating the necessary changes to positions and ranges.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Bruno as follows:

1. The City Council adopts the amended salary schedule effective September 23, 2024, incorporating:
a. A change to the compensation of the City Manager position, and b. The addition of Accounting Supervisor and Principal Planner, and c. The change of titles from Financial Services Manager to Finance Manager and Building Division Supervisor to Deputy Building Official, and d. The deletion of Human Resources Director/Chief People Officer.

2. The City Manager or designee is authorized to take any necessary administrative actions to implement the provisions of this resolution.

Exhibit A: Amended Employee Hourly Pay Schedule 2024
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 24, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
133 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A
CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT* EFFECTIVE DATE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 CITY MANAGER N/A - agreement 9/23/2024 159.62$
CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT* EFFECTIVE DATE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 ACCOUNTANT Mid-Management 1/1/2024 43.40$ 45.68$ 48.08$ 50.60$ 53.26$ ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 29.36 30.90 32.52 34.23 36.03 ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 33.76 35.53 37.40 39.36 41.42 ACCOUNTING & CUSTOMER SERVICE REP III Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 38.83 40.87 43.02 45.27 47.65 ACCOUNTING MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 60.39 63.57 66.90 70.41 74.11 ACCOUNTING SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 9/23/2024 49.76 52.37 55.13 58.02 61.07 ASSISTANT ENGINEER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 49.85 52.47 55.22 58.12 61.17 ASSISTANT PLANNER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 40.92 43.07 45.33 47.71 50.22 ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 57.32 60.33 63.50 66.84 70.34 ASSOCIATE PLANNER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 47.06 49.53 52.13 54.87 57.74 DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL BUILDING DIVISION SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 9/23/2024 64.01 67.37 70.90 74.63 78.55 BUILDING INSPECTOR I Mid-Management 1/1/2024 41.94 44.14 46.46 48.90 51.47 BUILDING INSPECTOR II Mid-Management 1/1/2024 47.06 49.53 52.13 54.87 57.74 CATV BUSINESS MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 60.39 63.57 66.90 70.41 74.11 CATV DIRECTOR (CITYNET SERVICES DIRECTOR) Management 1/1/2024 95.27 100.28 105.54 111.08 116.91 CATV HEADEND TECHNICIAN Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 44.87 47.23 49.71 52.32 55.06 CATV PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 50.84 53.52 56.33 59.28 62.39 CATV SYSTEM ENGINEER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 60.39 63.57 66.90 70.41 74.11 CATV TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 38.44 40.46 42.58 44.82 47.17 CATV TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 CATV TECHNICIAN III Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 40.79 42.93 45.19 47.56 50.06 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Mid-Management 1/1/2024 68.30 71.88 75.66 79.63 83.81 CITYNET SERVICES TECHNICAL MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 59.74 62.88 66.18 69.65 73.31 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER I Police 1/1/2024 39.18 41.24 43.40 45.68 48.08 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER II Police 1/1/2024 43.10 45.36 47.74 50.24 52.88 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Management 1/1/2024 92.91 97.78 102.92 108.32 114.01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR Management 1/1/2024 93.43 98.33 103.49 108.93 114.65 COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICER II Police 1/1/2024 29.27 30.80 32.42 34.12 35.91 COMMUNITY SERVICES SUPERINTENDENT Mid-Management 1/1/2024 59.65 62.79 66.08 69.55 73.20 COMMUNITY SERVICES TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 COMMUNITY SERVICES TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 CITY OF SAN BRUNO EMPLOYEE HOURLY PAY SCHEDULE 2024
1 of 4
134 of 237
ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A
CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT* EFFECTIVE DATE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 COMPUTER SUPPORT TECHNICIAN Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.43 41.50 43.68 45.98 48.39 CUSTODIAN Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 31.38 33.03 34.77 36.59 38.52 CUSTODIAL SERVICES LEADER Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 36.09 37.98 39.98 42.08 44.29 DEPUTY DIRECTOR - COMM SERVICE Mid-Management 1/1/2024 68.75 72.36 76.17 80.16 84.37 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Admin & Engineering Mid-Management 1/1/2024 78.50 82.62 86.95 91.52 96.32 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Utilities & Operations Mid-Management 1/1/2024 73.51 77.37 81.43 85.71 90.21 DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIR - PW Utilities & Operations with PE Mid-Management 1/1/2024 78.50 82.62 86.95 91.52 96.32 ENGINEER TECH/PW INSPECTOR Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 45.18 47.55 50.05 52.67 55.44 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 37.09 39.04 41.09 43.25 45.52 FACILITIES TECH I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 FACILITIES TECH II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 FIELD SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 46.36 48.79 51.35 54.05 56.88 FIELD SUPERVISOR - CATV Mid-Management 1/1/2024 46.36 48.79 51.35 54.05 56.88 FIELD SUPERVISOR - PARKS Mid-Management 1/1/2024 46.36 48.79 51.35 54.05 56.88 FINANCE MANAGER Mid-Management 9/23/2024 60.39 63.57 66.90 70.41 74.11 FINANCIAL SERVICES SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 49.76 52.37 55.13 58.02 61.07 FIRE BATTALION CHIEF Public Safety Mid-Management 1/1/2024 83.63 88.02 92.64 97.50 102.62 FIRE CAPTAIN Fire 1/1/2024 64.23 67.60 71.15 74.89 78.82 FIRE CHIEF Management 1/1/2024 106.74 112.34 118.24 124.45 130.98 FIRE INSPECTOR Fire 1/1/2024 49.11 51.69 54.40 57.25 60.26 FIREFIGHTER Fire 1/1/2024 53.09 55.88 58.81 61.90 65.15 FIREFIGHTER RECRUIT Fire 1/1/2024 47.79 - - - - FOOD SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 36.35 38.26 40.26 42.38 44.60 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATE Mid-Management 1/1/2024 46.23 48.66 51.21 53.90 56.73 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 63.98 67.33 70.87 74.59 78.51 LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE & TECH SUPPORT REP Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 43.49 45.77 48.18 50.71 53.37 LEAD MAINTENANCE WORKER Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 LEAD WATER SYSTEM OPERATOR - PUMPS Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 46.19 48.62 51.17 53.86 56.68 LEAD WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR - FIELD Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 46.19 48.62 51.17 53.86 56.68 LEAD WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR - WELLS Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 46.19 48.62 51.17 53.86 56.68 LIBRARIAN I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 36.12 38.01 40.01 42.11 44.32 LIBRARIAN II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 41.53 43.71 46.00 48.42 50.97 LIBRARY ASSISTANT I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 27.48 28.93 30.44 32.04 33.73 LIBRARY ASSISTANT II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 31.62 33.28 35.03 36.87 38.80 LIBRARY SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 36.35 38.26 40.26 42.38 44.60 LIBRARY SERVICES MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 55.28 58.18 61.23 64.45 67.83 MAINTENANCE SERVICES MANAGER SERIES Mid-Management 1/1/2024 59.74 62.88 66.18 69.65 73.31 MAINTENANCE WORKER I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 29.93 31.50 33.16 34.90 36.73 MAINTENANCE WORKER II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 MANAGEMENT ANALYST I Mid-Management 1/1/2024 42.34 44.56 46.90 49.36 51.95 MANAGEMENT ANALYST II Mid-Management 1/1/2024 48.68 51.24 53.93 56.76 59.74 MECHANIC I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 2 of 4

135 of 237

Exhibit A
CLASSIFICATION BARGAINING UNIT* EFFECTIVE DATE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 MECHANIC II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 NUTRITION PROGRAM MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 45.48 47.87 50.38 53.03 55.81 PARKS AND FACILITIES MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 57.13 60.13 63.29 66.61 70.11 PARKS MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I {UTILITY I - TREE I} Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 PARKS MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II {UTILITY II - TREEII} Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 PLANNING AND HOUSING MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 65.20 68.63 72.23 76.02 80.01 POLICE CAPTAIN Public Safety Mid-Management 1/1/2024 93.31 98.20 103.36 108.79 114.50 POLICE CHIEF Management 1/1/2024 106.74 112.34 118.24 124.45 130.98 POLICE CLERK I Police 1/1/2024 31.43 33.08 34.81 36.64 38.56 POLICE CLERK II Police 1/1/2024 34.56 36.38 38.29 40.30 42.42 POLICE COMMUNICATIONS & RECORDS SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 61.70 64.94 68.35 71.94 75.72 POLICE CORPORAL Police 1/1/2024 56.33 59.28 62.39 65.67 69.12 POLICE LIEUTENANT Public Safety Mid-Management 1/1/2024 80.03 84.23 88.65 93.31 98.20 POLICE OFFICER Police 1/1/2024 52.40 55.15 58.04 61.09 64.30 POLICE RECRUIT Police 1/1/2024 47.16 - - - - POLICE SERGEANT Public Safety Mid-Management 1/1/2024 64.53 67.92 71.48 75.24 79.19 PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 68.99 72.62 76.43 80.45 84.67 PRINCIPAL PLANNER Mid-Management 9/23/2024 64.01 67.37 70.90 74.63 78.55 PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN Police 1/1/2024 33.20 34.94 36.78 38.71 40.74 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER I Police 1/1/2024 40.98 43.13 45.39 47.78 50.28 PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCHER II Police 1/1/2024 45.07 47.43 49.93 52.55 55.30 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR Management 1/1/2024 95.27 100.28 105.54 111.08 116.91 PUMP MECHANIC I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 PUMP MECHANIC II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 RECREATION SERVICES COORDINATOR Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 36.35 38.26 40.26 42.38 44.60 RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 50.67 53.33 56.13 59.08 62.18 RECREATION SERVICES SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 46.36 48.79 51.35 54.05 56.88 SECRETARY Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 33.72 35.49 37.35 39.31 41.38 SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 63.16 66.48 69.97 73.64 77.51 SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Police 1/1/2024 48.50 51.05 53.72 56.54 59.52 SENIOR PLANNER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 55.66 58.58 61.66 64.89 68.30 SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 51.84 54.56 57.42 60.44 63.61 WAREHOUSE CLERK Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 29.93 31.50 33.16 34.90 36.73 WATER FIELD SERVICE SUPERVISOR Mid-Management 1/1/2024 52.11 54.84 57.72 60.75 63.94 WATER QUALITY & PROD SUP Mid-Management 1/1/2024 52.11 54.84 57.72 60.75 63.94 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 34.44 36.24 38.15 40.15 42.25 WATER QUALITY TECHNICIAN II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 39.61 41.69 43.88 46.18 48.60 WATER SYSTEM & CONSERVATION MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 54.83 57.70 60.73 63.92 67.28 WATER SYSTEMS MANAGER Mid-Management 1/1/2024 59.92 63.06 66.38 69.86 73.53 WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR I Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 35.12 36.96 38.90 40.94 43.10 WATER SYSTEMS OPERATOR II Miscellaneous 1/1/2024 40.17$ 42.28$ 44.50$ 46.83$ 49.29$ 3 of 4

136 of 237

Exhibit A
CLASSIFICATION BENEFIT PLAN** EFFECTIVE DATE STEP 1 STEP 2 STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I Unrepresented 9/1/2024 47.04$ 49.51$ 52.11$ 54.85$ 57.72$ ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST II Unrepresented 9/1/2024 54.09 Open range 66.38 ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN I Unrepresented 9/1/2024 39.35 41.41 43.58 45.87 48.28 ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN II Unrepresented 9/1/2024 46.29 48.72 51.28 53.97 56.80 ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR Unrepresented 9/1/2024 87.22 Open range 107.03 ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Unrepresented 9/1/2024 111.18 Open range 136.44 ASSISTANT TO CITY MANAGER Unrepresented 9/1/2024 67.10 Open range 82.35 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR/CFO Unrepresented 9/1/2024 103.09 Open range 128.90 CITY CLERK Unrepresented 9/1/2024 65.15 Open range 79.95 DEPUTY CITY CLERK Unrepresented 9/1/2024 42.04 44.24 46.56 49.01 51.58 EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER Unrepresented 9/1/2024 46.29 48.72 51.28 53.97 56.80 HR DIRECTOR/CHIEF PEOPLE OFFICER Unrepresented 9/23/2024 102.25 Open range 125.47 HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER Unrepresented 9/1/2024 67.10 Open range 82.35 PRINCIPAL SPECIAL PROJECTS MANAGER Unrepresented 9/1/2024 87.22 Open range 107.03 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Unrepresented 9/1/2024 62.20 Open range 76.33 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE TECHNICIAN Unrepresented 9/1/2024 53.23$ 56.03$ 58.97$ 62.06$ 65.32$ * Hourly salaries based on 2080 hours per year; standard workweek of 40 hours except shift work ** Hourly salaries based on 1872 hours per year; standard workweek of 36 hours Adopted [date], Resolution No. [XXXX]
4 of 4

137 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Rico E. Medina, Mayor
PREPARED BY: Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement Between the City of San Bruno and Alex D.

McIntyre
BACKGROUND:

The City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre entered into an employment agreement for city manager services on July 1, 2023. This employment agreement contains the salary, benefits, terms and conditions of Mr. McIntyre’s employment with the City. The parties amended the Agreement on January 9, 2024 to adjust Mr. McIntyre’s vacation accrual to align with Mr.

McIntyre’s prior years of service.

DISCUSSION:

The agreement provides an annual base salary of $320,000 and the parties propose to increase the annual base salary by 3.75%. The proposed resolution approves a second amendment to the agreement to provide an annual base salary of $332,000, effective July 1, 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Sufficient funds are included in the General Fund contingency budget for the increase.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The proposed contract amendment is not a project under CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre.

ALTERNATIVES:

Do not adopt a Resolution approving the Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
138 of 237
Item 6j.
2 7
3 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - __

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING THE

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
WHEREAS, the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre (“Manager”) entered into that certain City Manager Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2023, which the parties amended pursuant to that certain First Amendment to City Manager Employment Agreement, dated as of January 9, 2024 (together, the “Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the Agreement provides that Manager shall receive an annual base salary of $320,000; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to increase the annual base salary by 3.75%.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of San Bruno that it hereby approves the Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of San Bruno and Alex D. McIntyre, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

Exhibit A: Second Amendment to the City Manager Employment Agreement ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 24, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
139 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
2 7
3 2

EXHIBIT A

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
[see attached]

140 of 237

- 1 -
13106-0002\3014363v1.doc

SECOND AMENDMENT TO

CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AND ALEX D. MCINTYRE
This Second Amendment (“Amendment”) to Employment Agreement by and between the City of San Bruno, a California municipal corporation, and Alex D.

McIntyre, an individual, is made as of and entered into as of July 1, 2024 (the “Effective Date”).

RECITALS
A. Pursuant to that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2023, by and between the City of San Bruno, a California municipal corporation (“City”), and Alex D. McIntyre, an individual (“Manager”), as amended by the First Amendment to Employment Agreement, dated as of January 9, 2024 (together, the “Agreement”), the City employs Manager as City Manager.

B. The Agreement provides that Manager shall receive an annual base salary of $320,000.

C. The parties desire to increase the annual base salary by 3.75%.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and the performance by the parties of the promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the City and Manager agree as provided in this Amendment.

1. Amendment. Section 5.A. of the Agreement is amended to increase the annual base salary from $320,000 to $332,000.

2. Other Terms and Conditions Unchanged. Except as expressly amended by the Amendment, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged.
141 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1, Exhibit A
- 2 -
13106-0002\3014363v1.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be signed and executed personally as the date and year first written above.

ALEX D. MCINTYRE, an individual:

Alex D. McIntyre
CITY OF SAN BRUNO:
_____________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney

142 of 237

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Travis Karlen, Community Services Director SUBJECT: Consider Adoption of a Resolution Approving the Design for the Florida Park Project; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. for the Florida Park Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $1,343,506; Approving a Construction Contingency of $201,500; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Project Management Contract with Wilsey Ham in an Amount Not to Exceed $229,674 for Comprehensive Project Management; and Determining the Project is Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act
BACKGROUND:

In October 2014, City Council authorized the purchase of 324 Florida Avenue for use as a neighborhood park. Work began in 2016 with demolition and remediation of the property and a community engagement process with local residents in the design of the future park. On October 25, 2016, City Council approved the Florida Avenue Draft Master Plan, park design concept, and the architectural design services contract for the design phase. The design phase included civil and architectural design including grading plans, planting plans and plant palette, landscape layout, materials plans, irrigation area plans, lighting and electrical plans, and equipment selection such as play equipment, benches, trash receptacles, and picnic tables.

On August 22, 2017, the City Council approved a construction contract with Star Construction, Inc. for the Florida Avenue Park Project. During the project submittal phase, the Contractor identified and requested changes and clarifications related to the design and construction documents. The City did not issue the notice to proceed for the construction work and decided to terminate the contract before work commenced in November 2017. Since that time, City staff has worked with the landscape architecture firm to identify various revisions to construction documents and work through various concerns that were raised about the design and the site.

One of the more significant concerns involved the potential removal of two remaining/ heritage trees on the site to protect public health and safety and avoid newfound/increased maintenance costs. This decision is linked to the preferred layout of the park.

City staff brought this issue to the attention of the Parks and Recreation Commission at their regular Commission meeting held on September 19, 2018 and received a recommendation on the preferred layout in order to move forward with preparation of final design plans/ specifications as well as preparation of the site and documents to rebid the project for 143 of 237
Item 6k.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

8 6
6 construction. Specifically, the Commission recommended to proceed with the recommendation of staff to remove both trees.

Following the Park and Recreation Commission meeting, staff posted the trees for removal in accordance with Municipal Code §8.25.020, which requires a 10-day noticing period. The tree removal was appealed, and later the appeal was denied by the City Council. Following the City Council’s denial of the appeal, the attorney representing the appellants (“Friends of Florida Park”) stated that they would sue the City based on alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) if the trees were removed. To avoid a potentially lengthy delay caused by litigation, the City agreed to defer removing the trees and met with the appellants and their attorney to discuss whether the matter could be resolved without significantly reducing the useable area of the park, unwarranted expense to relocate or redesign its key features, or unsustainable maintenance requirements.

Following several months of discussions, the City and appellants reached a settlement in which the City would remove the pine and retain the cedar. The City would agree to plant a mature coast live oak in the park in place of the pine. The oak would be approximately 20-25’ high and about 18’ in breadth. The appellants requested that the City pay their attorney fees to resolve the threat of litigation, and because CEQA allows recovery of attorney’s fees in court, the City also agreed to pay the appellants’ attorney $15,000. In exchange, the appellants would withdraw their appeal and release the City from all related claims. Per the settlement, the City would consider a revised plan for the park that includes the oak in place of the pine, or in another suitable location within the park.

Staff worked with the landscape design firm MIG to finalize a new park design. This revised conceptual Florida Park Master Plan design was approved by City Council on September 24, 2019. The revised design retains all of the park’s previously approved features, makes the modifications previously suggested by staff at the November 2018 City Council meeting, and retains the cedar and removes the pine, which would be replaced with a mature coast live oak.

The Florida Avenue Park Master Plan was developed through this multi-step process outlined above. The Master Plan includes the following features:

•Park entrance with heart benches and iconic sign
•Seating, drinking foundation, and a picnic table;
•New street trees and sidewalks;
•Children’s play area with play equipment and rubberized play surfacing; •Adult exercise court with synthetic safety surfacing;
•New mature trees including a 108“ box coast live oak tree and preservation of the existing cedar tree;
•Urban woodlands with low evergreen ground cover and multi-trunk native trees; •Pedestrian paths with seating and scored ton paving; and, •Lawn area with grass.

On May 26, 2020, Council adopted resolution 2020-36 authorizing a restart of the Florida Avenue Park project with MIG. Included in this scope was the development of construction documents that would serve to position the project as more competitive in future grant processes.

144 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

8 6
6 City Staff has applied for two grants through the Prop 68 Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program to fund this park development but was unsuccessful in both attempts. The last round of grants through this source has been completed.

On March 28, 2023, Staff brought forward to the City Council an item to consider restoring funding for the Florida Avenue Park Construction CIP project through an appropriation of $2,000,000 from the Development Impact Fees – Community Impact Fees Subaccount which was approved.

Additionally, during the CIP budget process for FY 2024/25, staff made a request for $400,000 to ensure that the budget would allow for project management and contingency based on construction inflation which was approved.

Staff worked with MIG in early 2024 to finalize plans and estimates for the construction of Florida Park, consistent with the conceptual Florida Park Master Plan(”The Project”). The Project consists of the construction of new/replacement landscaping, benches, an exercise/fitness court, fencing, lighting, picnic tables, paving, and a playground. All required tree removals have been completed. No restroom structures or any other structures are included in the project. The final designs are on file with the Community Services Director’s Office within the Recreation and Aquatic Center and are available for review by the Council at that location.

On June 24, 2024, staff issued a notice inviting bids for the construction of the Project. The notice inviting bids was sent to contractors, posted on the City’s website, and provided to construction distribution rooms. The Project was also advertised twice in the San Mateo Daily Journal newspaper on July 3, 2024, and July 9, 2024.

DISCUSSION:

On August 22, 2024, staff conducted the bid opening for the project and received five bids. The award of bid was based on the lowest responsive bid amount:

Construction Company Bid Amount
Redwood Engineering Construction $1,839,000
Frontline General Engineering Construction $1,834,585
Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc. $1,343,506
Brannon Corporation $1,839,808
Interstate Grading and Paving $1,854,390
The lowest base bid received was from Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,343,506. Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. has completed numerous similar projects for public agencies such as Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, Emeryville, and San Jose. In addition, they were selected for the Centennial Plaza Improvement project and are in their final phase of construction. Based on their experience and performance with these public agencies and the City of San Bruno, staff determined that Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. meets the qualifications to perform the work for the Project as specified in the contract documents.

This Project is consistent with community input received during the Foundation’s Community Listening Campaign 2.0, where downtown San Bruno upgrades and beautification were

145 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

8 6
6 identified as a top community need. In the follow-up to adopting Strategic Plan 2.0, the Board in 2021 identified community-building and economic vitality among its strategic grant-making priorities. Additionally, this project is in line with one of the City Council’s FY 2024/25 Strategic Initiatives.

If the City Council approves this Project, to increase capacity to deliver the Project, staff is recommending procuring comprehensive project and construction management support. Staff referred to the City’s on-call list for project and construction management and inspection services to provide this service. The City received two proposals for this service.

Construction Company Proposal Amount
Wilsey Ham $229,674
MCK Americas $226,308
Staff is recommending Wilsey Ham. They provided a more comprehensive approach managing the project. Additionally, Wilsey Ham managed the Centennial Plaza Improvement project at a high satisfaction rate.

To provide design support during construction, MIG will be retained to respond to questions regarding the design, approve submittals, and complete the as-built drawings.

Should the project be awarded, Staff anticipates starting construction in November/December 2024, and the project will take approximately 200 working days.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The adopted budget includes $2,995,422 for this project with $2,373,497 remaining. The cost for construction, contingency and project management totals $1,774,680. The estimated budget remaining after the recommended City Council action is approximately $598,817.

Estimated total Project costs are as follows:

Consultant Design - Completed $202,665
Miscellaneous (Engineering Review, Mitigation, Grading, Landscape, Irrigation, Etc) - Completed
$606,503
Legal Ad and Bid Publication - Completed $2,774
Construction Contract $1,343,506
Construction Contingency $201,500
Project Management $229,674
Total $2,586,070
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

The Project qualifies as an exemption pursuant to three Categorical Exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines, First, it qualifies as exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1 which exempts the minor alteration of existing public facilities, involving negligible expansion of existing use. Second, the Project will replace or reconstruct a park facility without an expansion of acreage, which qualifies for an exemption under Section 15302 Replacement or Reconstruction, Class 2. Third, it qualifies as exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4 which exempts minor public alterations in the

146 of 237

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
September 24, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

8 6
6 condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution:
•Approving the design for the Florida Park Project;
•Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. for the Florida Park Project in an amount not to exceed $1,343,506; •Approving a construction contingency of $201,500;
•Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Project Management Contract with Wilsey Ham in an amount not to exceed $229,674 for comprehensive project management; •Determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act ALTERNATIVES:

1. Reject all bids and do not proceed with the Project as currently proposed.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. CIP Budget Sheets for the Project

3. Contract with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc.

4. Contract with Wilsey Ham

5. Florida Park Construction Conceptual Design

147 of 237

1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO APPROVING THE DESIGN OF THE FLORIDA PARK PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH SUAREZ AND MUNOZ CONSTRUCTION INC. FOR THE FLORIDA PARK PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,343,506; APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY OF $201,500; AUTHORIZING THE CITY

MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROJECT MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH WILSEY HAM FOR COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $229,674;

AND DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the City authorized the purchase of 324 Florida Ave for use as a neighborhood park; and
WHEREAS, the City began work in 2016 with remediation of the site and a community engagement process to engage local residents in the design of the future park; and WHEREAS, the project was placed on hold in 2017 due to an appeal of the project design which resulted in a settlement in 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the revised conceptual Florida Park Master Plan on September 24, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, Council adopted a resolution authorizing a restart of the Florida Park project with MIG; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2023, staff brought forward to the City Council an item to consider restoring funding for the Florida Avenue Park Construction CIP project through an appropriation of $2,000,000 from the Development Impact Fees – Community Impact Fees Subaccount which was approved; and
WHEREAS, during the CIP budget process for FY 2024/25, staff made a request for $400,000 to ensure that the budget would allow for project management and contingency based on construction inflation which was approved;
WHEREAS, in early 2024 the plans were finalized for the construction of Florida Park, consistent with the conceptual Florida Park Master Plan (”The Project”). The Project consists of the construction of new/replacement landscaping, benches, an exercise/fitness court, fencing, lighting, picnic tables, paving, and a playground. All required tree removals have been completed.

No structures are included in the Project and
WHEREAS, the City advertised the Project for bid in compliance with State Contract Code and local purchasing regulations and received five (5) sealed bids on June 24, 2024 from Redwood Engineering Construction, Frontline General Engineering Construction, Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc., Brannon Corporation and Interstate Grading and Paving; and WHEREAS, Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. submitted a responsive base bid in the amount of $1,343,506; and
WHEREAS, Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. has satisfactorily completed similar park improvement projects, meets the contractor qualifications, and has a valid contractor’s license required to perform the scope of work of this project; and 148 of 237
ATTACHMENT 1
2 WHEREAS, the City solicited proposals for project management services and received two (2) proposals from Wilsey Ham and MCK Americas; and WHEREAS, Wilsey Ham has submitted a proposal with a cost estimate not to exceed $229,674; and
WHEREAS, Wilsey Ham has satisfactorily completed similar project management, meets the qualifications, and has valid credentials to perform the scope of work of this project; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated construction and construction support costs for this project is $1,774,680 which will be funded by the Community Services Impact Fee Fund; and WHEREAS, the total estimated project costs for Centennial Plaza Improvements is $2,586,070; and
WHEREAS, this Project falls qualifies as an exemption pursuant to three Categorical Exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines, First, it qualifies as exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 Existing Facilities, Class 1, which exempts the minor alteration of existing public facilities, involving negligible expansion of existing use. Second, it qualifies as exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 Replacement or Reconstruction, Class 2, which exempts the replacement or reconstruction of a park facility without an expansion of acreage. Third, it qualifies as exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4, which exempts minor public alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the San Bruno City Council hereby:

1. Approves the design for the Florida Park Project;

2. Authorizes the City Manager to Execute a Construction Contract with Suarez and Munoz Construction Inc. for the Florida Park Project in an amount not to exceed $1,343,506;

3. Approves a construction contingency of $201,500;

4. Authorizing the City Manager to execute a Project Management Contract with Wilsey Ham in an amount not to exceed $229,674 for comprehensive project management;

5. Determining the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. ---oOo---
I hereby certify that foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on September 24, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
____________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

149 of 237

paPrStat Project Status Report
City of San Bruno
Page: 1
9/4/2024 10:47:02AM
7/1/2013 through 6/30/2025
Project # 51001 324 FLORIDA CLEAN UP & PARK CONSTRUCTION Funding Source Balances Budget Received Applied Balance 54 CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT F
54 54-354

CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT F

COMMUNITY FACILITIES IMPACT FE

0.00 2,400,000.00
2,400,000.00

0.00 2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
400,000.00
400,000.00CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Total:
60 INTERNAL FUNDING
60 60-004
60-575

INTERNAL FUNDING

NEW CAPITAL IMPROV/ONE-TIME IN

OTHER REVENUES

0.00 395,422.00
200,000.00
595,422.00

0.00 395,422.00
210,000.00
605,422.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
-10,000.00
-10,000.00INTERNAL FUNDING Total:

Total Funding Sources
Expense Balances
2,995,422.00 2,605,422.00 0.00 390,000.00
Budget Encumbrances Labor Materials Other Balance
0004
0005
Total Expenses
324 Florida Site Demo and Clean Up
324 Florida Planning,Design,Constructi
331,441.00
2,663,981.00
2,995,422.00

0.00 37,078.75
37,078.75
6,411.73
166.63
6,578.36
770.31
246.25
1,016.56
324,259.22
252,992.02
577,251.24
-0.26
2,373,497.35
2,373,497.09
Budget Net
Actuals Net

0.00 1,983,497.09
Page: 1
150 of 237
ATTACHMENT 2

paPrStat Project Status Report
City of San Bruno
Page: 2
9/4/2024 10:47:02AM
7/1/2013 through 6/30/2025
Grand Totals
Budget Received Applied BalanceFunding Source
2,995,422.00 2,605,422.00 0.00 390,000.00
Expense Budget Encumbrances Labor Materials Other Balance 2,373,497.092,995,422.00 37,078.75 6,578.36 1,016.56 577,251.24 Budget Net
Actuals Net

0.00 1,983,497.09
Page: 2

151 of 237

Florida Avenue Park Project No. 51001
Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc., Contract
Consultant Services Agreement between the City of San Bruno and Suarez Munoz Construction Inc. for Florida Avenue Park Project 09/04/Term

Page 1 of 6 ends

DOCUMENT 00 52 00

CONTRACT AGREEMENT

FLORIDA AVENUE PARK PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT was executed this 4th day of September 2024 by and between Suarez & Munoz Construction, Inc. place of business is located at 2490 American Blvd, Hayward, CA 94545 (“Contractor”), and the CITY OF SAN BRUNO (“City”), acting under and by virtue of the authority vested in the City by the laws of the State of California.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Contractor and City agree as follows:

Article 1. Work

1.1 Contractor shall complete all Work specified in the Contract Documents, in accordance with the Plans, Specifications, and all other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.

Article 2. Architect/Engineer and Project Manager

2.1 The City Engineer and its authorized vendor designed the Project and furnished the Plans and Specifications. The City Engineer shall have the rights assigned to Architect/Engineer in the Contract Documents.

2.2 City has designated the Wilsey Ham as its Project Manager to act as City’s point of contact relating to the Contract Documents and to determine whether the work performed is in accordance with the Contract Documents.

2.3 The City may assign all or part of the Project Manager’s rights, responsibilities and duties to the Project or Construction Manager.

Article 3. Contract Time and Liquidated Damages

3.1 Contract Time
Contractor shall commence work on the date established in the Notice to Proceed.

City reserves the right to modify or alter the commencement date of the Work.

Contractor shall achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work within 250 (Two Hundred and Fifty) Calendar Days from the date when the contract time commences to run as provided in Document 00 72 00 (General Conditions).

Contractor shall achieve Final Completion of the entire Work and be ready for 152 of 237
ATTACHMENT 3
Florida Avenue Park Project No. 51001
Suarez & Munoz Construction Inc., Contract
Consultant Services Agreement between the City of San Bruno and Suarez Munoz Construction Inc. for Florida Avenue Park Project 09/04/Term

Page 2 of 6 ends

Final Payment in accordance with Section 01 77 00 (Closeout Procedures) 20 Working Days from the date when Substantial Completion was established.

3.2 Liquidated Damages
City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that City will suffer financial loss in the form of Contract administration expenses (such as project management and consultant expenses), if all or any part of the Work is not completed within the times specified above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the Contract Documents. Contractor and City agree that because of the nature of the Project, it would be impractical or extremely difficult to fix the amount of actual damages incurred by City because of a delay in completion of all or any part of the Work. Accordingly, City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay Contractor shall pay City:

3.2.1 Five Hundred dollars ($ 500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Substantial Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

3.2.2 Five Hundred dollars ($ 500.00) for each Day that expires after the time specified herein for Contractor to achieve Final Completion of the entire Work, until achieved.

These measures of liquidated damages shall apply cumulatively and except as provided below, shall be presumed to be the damages suffered by City resulting from delay in completion of the Work.

3.3 Liquidated damages for the delay shall only cover administrative, overhead, interest on bonds, and general loss of public use damages suffered by City as a result of delay. Liquidated damages shall not cover the cost of completion of the Work, damages resulting from defective work, lost revenues or costs of substitute facilities, or damages suffered by others who then seek to recover their damages from City (for example, delay claims of other contractors, subcontractors, tenants, or other third-parties), and defense costs thereof.

3.4 It is further agreed that prior to issuance of a Notice of Completion under the terms of this Contract, and as a condition precedent to the City’s obligation for the issuance of the Notice of Completion and Final Payment, the Contractor shall submit to the City a “Maintenance and Warranty Bond” to be valued at ten percent (10%) of the final contract amount. Such Bond shall be in force and valid for a period of one (1) year unless extended.

153 of 237

Page 3 of 6 ends

Article 4. Contract Sum

4.1 City shall pay Contractor the Contract Sum of One Million Three Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Six Dollars ($1,343,506) for completion of Work in accordance with Contract Documents as set forth in Contractor’s Bid, attached hereto.

Article 5. Contractor’s Representations
In order to induce City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor makes the following representations and warranties:

5.1 Contractor has visited the Site and has examined thoroughly and understood the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, Site, locality, actual conditions, as-built conditions, and all local conditions, and federal, state and local laws and regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures of construction to be employed by Contractor and safety precautions and programs incident thereto.

5.2 Contractor has examined thoroughly and understood all reports of exploration and tests of subsurface conditions, as-built drawings, drawings, products specifications or reports, available for Bidding purposes, of physical conditions, including Underground Facilities, which have been made available for Bidders or which may appear in the Drawings. Contractor accepts the determination set forth in these Documents and Document 00 72 00 of the limited extent of the information contained in such materials upon which Contractor may be entitled to rely.

Contractor agrees that except for the information so identified, Contractor does not and shall not rely on any other information contained in such reports and drawings.

5.3 Contractor has conducted or obtained and has understood all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in Section 5.2 of this Agreement) that pertain to the subsurface conditions, as-built conditions, Underground Facilities and all other physical conditions at or contiguous to the Site or otherwise that may affect the cost, progress, performance or furnishing of Work, as Contractor considers necessary for the performance or furnishing of Work at the Contract Sum, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, including specifically the provisions of Document 00 72 00; and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies or similar information or data are or will be required by Contractor for such purposes.

5.4 Contractor has correlated its knowledge and the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents.

154 of 237

Page 4 of 6 ends

San Bruno City CouncilSeptember 24, 2024

San Bruno City Council
September 24, 2024