CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Regular Meeting
May 16, 2022
7:00 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
330 West 20 th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
AGENDA
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH SUSPEND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN ACT.
THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.
PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTELY.
SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.
To join via Zoom – click here: May 16, 2022 Zoom Meeting To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 848 5871 9568 Passcode: 900481
The City Council meeting will conclude by 11:00 p.m. unless otherwise extended by council vote.
Any unheard items will automatically move forward to the next regular meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
CEREMONIAL
1. National Public Works Week
2. National Police Week
3. Mental Health Month
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion without discussion. If discussion is desired, that item may be removed and considered separately.
4. Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 1-C Project (Phase 2) – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Andreini Brothers, Inc. for the Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 1-C (Phase 2) Project to increase the total contract amount by $260,000, for a total of $2,119,555, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented and issue change orders in accordance with the contract documents and up to the contingency amount. 1 of 130
5. Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project – Amendment Approve Amendment No. 1 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for professional design services for the Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $216,874 for a total agreement amount of $651,874; increase the contingency reserve by $20,000 for a total contingency balance of $65,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue amendments within the contingency amount.
6. 2022 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Inspection Large Diameter Pipes Project – Agreement Approve an agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. for the 2022 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Inspection – Large Diameter Pipes Project in an amount not to exceed $368,631; establish a contingency in the amount of $55,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.
7. Board and Commissions – Confirm Reappointments, Planning Commission Appointment and Establish Annual Appointment Subcommittees
1. Appoint Mayor Bonilla and Council Member Rodriguez to both the Community Relations Commission and Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Appointment Subcommittees.
2. Accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission Appointment Subcommittee and appoint Martin Wiggins to a partial term on the Planning Commission ending 6-10-2024.
3. Reappoint: Community Relations Commissioner – Sheri Boles; Library Board Trustee – Austin Volz; Park & Recreation Commission – J. Christopher Massey; Personal Board – Gayle Murphy; Planning Commissioner – Seema Patel; Senior Citizen's Commissioner – Mary Webb; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commissioner – Clifford Robbins and Measure S Oversight Committee Members – Richard W. Hedges and Lisa Diaz Nash.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the City Council at this time. State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred to staff for follow up.
Public comment is limited to a total of 15 minutes; however, an opportunity for additional public comment may be provided later in the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
City Council action on the following public hearing(s) represents a final decision concluding all administrative proceedings. Judicial review may be had only if a petition is filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date the decision is made. Judicial review of environmental determinations may be subject to a time period for litigation as short as 30 days following the date the decision is made.
8. Ordinance Introduction – Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Introduce an Ordinance to prohibit individuals from harassing, intimidating, or obstructing persons seeking access to a reproductive health care facility within 100 feet of an entrance to such a facility.
9. 1612 S. El Camino Real – Property Owner Appeal of Relocation Benefits Deny the appeal and uphold the notice to pay relocation benefits to the tenants who reside at 1612 S. El Camino due to unlawful substandard living conditions pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.50 “Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units.”
NEW BUSINESS
10. Downtown Use of Right-of-Way – Update
Receive an update on policies and plans related to the public right-of-way in downtown San Mateo and provide direction to staff for prioritization of uses on B Street. 2 of 130
11. City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) – Approval of Sale of Refunding Special Tax Bonds
Adopt a Resolution to authorize the issuance of one or more series of bonds, the execution and delivery of one or more fiscal agent agreements, a bond purchase contract, a deposit and escrow agreement, a continuing disclosure certificate and an official statement, and authorizing related actions and the execution of related documents with respect to the issuance and sale of bonds.
REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Manager, City Attorney and Council Members report on their various assignments and liaison roles and Council requests for scheduling future items.
ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS: Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at www.cityofsanmateo.org . Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.
WATCHING A MEETING ON TV: City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.
For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER: There are three ways to stream. 1) Public Meeting Portal www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings 2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube: http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo 3) Watch TV live stream: https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream
PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to: [email protected] until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.
During the meeting
By computer: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
By telephone: Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.
By Zoom: Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.
In Person: At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.
ACCESSIBILITY: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected] . Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. 3 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 3
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 4 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6088 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 1-C Project (Phase 2) – Amendment RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with Andreini Brothers, Inc. for the Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 1- C (Phase 2) Project to increase the total contract amount by $260,000, for a total of $2,119,555, and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the amendment in substantially the form presented and issue change orders in accordance with the contract documents and up to the contingency amount.
BACKGROUND:
The Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 1-C Phase 2 Project (Project) is part of Public Works’ Pavement Management Program. The Project will repair approximately 0.8 miles of streets across four locations. Council approved a construction agreement for the Project to Andreini Brothers, Inc. on August 16, 2021 in the amount of $1,859,555 and authorized a contingency of $190,000.
The contractor has completed paving of most of the street segments in the Project; however, unforeseen conditions were encountered on 2nd Avenue. Upon removal of the existing roadway section, the contractor found extensive soft soil in the subgrade throughout the majority of the roadway that was not identified during the design investigations. The contractor was directed to over-excavate the soft soil areas until firm ground was reached and place and compact aggregate base with geotextiles in the over-excavated section. While the contract included an allowance bid item to mitigate unforeseen subgrade conditions, due to the extensive soft soil conditions on this street segment, the City used the entire $200,000 unstable subgrade allowance and incurred a total unforeseen additional cost of $250,000.
Also, early in the Project construction, additional work was performed under contract change orders in the amount of $115,000. The additional work was performed to take advantage of favorable pricing, address problematic deficiencies in existing drainage that was causing potentially dangerous ponding conditions, and avoid premature excavation of a newly paved roadway. This additional work included:
Installation of streetlight conduit on 5 th Avenue in anticipation of future high-voltage street lighting conversion; Concrete work on Rand Street to address deteriorated sidewalk conditions; and Installation of a catch basin and storm drain at the intersection of Fairfax Avenue and Franklin Street to alleviate ponding issues.
It is estimated that $320,000 is needed to complete paving of the remaining street segments. The Project has approximately $160,000 remaining in the contract budget and contingency amount. Staff also recommends increasing Bid Item 45, “Unstable Subgrade Allowance” by $100,000 to account for potential poor subgrade conditions in the remaining streets. This information is summarized in the following table. 4 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 3
Item Amount
Estimated Remaining Work $320,000
Increase in Bid Item 45 - Unstable Subgrade Allowance $100,000 Remaining Budget and Contingency ($160,000)
Total Additional Budget $260,000
Staff recommends approving this amendment to increase the contract budget by $260,000 for a modified total of $2,119,555 to account for the unforeseen and additional work performed to date on the Project.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are available in the Citywide Street Rehabilitation Package 2 Project for this request.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This project is categorically exempt from CEQA as an “existing facility,” because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Amendment No. 1
STAFF CONTACT
Sydney Chow, Assistant Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7331
Stephanie Gindlesperger, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7315
5 of 130
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
ANDREINI BROTHERS, INC. FOR
CITYWIDE STREET REHABILITATION PACKAGE 1-C (PHASE 2)
CITY PROJECT NO. 467008-46000-1040-46350
($1,859,555 [Original Amount] / $260,000 [Added Amount])
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Andreini Brothers, Inc. (“Contractor”), entered into an Agreement for Construction Services (“Agreement”) on September 23, 2021; and
WHEREAS, City and Contractor wish to amend the Agreement to increase compensation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 2 – Contract Price of the Agreement, first paragraph, is amended to read:
“City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, the sum of two-million, one- hundred nineteen thousand, and five-hundred fifty five dollars ($2,119,555.00) in full payment for the work set forth above.”
2. The total price for Bid Item No. 45 Unstable Subgrade (Allowance) is increased from $200,000.00 to $300,000.00.
3. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect.
CITY OF SAN MATEO ANDREINI BROTHERS, INC.
______________________________ ___________________________________ Azalea Mitch Mario Andreini
Public Works Director President
Date: ____________________ Date: ____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date: ____________________
6 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 5 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6090 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project – Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Amendment No. 1 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for professional design services for the Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $216,874 for a total agreement amount of $651,874; increase the contingency reserve by $20,000 for a total contingency balance of $65,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue amendments within the contingency amount.
BACKGROUND:
In 2008, the City applied for preliminary engineering funds through the Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) to evaluate the condition of the Bermuda Drive Bridge over Belmont Creek and address the structural deficiencies identified in a bridge inspection report prepared by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). In 2010, Caltrans approved the HBRRP funds and City Council approved a professional services agreement with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) to perform the preliminary engineering.
Structural assessments and a detailed seismic analysis done in 2011 and 2012 by BCA recommended a full replacement of the bridge rather than a structural retrofit. In 2017, Caltrans provided official approval to proceed with a revised scope of work that includes full bridge replacement. On May 21, 2018, City Council approved the award of a professional services agreement with BCA for design and environmental documentation services for the Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project (Project). The design work also includes: (1) an expanded alternatives analysis evaluating different construction phasing and construction methods to reduce public impacts from the construction and (2) public outreach assistance during the design phase. The design is currently anticipated to be completed during 2024.
Amendment No. 1 provides additional budget for BCA to conduct the alternatives analysis, coordinate with utilities, and provide public outreach support. Staff reviewed and negotiated a proposal with BCA for Amendment No. 1 with a not-to- exceed amount of $216,874. Staff believes the proposal to be reasonable for the scope of work and expertise required and recommends approving this amendment, as well as increasing the contingency reserve by $20,000.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Sufficient funds are available in the Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project to fund this amendment and increase to the contingency reserve.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action of approving Amendment No. 1 with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. to conduct an alternatives analysis, coordinate with utilities, and provide public outreach is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines 7 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 4
Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Amendment No. 1
STAFF CONTACT
Leo Chow, Assistant Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7344
Tina Pham, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
522-7305
8 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 1 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN MATEO AND
BIGGS CARDOSA ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR
DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
BERMUDA DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT
($435,000 [Original Amount], $216,874 [Added Amount])
WHEREAS, the City of San Mateo (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc., (“Consultant”), entered into an Agreement for Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement Project (“Agreement”) on June 5, 2018; and
WHEREAS, City and Consultant wish to amend the Agreement to extend the term, increase the not to exceed amount for this Agreement, and to replace Exhibit A and Exhibit B.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Section 4 “Term” of the Agreement is amended to read:
“The services to be performed under this Agreement shall Commence on June 5, 2018 and be completed on or about September 30, 2024. This term of this Agreement may be extended by written amendment executed by the Director of Public Works and a duly authorized representative of Consultant.”
2. Section 5 “Payment” of the Agreement is amended to read:
“Payment shall be made by CITY only for services rendered and upon submission of a payment request upon completion and CITY approval of the work performed. In consideration for the full performance of the services set forth in Exhibit A, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a fee in an amount of $651,874, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.”
3. The attached Exhibit A, noted as Amendment No. 1, hereby replaces the existing Exhibit A in this Agreement in its entirety.
4. The attached Exhibit B, noted as Amendment No. 1, hereby replaces the existing Exhibit B in this Agreement in its entirety.
5. The remaining terms of the Agreement remain in full force and effect. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
9 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 2 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and Biggs Cardosa Associate Inc. have executed this Agreement on ___________________.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CONSULTANT
Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director
Date Mahvash Harms
Its Authorized Agent
Vice President
If a Corporation, can be either 1)
President or 2) Vice President plus
an additional corporate officer
(i.e., Secretary, Treasurer) who
shall sign below.
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date Daniel Devlin
Secretary
Date
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Hourly Rates
10 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 3 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES
Biggs Cardosa Associates' approach for the Bermuda Bridge Replacement Project is as follows:
0 Project Management
Phase I: Preliminary Engineering and Reports
Phase II: Final Design
0. PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project Management includes the supervision and scheduling of project staff, review of work prepared by staff and subconsultants, project coordination, client coordination and the monitoring of the schedule and the budget. Also included in this Task is the attendance at meetings with the staff of the City of San Mateo to receive input and discuss and review the project during its critical design periods.
A. Project Administration: Supervise, coordinate, and monitor design for conformance with Caltrans standards and policies. Prepare monthly invoices. Make arrangements with and obtain permission from the City for Consultant to work on the City road. Assist the City in obtaining permission to enter private property for environmental and engineering studies.
Employ and monitor subconsultants. Coordinate Consultant's work with the City’s work.
Close and archive the project records at the end of the project.
B. Project Initiation: Upon receipt of Notice to Proceed, a project kick-off meeting will be held to finalize the project scope, the project approach, the goals and the schedule. Items to be addressed include a review of the key issues associated with the project, a description and clarification of the approach required to respond to these issues, a discussion of potential City, State, Federal and other permits which may be required for the project and the verification of the project milestone dates.
C. Coordination Meetings: To facilitate comprehensive input from the City during the critical design periods, the Consultant's Project Manager and selected Team Members will attend up to 2 coordination meetings with the City staff members.
D. Design Review Meetings: The Consultant's Project Manager and selected Team Members will attend 2 design review meetings with City staff which will be scheduled to coincide with the completion of the preliminary design and final design phases.
1. PHASE I: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND REPORTS
1.1 DATA COLLECTION
The City will research records and supply the Consultant with copies of documents and plans for any future street or utility plans for review and incorporation into the bridge plans. 11 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 4 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
1.2 FIELD SURVEYS AND BASE MAP TOPOGRAPHY
A. Right-of-Way/Control: Consultant will establish project horizontal and vertical control, search for and locate existing controlling boundary monumentation and include project right-of-way based upon the record title information, with supporting documents available from public records. It is assumed that a resolved boundary will not be required. Please note that these services do not include services pertaining to right of way acquisition services such as assistance with property or easement acquisition, assistance with signatories, or preparation of deeds.
B. Topographic Survey: Consultant will prepare a conventional ground survey and data reduction to serve as the base map for the design and construction drawings. Consultant will provide field survey within the project boundary, and provide office support to obtain horizontal and vertical locations of selected visible above-ground features, dip necessary manholes and storm inlets for location and elevation. We will perform up to two (2) cross-sections of the existing channel downstream of the bridge, and up to two (2) cross-sections of the existing channel downstream of the bridge. Fees for a third party utility locator or potholing of utilities are not included. Consultant assumes the City will have the project area marked for existing utilities by USA for comparison with as-built information. The survey work does not include dewatering. We assume the existing bridge piles and soffit is not required for this project.
1.3 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Bridge Foundation Report:
A. Research and Data Collection: Completed
B. Permits/USA Clearances: Completed
C. Field Exploration: Completed
D. Laboratory Testing: Completed
E. Soils Analysis/Evaluation: Completed
F. Prepare Draft Foundation Memo (Type Selection Letter): Completed G. Prepare Bridge Replacement (Final) Foundation Report: Prepare detail report for a bridge replacement option including design recommendations for foundation types and footing elevations lateral design capacities, pile foundation recommendations using new loading requirements.
12 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 5 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
H. Log of Test Borings: Using the general plan as a base map, we will provide boring log.
I. Ongoing Design Consultation and Review: Design Review Consultation through final design.
Deliverables: Preliminary Foundation Memo
Final Foundation Report
LOTB plan sheets
1.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC DESIGN
The Consultant will perform hydrology studies, design and construction bid documents to address surface runoff and channel flows that will be affected by the construction of this project. Consultant will design and specify provisions to comply with urban runoff and best management practices.
A. Data Collection and Site Review: Consultant will collect the existing hydrologic and hydraulic report that was prepared in conjunction with Bay Meadows Phase II. Consultant will conduct one site visit to verify channel roughness and to identify constrictions. Consultant will verify design peak flow rates for analyzing the channel by reviewing annual peak flows rates reported by the USGS.
B. Hydraulics Analyses: Consultant will modify the cross section information used in the previous report to account for updated topographic information as well as proposed grading, bridge bents and abutments within the channel. Consultant will model water levels using the HEC RAS computer model.
C. Documentation: Consultant will prepare a Draft Location Hydraulics Study that documents findings. The report will describe the methodology used, summarize model output, include channel cross sections in plan and profile view and will delineate the 100-year water level for existing and proposed conditions through the project reach.
The report will address the items delineated in the Local Assistance Procedures Manual Checklist for Drainage Studies and Reports, Exhibit 11-E. The report will contain discussions on the following required items:
Risk associated with implementation of the action.
Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.
Support of probable incompatible floodplain development. Measures to minimize floodplain impacts associated with the action. Measures to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values impacted by the action.
Practicability of alternatives to any significant encroachment. Practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachment. 13 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 6 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
Consultant will circulate the Draft Location Hydraulics Study for review and comment by the project team. Consultant will incorporate the responses into the Final Locations Hydraulic Study.
Consultant will complete the Summary Floodplain Encroachment Form that summarizes the findings of the Location Hydraulics Report.
D. Response to Comments: Consultant will prepare responses to the City and Caltrans.
E. Bridge Scour Recommendations: The Consultant will incorporate the bed material gradation analyses developed by the project Geotechnical Engineer into the HEC-RAS hydraulic model unit to develop projected bridge scour depths. For initial evaluations, values from the borings nearest the channel bed will be used to test sensitivity. If scour results are sensitive to bed material, gradation testing from within the creek bed will be conducted as an additional service.
Design for details and project requirements will be established for inclusion in the plans based on this task and these assumptions.
F. Chlorides: The Consultant will provide recommendations for protection from chlorides in the Creek. The recommendation will be based on published salinity values for San Francisco Bay at the site. A conversion factor will be used to adjust salinity in psu to chloride in mg/l. No field testing is proposed at this time and results are assumed to be conservative. If there is a cost impact associated with chloride levels, testing at a lab can occur as an additional service.
Migration of salinity up the channel will be a function of nuisance flows associated with irrigation and time since previous rainfall. Highest values are likely to occur during late summer.
G. Temporary Dewatering During Construction: The Consultant will prepare a design and plans and specifications for temporary dewatering or creek diversion during construction.
Analyses of drainage improvements for storm events other than the 10 and 100-year storm events are excluded as part of this scope.
Deliverables:
Hydraulic Report required by HBP
Location Hydraulics Study
Summary Floodplain Encroachment Form
1.5 CONCEPTUAL DETOUR/TRAFFIC CONTROL AND ROADWAY
ALIGNMENT/PROFILE
Completed
1.6 UTILITY COORDINATION: UTILITY VERIFICATION REQUEST
14 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 7 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
As required in Chapter 13 of the Caltrans Right of Way Manual, Consultant will send a Letter to Owner Requesting Positive Location (Utility “B Letters and Plans”), which identifies claim of liability and cost for positive location of utilities from the potentially affected agencies. Coordination for any relocation will be provided at this time. The Utility Agency Coordination Log will be updated as necessary.
The following existing utilities may be impacted: one 8” diameter Calwater line, and two 2” diameter PG&E gas pipes supported by the edge of the existing bridge deck with penetrations at the wingwalls. There are also existing joint pole lines running along the maintenance paths at the top of both sides of the channel.
A. 8” Calwater: The Consultant will include design for temporary and permanent relocations on the plans based on our coordination with Calwater and their requirements for this line.
B. PG&E Gas Pipes: The Consultant will show the temporary and permanent relocations of these pipes on our plans based on our coordination with PG&E and their design.
C. Joint Pole Lines: The Consultant will show the temporary and/or permanent relocation of impacted poles, as needed, on our plans based on our coordination with PG&E (and any other impacted joint pole users) and their design.
Utility evaluation, inspection, or capacity calculations are not included in the scope.
Deliverables: Letter to Owner Requesting Positive Location – “B Letters and Plans”
1.7 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS
The Consultant will prepare the required environmental documents to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacement project, to be undertaken by the City of San Mateo (City) and Biggs Cardosa Associates. Since the project is an HBP project, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) will be the lead agency for NEPA. The Consultant proposes to prepare a Categorical Exclusion with the appropriate technical studies, which will meet the requirements of NEPA, and a Categorical Exemption, which will meet the requirements of CEQA.
A. Review of Background Information and Project Initiation: Completed B. NEPA Documentation:
1. Field Review Meeting: In order to minimize the extent of the environmental review process, it will be crucial to obtain agreement from Caltrans Local Assistance and Professionally Qualified Staff (PQS) Staff, regarding the existing conditions at the project site and the necessary environmental documentation for this project. With the change in the project, it is anticipated that an updated Preliminary Environmental Survey (PES) Form and a new Field Review meeting with Caltrans will be required for the project. The Consultant will prepare the Caltrans PES Form and assist the team 15 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 8 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
in arranging and holding the Field Review meeting with Caltrans staff to confirm the environmental studies required and the appropriate level of CEQA and NEPA documentation needed for the project.
2. NEPA Technical Studies: Based on the Consultant's understanding of the project and the site conditions, it is anticipated that a Categorical Exclusion (CE) with technical studies will be the appropriate document for the project under NEPA. The NEPA technical studies will be prepared per the Caltrans’ Supplemental Environmental Review (SER) formats and will specifically comply with NEPA-related environmental processes, including the following: Endangered Species Act, Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Section 4(f) evaluation.
Following preparation and receipt of these studies, the Consultant will compile and package the draft NEPA technical environmental studies for submittal to the team for review and comment. The scope assumes one review cycle for the reports. Upon approval by the City and the project team, these technical studies will be submitted to Caltrans for review and comment. The technical studies will then be reviewed by the appropriate Caltrans technical staff (biologist, hazardous materials, etc.). The Consultant will respond to Caltrans comments and will revise the technical materials, if necessary. Once the reports are approved, Caltrans will attach them to the one page CE form that they prepare, and the entire packet will be considered to be the CE document.
Below is a list of the main technical reports/memos that are anticipated to be required by Caltrans for this project:
Natural Environment Study: The Consultant will prepare a Natural Environment Study (NES) for the project, in conformance with Caltrans guidelines and requirements.
- Background Review and Team Project Coordination: A Consultant team will review the Bridge Replacement Plan as well as previous reports for the Project vicinity. Additional sources of information that will be reviewed include: U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps, the California Natural Diversity Data Base, SCS Soil Survey, other technical literature related to the biotic resources of the project vicinity, regional planning documents (general plan policies, Environmental Impact Report's from the region, etc.), and species data compiled by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), the National Audubon Society, or other public interest groups, and resource agency data (USFWS, California Department of Fish and Game, etc.).
- Field Surveys: The Consultant will conduct reconnaissance-level field surveys 16 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 9 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
of the Project site. The habitats on the site and the potential for special-status species require that a plant/wetland ecologist and a wildlife biologist visit the Project site.
oBotanical Surveys: The biotic habitats of the Project site will be surveyed and delineated on a map of appropriate scale. The dominant tree, shrub, and herbaceous flora will be described. This information will be generated for the purpose of characterizing the botanical resources of the project site. Included in this task will be the identification of biotic habitats suitable for the occurrence of plant species of special status (i.e., state and/or federally threatened or endangered, federal candidate species, and CNPS List 1B species). The site visit will also include the identification of habitats subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and CDFG. Protocol-level special-status plant surveys and a formal wetland delineation are not likely to be necessary and are not proposed.
oWildlife Surveys: Reconnaissance-level surveys will document general wildlife use of the Project site and habitats immediately adjacent to it.
Habitats appropriate for wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered by the state or federal governments, and other species of special status will be identified. No focused surveys for any particular special-status species are proposed; rather, presence or absence will be assumed, as appropriate, based on an assessment of habitat conditions on the site, proximity to areas of known occurrence, and presence or absence of barriers to dispersal from areas of known occurrence to the Project site.
oBiological survey and preparation of “Biological Assessment of Essential Fish Habitat” report in accordance with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) guidelines, including assessment of the potential effects of project on these species. After review by the project team and city, the final Biological Assessment will be submitted to Caltrans to initial the Section 7 Consultation with NMFS.
-Impact Analysis: Following the field visits, project impacts will be identified and appropriate mitigation measures proposed. An impact analysis will then conducted to determine which biological resources will be significantly impacted by the proposed Project. It is assumed that impacts to regulated habitats will be limited and that appropriate mitigation sites (if necessary) are present in the immediate area of the Project site. This scope assumes that the impact analysis will be based upon a single bridge design. If the design is modified, then additional budget will be necessary to reassess Project impacts. 17 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 10 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
- Prepare Admin Draft Natural Environment Study (NES): The Consultant will prepare an NES with the following sections:
I. Introduction
II. Study Methods
III. Environmental Setting
IV. Impacts and Mitigation
V. Permits and Technical Studies
VI. References
VII. Appendices
Graphics will be produced to portray the site vicinity, habitat types, CNDDB records for special-status species, impact areas, and, if appropriate, proposed mitigation sites. The NES will be submitted to Caltrans for review and comment.
-Prepare Revised Draft Natural Environment Study (NES): It is anticipated that the revisions to the NES will be relatively minor. If significant revisions are required then additional budget would be required. This task also includes time to respond to comments from Caltrans. Again, revisions are expected to be minor.
Wetland Delineation:
- Prepare Base Map for Wetland Delineation: This task will also include, where appropriate, acquisition, review and preparation of site maps and aerial photographs from the project applicant for surveys. This information will subsequently be used to produce accurate size estimates of wetlands. The final product for the report will include digitized printouts from the graphics (CAD and/or GIS). The Consultant team has not budgeted the cost of obtaining aerial photographs of the study area. Our assumption is that these materials will be supplied and/or that the Consultant team's existing aerial photograph library will provide sufficient base map information.
- Identification Of Waters Of The U.S.- Field Surveys: An assessment of areas that meet the regulatory definition of Waters of the United States (jurisdictional waters) within the project boundaries will be prepared. Such areas generally include wetlands, tributary waters and seasonal ponds.
The project area will be surveyed for wetlands that occur within the project boundaries. In the event that wetlands occur in the areas likely to be impacted by the project a routine on-site delineation of such areas will be conducted.
This level of effort will require the collection of data in the field relative to vegetation, soils and hydrology in order to document site conditions. All work 18 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 11 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
will be completed according to methodologies outlined in the "USACE Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and "Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region" (USACE 2008). The delineation is to be limited to specified project areas and within wetlands likely to be impacted by the project.
Jurisdiction within tributary waters extends to the ordinary high water (OHW) marks on opposing channel banks. The location of the OHW marks will be field-checked within the banks of the channels and ditches; it is typically indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the characters of the soil, destruction of vegetation, exposed roots on the bank or the presence of litter or debris. All work will be completed according to methodologies outlined in "A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual (USACE 2008)." -Jurisdictional Waters Report: The Consultant will prepare a report summarizing the methods and results of the field survey of jurisdictional waters. This report will be prepared to specifications developed by the USACE and thus will be of sufficient detail for agency review and a jurisdictional determination. It will include a brief description of existing conditions, description of field techniques employed in the delineation, wetland data sheets (if applicable) and copies of aerial photographs and maps which show the extent of jurisdictional waters on the project site.
During preparation of the report, information obtained during the field survey relative to plants, hydrology and soils, and evidence gathered regarding past and current land management practices, will be compared to recent regulations/policies/agency guidance (e.g. SWAANC)/exemptions (i.e. farming and ranching activities) to arrive at an accurate mapping of the extent and distribution of Waters of the U.S./State.
- Site Visit With USACE Representatives for Verification: The Consultant will meet with staff of the USACE on the project site to verify the delineation of jurisdictional waters.
- Revisions to Jurisdictional Waters Report: Revisions will be made to the technical report and accompanying maps, if necessary, after the site visit with USACE representatives.
Traffic Technical Memorandum: The Consultant will prepare a Traffic Technical Memorandum which will include an evaluation of whether the proposed Bermuda Drive Bridge replacement will result in traffic or parking issues. The traffic 19 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 12 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
technical memorandum will be based upon project staging and traffic control information to be provided by the project team. This technical memorandum will demonstrate the steps to be taken to allow the proposed construction work to proceed while minimizing impacts to the roadway users and local residents and workers. This memo will also describe the potential for traffic impacts in the project vicinity.
Hazardous Materials Technical Memorandum: The Consultant will prepare a Caltrans- compliant Hazardous Waste technical memorandum, the purpose of which will be to address aerially deposited lead (ADL), asbestos containing materials (ACM), and lead based paint, which could be present in the area, and whether such materials would adversely affect the project. The Hazardous Waste technical memorandum will be based upon a Hazardous Materials Investigation to be provided by the project team. The Hazardous Materials Technical memorandum will describe and address the proper procedures for worker safety in the presence of lead and asbestos, including safe work practices and implementation of engineering controls and control measures. Specific Caltrans procedures related to lead based paint and worker safety will be noted.
- Soil and groundwater sampling and reporting
- Asbestos/lead-containing paint survey
Water Quality Study: The Consultant will prepare a Water Quality Study according to the requirements of Caltrans. This study will describe the measures and best management practices (BMPs) included in the project to reduce construction- related water quality impacts.
3. Coordinate NEPA Categorical Exclusion with Caltrans: Upon approval of all technical studies by Caltrans, the Consultant will coordinate the completion and sign-off of the NEPA CE with Caltrans staff.
C. CEQA Notice of Exemption (NOE): Upon completion of the NEPA process, the Consultant will prepare the CEQA NOE forms and provide them to the City for review and comment.
The Consultant will coordinate any revisions with the City and will provide a final version of the CEQA NOE for signature. The Consultant will also file the NOE forms with the State Clearinghouse and County Clerk, if requested by the City.
D. Regulatory Permits: Prepare draft application materials and obtain the following regulatory permits:
Nationwide Permit/Section 404 from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
20 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 13 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1600) from CDFW. If required, complete application for Incidental Take Permit in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife guidelines for the federally listed fish species longfin smelt.
Applications will be submitted by the City. Permitting fees will be paid by the City.
1.8 35% SUBMITTAL AND TYPE SELECTION REPORT
Completed
2. PHASE II: FINAL DESIGN
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
Based on the approved Bridge Type Selection, Construction Documents will be prepared by the design team.
The Construction Documents package will include specifications and construction plans and will conform to City's and Caltrans' Standards with Federal requirements.
Final design calculations will be prepared for the bridge structure and submitted for City staff review. An opinion of probable construction cost of the project will also be provided. The Consultant will coordinate and incorporate any utility agency's future needs, if any, in the bridge. The Consultant will also design all street transitions to the bridge.
A. Design Criteria: for Bridge Design: Final bridge design will be performed in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Design Specifications and other Caltrans Design Manuals. Design will be based on the "Load and Resistance Factor Design" method, with HL93 and permit truck design live loads. Seismic design will be performed in accordance with current Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.
B. Plan Sheets and Details: The plan sheets will be prepared in AutoCAD. Plans will be prepared in English units and will be consistent with Caltrans Standard Plans. All plans will be signed by the civil engineer or structural engineer (registered in the State of California) in responsible charge of the design, in accordance with the Caltrans Local Programs Manual. Three submittals will be made during the preparation of the Construction Documents as follows:
When the documents are 65% complete; when the documents are 95% complete; when the final documents are complete. Each submittal will incorporate the review comments from the previous submittal by the City staff as well as those of all other reviewing agencies.
2.1 65% DESIGN SUBMITTAL (65% PS&E)
A. 65% Complete Plans: Based on comments received from the 35% Design Submittal, the design will be advanced to the point that all major design issues and solutions are represented 21 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 14 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
in the plan documents. Minor details may be missing from the plan set at this milestone, but all plan sheets will be included in this submittal package. The Consultant will work with the City and other agencies to resolve any remaining conflicts between the comments of different reviewers. Upon comment resolution with the City, no further changes will be anticipated thereafter and such comments or changes will be deferred until the next submittal or next appropriate meeting.
B. 65% Complete Specifications: A draft of the technical specifications sections to be included for the final project specifications will be identified with the submittal. The technical specifications will use the Caltrans 2010 standard special provisions for the various items of work. The City will be responsible for the completion of “boilerplate” general, and standard provisions related to the contract.
C. 65% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: The Preliminary Opinion of Probable Construction Costs will be updated to reflect the refinements from the Preliminary Design to the Unchecked Design Submittal.
65% Deliverables: 6 – 65% Plan Sets (11” x 17”plots)
65% Level Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
3 – 65% Complete Project Specifications
2.2 95% DESIGN SUBMITTAL (95% PS&E)
A. Quality Assurance Review: Conduct an internal quality assurance review of the plans, specifications, and estimate; concurrent with review of the 65% Submittal by the City and other agencies. The Consultant’s quality assurance program provides for independent checking of individual tasks, as well as an independent review by experienced senior staff. The purpose of this review is to provide oversight to specific project details by professionals who are not closely involved in the design, and to review the constructability, cost-effectiveness and completeness of design features relative to the normal standard of professional care. This independent check will include a red, green and yellow check of the structural calculations and plans.
B. 95% Complete Design Plans: Checked Plans will be prepared and submitted to the City, utility companies and other agencies for final review and comment. Agencies shall thoroughly review the details of the project. The Consultant will work with the City and other agencies to resolve any conflicts between the comments of different reviewers.
C. 95% Complete Specifications: The technical specifications will be updated using Caltrans 2010 Standard Special Provisions. The City will prepare boilerplate specifications and compile the technical specifications with the boilerplate.
22 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 15 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
D. 95% Level Checked Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: The Opinion of Probable Construction Cost will be updated for use in the Bid Documents using standard City and/or Caltrans items.
E. Memorandum: Response to Comments: A memo with “response to comments” received from the 65% Design Submittal will be provided.
95% Deliverables: 6 – 95% Plan Sets (11” x 17”plots)
95% Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
3 - 95% Project Specifications
3 - Response to 65% Comments Memo
2.3 FINAL DESIGN SUBMITTAL (100% PS&E)
A. 100% Final Plans: After agency review of the Checked Design Submittal (95%), the Consultant will prepare the Final Contract Documents in accordance with the City’s instructions and provide the City and other agencies the opportunity to review the completed Bid Documents and direct minor revisions.
B. Response to Comments Memorandum: A memo with “response to comments” received from the 95% Design Submittal will be provided.
C. Bid Documents: After the City review of the 100% Final Submittal, any minor final revisions will be incorporated and 6 sets of Completed Contract Documents prepared in accordance with the City’s instructions. Final bid documents will be submitted for signature. 100% Deliverables: 6 – Complete Bid Set Drawings – Signed and Dated (11” x 17” plots) 1 – CD archive of project electronic files (specs & estimate)
2.4 SCOPE OF SERVICES ADDED FEBRUARY 2022
A. Prepare revised 65% PS&E submittal and technical documents to incorporate the following changes:
1. Update project design and documents to the now current 2018 Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans.
2. Update bridge barriers and railings to meet the requirements of the new Manual of Assessment of Safety Hardware (MASH) standards that are now required for all projects funded by FHWA. Revisions to grading at the ends of the bridge barriers are also required to meet these new standards.
3. Coordinate with PG&E and incorporate into PS&E and technical documents changes required by PG&E. Changes requested by PG&E include permanent undergrounding of the joint overhead lines through the project area instead of a temporary relocation, and installation of two permanent gas mains through the bridge. The undergrounding requires the installation of a below-grade vault in the parking area of the public park and construction of the joint 23 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 16 of 16
Rev 7/21
6 3
3 5
trench and conduits as part of the City project. The installation of the second gas main requires additional construction stages and coordination.
4. Coordination with the Parks Department to incorporate reconstruction of the public park paving area and protection of landscaping.
B. Prepare analysis of an alternative single construction stage project, including a temporary pedestrian bridge and temporary traffic detour that includes a temporary opening in the existing soundwall on Saratoga Drive.
C. Optional Task – Prepare revised 65% PS&E submittal and technical documents to incorporate the single construction stage. This includes additional plans and specifications for the temporary steel bridge, traffic detour and temporary opening in the soundwall. Additional coordination will be required with PG&E for a temporary gas main during bridge construction.
D. Right-of-Way – Review Title Reports and Plot Easements for 4 parcels bordering project site.
Prepare Plat and Legal for ne new Public Utility Easement for the relocated electrical lines within the City park.
2.5 BIDDING PERIOD SERVICES
Not Included
2.6 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES
Not Included
Assumptions
The bridge will likely be a single span, precast pre-stressed concrete voided slab bridge with a cast-in- place composite topping slab supported on seat abutments with a maximum span length of 55-feet. Either a detour or Stage construction will be used.
The City will prepare the boilerplate specifications and compile the technical specifications with the boilerplate.
Assistance with Local Assistance Program compliance is not included. Right of way acquisition is not anticipated and therefore these services are not included. A Phase I Initial Site Assessment is not included.
Community Meetings and public outreach is not included. Only one alignment and profile alternative will be considered. The proposed profile will not deviate significantly from the existing profile so as to not impact the adjacent driveways.
The proposed bridge replacement will not increase the overall capacity of the roadway. The proposed improvements will be eligible for a Categorical Exclusion (Cat Ex) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and a Categorical Exemption (Cat Ex) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
24 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 1 of 3
Rev 7/21
Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc.
10.00%=Fee
EXHIBIT B – HOURLY RATES
Consultant
Project No.
Prime Consultant Subconsultant 2nd Tier Subconsultant
Bermuda Drive Bridge Replacemen Contract No. Date 04/14/22 For Combined Rate 0.00% 0.00%
Fringe Benefit % + General &Administrative %
0.00%
= 150.70% Combined ICR%
OR
For Home Office Rate
Fringe Benefit % + General &Administrative % =
150.70%
Home Office ICR%
For Field Office Rate
Fringe Benefit % + General &Administrative % = Field Office ICR%
BILLING INFORMATION CALCULATION INFORMATION Name/Job Title/Classification1 Hourly Billing Rates2
Straight3 OT(1.5x) OT(2x)
Effective Date of Hourly
Rate
From To
Actual or Avg.
Hourly Rate4
% or $
Increase
Hourly Range - for
Classifications Only
Mahvash Harms* / Principal in Charge $308.67 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $111.93 Not Applicable $324.10 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $117.53 5.00% Not Applicable $340.31 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $123.40 5.00% Not Applicable $357.32 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $129.57 5.00% Not Applicable $375.19 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $136.05 5.00% Not Applicable $393.95 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $142.85 5.00% Not Applicable Anthony Richardson* / Project Manager $209.23 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $75.87 Not Applicable $219.69 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $79.66 5.00% Not Applicable $230.67 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $83.65 5.00% Not Applicable $242.21 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $87.83 5.00% Not Applicable $254.32 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $92.22 5.00% Not Applicable $267.03 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $96.83 5.00% Not Applicable Principal III $344.71 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $125.00 $ 115.00 to $ 130.00 $361.95 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $131.25 5.00% $ 120.75 to $ 136.50 $380.05 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $137.81 5.00% $ 126.79 to $ 143.33 $399.05 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $144.70 5.00% $ 133.13 to $ 150.49 $419.00 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $151.94 5.00% $ 139.78 to $ 158.02 $439.95 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $159.54 5.00% $ 146.77 to $ 165.92 Principal II $297.83 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $108.00 $ 95.00 to $ 115.00 $312.72 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $113.40 5.00% $ 99.75 to $ 120.75 $328.36 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $119.07 5.00% $ 104.74 to $ 126.79 $344.78 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $125.02 5.00% $ 109.97 to $ 133.13 $362.02 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $131.27 5.00% $ 115.47 to $ 139.78 $380.12 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $137.84 5.00% $ 121.25 to $ 146.77 Principal I $248.19 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $90.00 $ 85.00 to $ 105.00 $260.60 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $94.50 5.00% $ 89.25 to $ 110.25 $273.63 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $99.23 5.00% $ 93.71 to $ 115.76 $287.31 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $104.19 5.00% $ 98.40 to $ 121.55 $301.68 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $109.40 5.00% $ 103.32 to $ 127.63 $316.76 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $114.87 5.00% $ 108.48 to $ 134.01 25 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 2 of 3
Rev 7/21
Associate $237.16 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $86.00 $ 70.00 to $ 90.00 $249.02 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $90.30 5.00% $ 73.50 to $ 94.50 $261.47 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $94.82 5.00% $ 77.18 to $ 99.23 $274.54 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $99.56 5.00% $ 81.03 to $ 104.19 $288.27 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $104.53 5.00% $ 85.09 to $ 109.40 $302.69 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $109.76 5.00% $ 89.34 to $ 114.87 Engineering Manager $201.31 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $73.00 $ 65.00 to $ 80.00 $211.38 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $76.65 5.00% $ 68.25 to $ 84.00 $221.95 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $80.48 5.00% $ 71.66 to $ 88.20 $233.04 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $84.51 5.00% $ 75.25 to $ 92.61 $244.70 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $88.73 5.00% $ 79.01 to $ 97.24 $256.93 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $93.17 5.00% $ 82.96 to $ 102.10 Senior Engineer $182.01 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $66.00 $ 55.00 to $ 70.00 $191.11 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $69.30 5.00% $ 57.75 to $ 73.50 $200.66 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $72.77 5.00% $ 60.64 to $ 77.18 $210.70 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $76.40 5.00% $ 63.67 to $ 81.03 $221.23 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $80.22 5.00% $ 66.85 to $ 85.09 $232.29 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $84.23 5.00% $ 70.20 to $ 89.34 Project Engineer $157.19 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $57.00 $ 45.00 to $ 65.00 $165.05 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $59.85 5.00% $ 47.25 to $ 68.25 $173.30 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $62.84 5.00% $ 49.61 to $ 71.66 $181.97 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $65.98 5.00% $ 52.09 to $ 75.25 $191.06 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $69.28 5.00% $ 54.70 to $ 79.01 $200.62 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $72.75 5.00% $ 57.43 to $ 82.96 Staff Engineer $124.10 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $45.00 $ 40.00 to $ 55.00 $130.30 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $47.25 5.00% $ 42.00 to $ 57.75 $136.82 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $49.61 5.00% $ 44.10 to $ 60.64 $143.66 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $52.09 5.00% $ 46.31 to $ 63.67 $150.84 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $54.70 5.00% $ 48.62 to $ 66.85 $158.38 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $57.43 5.00% $ 51.05 to $ 70.20 Assistant Engineer $118.58 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $43.00 $ 35.00 to $ 45.00 $124.51 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $45.15 5.00% $ 36.75 to $ 47.25 $130.74 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $47.41 5.00% $ 38.59 to $ 49.61 $137.27 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $49.78 5.00% $ 40.52 to $ 52.09 $144.14 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $52.27 5.00% $ 42.54 to $ 54.70 $151.34 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $54.88 5.00% $ 44.67 to $ 57.43 Junior Engineer $104.79 N/A N/A 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $38.00 $ 34.00 to $ 40.00 $110.03 N/A N/A 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $39.90 5.00% $ 35.70 to $ 42.00 $115.53 N/A N/A 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $41.90 5.00% $ 37.49 to $ 44.10 $121.31 N/A N/A 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $43.99 5.00% $ 39.36 to $ 46.31 $127.38 N/A N/A 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $46.19 5.00% $ 41.33 to $ 48.62 $133.74 N/A N/A 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $48.50 5.00% $ 43.39 to $ 51.05 Sr. Computer Drafter $137.89 $206.83 $275.77 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $50.00 $ 40.00 to $ 60.00 $144.78 $217.17 $289.56 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $52.50 5.00% $ 42.00 to $ 63.00 $152.02 $228.03 $304.04 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $55.13 5.00% $ 44.10 to $ 66.15 $159.62 $239.43 $319.24 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $57.88 5.00% $ 46.31 to $ 69.46 $167.60 $251.40 $335.20 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $60.78 5.00% $ 48.62 to $ 72.93 $175.98 $263.97 $351.96 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $63.81 5.00% $ 51.05 to $ 76.58 26 of 130
EXHIBIT B
Hourly Rates
Contract Amendment Page 3 of 3
Rev 7/21
NOTES:
1. Key personnel must be marked with an asterisk (*) and employees that are subject to prevailing wage requirements must be marked with two asterisks (**). All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles. Subconsultants will provide their own cost proposals.
2. The cost proposal format shall not be amended.
3. Billing rate = actual hourly rate * (1+ ICR) * (1+ Fee). Indirect cost rates shall be updated on an annual basis in accordance with the consultant’s annual accounting period and established by a cognizant agency or accepted by Caltrans. All costs must comply with the Federal cost principles for reimbursement.
4. For named employees and key personnel enter the actual hourly rate. For classifications only, enter the Average Hourly Rate for that classification.
5. Mark-ups on subconsultant billing rates and cost proposals are not allowed.
Computer Drafter $124.10 $186.14 $248.19 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $45.00 $ 35.00 to $ 55.00 $130.30 $195.45 $260.60 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $47.25 5.00% $ 36.75 to $ 57.75 $136.82 $205.22 $273.63 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $49.61 5.00% $ 38.59 to $ 60.64 $143.66 $215.49 $287.31 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $52.09 5.00% $ 40.52 to $ 63.67 $150.84 $226.26 $301.68 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $54.70 5.00% $ 42.54 to $ 66.85 $158.38 $237.57 $316.76 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $57.43 5.00% $ 44.67 to $ 70.20 Jr. Computer Drafter $110.31 $165.46 $220.62 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $40.00 $ 30.00 to $ 50.00 $115.82 $173.74 $231.65 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $42.00 5.00% $ 31.50 to $ 52.50 $121.61 $182.42 $243.23 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $44.10 5.00% $ 33.08 to $ 55.13 $127.70 $191.54 $255.39 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $46.31 5.00% $ 34.73 to $ 57.88 $134.08 $201.12 $268.16 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $48.62 5.00% $ 36.47 to $ 60.78 $140.78 $211.18 $281.57 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $51.05 5.00% $ 38.29 to $ 63.81 BIM/Visualization Specialist $137.89 $206.83 $275.77 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $50.00 $ 40.00 to $ 60.00 $144.78 $217.17 $289.56 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $52.50 5.00% $ 42.00 to $ 63.00 $152.02 $228.03 $304.04 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $55.13 5.00% $ 44.10 to $ 66.15 $159.62 $239.43 $319.24 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $57.88 5.00% $ 46.31 to $ 69.46 $167.60 $251.40 $335.20 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $60.78 5.00% $ 48.62 to $ 72.93 $175.98 $263.97 $351.96 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $63.81 5.00% $ 51.05 to $ 76.58 Project Administrator $154.43 $231.65 $308.86 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $56.00 $ 20.00 to $ 65.00 $162.15 $243.23 $324.31 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $58.80 5.00% $ 21.00 to $ 68.25 $170.26 $255.39 $340.52 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $61.74 5.00% $ 22.05 to $ 71.66 $178.77 $268.16 $357.55 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $64.83 5.00% $ 23.15 to $ 75.25 $187.71 $281.57 $375.42 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $68.07 5.00% $ 24.31 to $ 79.01 $197.10 $295.65 $394.20 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $71.47 5.00% $ 25.53 to $ 82.96 Project Coordinator $129.61 $194.42 $259.22 1/1/2022 12/31/2022 $47.00 $ 20.00 to $ 65.00 $136.09 $204.14 $272.18 1/1/2023 12/31/2023 $49.35 5.00% $ 21.00 to $ 68.25 $142.90 $214.35 $285.79 1/1/2024 12/31/2024 $51.82 5.00% $ 22.05 to $ 71.66 $150.04 $225.06 $300.08 1/1/2025 12/31/2025 $54.41 5.00% $ 23.15 to $ 75.25 $157.54 $236.32 $315.09 1/1/2026 12/31/2026 $57.13 5.00% $ 24.31 to $ 79.01 $165.42 $248.13 $330.84 1/1/2027 12/31/2027 $59.99 5.00% $ 25.53 to $ 82.96 27 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 6
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 6 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR File ID: 22-6106 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
2022 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Inspection Large Diameter Pipes Project – Agreement RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an agreement with Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. for the 2022 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Inspection – Large Diameter Pipes Project in an amount not to exceed $368,631; establish a contingency in the amount of $55,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented and issue change orders within the contingency amount.
BACKGROUND:
The City regularly performs cleaning and video inspections of all its sanitary sewer mains to meet the collection system management goals of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan. The objectives are to maintain the sewer mains and manholes by removing debris that may cause backups and to perform video inspections of the pipes and manholes for condition assessment.
The 2022 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Cleaning and Inspection – Large Diameter Pipes Project (Project) encompasses cleaning and video inspection of approximately 22,670 linear feet of sewer mains larger than 12-inches, and 51 sewer manholes located primarily along Highway 101 Northbound, Highway 101 Northbound frontage roads, 16th Avenue between the Caltrain tracks and Highway 101, and alongside the Caltrain tracks between 21st Avenue and 16th Avenue.
The Project was advertised on March 28, 2022. Two bids were received and opened on April 21, 2022, and the results are as follows: Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. ($368,631) and Express Plumbing, Inc. ($459,624). The engineer’s estimate for this project is $369,000. The complete bid results are shown in Attachment 2 - Bid Summary.
After review of the bid documents, the Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc.’s bid package was found responsive, the contractor was found responsible, and possessed the appropriate licenses. Therefore, staff recommends the Project be awarded to Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $368,631. Staff also recommends establishing a contingency reserve in the amount of $55,000 to address any unanticipated items that may arise during construction.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Sufficient funding is available in the Large Diameter Cleaning and Condition Assessment Project to award this agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The City prepared a Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (Final PEIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (SCH No. 2015032006). Council on June 6, 2016, certified the PEIR. In accordance with CEQA, the Final PEIR serves as the primary environmental compliance document for the implementation of the Clean 28 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 6
Water Program. The City prepared Addenda to the Final PEIR that was approved on July 16, 2018 (Addendum 1) and April 15, 2019 (Addendum 2). This work is within the scope of the Project evaluated in the PEIR and Addendum.
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Agreement
Att 2 - Bid Summary
STAFF CONTACT
Laura Webb, Associate Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7322
Deryk Daquigan, Engineering Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7287
29 of 130
Construction Contract A - 1 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
AGREEMENT WITH PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC.
FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
FOR
2022 CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND INSPECTION – LARGE DIAMETER PIPES CITY PROJECT NO. 46s095-46000-9155-46320
THIS AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS (“Agreement”), made and entered into in the City of San Mateo, County of San Mateo, State of California, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California, (hereinafter called "City") and PIPE AND PLANT SOLUTIONS, INC., a CORPORATION , with offices at 600 Castro Street, San Leandro, CA 94577 (hereinafter called "Contractor"), entered into this day of ____________________.
RECITALS:
(a) City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements or other matters herein provided, and execution of this Agreement. (b) A notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described.
(c) After notice duly given, on the date hereof, the City awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor.
IT IS AGREED, as follows:
1. Scope of Work. Contractor shall perform the work according to the Contract Book entitled:
2022 CITYWIDE SANITARY SEWER CLEANING AND INSPECTION – LARGE DIAMETER PIPES CITY PROJECT NO. 46S095-46000-9155-46320
2. Contract Price. City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, the sum of $368,631.00 in full payment for the work set forth above.
Said price is determined by the prices contained in Contractor's bid, and shall be paid as described in the Contract Book. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to or a reduction of those set forth in Contractor's bid and the specifications herein, such work and materials will be paid for as described in the Contract Book.
3. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement; the Notice Inviting Sealed Proposals; the Accepted Proposal; the Contract Book which includes the Special Provisions and Contract Drawings, the APWA-AGC Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2015 Edition, the Faithful Performance Bond, and the Labor and Material Bond (hereinafter referred to as the “contract documents”). 30 of 130
Construction Contract A - 2 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the contract documents. The contract documents constitute the entire contract between the parties hereto pertaining to the subject matter hereof, fully supersede any and all prior understandings, representations, warranties and agreements between the parties hereto, or any of them, pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and may be modified only by written agreement signed by all of the parties hereto.
All of the above-named documents are complementary and are intended to operate in harmony, so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. In the event of any variation or discrepancy between any portion of this Agreement and any portion of the contract documents, this Agreement shall prevail.
The precedence of the remaining contract documents will be as specified in the Contract Book.
4. Schedule. All work shall be performed in accordance with the schedule provided pursuant to the Contract Book.
5. Performance by Sureties. In the event of any termination as hereinbefore provided, City shall immediately give written notice thereof to Contractor and Contractor's sureties, and the sureties shall have the right to take over and perform the Agreement, provided, however, that if the sureties, within 5 days after giving them said notice of termination, do not give City written notice of their intention to take over the performance thereof within 5 days after notice to City of such election, City may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract or by any other method it may deem advisable, for the account, and at the expense of Contractor, and the sureties shall be liable to City for any excess cost or damages occasioned City thereby; and, in such event, City may, without liability for so doing, take possession of, and utilize in completing the work, such materials, appliances, plant and other property belonging to Contractor as may be on the site of the work and necessary therefor.
6. Legal Work Day - Penalties for Violation. Eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work.
Contractor shall not require more than 8 hours labor in a day and 40 hours in a calendar week from any person employed by Contractor in the performance of such work unless such excess work is compensated for at not less than 1-1/2 times the basic rate of pay. Contractor shall forfeit as a penalty to City the sum of $25.00 for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of this contract by Contractor, or by any subcontractor for each calendar day during which such laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than 8 hours in any calendar day and 40 hours in any one calendar week in violation of the provisions of Sections 1810 and 1816, inclusive, of the Labor Code of the State of California.
7. Prevailing Wage Scale. The prevailing wage scale as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California, in force on the day the bid was announced, will be the minimum paid to all craftsmen and laborers working on this project. Contractor shall also require any subcontractors who work or provide any services related to the project to pay all persons performing labor or rendering service under said subcontract or other arrangement at least the general prevailing rate of wages, determined as set forth herein for the respective crafts and employments, including such wages for holiday and overtime work. A copy of the correct determination will be posted at the job site. It is understood that it is the responsibility of Contractor to determine the correct scale. Copies of the 31 of 130
Construction Contract A - 3 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
prevailing wage rates are on file at the City Clerk's office, however, errors or defects in the materials in the City Clerk's office will not excuse a bidder's failure to comply with the actual scale then in force.
Contractor must submit certified payrolls to the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with Labor Code Section 1776.
Contractor agrees to comply with the City’s minimum wage ordinance as codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.92, which differs from the state minimum wage and includes a Consumer Price Index escalator.
8. Senate Bill 854 Compliance Required. In accordance with Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, all contractors and subcontractors must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations.
In accordance with Labor Code Section 1771.4 the contractor must post job site notices as required by regulation and this project will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations.
9. Insurance. The Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract and five years thereafter the insurance as specified in Exhibit A of this agreement.
10. Hold Harmless and Indemnity Provision. Contractor agrees to hold harmless, defend, and indemnify the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising from performance of this Agreement, including claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense caused or claimed to be caused by passive negligence of the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents; provided, however that this provision does not apply to claims, loss, liability, damage or expense arising from (a) the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or (b) the active negligence of the City; further provided, that this provision shall not affect the validity of any insurance contract, workers’ compensation or other agreement issued by an admitted insurer as defined by the Insurance Code. Contractor will defend City of San Mateo, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents, against any such claims.
11. Attorney Fees. Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5,000 shall be recoverable as costs (that is, by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of the contract documents. The above $5,000 limit is the total of attorney fees recoverable whether in the trial court, appellate court, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of attorneys, trials, appeals or actions. It is the intent that neither party to this Agreement shall have to pay the other more than $5,000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions, to enforce the provisions of the contract documents. The parties expect and hope there will be no litigation and that any differences will be resolved amicably.
12. Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the California State Board of Mediation and Conciliation, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.
32 of 130
Construction Contract A - 4 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
The cost of mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. Neither party shall be deemed the prevailing party. No party shall be permitted to file a legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated settlement. The mediation process, once commenced by a meeting with the mediator, shall last until agreement is reached by the parties but not more than 60 days, unless the maximum time is extended by the parties.
13. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this agreement are cumulative, and in addition to and not in limitation of, any other rights or remedies available to City.
14. Notices. All notices shall be in writing, and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid.
a. Notices required to be given to City shall be addressed as follows:
Director of Public Works
City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as appears in the signature block as shown on the Bidder's Statement.
15. Interpretation. As used herein any gender includes each other gender, the singular includes the plural and vice versa.
16. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement, the contract documents, and the performance hereon shall be governed, interpreted, construed, and regulated by the laws of the State of California. The parties agree that any action related to this Agreement or the contract documents will be venued in the County of San Mateo.
17. Headings. The title and headings of the various sections of this Agreement and the contract documents are intended solely for convenience of reference and are not intended to explain, modify, or place any construction on any provisions.
18. No Partnership or Agency. Nothing in this Agreement nor the contract documents shall be deemed to constitute a partnership in law between City and Contractor, or any sub-contractor, to constitute either party as an agent of the other for any purpose; or to entitle either party to commit or bind the other in any manner unless expressly agreed upon in the contract documents.
19. Severability. If any part or provision of the contract documents is determined by any court to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, in whole or in part, the contract documents shall continue to be valid as to its other provisions and the remainder of the affected provision, unless it can be concluded from the circumstances that, in the absence of the provisions found to be null and void, the parties would not have entered into the contract documents. The parties shall use all reasonable efforts to replace any and all provisions or parts found to be null and void with provisions that are valid under the applicable law and come closest to their original intention. 33 of 130
Construction Contract A - 5 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
20. Waiver. None of the following shall operate as a waiver of any provision of the contract documents, or of any power herein reserved by the City, or any right to damages herein provided: 1) inspection by the City or its authorized agents or representatives; 2) any order or certificate for payment, or any payment for, or acceptance of the whole or any part of the work by the City; 3) an extension of time; or 4) any position taken by the City or its authorized agents or representatives.
21. Warranty. Contractor warrants and guarantees that the materials and equipment provided shall be at least of the quality specified and new unless otherwise required or permitted by the contract documents, and, if no quality is specified, then the materials and equipment shall be of commercial grade, suitable for heavy public use in facilities of similar size and complexity, that the work performed hereunder will be free from defects, and that the work will conform to the requirements of the contract documents.
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
34 of 130
Construction Contract A - 6 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement between the CITY OF SAN MATEO and Pipe and Plant Solutions, Inc. has been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named, as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF SAN MATEO CONTRACTOR
Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director
Date William Gilmartin IV
Its Authorized Agent
President
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Insurance Requirements
35 of 130
Construction Contract A - 7 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
Exhibit A
Insurance Requirements for Construction Contracts
Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract, and for x years thereafter, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, his agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors.
MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMIT OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1.Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $5,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 or 25 04) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2.Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto), with limits no less than $5,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3.Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employers’ Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
4.Builder’s Risk (Course of Construction) insurance utilizing an “All Risk” (Special Perils) coverage form, with limits equal to the completed value of the project and no coinsurance penalty provisions.
5.Surety Bonds as described below.
6.Professional Liability (if Design/Build), with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate.
7.Contractors’ Pollution Legal Liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards) with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000 policy aggregate.
If the contractor maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the Entity requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or higher limits maintained by the contractor. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the Entity.
Self-Insured Retentions
Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Entity. At the option of the Entity, either: the contractor shall cause the insurer shall to reduce or eliminate such self-insured retentions as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Contractor shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Entity guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or Entity.
Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1.The Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in connection 36 of 130
Construction Contract A - 8 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
with such work or operations and automobiles owned, leased, hired, or borrowed by or on behalf of the Contractor. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, CG 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Entity, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except with notice to the Entity.
Builder’s Risk (Course of Construction) Insurance
Contractor may submit evidence of Builder’s Risk insurance in the form of Course of Construction coverage. Such coverage shall name the Entity as a loss payee as their interest may appear.
If the project does not involve new or major reconstruction, at the option of the Entity, an Installation Floater may be acceptable. For such projects, a Property Installation Floater shall be obtained that provides for the improvement, remodel, modification, alteration, conversion or adjustment to existing buildings, structures, processes, machinery and equipment. The Property Installation Floater shall provide property damage coverage for any building, structure, machinery or equipment damaged, impaired, broken, or destroyed during the performance of the Work, including during transit, installation, and testing at the Entity’s site.
Claims Made Policies – (If at all possible avoid and require occurrence type CGL policies) If any coverage required is written on a claims-made coverage form:
1. The retroactive date must be shown, and this date must be before the execution date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.
2. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of contract work.
3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a retroactive date prior to the contract effective, or start of work date, the Contractor must purchase extended reporting period coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
4. A copy of the claims reporting requirements must be submitted to the Entity for review.
5. If the services involve lead-based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractors Pollution Liability policy shall not contain lead-based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the services involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractors Pollution Liability policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.
Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M.
Best rating of no less than A: VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the Entity.
Waiver of Subrogation
Contractor hereby agrees to waive rights of subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire from Contractor by virtue of the payment of any loss. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers’ Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the Entity for all work performed by the Contractor, its employees, agents and subcontractors.
37 of 130
Construction Contract A - 9 of 9
Rev 7/21
6 3
7 7
Verification of Coverage
Contractor shall furnish the Entity with original Certificates of Insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) and a copy of the Declarations and Endorsement Page of the CGL policy listing all policy endorsements to Entity before work begins. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them. The Entity reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements, required by these specifications, at any time.
Subcontractors
Contractor shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that Entity is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors. For CGL coverage subcontractors shall provide coverage with a form at least as broad as CG 20 38 04 13.
Surety Bonds
Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:
1. Bid bond
2. Performance bond
3. Payment bond
4. Maintenance bond
The Payment Bond and the Performance Bond shall be in a sum equal to the contract price. If the Performance Bond provides for a one-year warranty a separate Maintenance Bond is not necessary. If the warranty period specified in the contract is for longer than one year a Maintenance Bond equal to 10% of the contract price is required. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California.
Special Risks or Circumstances
Entity reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other circumstances. 38 of 130
39 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
8 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 7 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: . File ID: 22-6206 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Clerk's Office
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
Board and Commissions – Confirm Reappointments, Planning Commission Appointment and Establish Annual Appointment Subcommittees
RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint Mayor Bonilla and Council Member Rodriguez to both the Community Relations Commission and Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission Appointment Subcommittees.
Accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission Appointment Subcommittee and appoint Martin Wiggins to a partial term on the Planning Commission ending 6-10-2024.
Reappoint: Community Relations Commissioner – Sheri Boles; Library Board Trustee – Austin Volz; Park & Recreation Commissioner – J. Christopher Massey; Personnel Board – Gayle Murphy; Planning Commissioner – Seema Patel; Senior Citizen’s Commissioner – Mary Webb; Sustainability & Infrastructure Commissioner – Clifford Robbins and Measure S Oversight Committee Members – Richard W. Hedges and Lisa Diaz Nash.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission had a vacancy with the resignation of Ramiro Maldonado and an extended recruitment was conducted with the result that there were only two applications for the seat through June 10, 2024. The appointment subcommittee comprised of Mayor Rick Bonilla and Deputy Mayor Diane Papan with staff advice from Planning Manager Manira Sandhir interviewed two candidates: Martin Wiggins and Bal Gurpreet.
Per the City Council Guidelines, the City Council appoints an appointment subcommittee for each board or commission body, comprised of the Mayor (or designee) and the Council liaison to that commission. The guidelines also allow the other Council Members to participate as a member of the appointment subcommittee. As each meeting is publicly noticed and to ensure that the meeting is appropriately agendized, this is the opportunity for Council to add their names as a participant to the appointment subcommittee.
There are two established vacancies in this annual recruitment period, one for Nichole Fernandez completing her term on Community Relations Commission and one on the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission due to Rafael Reyes not seeking a second term.
The first step in any annual recruitment is for those eligible for reappointment to indicate their interest in continuing to serve. The relevant appointment subcommittees have not indicated a need for interviewing for these reappointments.
Therefore, the following are being asked to automatically be reappointed:
40 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
8 4
Community Relations Commission:
Sheri Boles, a full first four-year term ending on 6-10-26 Library Board:
Austin Volz, 1st term ending on 6-10-26
Park and Recreation Commission:
J. Christopher Massey, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
Personnel Board
Gayle Murphy, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
Planning Commission:
Seema Patel, a full first four-year term ending on 6-10-26 Senior Citizens Commission:
Mary Webb, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission:
Clifford Robbins, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
Measure S Oversight Committee
Rich Hedges, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
Lisa Diaz Nash, 2nd term ending on 6-10-26
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact from this administrative function.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This appointment is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Boards and Commission List
STAFF CONTACT
Patrice Olds, City Clerk
[email protected]
(650) 522-7042
41 of 130
Updated 2/23/2022
5 7
7 2
Boards, Commissions & Committees List
Term
Date
Appt’d
Term
Expires Term
Date
Appt’d
Term
Expires
COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMISSION(650) 522-7220
Meeting: 3rd Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. City Hall (Room C)
0 Sheri Boles 07-19-21 06-10-22
1 Meghan Crowell 06-10-21 06-10-25
2 Nicole Fernandez 12-02-13 06-10-22
1 Jerold Nugent, Chair 06-10-20 06-10-24
1 Sharrie Overall, Vice Chair 06-10-20 06-10-24
PLANNING COMMISSION (650) 522-7212
Meeting: 2nd & 4th Tuesdays, 7:00 p.m. Council
Chambers
2 John Ebneter 06-01-15 06-10-25
1 VACANT 06-18-18 06-10-24
1 Adam Nugent 07-19-21 06-10-25
0 Seema Patel 06-10-21 06-10-22
1 Margaret Williams, Vice Chair 07-15-19 06-10-23
LIBRARY BOARD (650) 522-7802
Meeting: 4th Monday, 5:30 p.m. Main Library Cedar Rm.
2 Elizabeth De Winter, President 07-20-15 06-10-23
1 Lisa Diaz Nash 09-17-18 06-10-25
0 Rod Linhares 02-16-21 06-10-24
0 Austin Volz 01-03-22 06-10-22
0 Shaylona Wheeler 01-03-22 06-10-25
SENIOR CITIZENS COMMISSION (650) 522-7400
Meeting: 2nd Monday, every other month beginning in
January
4:00 p.m. San Mateo Senior Center
0 Jon Wu 01-18-22 06-10-25
0 Liz Foreman 09-20-21 06-10-23
2 Monika Lee, Vice Chair 07-18-16 06-10-24
1 Ellen Wang, Chair 07-20-20 06-10-24
1 Mary Webb 02-17-15 06-10-22
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION(650) 522-7400
Meeting: 1st Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. City Hall (Room C)
1 Sarah Fields 06-10-21 06-10-25
0 Lindsey Held, Vice Chair 07-20-20 06-10-23
2 Eric Holm, Chair 10-06-14 06-10-23
1 J. Christopher Massey, Chair 09-21-15 06-10-22
2 Heather Wolnick 07-17-17 06-10-25
SUSTAINABILITY & INFRASTRUCTURE(650) 522-7153
COMMISSION
Meeting: 2nd Wednesday, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
1 Adam Loraine, Chair 07-20-20 06-10-24
0 Kimi Narita, Vice Chair 04-05-21 06-10-23
1 Rafael Reyes 08-06-18 06-10-22
1 Clifford S. Robbins 08-06-18 06-10-22
1 Susan Rowinski 08-06-18 06-10-25
PERSONNEL BOARD (650) 522-7260
Meeting: 3rd Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. City Hall (Room C)
1 Caiti Busch 06-10-21 06-10-25
1 Debra Kaiser 06-10-21 06-10-25
1 Gayle Murphy, Chair 07-20-15 06-10-22
1 Robert Newsom, Vice Chair 08-19-19 06-10-23
1 Tony Villanueva 01-19-21 06-10-24
YOUTH ACTIVITIES COUNCIL (YAC) (650) 522-7432
Meets twice a month, Coordinator: Brandon Parra
Youth from the following schools represent the voice of San Mateo teens: Aragon – Hillsdale – Serra – San
Mateo
MOSQUITO & VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
(650) 573-8358
1 Ed Degliantoni 09-21-15 12-31-21
0 = appointed to unscheduled opening, eligible to serve a first full term
1 = in first term currently
2 = in second (final) term currently
Board and Commission Members are appointed by the City Council. To apply for future vacancies, or for further information, please contact the City Clerk. Members serve a four-year term of office. Qualifications: Registered Voter of the City of San Mateo.
42 of 130
Updated 2/23/2022
5 7
7 2
Term
Date
Appt’d
Term
Expires
MEASURE S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE(650) 522-7040
Meeting: 3rd Tuesday of the 2nd month of the quarter (February, May, August, November) at 6:00 p.m. City Hall (Room C) 2 Naomi Chin-Fuen Hsu 02-05-18 06-10-24
1 Richard W. Hedges, Vice Chair 02-05-18 06-10-22
2 Thomas Morgan 02-05-18 06-10-25
1 Lisa Diaz Nash, Chair 02-05-18 06-10-22
1 Vince Siminitus 11-01-18 06-10-23
CIVIC ARTS COMMITTEE (650) 522-7164
Meeting: 2nd Monday, every other month beginning in January, 4:00 p.m. City Hall (Room C) Robert Gooyer
Seema Patel
Ginger Slonaker
Stephen Tabler, Chair
Dianne Whitaker, Vice Chair
INVESTMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE(650) 522-7100
Meeting: 3rd Thursday of Jan/Apr/Jul/Oct at 3:30 p.m., City Hall (Room C) Jeff Adams
Michael Carney
Chris deLong
Mark Moroni
Margaret Taylor, Chair
GENERAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE
Meeting: Varies
Eric Rodriguez (City Council Member)
Rick Bonilla (City Council Member)
Seema Patel (Planning Commissioner)
Adam Nugent (Planning Commissioner)
Heather Wolnick (Park and Recreation Commissioner)
Ken Chin (San Mateo Foster City School Board Member)
Board and Commission Members are appointed by the City Council. To apply for future vacancies, or for further information, please contact the City Clerk. Members serve a four-year term of office. Qualifications: Registered Voter of the City of San Mateo.
/s/ PATRICE M. OLDS, CITY CLERK
43 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 8
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 8 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING File ID: 22-6109 TO: City Council
FROM: Prasanna W. Rasiah, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: City Attorney's Office
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Introduction – Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce an Ordinance to prohibit individuals from harassing, intimidating, or obstructing persons seeking access to a reproductive health care facility within 100 feet of an entrance to such a facility.
BACKGROUND:
Since at least 2014, individuals seeking services at the Planned Parenthood health care facility in San Mateo have experienced protestors aggressively approaching them and engaging in harassing behavior, as explained in more detail below. In addition, there is a distinct possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court may overturn its decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) 410 U.S. 113 that established a constitutional right to an abortion. The Court is considering whether to do so in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and a decision is expected in June 2022. If this occurs, more patients may seek services at Planned Parenthood facilities in California, including in San Mateo, which could lead to more confrontations and harassment. In order to prepare for such a scenario, and to reduce the frequency and intensity of existing altercations, the attached draft ordinance is presented for Council consideration. If adopted, the ordinance would fulfill one of the Council’s strategic priorities for Fiscal Year 2022/2023.
There continue to be incidents and harassment on and in front of the Planned Parenthood property on Baywood Avenue in San Mateo. This raises serious and alarming safety concerns regarding the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care facilities. The City’s Police Department has received a number of calls for service since 2014 about protest-related incidents, including but not limited to reports of the following:
1. On December 9, 2014, a woman jumped in front of a moving vehicle to prevent a patient from entering the parking lot.
2. On January 23, 2015, protestors blocked the driveway leading into the clinic, thereby obstructing vehicular traffic on Baywood Avenue.
3. On June 12, 2015, a person dressed in a white doctor-style coat was in front of the facility and aggressively engaging with people entering the facility.
4. On August 19, 2020, a protestor grabbed the arm of a person who was escorting a patient from the parking lot into the facility.
5. On October 7, 2021, a person wearing a white lab coat and a stethoscope flagged down a patient entering the facility claiming that they were a doctor with Planned Parenthood.
6. On December 1, 2021, a protestor was shouting at the driver of a car entering the Planned Parenthood facility parking lot, thus blocking the driveway and preventing a third party from walking down the sidewalk. 44 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 8
The issue of safe access to reproductive health care facilities is one that has been discussed and regulated by many jurisdictions across the country. A number of California cities have adopted buffer zone ordinances to ensure patient access to reproductive health care services, including Napa, Oakland, San Francisco. Regulations adopted by Walnut Creek in April 2022 served as the model for the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Legal Background
The City has constitutional authority to establish and enforce ordinances that regulate conduct in order to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare. However, the City’s authority is limited by the competing constitutionally protected rights of individuals to use public sidewalks to exercise their right of free expression. The U.S. Supreme Court has balanced these two competing sets of rights and concluded that a city may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place and manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.
The question of the constitutionality of buffer zone laws has reached the U.S. Supreme Court several times in the last three decades, in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center Inc. (1994), Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W. New York (1997), Hill v.
Colorado (2000), and McCullen v. Coakley (2014). Generally, a government may impose a buffer zone in the area around a reproductive healthcare facility, so long as the restrictions are content-neutral time, place, or manner regulations of speech, and narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest.
The recommended ordinance complies with the legal criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ordinance seeks to address the significant governmental interests of providing safe patient access to healthcare and unobstructed use of sidewalks by the general public. Due to the history of complaints related to harassing and obstructive conduct on a sidewalk near a reproductive health care facility, the ordinance is focused on regulating that conduct at the location where the problematic conduct has occurred, within a 100-foot “buffer zone” around the Planned Parenthood facility.
What the Ordinance Would Do
The recommended ordinance complies with the legal criteria established by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ordinance seeks to address the significant governmental interests of providing patient access to reproductive health care services. Due to the history of complaints related to harassing, intimidating, and obstructive conduct on a sidewalk, driveway and street near a reproductive health care facility, the ordinance is focused on regulating that conduct at the location where the problematic conduct has occurred, within one-hundred (100) feet of the entrance of a reproductive health care facility.
Within one-hundred (100) feet of the entrance of a reproductive facility, the ordinance prohibits approaching within eight (8) feet of any person seeking to enter or exit the reproductive health care facility, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking to enter or exit the parking lot of such a facility, without the consent of such a person or vehicle occupant, for the purpose of harassing or intimidating such person or vehicle occupant. The ordinance also prohibits obstructing access to or departure from any entrance to a building or driveway of a reproductive health care facility.
These restrictions are content-neutral and are narrowly tailored restrictions that serve a significant governmental interest, but still provide alternative avenues of communication. The reasonable time, place and manner restrictions in the proposed ordinance avoid the negative effects of harassing, intimidating and obstructive conduct, and prohibits excessive noise within 100 feet of an entrance to a reproductive health care facility, without targeting the message or topic of speech.
The restrictions are narrowly tailored and allow ample alternative means of communicating in the areas in front of reproductive health care facilities through consensual conversations that are not harassing or intimidating or through non- consensual conversations where there is an 8-foot distance between speaker and target audience to reduce or eliminate the harassing, intimidating or obstructing conduct accompanying any such speech. 45 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 8
The application of the ordinance to apply only to reproductive health care facilities, rather than health care facilities generally, further ensures narrow tailoring because reproductive health care facilities that are not part of a licensed hospital, and not owned or operated by a licensed hospital, are more vulnerable to such subversion of their patients' rights on account of the layout and design of their facilities and parking areas as well as their staff resources and deployment.
The ordinance establishes the definitions of harass, intimidate, obstruct, and excessive noise, and provides illustrative examples of harassing behavior that would be in violation of the code, such as approaching a person if that person has indicated that they do not want to be approached or engage in conversation, following a person if that conduct is intended or is likely to cause a person to fear bodily harm, or damage to or loss of property, touching or causing physical contact with a person without that person's consent, or using violent or threatening gestures toward a person.
The ordinance establishes enforcement criteria to include criminal and civil enforcement avenues for violations. It also provides law enforcement officials with the power to order the immediate dispersal of a gathering that continues to violate the section after a verbal warning. It should be noted that in order for a police officer to take immediate enforcement action, the offense must take place in the officer’s presence. Otherwise, complaints will be referred to the City Attorney’s Office for a determination as to whether or not to prosecute. The establishment of this ordinance does not preclude enforcement of any other city, state or federal laws, either inside or outside the 100-foot buffer zone.
It should also be noted that the State of California has adopted laws which allow the City to address some of the reported incidences through enforcement of those existing laws. Both the California Constitution and the Health and Safety Code guarantee the right to privacy that includes a person's right to access health care facilities to receive health care services including abortions. Also, California Penal Code Section 423.2 makes it a crime to use or threaten to use force, or attempt to injure or intimidate, any person because they are, or attempting to become or remain, a reproductive health services client or provider. This section also prohibits intentionally filming or photographing a person within 100 feet of a reproductive health care facility to intimidate them from becoming or remaining a patient or provider, as specified.
It is recommended that the City Council introduce the proposed Ordinance. If introduced, the second reading and proposed adoption of the Ordinance would take place on June 6, 2022.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact associated with this action.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This action is not a project subject to CEQA because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met. A public hearing notice was published in the Daily Journal on May 6, 2022.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Ordinance
STAFF CONTACT
Prasanna W. Rasiah
[email protected]
(650) 522-7022
46 of 130
6 4
4 9
CITY OF SAN MATEO
DRAFT ORDINANCE
Adopt Title 10 “Peace, Safety and Morals” Chapter 10.90 “Access To Reproductive Health Care Facilities” of the San Mateo Municipal Code to Prohibit Individuals from Harassing, Intimidating, or Obstructing Persons Seeking Access to a Reproductive Health Care Facility
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings.
(a) Every person in the City of San Mateo ("City") has a fundamental right to privacy, protected not only by the United States Constitution, but also explicitly guaranteed in Article I, Section 1 of the California Constitution. This right to privacy includes the right to access all legal health care services, including reproductive health care services.
(b) The City Council desires to amend Title 10 entitled “Peace, Safety and Morals” of the City’s Municipal Code by adding Chapter 10.90 in its entirety, entitled “Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities.” The adoption of Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 10.90 through this Ordinance is essential and necessary to promote the full exercise of the right to privacy by patients seeking vital reproductive health services and is also necessary to maintain public health, safety, and welfare within the City. (c) In developing this Ordinance, the City Council is mindful of the legal principles relating to regulation of activity in public forums such as sidewalks, streets and public parks. The City Council does not intend to unconstitutionally suppress or infringe expressive activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Liberty of Speech Clause of the California Constitution, but instead is enacting reasonable content-neutral time, place and manner regulations. These regulations address the need to prevent:
harassment and intimidation within eight (8) feet of a person accessing reproductive health care facilities within 100 feet of the entrance to a reproductive health care facility; and the obstruction of access to a reproductive health care facility.
(d) The City Council in enacting this Ordinance does hereby take legislative notice of the various principles and decisions regarding buffer zone restrictions at reproductive health care facilities, First Amendment rights and the regulation of public assemblies, including but not limited to, the following: Hill v.
Colorado (2000) 530 U.S. 703; McCullen v. Coakley (2014) 573 U.S. 464; Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of W.
New York (1997) 519 U.S. 357; Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz. (2015) 576 U.S. 155; Hoye v. City of Oakland (9 th Cir. 2011) 653 F.3d 835; United States v. Grace (1983) 461 U.S. 171; Police Dep’t of Chicago v. Mosley (1972) 408 U.S. 92, 95; and Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 753. (e) The City Council also takes legislative notice of the State of Colorado regulation prohibiting efforts to obstruct, detain, hinder, impede, or block another person’s entry to or exit from a health care facility, as well as knowingly approach within eight feet of a person, unless such person consents, for the purpose of engaging in specified conduct within one hundred feet of the entrance to a health care facility, validated by the Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado (2000) 530 U.S. 703. The City Council also takes legislative notice of the City of Oakland regulation prohibiting efforts to knowingly and willfully approach within eight feet of a person or vehicle 47 of 130
6 4
4 9
occupant seeking entry to a reproductive health clinic if the purpose is to counsel, harass, or interfere with such person or vehicle occupant, validated by the Ninth Circuit in Hoye v. City of Oakland (9th Cir. 2011) 653 F.3d 835.
The City Council also takes legislative notice of the ordinances protecting the constitutional right to access reproductive health care facilities enacted by the City of San Francisco and the City of Napa that prohibit following or harassing conduct within 25 feet and 30 feet of a reproductive health care facility, respectively, and prohibit impeding access to or exit from a reproductive health care facility. The City Council also takes legislative notice of the City of Walnut Creek ordinance prohibiting efforts to willfully and knowingly approach within eight feet of a person or vehicle occupant seeking entry to reproductive health care facility, within 100 feet of the entrance, if the purpose is to harass or intimidate such person or vehicle occupant, and prohibiting the obstruction of access to or departure from the facility. (f) The function of a buffer zone restriction at a reproductive health care facility is to prohibit specific conduct which may obstruct, deter, delay, or prevent individuals from obtaining or providing necessary reproductive health care services because they are otherwise forced to endure harassing, obstructive or intimidating behavior. These factors lead to increased patient stress that may affect the efficacy and complication rate of the medical care sought within and can adversely affect the physical and emotional health and well-being of patients seeking services at a reproductive health care facility. (g) The City finds that continued incidences and harassment on and in front of the Planned Parenthood property in San Mateo raise serious and alarming safety concerns regarding the constitutionally protected right to access reproductive health care facilities. The City’s Police Department has received several calls for service since 2014 about protest-related incidents, including but not limited to: a report of a woman jumping in front of a moving vehicle to prevent a patient from entering the parking lot; a report of protestors blocking the driveway leading into the clinic, thereby obstructing vehicular traffic on Baywood Avenue; a report of a person dressed in a white doctor-style coat in front of the facility and aggressively engaging with people entering the facility; a report of a protestor grabbing the arm of a person who was escorting a patient from the parking lot into the facility; a report of a person wearing a white lab coat and a stethoscope who flagged down a patient entering the facility claiming that they were a doctor with Planned Parenthood; and a report of a car blocking the driveway of the facility parking lot due to a protestor yelling at the driver, who was as a result blocking a third party from walking down the sidewalk.
(h) The City has determined that delaying action on further consideration of this Ordinance until additional incidences and harassment in front of Planned Parenthood occur or escalate does not adequately protect the constitutional rights of these individuals to access reproductive health care services, and that it is instead appropriate to enact basic protections against harassment, intimidation and obstruction in regards to accessing reproductive health care facilities.
(i) The City desires to enact narrowly-tailored content neutral regulations to protect the right to access reproductive health care services by enacting restrictions on conduct that obstructs access to reproductive health care services by creating an eight-foot buffer for a person accessing the facility when the person is within 100 feet of the entrance to the reproductive health care facility. (j) By enacting this Ordinance, the City Council does not intend to interfere with the exercise of free speech rights of those engaged in protesting outside of reproductive health care facilities. Rather, this Chapter 48 of 130
6 4
4 9
only regulates harassment and intimidation within eight feet of the person within 100 feet of the entrance to a reproductive health care facility, and obstructing access, to protect both the rights of those seeking access to reproductive health care services, and those who gather outside of reproductive health care facilities in the City to speak on matters of public concern. The City has determined based on empirical evidence, including ordinances adopted by sister jurisdictions, that creating an eight-foot buffer around a person when that person is within 100 feet of the entrance to a health care facility minimizes, reduces and/or eliminates harassing, intimidating and/or obstructing conduct while at the same time still allowing any protected expressive activity to occur in close enough proximity to reach the intended audience. (k) The City finds that the modest scope of the Ordinance prohibiting harassing and intimidating individuals within eight feet of the person, within 100 feet of the entrance to a reproductive health care facility, and obstructing access, are content-neutral and are narrowly-tailored restrictions that serve a significant governmental interest, but still provide alternative avenues of communication. The reasonable time, place and manner restrictions in this Ordinance avoid the negative effects of harassing, intimidating and obstructive conduct around reproductive health care facilities, without targeting the message or topic of speech. The restrictions are narrowly tailored and allow ample alternative means of communicating in the areas in front of reproductive health care facilities through consensual conversations that are not harassing or intimidating or through non-consensual conversations where there is an eight-foot distance between speaker and target audience to reduce or eliminate the harassing, intimidating or obstructing conduct accompanying any such speech. The application of this Ordinance to apply only to reproductive health care facilities, rather than health care facilities generally, further ensures narrow tailoring because reproductive health care facilities that are not part of a licensed hospital, and not owned or operated by a licensed hospital, are more vulnerable to such subversion of their patients' rights on account of the layout and design of their facilities and parking areas as well as their staff resources and deployment.
(l) This Ordinance is not intended to create any limited, designated or general public fora. Rather it is intended to protect those who seek access to reproductive health care from conduct that violates their rights.
Section 2. Chapter 10.90 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is added to Title 10 as follows:
Chapter 10.90
Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance
10.90.010 Title and Purpose
(a) This Chapter shall be known as the "Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance." The City Council finds that every person in the City of San Mateo has a basic and fundamental right to privacy protected by the United States Constitution and explicitly guaranteed in California's Constitution, Article 1, Section 1, including the right to seek and obtain all health care services permitted under the laws of the State of California. Central to this right is the need to secure access to all reproductive health care services. Access to these services is a matter of critical importance not only to the individual, but also to the health and welfare of all residents of the City of San Mateo and the region. Intentional efforts to harass an individual or prevent that individual from exercising his or her right to seek and obtain reproductive health care services are therefore contrary to the interests of the people of San Mateo.
49 of 130
6 4
4 9
(b) In adopting this Ordinance, the San Mateo City Council recognizes both the fundamental constitutional right to assemble peaceably and to demonstrate on matters of public concern, as well as the right to seek and obtain health care services. This Ordinance promotes the full exercise of these rights and strikes an appropriate accommodation between them.
(c) This Ordinance is not intended to create any limited, designated, or general public fora. Rather it is intended to protect those who seek access to constitutionally protected reproductive health services from conduct which violates their rights while also protecting the rights of people who gather outside of reproductive health care facilities in the City to speak on matters of public concern.
10.90.020 Definitions
(a) "Eight feet" shall be measured from any extension of the body of the individual seeking access to, passage from, or services within the reproductive health care facility, and/or the exterior of any occupied motor vehicle, to any extension of the body of, or any sign or object held by another person. (b) "Follow" means to physically pursue an individual once that individual has indicated verbally or non- verbally they do not wish to be approached or engage in conversation. (c) “Gathering” means two or more individuals.
(d) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person or persons that alarms, seriously distresses, torments, or terrorizes the person. Harassment does not include, among other things, quiet, consensual conversation conducted from a stationary position. Harass includes, but is not limited to:
(1) Approaching a person once that person has indicated they do not want to be approached or engage in conversation, except as necessary to enter or exit the reproductive health care facility; (2) Following a person if that conduct is intended or is likely to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm to oneself or to another, or damage to or loss of property; (3) Intentionally touching or causing physical contact with a person without that person's consent;
(4) Using violent or threatening gestures toward a person. (e) “Intimidate” means making a true threat directed to a person or group of persons with the intent of placing that person or group of persons in fear of bodily harm or death. (f) “Obstruct” means rendering ingress to or egress from a reproductive health care facility providing reproductive health services, or rendering passage to or from a reproductive health care facility, unreasonably difficult or hazardous. Obstruct includes, but is not limited to intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of a pedestrian or occupied vehicle by any means, such as (1) intentionally causing a pedestrian to take evasive action to avoid physical contact, or (2) placing signs, tables, or chairs on the sidewalk such that the flow of pedestrian traffic is restricted or obstructed. 50 of 130
6 4
4 9
(g) "Reproductive health care facility" refers to a facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety code or any other facility that provides reproductive health services, exclusively or in addition to other health services. Reproductive health care facility does not include a licensed hospital or a clinic or other facility owned or operated by a licensed hospital. (h) "Reproductive health care services" refers to all medical, surgical, counseling, referral, and informational services related to the human reproductive system. (i) “True threat” means a statement in which the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular person or group of persons regardless of whether the person actually intends to act on the threat.
10.90.030 Interference with Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Prohibited (a) The following is prohibited:
(1) Within one hundred (100) feet of the entrance of a reproductive health care facility, it shall be unlawful to willfully and knowingly approach within eight (8) feet of any person seeking to enter or exit the reproductive health care facility, or any occupied motor vehicle seeking to enter or exit the parking lot of such a facility, without the consent of such a person or vehicle occupant, for the purpose of harassing or intimidating such person or vehicle occupant. (2) Obstruct access to or departure from any entrance to a building or driveway of a reproductive health care facility; or
(3) Fail to comply with a dispersal order as described in Section 10.90.040(C). (b) Section 10.90.030(A) applies during, one hour before, and one hour after, a reproductive health care facility's posted business hours.
(c) Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude the enforcement of other state, federal, or municipal laws, including but not limited to those related to sidewalk and street obstructions, or prohibited noises.
10.90.040 Enforcement
(a) Criminal Enforcement. Any person who violates Section 10.90.030(A) shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a first conviction for violation of Section 10.90.030(A), the person shall be incarcerated for up to ninety days, or fined up to $500, or both. Upon a subsequent conviction for violation of Section
10.90.030(A), the person shall be incarcerated for up to one-hundred-eighty days, or fined up to $1000, or both. (b) Civil Enforcement. An aggrieved person may enforce the provisions of this chapter by means of a civil action in the Courts of the State of California. An aggrieved person includes any reproductive health care facility that is the site of a violation of this Chapter. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be liable to the aggrieved person for special and general damages, but in no case less than $1000, attorneys’ fees and the costs of the action. In addition, punitive damages may be awarded in a proper case. 51 of 130
6 4
4 9
(c) Dispersal Order. A law enforcement official may order the immediate dispersal of a gathering that continues to violate Section 10.90.030(A) after a verbal warning. A verbal dispersal order issued pursuant to this subsection (C) shall include the following statements: (1) the gathering has substantially violated Section
10.90.030(A) by harassing, intimidating or obstructing access to or departure from the reproductive health care facility; and (2) each member of the gathering shall, under the penalty of arrest and prosecution, immediately disperse and cease to stand or be located within at least 100 feet of an entrance to the reproductive health care facility. If the dispersal order is written and posted at the location of the reproductive health care facility, the order shall remain in effect until one hour after the close of business of the reproductive health care facility. This subsection (C) shall apply during, one hour before, and one hour after, the posted business hours of a reproductive health care facility.
(d) Nothing in this Chapter shall preclude any person from seeking any other remedies, penalties or procedures provided by law.
Section 3. Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15061(b)(3), adoption of this Ordinance amendments is covered by the “common sense exemption” that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Here, it can be seen with certainty that the Ordinance, which is designed for the protection of access to reproductive health care facilities, will not have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid.
Section 5. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published in summary in a newspaper of general circulation, posted in the City Clerk's Office, and posted on the City's website, all in accord with Section 2.15 of the City Charter.
Section 6. Legislative History and Effective Date. This ordinance was introduced on Clerk to complete., and adopted on Clerk to complete., and shall be effective 30 days after its adoption. 52 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 9 Section Name: PUBLIC HEARING File ID: 22-6100 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
1612 S. El Camino Real – Property Owner Appeal of Relocation Benefits RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the notice to pay relocation benefits to the tenants who reside at 1612 S. El Camino due to unlawful substandard living conditions pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code Chapter 7.50 “Property Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenants Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units.” BACKGROUND:
History:
The subject property is currently developed as a mixed-use building consisting of an an approved commercial unit on the ground floor and an approved residential unit on the second floor. This Code Enforcement action relates to the illegal use of the ground level commercial unit for residential use, with the street address of 1612 S. El Camino Real. City records show that the last permit (Att – 5) issued was in 1985 for removal of an interior wall in the commercial space, and there is no relevant permit history to convert the ground level commercial unit into an approved residential use. There are currently three (3) adult tenants and one (1) infant residing in the ground level commercial unit at 1612 S. El Camino Real and paying $2,000 per month in rent, not including utilities.
On March 2, 2022, Code Enforcement received a complaint of occupants living in a commercial space. On March 24, 2022, Code Enforcement Officer Kristen Aiu (CEO Aiu) conducted an inspection of the space with Zev Simon, who identified himself as the property owner. Also present during the inspection were two (2) adult tenants and the infant. During the inspection, the following unpermitted and substandard conditions were observed:
The commercial space is occupied as a residential unit without the required approvals or permits Improper ventilation of fuel burning appliance (water heater) in the living space No kitchen sink
Improper and unpermitted bathtub/shower
Sleeping room has no emergency egress
No heating system
During the inspection, Mr. Simon stated to CEO Aiu that he had never been to the property, was unaware of the tenants living inside of the commercial unit, and that he was not aware of the illegal interior alterations. He stated the upstairs tenant, Gabriel, who resides in the residential unit with street address 1610 S. El Camino Real, requested to rent the ground level commercial unit for storage only and speculated that person may be subleasing to family members.
On March 29, 2022, CEO Aiu conducted a follow-up visit to talk with the tenants. To assist in facilitating a conversation, CEO Aiu was joined by Administrative Assistant Diana Aviles (Aviles), who provided Spanish translation services. Staff met 53 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 4
with one of the tenants, Sandra, who called one of the other tenants, Gladys, to assist with information since Gladys had lived in the space for a longer period. During the call, Gladys informed staff she has lived in this space since late 2020 and first learned about the rental when she saw a flyer posted at a laundromat. Sandra later moved into the space in December 2021. During this conversation, both tenants stated that Mr. Simon had been there on previous occasions due to a power outage and to confront them about using too much water and electricity. Gladys also noted that Mr. Simon hired a worker to install the bathtub approximately one year ago. Gladys suggested that CEO Aiu and Aviles go upstairs to 1610 S. El Camino Real to talk with Gabriel, who Gladys referred to as “the rent collector for the owner”. Staff attempted to contact Gabriel, but instead spoke with his spouse. His spouse stated that the couple was instructed by Mr. Simon to prepare the unit and find tenants. She also confirmed that Gabriel collected the rent for Mr. Simon.
On April 21, 2022, CEO Aiu contacted the complainant who reported the violation to determine if that person had any contact with Mr. Simon about this unit. The reporting party stated they had complained to him prior to calling the city.
On April 26, 2022, CEO Aiu and Aviles had a phone conversation with Gabriel where he stated that Mr. Simon came to the site about 4-5 months prior due to the power being cut by PG&E. During that conversation, Gabriel told staff that he is employed by the Mr. Simon as the property manager for 1610 and 1612 S. El Camino Real.
On April 27, 2022, CEO Aiu and Aviles had a phone conversation with Gladys where she stated that her husband, Fernando, had found a text from Gabriel to provide payment for the utilities on behalf of the Mr. Simon.
City Response:
The commercial ground floor unit with street address 1612 S. El Camino Real is not a legal dwelling unit and would need to go through the established development review and permitting process to convert the existing commercial space into a legal residential dwelling unit. Considering the requirements involved with the development review process, permitting process, and correcting the substandard conditions, staff determined that the commercial unit could not foreseeably be brought into code compliance within 90 days from the date of an order to vacate. Therefore, the tenant would be considered permanently displaced due to the substandard living conditions and would be eligible for relocation benefits pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code sections 7.50.020(i) and 7.50.090(a).
On April 13, 2022, a notice was issued to Mr. Simon declaring the substandard conditions and ordering 1612 S. El Camino Real be vacated by no later than April 25, 2022. Included in that notice, pursuant to San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) sections 7.50.090(a), the property owner, Mr. Simon, was ordered to pay the tenant for permanent relocation in the following amounts:
1. The HUD rate for a one-bedroom unit in San Mateo County is $2,631 x 3 = $7,893.
2. Actual moving costs and related expenses not to exceed $1,000 to be paid within 60 days of receipt of expenses.
3. In addition, an immediate vacation allowance in the amount of $1,000 because the tenant received fewer than 30 days advanced notice before being displaced pursuant to SMMC section 7.50.090(d).
Appeal:
The Property Owner has appealed the tenant relocation payments asserting he did not convert or lease the space, did not receive rent from the current occupants, and has never met the current occupants.
Analysis:
In accordance with SMMC 7.50.030, the tenant shall be eligible for relocation payments from a property owner if the tenant household is displaced from its dwelling or room due to the City's code enforcement activities. Specifically, SMMC
7.50.030(a)(2) states that the tenant household shall vacate the dwelling or room (whether or not the Property Owner requires vacation) after the City has issued a notice to vacate, notice to abate life-threatening condition, or declaration of substandard condition covering that dwelling or room. Pursuant to SMMC 7.50.030(b)(2), the tenant household is not deemed displaced, and therefore not eligible for relocation payments, if the property owner or the property owner’s agent can demonstrate that they did not create the noncomplying condition(s) and the tenant household or their guests created the noncomplying condition(s), or the tenant household moved into the dwelling unit after the creation of the 54 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
3 4
noncomplying conditions for the purpose of receiving relocation benefits.
During staff’s investigation, Gabriel and his spouse confirmed to City staff that he is employed by Mr. Simon as a handyman and property manager for the subject property, resides in the upstairs residential unit, and was instructed by Mr. Simon to find tenants to occupy the commercial ground floor unit. The tenants of the commercial ground floor unit (Sandra and Gladys), as well as Gabriel, told staff that Mr. Simon had been to commercial ground floor unit due to the power outage. Gladys also provided information that the property owner had been inside of the space on at least two other occasions and had a bathtub installed in the unit. Gabriel’s spouse told staff that the property owner instructed Gabriel to prepare and rent the unit below. The reporting party stated they had complained to Mr. Simon about the tenants in the space prior to filing a complaint with the City.
Based on staff’s investigation and conversations with involved parties, staff has determined that Mr. Simon was aware of the noncomplying conditions, and that Gabriel was employed and an agent of Mr. Simon to perform property management duties including leasing and collecting associated rent(s) for the ground level unit. Therefore, the property owner does not qualify for relief under SMMC 7.50.30(b)(2). Therefore, staff recommends the appeal be denied and for tenant relocation benefits to be provided to the tenants according to City requirements.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is not budget impact related to this report. If Council finds that City funds should be used to provide relocation benefits to the tenant, the money would be allocated from the Emergency Relocation Assistance Fund that was established to advance tenant assistance in urgent situations and then billed to the property owner.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This appeal is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is an organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Warning Letter to Abate Public Nuisance and Declaration of Substandard Conditions and Notice to Vacate Att 2 – Inspection Photos
Att 3 – Case Notes
Att 4 - Diana Aviles statement of translation services
Att 5 – Written Appeal
Att 6 – (1985) Floor plan for permit#287
Att 7 – Photo of Text Message
Att 8 – Potential Witnesses
STAFF CONTACT
Christine Civiletti, Code Enforcement Manager
[email protected]
(650) 522-7154
Kristen Aiu, Code Enforcement Officer II
[email protected]
(650) 522-7152
55 of 130
Building Division (650) 522‐7172 ∙ Code Enforcement Division (650) 522‐7150 Housing Division (650) 522‐7220 ∙ Planning Division (650) 522‐7212 ∙ General (650) 522‐7200
04/13/2022
WARNING LETTER TO ABATE A PUBLIC NUISANCE
AND DECLARATION OF A SUBSTANDARD DWELLING CONDITIONAND
NOTICE TO VACATE
This notice is part of the ongoing Code Enforcement case for your property located at 1612 S. EL CAMINO REAL in San Mateo, California. The City of San Mateo Code Enforcement received a complaint regarding violations of the San Mateo Municipal Code (SMMC) existing on your property.
Based on that information, Code Enforcement Staff conducted an inspection of the property on 03/24/2022. In addition to the inspection, I have reviewed the permit historical records of the property and have determined that 1612 S. EL CAMINO REAL is not permitted for habitable use. This is a formal notice from the City of San Mateo to correct the violations.
Substandard Conditions:
Prohibited occupancy residential use of commercial unit. Unpermitted construction/alterations, including installation of a bathtub/shower in the living room and enclosing interior walls of a previously approved commercial office into residential dwelling.
Lack of emergency egress in the area used as a sleeping room. Fuel burning appliance (water heater) not within an enclosed closet or proper ventilation to the exterior for residential use.
Lack of required heat.
Lack of required kitchen sink.
Required Corrections and Compliance Date:
Because this unit is not a permitted habitable space and the steps necessary to legalize it as such will take longer than 90 days, the City of San Mateo hereby orders that the commercial unit be vacated no later than 4:00pm on Monday, April 25, 2022. Once this space has been vacated it shall remain vacant until such time that it can be restored back to the last permitted use or, if possible, legalize as residential.
Property‐Owner Obligations with Respect to Tenant Displaced from Unsafe or Substandard Units:
CITY OF SAN MATEO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
GTD VENTURES LLC
C/O ZEV SIMON
236 W 3RD AVE
SAN MATEO, CA 94402
CASE: CE‐2022‐000018
APN: 034413100
Address: 1612 S. EL CAMINO REAL
56 of 130
Building Division (650) 522‐7172 ∙ Code Enforcement Division (650) 522‐7150 Housing Division (650) 522‐7220 ∙ Planning Division (650) 522‐7212 ∙ General (650) 522‐7200
Under section 7.50.090 (a) and (d) of the SMMC, the tenant living in the accessory structure is entitled to permanent relocation (“Permanent Displacement”) payments equal to three times the current monthly HUD rate for a one‐bedroom unit in San Mateo County, as follows:
1. The HUD rate for a one‐bedroom unit in San Mateo County is $2,631 x 3 = $7,893
2. An Immediate vacation allowance of $1,000 because the tenant received fewer than 30 days’ advanced notice before being displaced.
3. Actual moving costs and related expenses not to exceed $1,000. a. Tenant must keep receipts as proof of purchase.
Total amount due to the tenant immediately: $8,893
*Note: If less than ten (10) days' advance notice of vacation is given, or no vacation date is specified in such notice or order, then the payment by the property owner to the tenant household shall be made no later than the actual time of vacation. SMMC 7.50.060(b)
Total due within 60 days: Reimbursement for actual moving costs and related expenses not to exceed $1,000.
Written Appeal (SMMC 7.50.100(a)):
1. A property owner or tenant household may contest a decision, order, or determination regarding relocation payments or a notice of penalty or fine assessed this chapter by submitting an appeal in writing together with the appeal fee listed in the City’s fee schedule.
The appeal shall set forth the factual basis for disputing the decision, order, or determination.
2. Appeals must be addressed to the Director, and must be received within ten (10) days of the date appearing on the decision, order, or determination regarding relocation benefits or the notice of penalty or fine. A copy of the appeal must be provided by the appellant to any tenant household(s) or property owner(s) directly affected by the appeal on or by the same date that the appeal is received by the Director.
Applicable Code Section:
SMMC 27.48 E2 DISTRICTS—EXECUTIVE OFFICES (27.48.010 PURPOSE):
The E2 District is intended to create and maintain professional and administrative offices. Allowed uses are the same as in the E1 District. The E2 District is intended for small sites served by nearby commercial facilities.
SMMC 27.48.020 PERMITTED USES:
1. The following uses are permitted:
a. Permitted uses in the E1 district;
b. Residential units, only on parcels designated with a residential overlay district classification subject to R4 district "Minimum Development Standards" in Chapter 27.24 and affordable housing requirements as adopted by City Council resolution, except as otherwise specified in Chapter 27.29; however secondary units are prohibited.
SMMC 27.48.030 SPECIAL USES:
Special Uses in the E1 district may also be allowed subject to approval of a special use permit. Residential units on parcels without a residential overlay district classification subject to R4 district "Minimum Development Standards" in Section 27.24.040 and affordable housing requirements as adopted by City 57 of 130
Building Division (650) 522‐7172 ∙ Code Enforcement Division (650) 522‐7150 Housing Division (650) 522‐7220 ∙ Planning Division (650) 522‐7212 ∙ General (650) 522‐7200
Council resolution, unless otherwise specified in Chapter 27.29; however, secondary units are prohibited.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17920.3(n):
Repairs, additions, or alterations to a structure or change of occupancy, shall be done in accordance with the procedures and provisions of the latest edition of the California Building Code(s).
PUBLIC NUISANCES ADVERSLY AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY SMMC 7.16.030 PUBLIC NUISANCES ADVERSLY AFFECTING THE PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY(b):
All buildings and alteration of buildings, or parts thereof, made or erected in violation of City ordinances or any applicable County, State, or Federal laws prescribing the manner and materials for the construction or alteration, including construction without required permits.
Permits required SMMC 23.07.010, SMMC 23.06.070
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17920.3(a)(1):
Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 403.1 HABITABLE SPACES):
Every habitable space shall have not less than one openable window. The total openable area of the window in every room shall be equal to not less than 45 percent of the minimum glazed area required in Section 402.1.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE17920.3(a)(8):
Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 602.1 HEATING FACILITIES REQUIRED):
Heating facilities shall be provided in structures as required by this section.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 602.2RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES):
Dwellings shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining a room temperature of 65°F (18°C) in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and toilet rooms based on the winter outdoor design temperature for the locality indicated in Appendix D of the International Plumbing Code.
Cooking appliances shall not be used, nor shall portable unvented fuel‐burning space heaters be used, as a means to provide required heating.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 602.2RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES):
Every owner and operator of any building who rents, leases or lets one or more dwelling units or sleeping units on terms, either expressed or implied, to furnish heat to the occupants thereof shall supply heat to maintain a minimum temperature of 65°F (18°C) in all habitable rooms, bathrooms and toilet rooms.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 603.2 REMOVAL OR COMBUSTION PRODUCTS):
Fuel‐burning equipment and appliances shall be connected to an approved chimney or vent.
58 of 130
Building Division (650) 522‐7172 ∙ Code Enforcement Division (650) 522‐7150 Housing Division (650) 522‐7220 ∙ Planning Division (650) 522‐7212 ∙ General (650) 522‐7200
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17920.3(a)(7):
Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17920.3(a)(6):
Lack of adequate heating.
SMMC 7.14 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC 102.3) AND CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 17920.3(a)(3):
Lack of, or improper kitchen sink.
Pursuant to SMCC §1.10, Administrative Citations: Each and every day a violation of this code exists constitutes a separate and distinct offense. Each section of the code violated constitutes a separate violation for any day at issue. However, the issuances of the administrative citations are not the exclusive remedy.
In addition to administrative penalties, the City may assess administrative costs against the violator.
The administrative costs may include any and all costs incurred by the City in connection with the matter, including, but not limited to, code enforcement staff and associated indirect costs, costs of inspection, investigation, attorneys’ fees. All administrative penalties and costs shall be borne by the owner of the property and the cost thereof shall be a lien upon and against the property and such lien shall continue in existence until the same shall be paid.
Sincerely,
Kristen Aiu
Code Enforcement Officer II
(650) 522‐7152
[email protected]
CC: Street File
Tenants
59 of 130
60 of 130
61 of 130
62 of 130
63 of 130
64 of 130
65 of 130
66 of 130
67 of 130
68 of 130
69 of 130
70 of 130
71 of 130
72 of 130
73 of 130
74 of 130
75 of 130
76 of 130
77 of 130
78 of 130
79 of 130
80 of 130
81 of 130
82 of 130
83 of 130
84 of 130
85 of 130
86 of 130
87 of 130
88 of 130
1612 S. El Camino Real Inspection
3/29/22
I, Diana Aviles, Administrative Assistant went on inspection with CEO’s Kristen Aiu and Melissa Hawkins to translate as tenants are Spanish speaking.
Kristen knocked at bottom unit, a young woman, Sandra answered the door and allowed us to come in. I introduced myself as a member of the staff assisting the CE Officers with translation as I spoke Spanish.
Officer Aiu asked if they knew the owner, how they first found out of the rental. Sandra said her Aunt Gladys was the tenant as Sandra had just arrived in December 2021, giving birth to a baby boy. She called her Aunt Gladys on speaker phone. I introduced myself as a translator for Officer Kristen Aiu. I asked Gladys how did she know the unit was for rent? She’d seen a 4‐rent sign at her local laundry mat.
She called the number spoke with Gabriel who provided the address, tour, and became the designated person to pay the rent to since December 2020. They also pay water and electricity with no bill provided nor receipts for any payments made including rent. Aunt Gladys and husband have been there since November 2020.
Gladys stated they’ve met the owner personally, first when a power outage occurred and another occasion when the property owner was upset, they were using too much water/electricity. Sandra also said they knew the owner as he’d been to the property on several occasions which Gladys also confirmed knowing the owner and the owner knowing them as his tenants. Officer Aiu asked if the owner is Zev Simon which both said yes. Gladys stated one time she had asked the owner if he had any other places to rent as behind was a little house, she knew to be his. Also, the owner had been at the house with a worker directing him to install a bathtub. She said after the tub was installed the worker was let go.
Gladys suggested we could also speak to Gabriel (the rent collector for the owner) or his wife Eva, who were currently upstairs in their unit. We hung up with Gladys, thanked Sandra for her time and we left.
We headed upstairs were Eva opened the door, I introduced myself and my colleagues in Spanish. Per Officer Aiu, I asked if she knew the owner to the building. She said yes, so did her husband as he was the rent collector for the unit below – Glady’s unit with her husband, niece, and niece’s baby. Her husband collected the rent and provided it to the owner, all in cash and no receipts given. Officer Aiu had me ask how he got word out to rent. Eva said her husband was told by the owner to rent the bottom unit. Her husband posted an ad at the local laundry mat.
3/30/22 Officer Aiu asked me to call Gladys to let her know that she was working on the case, research, etc. and she would get a copy of the notice outlining everything. I phoned Gladys who was concerned as she was told the City comes to throw out all her stuff when it’s time to vacate which I let her know we don’t do that.
4/4/22 Gabriel from upstairs telephoned, I sent a Teams message to Officer Aiu. I was noting my conversation with him. He said the owner knows they live below as he received the monthly rent. He wanted to know how they can convert the unit into housing. Officer Aiu said she had a meeting scheduled with Planning for any possibilities. Gabriel mentioned the owner clearing a unit next door upstairs and he’d suggested this unit to the owner to rent to the bottom tenants, but the owner said he was converting into offices.
89 of 130
4/12/22 Officer Aiu asked me to call Sandra, Gladys niece to schedule another inspection. I called coordinating a 3:30 inspection.
4/15/22 Officer Aiu provided me the notice mailed to the owner. I translated this into Spanish for the tenant as she does not read or speak English
4/18/22 Officer Aiu requested we call the tenant, Gladys to ask if she had received the translated notice.
She said she did receive it. She shared she had a conversation with Gabriel, the upstairs ‐rent collector ‐ neighbor.
I also returned Gabriel’s call where he stated receiving the letter to vacate but would it be possible to get a permit to repair the unit for the tenants to continue there. I was in Teams chat communication with Officer Aiu where she replied she didn’t know, Planning was researching. Officer Aiu asked if the owner was asking him to ask us. He replied the owner said they didn’t need to vacate; he didn’t ask them to. He's the owner and only he could force them out with the police. Gabriel also stated the owner said he hadn’t received any letter from the City.
Gabriel stated he told the owner of the other apartment that is available. Located above 1604 S. El Camino he believed, above the insurance company. Officer Aiu said she needed to research this new information.
Gabriel said he wanted to help, the tenants paid till the end of month, leaving the 25th shortens it. There were no other questions, so we hung up. Officer Aiu said she would speak to CEM, Christine Civiletti.
Officer Aiu and I called Gladys, she updated us that she had not found an apartment yet. How Gabriel relayed information from the property owner, but they hadn’t seen him at all. They are having a hard time as she nor her husband have good credit. Message relayed to them was to disregard moving out, if the door is taped to remove it, he’s the owner of the unit not the City. I asked if she’d received a check from the owner, she said she has not received any funds. She also knew he has an empty apartment above the insurance building. Call ended.
4/19/22
Returned a message from Gabriel Miguel Jerez with Officer Aiu, he was very empathetic with the plight of the downstairs neighbor. He said he suggested to the owner to rent them a unit which will be available on May 1st, two doors down. The owner states he’s converting that unit into offices.
We contacted Gladys for an update to see if she’d received the check from the owner. She said she had not received anything. Gladys was excited as she had found a rental that she could move into May 1st.
What was she to do since she needed to be out by April 25th? She stated that Gabriel told her that the owner stated the City would be paying her as the owner did not ask them to move out nor was he providing the check the City requested in the notice sent by Officer Aiu. He boasted I’d called to apologize for the inconvenience as the property owner was correct which was not true. He also told Gladys that if the door was taped down, just remove it and disregard anything the City has told her. I told Gladys, the notice she received is the correct information, not what Gabriel or the property owner may tell her.
90 of 130
4/26/22
Kristen and I phoned Gabriel to ask a few questions: Any documentation from owner? When was the last time owner was there?
He said he does have communication from the owner in text messages. He was not comfortable in providing as he works for the owner and did not want to jeopardize his job. We went in circles when we asked how does he give the rent money to the owner? Gabriel now claimed he didn’t give any to the owner as that was how the owner compensated him for his work as his employee. He stated he received the apartment as compensation plus kept the rent from the downstairs apartment as payment. His only pay was monthly when the rent was paid. I reiterated that the owner provided him with an apartment and the rent as his compensation. What did the owner receive in return? He said the owner did get his money at the beginning of the month. What money? Gabriel went in circles as I asked in two questions:
The owner compensates you with free housing for being his employee? Yes, he replied. The owner allows you to keep the rent as payment for being his employee? Yes, he replied. I stated you answered yes to both so how is it the owner received his money at the beginning of the month? He kept saying I didn’t understand him. After the 3
rd time, Kristen said not to continue. We thanked him for his time and hung up.
We also called Gladys to ask if she had any documentation with the Master Tenant or owner. She said she didn’t except would ask her husband, Fernando Bautista as he’s the one in communication with Gabriel
04/27/22
We followed up with Gladys:
1) Asked if she found any written documentation. She said her husband did, he found one message in Messenger her husband had received from the Master Tenant, Gabriel where he says ‘Brother, today the owner showed me the utility statement which you owe $80.00’.
She did not know how to send it to us. We asked her to take a screenshot or use her phone to take a picture of her husband’s phone and to send this to 650‐435‐1203. She said she would. 2)Let her know the money was detained due to the appeal. 3)Would she be a witness in the appeal. Initially embarrassed because he helped them when they were in need but if needed, she would. She said yes.
4) Asked for her new address as they were moving on May 1 st to a new place she found. Gladys said she
would text the address to Kristen.
4/28/2022
1)We called Sandra to ask if she would like to be a witness. She’s concerned on being a witness as she is seeking
We asked Sandra to provide how many tenants were in unit, she stated her Aunt Gladys and husband Fernando, herself and her baby boy – confirmed what we’ve noted.
Sandra’s last name is Torres.
91 of 130
2) Kristen asked I call Gladys to follow up on the snapshot of the only message her husband had received from the Master Tenant. I did call, she said she had sent it except Kristen said she had not received.
Gladys said she would send again later as she was concerned that being on the phone so much would jeopardize her job. We followed up a few hours later as no text had been received. Kristen had me tell her that Kristen would send her a message which would make it easy to reply with the picture. Later on, Kristen did receive a message asking, ‘Please confirm if you received the information?’
92 of 130
93 of 130
94 of 130
95 of 130
96 of 130
97 of 130
ATT‐8 Potential Witnesses
City Staff:
Kristen Aiu, Code Enforcement Officer II
Diana Aviles, Administrative Assistant
Tenants at 1612 S. El Camino Real:
Gladys Eguizadal
Fernando Bautista
Sandra Torres
98 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 4
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 10 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS File ID: 22-6037-01 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
Downtown Use of Right-of-Way – Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive an update on policies and plans related to the public right-of-way in downtown San Mateo and provide direction to staff for prioritization of uses on B Street.
BACKGROUND:
As part of private development planning application reviews, Public Works staff evaluates proposed modifications to the public right-of-way, including changes to sidewalks, roadway configuration, parking, parklets, loading zones, and site access. When reviewing these proposed modifications, staff confirms conformance with the San Mateo Municipal Code (Municipal Code), policies, adopted plans (e.g., General Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and Bicycle Master Plan), and laws and regulations (e.g., the Mitigation Fee Act). However, building infrastructure to support private development and all the uses of the public right-of-way is often not possible given the limited amount of space and roadway widths available, requiring the need to prioritize specific uses. These challenges are becoming more apparent in the downtown, specifically on B Street, due to proposed redevelopment of older buildings and the establishment of the pedestrian mall. This study session will provide an overview of the potential uses of the public right-of-way on B Street, and staff will seek Council direction on their prioritization.
Guiding Documents
As mentioned above, private development planning applications are reviewed based on the requirements in the Municipal Code (i.e., Title 26 Subdivisions and Title 27 Zoning) and City Council adopted master plans. The planning documents include the following:
• General Plan – The General Plan, which is currently being updated, includes goals to maintain a street and highway system that accommodates future growth while supporting a multimodal circulation network that provides an alternative to automobile travel.
• Downtown Area Plan – Adopted in 2009, this plan establishes a framework for specific policies that pertain to new downtown development as well as the preservation of existing downtown resources. This plan and Municipal Zoning Code Section 27.38.100 require that new developments in downtown be built to the property line (with some exceptions). This requirement is rooted in urban design principals and is intended to create a uniform building frontage in downtown. However, projects are required to meet specific open space requirements and are permitted to be set back from the property line to meet the requirement. • Pedestrian Master Plan – Adopted in 2012, this plan includes various types of pedestrian improvements to improve connectivity, safety, and the overall pedestrian experience. It also establishes standards for the 99 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 4
construction of new or updated sidewalks based on the type of use. The Pedestrian Master Plan provides standard details for sidewalks ranging from 7 to 26 feet (Attachment 1). • Bicycle Master Plan – Updated in 2020, this plan includes a designated citywide bicycle infrastructure to improve safety and use. The Bicycle Master Plan includes a Class IV separated bike lane on B Street between 1st and 5th Avenues, connecting to existing and planned facilities north and south of the downtown. The Class IV facility is recommended for B Street based on industry standards for the vehicle speeds and volumes on this roadway to provide safety and comfort for bicyclists of all ages and abilities (Attachment 2).
Conflicts and Tradeoffs
Due to limited public right-of-way widths, building / property lot line requirements in downtown, and the establishment of the pedestrian mall on B Street, development planning applications are proposing uses that are favored over others. Some of the conflicts and tradeoffs include the following.
Pedestrian Mall and Bicycle Facilities – The pedestrian mall on B Street extends between 1 st and 2nd Avenues and 2nd and 3rd Avenues, while the 2020 Bicycle Master Plan proposes a separated bicycle lane on B street from 1st to 5th Avenues through the pedestrian mall. City Council direction will be needed on whether pedestrian and bicycle uses can both be facilitated in space while maintaining safety for pedestrians and other users. The implementation of bicycle improvements in downtown may also result in trade-offs with pedestrian facilities, on-street parking, loading zones, or roadway configuration. Construction to the Property Line – Municipal Code Section 27.38.100 requires new developments to build to the property line, with exceptions allowed to meet ground floor open space requirements or if setback buffers are required. However, the Pedestrian Master Plan calls for widening sidewalks to enhance the pedestrian realm. In an area like downtown, a development project could accommodate this by either (1) designing buildings that provide a ground floor setback from the property line to accommodate wider sidewalks and/or utilize this area to help meet the project open space requirements, (2) request modifications to the public right- of-way configuration (e.g. elimination of on-street parking, bicycle lanes, or a reduction in the number of vehicle lanes) for the wider sidewalk, or (3) request to design a sidewalk of typical width. On-Street Parking and Parklets – In some instances, developers request to include on-street parking to allow for the opportunity for future flex zone usage like parklets. In other cases, parklets utilize existing on-street parking spaces that result in a reduction in available parking. Provision of on-street parking on project frontages may provide some additional parking to users or parklets for businesses but may limit the availability of right-of-way.
It is important to note that downtown includes several off-street parking facilities within a two to five minute walk from B Street that have capacity for additional parking. Land Use and Business Operations - There are various ways in which the curb is utilized to facilitate businesses.
These uses include public loading zones for business supply delivery and parking (including short-term parking spaces for customer or delivery service pick-ups and designated spaces for disabled users). New developments in downtown have been more frequently utilizing concessions under the State Density Bonus Law to waive on-site loading and parking requirements. This may effectively increase reliance on the public right-of-way for loading and/or parking, which may limit the availability of right-of-way for other uses. In some cases, bicycle infrastructure and loading zones may be accommodated on project frontages with short-term, disabled parking provided on sides streets, but would require sidewalks of typical widths.
Future Steps / Longer-term Initiatives
Staff recognizes that due to limited public right-of-way, zoning requirements, and multiple master plans, a comprehensive assessment is needed that sets a clearer framework for the preferred uses in downtown. While the City is beginning to work on a Complete Streets Plan to reconcile approved master plans, the focus of this document is to address safety concerns for all modes of transportation and does not address prioritizing different modes of transportation or land uses in the downtown. The downtown core is a discrete area of the City with more complex needs and concerns. Given these 100 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 4
challenges, prioritization of different transportation modes may vary by street or area of the downtown in a way that is different from the rest of the City.
In addition to overlap between the Municipal Code and City-adopted plans, differing project-specific interests often arise regarding the use of the public right-of-way. One project might prioritize wide sidewalks while another project might prioritize on-street loading over other uses within the public right-of-way (e.g., bike lanes, parking). Project-driven prioritization of the right-of-way can lead to inconsistent implementation of improvements along important corridors and is not an effective way of ensuring the Council’s vision is implemented.
A comprehensive plan addressing multi-modal transportation and priorities for different corridors in the downtown is an option to avoid these inconsistent, project-specific decisions or discrepancies in adopted plans during the review process.
However, significant additional discussion and community engagement would be needed to develop this type of plan.
Given the current schedule of the General Plan update, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2023, an update to the Downtown Area Plan is likely several years away from completion.
Prioritization of the Public Right-of-Way
In the meantime, to help address the different priorities observed between current and future projects, staff is requesting direction from Council on its priorities for the various uses of the public right-of-way so that staff can appropriately review and comment on proposed development applications. In this first discussion, staff is seeking Council feedback specifically along B Street in downtown because of the implementation of the pedestrian mall and due to several development projects that are currently seeking entitlements. Specifically, staff will be asking Council for direction on the following questions.
Pedestrian Mall: Is Council’s vision for these street segments pedestrian-only or multi-modal (e.g., include bicycle facilities)?
Pedestrian: Should staff prioritize the pedestrian experience (e.g., wider sidewalks, outdoor dining) along B Street over competing priorities (e.g., bicycles, on-street parking)? Parking: Given the relatively easy access to off-street parking lots near B Street, is preserving on-street parking to support business functions and parklets (wider sidewalks also allow for outdoor dining) along B Street a priority for this corridor?
Bicycles: Should bicycle movement be prioritized along B Street when compared to other modes or on-street parking?
Staff anticipates returning to Council at a later date to introduce legislation for adoption that formalizes the direction provided in the study session. Additional study sessions will likely be necessary to obtain additional direction from Council regarding other matters related to development and right-of-way uses in the downtown until a more complete plan can be developed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts for the review of policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This review of policies is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan Sidewalk Standards Att 2 – San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan Bicycle Network Facilities Att 3 – Public Comment
101 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 4
STAFF CONTACT
Tracy Scramaglia, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7316
Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Principal Transportation Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7288
102 of 130
Appendix A | Pedestrian Design Guidelines
A-4 | Alta Planning + Design
A.1. Sidewalk Standards - Introduction
Discussion
Sidewalks form the backbone of the pedestrian transportation ne twork. Good street and sidewalk design can foster healthier communities by improving public safety, enhancing mobility , reducing environmental impacts, and building community character.
Sidewalks consist of one or several zones. The zones are named for the primary activity that occurs in the zone. Section A.2 describes the recommended sidewalk zones for San Mateo, whic h include through, planter/furn iture, frontage, and flex-use zones. The presence and width of each zone along a gi ven sidewalk depends on the adjoining roadway type and transportation needs, surrounding land uses, and community needs and desires.
The widths of sidewalks determine the types of pedestrian elemen ts that can be installed and affect the pedestrian activities that occur there. In residential areas, sidewalks four to six fe et wide are likely appropriate. In commercial settings with a m ix of uses, wider sidewalks are sometimes essentia l for high pedestrian traffic and/or to accommodate amenities such as street furniture or newspaper stands. Streetscape elements can vary fr om a simple landscape strip in a residential setting to many elements such as street trees, pedestrian lighting with banners, and benches in area s with larger pedestrian traffic. These Pedestrian Design Guidelines establish eight sidewalk types wi th varying zones and widths. By standardizing streetscape design by land use, the guidelines ensure that future deve lopment of public rights-of-wa y in San Mateo’s residential, commercial, and mixed use areas meet the City’s vision for vibran t, healthy pedestrian environmen ts. These guidelines seek to create places that are sensitive to the land use context, distin ctive, attractive, and rich in amenities and that provide more convenience and choice for pedestrians. Table A-1 lists the sidewalk types for residential, commercial, and mixed use land uses.
Sections A.3 through A.10 present the different sidewalk types.
103 of 130
City of San Mateo | Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | A-5
A.2. Sidewalk Standards – Overview
Sidewalk Zones
Table A-1: Sidewalk Types and Key Characteristics for Residential, Commercial, and Mixed Use Land Uses 104 of 130
Appendix A | Pedestrian Design Guidelines
A-6 | Alta Planning + Design
A.3. Sidewalk Standards – Residential Type A Standard
105 of 130
City of San Mateo | Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | A-7
A.4. Sidewalk Standards – Residential Type B Constrained
106 of 130
Appendix A | Pedestrian Design Guidelines
A-8 | Alta Planning + Design
A.5. idewalk Standards – Residential Type C New Development
107 of 130
City of San Mateo | Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | A-9
A.6. Sidewalk Standards – Retail/Commerical Type A Parallel Parking
108 of 130
Appendix A | Pedestrian Design Guidelines
A-10 | Alta Planning + Design
A.7. Sidewalk Standards – Retail/Commerical Type B Angled Parking
109 of 130
City of San Mateo | Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | A-11
A.8. Sidewalk Standards – Retail/Commerical Type C New Development
110 of 130
Appendix A | Pedestrian Design Guidelines
A-12 | Alta Planning + Design
A.9. Sidewalk Standards – Mixed Use Type A Zero Setback
111 of 130
City of San Mateo | Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | A-13
A.10. Sidewalk Standards – Mixed Use Type B Street Parking
112 of 130
SHARED-USE PATH (CLASS 1)
• Two-way facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic • Used by bicyclists, pedestrians, and other non-motorized users • May not serve all destinations directly
BIKE BOX
• Dedicated space between the crosswalk and vehicle stop line where bicyclists can wait during the red light at signalized intersections
• Improves visibility and motorists’ awareness of bicyclists at intersections SEPARATED BIKE LANE (CLASS 4)
• A bicycle-only facility that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic and distinct from the sidewalk
• Appropriate on streets with medium or high traffic volumes and/or speeds
WAYFINDING
• Typically includes signage and pavement markings
• Helps bicyclists identify the best routes to destinations and to connecting routes • May include distances or travel times to destinations BIKE LANE (CLASS 2)
• Provides exclusive space for bicyclists in the roadway; designated by pavement markings and signage
• Buffered bike lanes increase comfort by adding a painted buffer to a standard bike lane
• Appropriate on streets with low or medium traffic volumes
BIKE DETECTION/PUSH BUTTON
• Bicycle detectors are located in the street at intersections and trigger a green light for bicyclists who wait above the detector marking
• Bicycle pushbuttons are located on signal poles within reach of a bicyclist waiting in the roadway; the buttons trigger a green light for bicyclists once pushed (similar to pedestrian pushbuttons)
BICYCLE BOULEVARD (CLASS 3)
• Prioritize bicycle through-travel
• Use traffic calming to slow vehicle traffic and maintain low motor vehicle volumes • Often applied on quiet streets, in neighborhoods
PAINTED CONFLICT MARKINGS
• Painted pavement markings can improve visibility of bike lanes at intersections • Alerts all roadway users of expected behaviors to reduce conflicts with turning vehicles and at driveways
RURAL ROUTE (CLASS 3)
• Provide shoulders to accommodate bicyclists
• Supplement with warning signage and wayfinding
• Located in rural areas where dedicated bicycle facilities will not fit, or would be inappropriate given the surrounding context
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS (RRFB)
• RRFBs combine a crossing warning sign with a bright flashing beacon that is activated only when a bicyclist or pedestrian is present • Increases motorists’ yielding compliance and bicyclist and pedestrian visibility These bicycle facilities and improvements are a part of the bicycle planning “toolbox” and will be considered as a part of the San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan recommendations.
Bicycle Network Facilities
San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan
113 of 130
May 10, 2022
City of San Mateo
Planning Commission
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Bike Lanes Project
Dear Mayor Bonilla, Deputy Mayor Papan, Council Member Goethals, Council Member Lee, and Council Member Rodriguez,
The purpose of this letter is to express my strong support for bike lane relocation and public realm improvement.
As a long-time resident and DSMA member of the City of San Mateo, I believe there is tremendous potential for Downtown San Mateo to establish its own unique identity and become an enlivened pedestrian-oriented retail destination. This objective can be achieved by building on the established B Street corridor and making it a vibrant and active Downtown with a highly curated public realm area for the community to enjoy. I think a widened sidewalk will allow street spill out spaces from food and beverage establishments, parklets, landscape planters, street furniture, and gathering spaces for the public.
Without an upgraded and widened sidewalk, all the great features mentioned above would become missed opportunities.
In order to achieve the enhanced public realm, I support the below recommendations,
1. Bike Lane Relocation
Given that many changes have occurred since the research of the San Mateo Bike Master Plan (2019), and the fact that the plan is still in a conceptual stage, it would be beneficial for the transportation consultant who produced the original Bike Master Plan to conduct an updated study, that incorporates recent developments, such as the street closures, parklet programs and reduced vehicular traffic on S. B Street. If the transportation consultant can provide confirmation, relocating the bike lane to other streets should be explored because it would allow significantly more flexibility to design the best public realm and retail experience and at the same time will likely improve the safety of the cyclists by eliminating conflicts with on street parking. In fact, I think that the street closures on B street should continue for 1 more block all the way to Baldwin.
This would tie-in the new plaza and building going into the old Trag’s site and to the train station.
Below are some key considerations that have changed since this original decision by the City Council on the Bike Master Plan:
a. Due to this increasing pedestrianization of B Street, the separated bike lane should be relocated onto a different street for the benefit and safety of cyclists and the intent to provide more expansive sidewalks, curbside parking, and an energized Downtown experience.
b. The current San Mateo Bike Master Plan calls for separated (Class IV) bike lanes on B Street through Downtown. However. the City has subsequently decided to close two blocks of B Street to motor vehicles in order to create a pedestrian mall, which is not 114 of 130
compatible with bicycle through traffic. Due to this increasing pedestrianization of B Street, the separated bike lane on B Street is no longer consistent with the vehicular typology that went into its designation and the bike lane should be relocated.
c. There are several North-South connections that could be considered as alternatives for B Street to relocate the bike lane, which will provide equivalent connectivity but do not impinge on San Mateo Pedestrian Master Plan’s design intent for the historic Downtown core. The alternative bike lane options should be studied by the transportation consultant who prepared the original Bike Master Plan.
2. Consistent Street Frontage
Maintaining a consistent street frontage with the existing historical buildings will allow for a strong connection between the pedestrian and the storefronts of those buildings, creating a vibrant retail environment. According to several leading retail consultants, maintaining and creating a strong and continuous frontage is essential to the success of local business and retail development in general. Many precedents could be drawn from many cities and neighborhoods in the Bay Area (i.e., Burlingame Ave), but also across the country. Conversely, numerous examples could also be found where unfortunately, retail uses have fundamentally failed due to the common theme of being distant, enclosed, and not approachable for pedestrians. Additionally, setting back the building would prevent an enriched public realm design and pedestrian-centric experience per the City’s vision as reflected in the General and Specific Plans as well as the Public workshop guidelines.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide my feedback and voice my strong support for relocating the bike lane in order to enhance the public realm experience and curate an energized retail destination in Downtown. I look forward to seeing the progress of the proposed improvement.
Best,
Steve Sirianni
115 of 130
From: Bike/Walk San Mateo < >
Sent: W ednesday, May 11, 2022 4:11 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Azalea Mitch <[email protected]>; Drew Corbett <[email protected]>; Sue- Ellen Atkinson <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter on Future of B Street
Dear San Mateo City Council,
Attached is Move San Mateo's letter regarding the future of B Street in downtown. In general, we support prioritizing pedestrians and bicyclists on B Street, and moving forward in a way that separates pedestrians and bicyclists from vehicles. The bicycle master plan calls for the physical separation of bicyclists from vehicles on B Street. This can be accomplished through extending the pedestrian mall to remove cars from the street, or by retaining the will to move forward with the separated bike lanes called for in the plan. We strongly call for some degree of separation between bicyclists and vehicles, as outlined in the two strategies above, to be implemented on B Street between 5th and Baldwin Avenues.
This is an opportunity to be visionary. Cars are allowed on virtually every other street downtown and in San Mateo, a large parking garage is soon to be built adjacent to B Street, and the safety of making the mall work for pedestrians and bicyclists should take precedence over vehicle considerations on this focal point of the downtown. B Street has the opportunity to become even more of a vibrant destination than it already is.
Thank you for your time,
Move San Mateo
116 of 130
May 11, 2022San Mateo City Councilcc: Drew Corbett, Kathy Kleinbaumcc: Azalea Mitch, Sue-Ellen Atkinson Dear San Mateo City Council,
We write to thank you for making two blocks of B Street into a pedestrian mall. This mall hasgreatly increased safety of people walking and biking, and activated the street like never beforeby providing outdoor dining and civic space for use by people. The elimination of vehicles fromthese two blocks has greatly improved the safety and vibrancy of these two blocks. Our grouphas started many bike rides from the B Street mall, as it provides a stress-free gathering spacein the heart of downtown.
B Street is one of the main focal points of downtown San Mateo, and pedestrians and bicyclistsmust be prioritized in this space. As you know, the city’s pedestrian master plan calls for widersidewalks on streets such as B Street. The bicycle master plan calls for separation betweenvehicles and bicyclists via a separated bike lane. We believe that this idea of separation isincredibly important and can be accomplished in at least two ways: the conversion of B Street toa full pedestrian mall, or the implementation of separated bike lanes as called for in the bicyclemaster plan. We are writing this letter to advocate for the following strategies on B Street:
1. Extend the pedestrian mall on B Street to more blocks in the downtown.This willhelp further activate the street and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists byseparating them from vehicles.a. Specifically, the pedestrian mall should be extended one block north, to the blockbetween Baldwin and 1st Avenues. This action has significant support from thebusinesses on the west side of that block, which were very happy about thepartial street closure during the pandemic. The east side of that block currentlyhosts a parking lot with a driveway onto B Street. However, development planspresented to the planning commission on May 10th, 2022 indicate the owner ofthe parcel’s intent to remove that parking lot, thus removing the need for vehicleaccess directly onto that parcel from B Street. Thus, we strongly recommend thetransition to a full pedestrian mall for this block. Council should also considerextending the mall one block south, between 3rd and 4th Avenues. Councilshould also work to implement the capital improvements on the existing mall.2. On segments of B Street that do not receive the pedestrian mall treatment,implement separated bike lanes and widened sidewalksas called for in San Mateo’sBicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan. Remove parking spaces or vehicletravel lanes to do so as necessary.a. As an example, if council decides not convert more blocks south of 3rd Avenue toa pedestrian mall, a vehicle lane or parking lane could be removed from B Street 117 of 130
instead, allowing for widened sidewalks and Class IV separated (protected) bikelanes as called for in the pedestrian and bicycle master plans. Angular parkingcould also be converted to parallel parking to allow for a more pedestrian-friendlystreet. Regarding parking, a large parking garage is planned a block away from BStreet, which should help ameliorate parking concerns.3. Permit bicycle riding and active transportation on the pedestrian malls, usingdesign features to slow down bicycle and active transportation modes.a. Cars are the largest threat to pedestrians and bicyclists, and as such they shouldbe removed to improve safety for bicycles and pedestrians. We believe thatthrough intelligent design, bicyclists, pedestrians, business patrons, and all othernon-vehicle users of the mall can safely intermingle in these spaces.4. Design these improvements with a lens for accessibility of all modes and abilities.This includes strategies such as improving wayfinding to direct all modes to thehistorically Latinx Businesses on B Street north of Baldwin Avenue, re-evaluating busstop positioning to ensure easy access to the mall for transit riders with disabilities, andadding ADA-accessible parking spaces at the corners nearest the pedestrian mall toensure short walking distances for drivers with disabilities.5. Design the improvements to be flexible for multiple business, civic, andpedestrian/active transportation uses.a. We have an opportunity to reprioritize public space not only for more pleasantoutdoor dining and profit maximization for the businesses situated along thestreet, but for permanent civic space (not just civic space for a few events duringthe year). This could include art/exhibition space, a city interactive bulletin board,farmers’ markets, public seating, a playground, more greenery, secure bicycleparking (e-lockers), and table space for organizations.6. In the longer term, explore reclassifying more planned bicycle facilities as Class IVseparated (protected) bike lanes to provide alternative ways for bicyclists andactive transportation users to travel in a low-stress network downtowna. Our general belief is that most bicycle facilities called for in the bicycle masterplan have too little protection to encourage higher levels of mode shift tonon-auto modes for people of all ages. The city should consider extending theseparated (protected) bike lane on B Street south of 5th Avenue, as opposed tothe current plan of implementing a buffered bike lane. This is because a chain isonly as strong as its weakest link, and people will be more likely to beincentivized to use the infrastructure if physical separation between vehiclesexists along its entirety. Additionally, Ellsworth Street could be considered for aseparated (protected) bike lane that is fed by B Street and Laurel Ave via 5th Aveto the east and west, respectively. Bicycle facilities should be planned to closethe gap on San Mateo Drive and Catalpa Avenue and downtown San Mateo.Delaware Street in the downtown area should also see protected bike lanes.Also, a multi-use path and green space could be envisioned under a potentialfuture viaduct that grade-separates Caltrain.Thank you for your consideration,Move San Mateo 118 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 5
CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 11 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS File ID: 22-6091 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: May 16, 2022
SUBJECT:
City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) – Approval of Sale of Refunding Special Tax Bonds
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution to authorize the issuance of one or more series of bonds, the execution and delivery of one or more fiscal agent agreements, a bond purchase contract, a deposit and escrow agreement, a continuing disclosure certificate and an official statement, and authorizing related actions and the execution of related documents with respect to the issuance and sale of bonds.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2008, the City Council established the Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows), City of San Mateo, County of San Mateo, State of California (CFD) to pay for infrastructure necessary for or incidental to the Bay Meadows Project and for public infrastructure maintenance expenses, and established a maximum bond authorization of $120 million. In 2011, at the property owner’s request, the Council took action to reduce the authorized bonded indebtedness to $92 million.
The City sold bonds in three (3) separate series from 2012 through 2014 (Outstanding Bonds) and used the proceeds to finance public infrastructure in the CFD. Special taxes levied on properties in the CFD are used to pay debt service on the Outstanding Bonds. Special tax proceeds are not currently used to maintain infrastructure. The Outstanding Bonds were sold in the amount of $86.275 million, of which $82.81 million is currently outstanding. There is an authorized but unissued remainder of $5.725 million in CFD bonds that the City can still issue.
All three series of Outstanding Bonds can be refunded with lower cost debt. Despite interest rates having risen since February, considerable debt service savings remain. The City’s debt policy establishes a recommended floor of 3% net present value (NPV) savings for refunding debt based on par value of the refunding bonds. Staff suggests an NPV savings floor of 10% for this transaction, but the proposed resolution does not establish a minimum savings threshold in order to maintain flexibility in a volatile market. The following table shows how interest rates and savings have evolved since February, with the suggested floor in the right-most column. 119 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 5
Savings Comparison Summary
February April Present Floor
TIC* 2.85% 3.67% 4.32%
NPV Savings $25.54M $15.47M $9.12M
Savings %** 30.85% 18.68% 11.01% 10%
*True interest cost, a measure of interest paid that reflects the time-value of money. **Savings as a percent of the refunded bonds.
The City routinely issues refunding bonds to reduce debt service required for General Fund and Sewer Enterprise debt. But for restrictions in the special tax formula, the City would lower the special tax levy for property taxpayers within the CFD to correspond to the lower debt service achieved by the refunding. However, the tax formula stipulates that unless the City takes action to forego the issuance of any authorized but unissued debt, the City may not lower special taxes in the CFD. City staff believes it would be prudent to keep this additional financing capacity for at least the short-term to pay for unanticipated public infrastructure needs in the CFD. At any time in the future, the City Council could by resolution relinquish this additional bonding capacity, at which time the City would be authorized to lower special taxes and pass debt service savings to property taxpayers within the CFD.
In the meantime, special tax revenues not needed to pay administrative expenses and debt service on the refunding bonds would be retained in two separate accounts, one designated for services and the other for capital improvements that were authorized when the CFD was formed. Expenditure of amounts on services or capital improvements not approved at that time (for example, a new library or fire station) would require approval by 2/3 of the registered voters residing in the CFD.
The financing schedule has the sale of refunding bonds the week of May 23 and a closing on June 7. Given that this is a refunding and the goal is to maximize savings, the sale may be delayed depending upon conditions in the bond market.
REQUIRED APPROVALS
The Council is asked to approve principal legal documents in connection with the refunding bonds in order to allow staff to implement the sale of the bonds. The documents are on file with the City Clerk. Summary descriptions of those documents are included as Attachment 2 to this agenda report.
The resolution authorizing bonds will also authorize the City to distribute the preliminary official statement and the City Manager or the Finance Director to sign the bond purchase agreement so long as the principal amount of bonds does not exceed $84,000,000, the underwriter’s discount (exclusive of any original issue discount offered to investors) does not exceed 0.5% of the par amount of bonds sold, and the true interest cost (a measure of the aggregate interest cost on the bonds that treats the underwriter’s discount as prepaid interest and takes into account the time-value of money), does not exceed 4.75%. The par amount of the refunding bonds will depend on market yields at the time of sale and is expected to be approximately $72,965,000.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS UNDER FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS The preliminary official statement has been reviewed and approved for transmittal to the City Council by staff and its financing team. The preliminary official statement must include all facts that would be material to an investor in the bonds. Material information is information that would have a substantial likelihood of actual significance in the deliberations of a reasonable investor in deciding whether to buy or sell the bonds. Members of the City Council should review the preliminary official statement and may question staff and consultants to make sure members feel comfortable that it includes all material facts, and in particular, those portions that disclose information relating to the City.
The key sections of the preliminary official statement are summarized below:
120 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 5
the terms of the bonds, including payment dates and redemption provisions, are described in the section of the preliminary official statement entitled “THE 2022 BONDS”; the security for the bonds, including the City’s pledge of special tax revenues, its covenant to levy special taxes according to the rate and method of apportionment for the CFD (RMA) and its covenant to foreclose on parcels that are delinquent in the payment of special taxes, is described in the sections of the preliminary official statement entitled “SECURITY FOR THE BONDS”; certain features of the CFD, including the development status, assessed value of taxable property, overlapping taxes, assessments and debt and anticipated debt service coverage provided by maximum special taxes that may be levied under the RMA, are described in the section of the preliminary official statement entitled “THE CFD”;
the key risk factors associated with the 2022 Bonds are described in the section of the preliminary official statement entitled “BOND OWNERS’ RISKS”; and
Bond Counsel’s opinion as the validity of the bonds and the tax-exempt status of interest on the bonds is described in the section of the preliminary official statement entitled “TAX MATTERS”.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If bonds are not sold, there will be certain non-contingent fees. These include the rating fee of $59,000 and the fees of the municipal advisors, estimated in the aggregate at approximately $60,000. The CFD would pay these amounts and has sufficient funds to do so. If bonds are sold, all costs of issuance would be paid from bond proceeds.
The principal and interest on the bonds (along with all administrative costs) are payable only from special taxes levied in the CFD. The City is not guaranteeing the repayment of the bonds and is not pledging any collateral to secure the bonds. The special taxes are not a personal obligation of the property owners in the CFD, but a property owner’s obligation to pay special taxes is secured by a lien of the owner’s property. In the event that property owners do not pay their special taxes, the City’s only obligation is to direct the fiscal agent to advance funds from the debt service reserve fund (which will be funded with bond proceeds and/or a surety bond when bonds are sold) and to initiate judicial foreclosure proceedings on the delinquent property owners.
ALTERNATIVES
The Council is under no obligation to adopt the resolution before it tonight. If the City Council declines to approve the refunding of these bonds at this time, the Outstanding Bonds will remain outstanding.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
This refunding of special tax bonds is not a project subject to CEQA, because it is a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4).)
NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.
ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Resolution
Att 2 - Summary description of principal bond-related documents
RELATED DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ON FILE WITH CITY CLERK
1. Fiscal Agent Agreement (Junior and Senior Agreements if senior/subordinate structure is cost advantageous; otherwise all bonds issued under one agreement)
2. Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement
3. Bond Purchase Contract
121 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
0 5
4. Preliminary Official Statement (includes as appendices (A) Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment (special tax formula, previously approved) and (B) Continuing Disclosure Certificate
STAFF CONTACT
Rich Lee, Director, Finance
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
122 of 130
CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2021)
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING (1) THE ISSUANCE OF ONE OR MORE SERIES OF REFUNDING SPECIAL TAX BONDS FOR CITY OF SAN MATEO COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2008-1 (BAY MEADOWS), CITY OF SAN MATEO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA; (2) THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF ONE OR
MORE FISCAL AGENT AGREEMENTS, A BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT, A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE, AN ESCROW DEPOSIT AND TRUST AGREEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT; AND (3) RELATED
ACTIONS AND THE EXECUTION OF RELATED DOCUMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF THE BONDS
WHEREAS, the Council (the "City Council") of the City of San Mateo (the "City") conducted proceedings under and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982," being Chapter 2.5, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 (beginning with Section 53311) of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), to form its Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows), City of San Mateo, County of San Mateo, State of California (the "Community Facilities District"), to authorize a special tax to finance the acquisition and construction of certain public facilities, the payment of certain governmental development impact fees and the provision of certain services, and to authorize the issuance of debt to finance the facilities and fees, and to establish the appropriations limit for the Community Facilities District, all as set forth in the City Council's Resolution No. 85 (2008) (the "Resolution of Formation") and Resolution No. 86 (2008) (the "Resolution Deeming it Necessary to Incur Bonded Indebtedness," and together with the Resolution of Formation, the "Formation Resolutions"), both adopted on August 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the authorizations contained in the Formation Resolutions were submitted to the landowner qualified elector of the Community Facilities District at a special mailed-ballot election on August 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the landowner qualified elector within the Community Facilities District approved the authorizations contained in the Formation Resolutions by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council commenced proceedings to change the authorizations conferred upon the Council by the Community Facilities District (the "2011 Change Proceedings") by adopting its Resolution No. 113 (2011) ("Resolution of Consideration") on October 3, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Proposed Amendments contained and defined in the Resolution of Consideration were submitted to the landowner qualified elector of the Community Facilities District at a special mailed-ballot election on November 21, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the landowner qualified elector within the Community Facilities District approved the Proposed Amendments contained in the Resolution of Consideration by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the Formation Resolutions authorized the issuance of up to $120,000,000 in special tax bonds; and
WHEREAS, the 2011 Change Proceedings reduced this authorization to $92,000,000; and 123 of 130
6 3
7 9
WHEREAS, the City and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as trustee (the "Trustee") entered into the Trust Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2012 (the "Original Trust Agreement") in order to provide for the issuance of such bonds in series; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act and the Original Trust Agreement, the City issued $31,800,000 aggregate principal amount of City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2012 (the “2012 Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Trustee entered into the First Supplemental Trust Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2013 (the "First Supplemental Trust Agreement") supplemental to the Original Trust Agreement, and the City issued $26,000,000 aggregate principal amount of City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2013 (the “2013 Bonds”); and WHEREAS, the City and the Trustee entered into the Second Supplemental Trust Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2014 (the "Second Supplemental Trust Agreement") supplemental to the Original Trust Agreement, and the City issued $28,475,000 aggregate principal amount of City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2014 (the "2014 Bonds"); and WHEREAS, as a result of the issuance of the 2012 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds and the 2014 Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $86,275,000, the remaining authorization for the issuance of special tax bonds for the Community Facilities Districd (not including refunding bonds as defined in the Act) is $5,725,000; and WHEREAS, the 2012 Bonds, the 2013 Bonds and the 2014 Bonds (collectively, the “Refunded Bonds”) are subject to redemption without premium on September 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of achieving debt service savings, the City Council now desires to provide for the issuance of its "City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) Refunding Special Tax Bonds" in one or more series in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $84,000,000 (the "2022 Bonds") for the purpose of defeasing and redeeming the Refunded Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is desirable and necessary to approve one or more Fiscal Agent Agreements (each, a “Fiscal Agent Agreement”), by and between the City and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as fiscal agent (the “Fiscal Agent”) in the form now on file with the City Clerk, to specify the conditions, terms, and form of the 2022 Bonds; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a negotiated sale of the 2022 Bonds under the Act will result in a lower overall cost to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the value of the real property within the Community Facilities District that will be subject to the levy of a special tax pursuant to the Act to pay debt service on the 2022 Bonds (based upon the 2021-22 assessed value) is at least three (3) times the sum of (i) the principal amount of the 2022 Bonds, plus (ii) the principal amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by a special tax levied pursuant to the Act on property within the Community Facilities District, plus (iii) the principal 124 of 130
6 3
7 9
amount of all other bonds outstanding that are secured by special assessments levied on property within the Community Facilities District, and accordingly the limitations of Section 53345.8(a) of the Government Code of the State of California have been duly satisfied; and
WHEREAS, a form of Bond Purchase Contract by and between the City and Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, on behalf of itself and InspereX Capital, as underwriters (together, the “Underwriter”), providing for the sale of the 2022 Bonds is now on file with the City Clerk (the "Bond Purchase Contract"); and WHEREAS, a form of an Escrow Deposit and Trust Agreement, by and between the City and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., as Trustee and escrow bank, providing for the sale of the 2022 Bonds is now on file with the City Clerk (the "Escrow Agreement"); and WHEREAS, a form of Continuing Disclosure Certificate with respect to the 2022 Bonds, to be signed by the City, is now on file with the City Clerk (the "Continuing Disclosure Certificate"); and WHEREAS, there has also been submitted to this City Council a form of preliminary Official Statement in connection with the marketing of the 2022 Bonds and the City Council, with the aid of its staff, has reviewed the preliminary Official Statement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to formally approve retention of bond counsel, disclosure counsel and municipal advisors and the form of a legal services agreement with bond counsel and disclosure counsel and forms of professional services agreements with municipal advisors are now on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is also desirable and necessary to authorize appropriate City officers to perform the functions necessary to the issuance of the 2022 Bonds; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Government Code Section 5852.1, the City Council has obtained and disclosed the information set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, the City Council is fully advised in this matter, and all conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of the 2022 Bonds and the levy of the special taxes as contemplated by this resolution and the documents referred to herein exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by the laws of the State of California, including the Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES that:
1. This City Council action is not a project subject to CEQA because it is a government fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact to the environment. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).
2. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. 125 of 130
6 3
7 9
3. The City Council hereby designates the City Manager, the City Finance Director, and the Director of Public Works, or any of them or their designees, to be an "Authorized City Representative" for purposes of this Resolution.
4. Pursuant to the Act and one or more Fiscal Agent Agreements, the 2022 Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued by the City in one or more series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $84,000,000. The 2022 Bonds may be issued as federally tax-exempt bonds, federally taxable bonds, senior bonds or subordinate bonds, and shall be designated accordingly.
The 2022 Bonds shall be dated, shall bear interest at the rates, shall mature on the dates (provided that the final maturity date of the Bonds shall not exceed the final maturity date of the Refunded Bonds), shall be issued in the form, shall be subject to redemption, and shall otherwise be issued on the terms and conditions, all as set forth in the Fiscal Agent Agreement(s) and in accordance with this Resolution. The 2022 Bonds must be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of the Mayor. The City Clerk shall attest the 2022 Bonds by manual or facsimile signature.
The City Council hereby finds that the 2022 Bonds constitute “refunding bonds” within the meaning of the Act because the proceeds thereof will be used to refund the Refunded Bonds. For the purposes of these proceedings for the issuance of the Bonds, the City hereby determines that the total net interest cost to maturity on the 2022 Bonds, plus the principal amount of the 2022 Bonds is less than the total net interest cost to maturity of the Refunded Bonds plus the principal amount of the Refunded Bonds. The City further finds and determines that it would be prudent in the management of its fiscal affairs to issue the 2022 Bonds to refund the Refunded Bonds
5. The Fiscal Agent Agreement is hereby approved, and an Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized to execute and deliver one or more Fiscal Agent Agreements on the City's behalf in substantially the forms now on file with the City Clerk, with any changes the Authorized City Representative requires or approves in the City's interest after consulting with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel. Those additions or changes must not authorize an aggregate principal amount of 2022 Bonds in excess of the amount stated above in Paragraph 4.
6. The Bond Purchase Contract is hereby approved, and an Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized to execute and deliver it on the City's behalf in substantially the form now on file with the City Clerk, with any changes the Authorized City Representative requires or approves in the City's interest after consulting with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel. The 2022 Bonds may not be sold at a true interest cost exceeding 4.75% or with an underwriter's discount (exclusive of original issue discount) exceeding 0.5% of their principal amount. The City Council hereby approves the negotiated sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter pursuant to such Bond Purchase Agreement; such negotiated sale may be on a forward basis, as determined by an Authorized City Representative.
7. The Continuing Disclosure Certificate is hereby approved, and an Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized to execute and deliver it on the City's behalf in substantially the form now on file 126 of 130
6 3
7 9
with the City Clerk, with any changes the Authorized City Representative requires or approves in the City's interest after consulting with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel.
8. The Escrow Agreement is hereby approved, and an Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized to execute and deliver it on the City's behalf in substantially the form now on file with the City Clerk, with any changes the Authorized City Representative requires or approves in the City's interest after consulting with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel.
9. The Preliminary Official Statement is hereby approved, and an Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized to approve its distribution in substantially the form on file with the City Clerk, with any additions or changes as shall be approved by the Authorized City Representative, and to certify on the City's behalf that it was, as of its date, deemed “final” within the meaning of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Rule") (except for the omission of certain final pricing, rating, and related information as permitted by the Rule).
An Authorized City Representative is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the Underwriter, on the City's behalf, a final Official Statement that pertains to the sale of the 2022 Bonds (the “Official Statement”). The Official Statement must be in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement, with any additions or changes an Authorized City Representative requires or approves. An Authorized City Representative's approval will be conclusively evidenced by the execution and delivery of the Official Statement. The use and distribution of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are hereby authorized. The Underwriter is hereby authorized to distribute copies of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement to persons who may be interested in purchasing the 2022 Bonds, and the Underwriter is hereby directed to deliver copies of the Official Statement to all actual purchasers of the 2022 Bonds.
10. The City Council hereby approves the appointment of Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation as bond counsel and disclosure counsel to the City, and Kitahata & Company and William Euphrat Municipal Finance, Inc. as co-municipal advisors to the City in connection with the issuance of 2022 Bonds, and authorizes an Authorized City Representative or the City Attorney to execute agreements with such firms, each in substantially the form on file with the City Clerk, with such changes approved by an Authorized City Representative or the City Attorney, as appropriate, with approval to be evidenced by execution of the agreement.
11. The City's officers and staff are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any additional documents and to approve any changes to the documents approved by this Resolution necessary to secure credit enhancement for the 2022 Bonds in such form as may be approved by the Authorized City Representative in consultation with the City Attorney and Bond Counsel, with execution of such documents to be conclusive evidence of such approval.
12. The City's officers and staff are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do all things and to execute and deliver all documents and contracts they deem necessary or advisable for 127 of 130
6 3
7 9
consummating the sale, execution, and delivery of the 2022 Bonds and otherwise to carry out, give effect to, and comply with the terms and intent of this Resolution, the Fiscal Agent Agreement(s), the 2022 Bonds, the Bond Purchase Contract, the Continuing Disclosure Certificate, the Escrow Agreement, the Preliminary Official Statement, and the Official Statement. All such actions previously taken by City officers and staff are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved.
13. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption. 128 of 130
6 3
7 9
EXHIBIT A
REQUIRED GOOD FAITH ESTIMATES PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 5852.1
The good faith estimates set forth in this Exhibit A have been obtained by the Underwriter and the City’s municipal advisors, and reflect the assumption that two series of 2022 Bonds will be issued, a senior series and subordinate series. All amounts and percentages are estimates, and are made in good faith by the City based on information available as of the date of adoption of this Resolution. Estimates include certain assumptions regarding tax-exempt rates available in the bond market at the time of pricing the 2022 Bonds.
Senior Bonds
1. True Interest Cost of the Senior Bonds: 4.15%
2. Finance charge of the Senior Bonds, being the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties (Costs of Issuance of approximately $1,044,146.98 (including premiums for bond insurance and reserve fund insurance) plus estimated underwriter’s compensation of $237,551.71): $1,281,698.69
3. Amount of proceeds of the Senior Bonds expected to be received by the City, net of proceeds for Costs of Issuance in (2) above and net of capitalized interest (if any) and reserves (if any) paid or funded with the proceeds of the Senior Bonds:
$72,926,035.68
4. Total payment amount for the Senior Bonds to final maturity, plus (b) any financing costs not paid from proceeds of the Senior Bonds: $105,021,627.22 Subordinate Bonds
1. True Interest Cost of the Subordinate Bonds: 4.35%
2. Finance charge of the Subordinate Bonds, being the sum of all fees and charges paid to third parties (Costs of Issuance of approximately $60,943.60 plus estimated underwriter’s compensation of $88,199.54): 149,143.14
3. Amount of proceeds of the Subordinate Bonds expected to be received by the City, net of proceeds for Costs of Issuance in (2) above and net of capitalized interest (if any) and reserves (if any) paid or funded with the proceeds of the Subordinate Bonds: $12,024,550.32
4. Total payment amount for the Subordinate Bonds to final maturity, plus (b) any financing costs not paid from proceeds of the Subordinate Bonds: $20,574,763.60 129 of 130
Attachment 1
Summary Description of Principal Bond-Related Documents In addition to the Preliminary Official Statement described in the main body of the Agenda Report, the Council is being asked to approve the following documents:
• Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Under SEC Rule 15c2-12, the underwriter of the bonds may only purchase the bonds if it has determined that the City is obligated to provide continuing disclosure, including annual updates of the financial and operating data included in the Official Statement and notices of certain specified events. • Fiscal Agent Agreements. The Fiscal Agent Agreement governs the bonds and the use of special taxes from the CFD to pay debt service on the bonds. The fiscal agent is The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The special taxes will be levied on the regular County tax roll and collected by the County from each taxable parcel in The CFD. The County will remit these special taxes to the City. The City will remit them to the fiscal agent as provided for in the Fiscal Agent Agreement. The Fiscal Agent will use the revenues to (1) pay administrative costs of the CFD, (2) pay principal of and interest on the bonds to the bond owners and (3) maintain the debt service reserve fund at the required level. The Fiscal Agent Agreement also describes the use of special tax revenues in excess of what’s needed for the three items described in the previous sentence. City staff is working with its financing team to determine whether it is more cost effective to issue a single series of bonds or two series of senior/subordinate bonds. If the City issues two series of bonds, there will be two Fiscal Agent Agreements. • Bond Purchase Contract. At the time the bonds are sold, the City will enter into a Bond Purchase Contract with the Underwriter described in the main body of the Agenda Report, who will agree to underwrite the bonds subject to satisfaction of the conditions described in the Bond Purchase Contract.
130 of 130