Agenda packet, regular meeting — San Mateo City Council, July 18, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Consultant’s checking will include a review of all deliverables within each discipline (i.e. drawings, detailed specifications, project support documentation, etc.) and an inter‐discipline coordination cross‐check to correct discrepancies among the project documents.

Discipline calculations, databases, construction cost estimates, schedule, and other project support documentation will be updated and submitted to the City to reflect the status of the Drawings and Detailed Specifications and will support the 90% design submittal workshops.

A construction cost estimate (AACE Class 2) with basis of estimate narrative and construction sequencing plan and schedule shall be included with the deliverables.

The 90% design deliverable shall include a statement signed by Consultant’s Project Manager that all deliverables have been reviewed or otherwise checked and that they are in full conformance with Consultant’s QA/QC Plan. Additionally, the City will require the Consultant to fill out and sign the City’s QC Certification form.

The 90% design deliverable shall include one print‐ready PDF on electronic media acceptable to the City of all deliverables.

Task 4.3 – 100% Design and Bid Documents
This task shall be conducted independently for each identified project(s) awarded to the Consultant. All design work shall be in conformance with the Clean Water Program design guidelines and standards, which will be provided to the Consultant during the negotiation phase.

Following receipt of all City and regulatory review comments on the 90% Design Submittals, the Consultant will prepare a Final (100%) Design and will submit the 100% design submittal as a final check set. The final check set shall include all bid documents. Prior to submittal, the Consultant will have performed an inter‐disciplinary cross‐check of the design changes made since the 90% design submittal 306 of 615
ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES

and corrected the related discrepancies. The Consultant will not add any new drawings or make any changes to the plans or specifications that are not a result of comments received by the City, regulatory review, or a final in‐house quality control check. Consultant and City shall conduct a workshop to verify that all City comments have been addressed and all permit conditions are accounted for. After the City’s back‐check review is complete, Consultant shall revise the documents and submit Final Bid Documents.

The 100% back‐check design deliverable shall include a statement signed by Consultant’s Project Manager that all deliverables have been reviewed or otherwise checked in full conformance with Consultant’s QA/QC Plan.

The 100% back‐check design deliverable shall include 4 hard copies and one print‐ready PDF on electronic media acceptable to the City of all deliverables.

The Final Bid Documents will include finished, checked and completed plans and specifications, and will incorporate all City comments from previous submittals. The Consultant will document in‐house changes and submit them to the City along with the Final Bid Documents.

The Final Design submittals will also include all final databases, reports, construction schedules, cost estimates, engineering calculations and bid ready project plans and specifications.

All plans, detailed specifications and engineering calculations will be stamped and signed by a Registered Engineer in the State of California.

An updated construction cost estimate (AACE Class 1) and construction sequencing plan and schedule will be included with the deliverables.

The Final Bid Documents deliverable shall include one print‐ready PDF on electronic media acceptable to the City of all deliverables.

Task 5 – Bid Period Assistance
This task shall be conducted independently for each identified project(s) awarded to the Consultant. The Consultant shall provide assistance during the bid period, including the following:
 Participate in the pre‐bid conference, if necessary.
 Prepare responses to bidder’s questions.
 Prepare addenda to Bid Documents, as needed.
 Participate in reviewing alternate equipment and material proposals from the contractor, if applicable.
 Participate in the evaluation of the submitted bids, furnish consultation and advise to City staff, and assist with all the related equipment, cost and other analyses as required to finalize the award decision.
 Prepare conformed drawings and specifications that incorporate all addenda. The Final Conformed Documents deliverable shall include one print ready PDF on electronic media acceptable to the City.

Task 6 – Construction Phase Services
This task shall be conducted independently for each identified project(s) awarded to the Consultant.

The Consultant shall provide services during construction, which may include the following:
 Attendance at pre‐construction conference and construction progress meetings  General technical support
 Periodic field visits
 Submittal review
307 of 615
ATTACHMENT A SCOPE OF SERVICES

 Request for information responses and review
 Change order and contract document modifications preparation and review  Progress payment application review
 Construction closeout support
 Preparation of record drawings
308 of 615
P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s P a g e 9 of 12 Rev 5/22
EXHIBIT B

FEE RATES

309 of 615

FREYER & LAURETA, INC. Civil Engineers · Surveyors · Construction Managers. 25 B.6 RATE SCHEDULE

Freyer & Laureta, Inc.

July 2022 through December 2023

Team Member
Raw
Labor
Cost ($)
Raw Labor
Cost with
1%
Escalation
(1)
Fringe
Benefits:
% of
Direct
Wages
(2)
Overhead:
% of
direct
wages (3)
Subtotal
($)
Profit
%
Hourly
Billing
Rate ($)
Jeffrey J. Tarantino, P.E. 93.75 N/A 39 128 250.31 10 275.34 Rich Laureta, P.E. 108.17 N/A 39 128 288.81 10 317.70
Nichol Bowersox, P.E. 91.35 N/A 39 128 243.90 10 268.29 Camille Bandy, P.E. 52.88 N/A 39 128 141.19 10 155.31
Jason Feudale 52.88 N/A 39 128 141.19 10 155.31
Sean Chou 38.46 N/A 39 128 102.69 10 112.96
Notes

1. All F&L employees Raw Labor rates listed above are current through December 2022 and therefore the allowed 1% escalation is not required.

2. Fringe benefits includes personel time off, medical insurance premium, dential insurance premium, vision insurance premium, holidays, and training.

3. Overhead includes indirect labor, administrative fees, rent, software, vehicles, mileage reimbursement, computer equipment, information technology infrastructure, office supplies, taxes, payroll taxes, copying, printing, and insurance.

Expenses

1. All subconsultant fees will be charged at cost plus 5% markup.

2. Other Direct Project Related Costs will be billed at cost once written City approval is provided.

3. All staff assigned to the project will be local to the Bay Area.

310 of 615
P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s P a g e 10 of 12 Rev 5/22
EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products‐completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non‐owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate

If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status
The City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents are to be covered as insureds on the auto policy for liability arising out of automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; and on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the CONSULTANT’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self‐insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

311 of 615
P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s P a g e 11 of 12 Rev 5/22
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non‐payment) has been given to the City.

Waiver of Subrogation
CONSULTANT hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.

CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

Deductibles and Self‐Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self‐insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the CONSULTANT to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

Verification of Coverage
CONSULTANT shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

312 of 615
P r o f e s s i o n a l S e r v i c e s P a g e 12 of 12 Rev 5/22
EXHIBIT D

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Consultant shall prepare a schedule for City review and approval prior to issuance of each Task Order. 313 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
9 4

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 17 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-4661 File ID: 22-6214 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Local Roadway Safety Plan – Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an agreement with Kittelson & Associates, Inc. for preparation of the San Mateo Local Roadway Safety Plan in the amount of $120,938; approve a contingency in the amount of $12,000; and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement and amendments within the contingency in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

The California Transportation Commission allocated $18 million of State funds in 2019 and 2020 for the purpose of assisting local agencies in developing Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs) based on a new statewide requirement for cities to have an LRSP or equivalent plan to be eligible to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.

LRSPs identify roadway safety emphasis areas, determine safety goals for reducing fatal and severe injury crashes, and identify, analyze, and prioritize safety improvements with the help of stakeholders representing the engineering, law enforcement, education, and emergency response personnel. The City was awarded a grant to develop an LRSP in the amount of $72,000 in grant funds that requires $8,000 in City matching funds for a total of $80,000.

Staff first brought the concept of utilizing collision data for project prioritization to City Council during fall 2020. After several presentations on the subject, City Council concurred with staff’s recommendation of preparing an LRSP as the formalized method to identify traffic safety issues and recommend roadway improvements. Staff anticipates that the improvements recommended in the LRSP will be implemented throughout the City in conjunction with previously completed Traffic Action Plans. As such, and due to its citywide scale, staff desires to include a robust public outreach component during the LRSP preparation. The additional budget needed for public outreach support is estimated at approximately $41,000, which will be funded from the Neighborhood Traffic Management project, which was created to fund Traffic Action Plan implementation.

On January 28, 2022, the Public Works Department issued a request for proposals (RFP) to select a qualified firm(s) to develop the LRSP. The City received proposals from five firms and evaluated the proposals based on each firm's understanding of the work involved, experience with similar work, quality of project team, and technical ability of key staff. Of the five firms, staff interviewed two firms for the project: Fehr & Peers and Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Following interviews with each proposed project team, staff found Kittelson & Associates, Inc. to be most qualified to complete the scope of work identified in the RFP. Staff recommends entering into an agreement with Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are sufficient funds for this agreement between the Caltrans LRSP grant and Neighborhood Traffic Management project, which will fund the additional outreach and local match to complete the Local Roadway Safety Plan. 314 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
9 4
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This Local Roadway Safety Plan 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 – Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer
[email protected]
(650) 522-7313
315 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 1 of 11
Rev 5/22
AGREEMENT WITH KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT SERVICES
FOR

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

This Agreement, made and entered into this day of ____________________, by and between the CITY OF SAN MATEO, a municipal corporation existing under the laws of the State of California (“CITY”), and KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., a CORPORATION (“CONSULTANT”), whose address is 155 GRAND AVENUE, STE. 505, OAKLAND, CA 94612.

RECITALS:

A. CITY desires certain Local Roadway Safety Plan development services hereinafter described.

B. CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT to provide these Local Roadway Safety Plan development services by reason of its qualifications and experience for performing such services and CONSULTANT has offered to provide the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED as follows:

SECTION 1 - SCOPE OF SERVICES

The scope of services to be performed by CONSULTANT under this Agreement is as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2 - DUTIES OF CONSULTANT

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of all work furnished by CONSULTANT under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in its work.

CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to furnish the services described under this Agreement.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services of CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT 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.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 316 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 2 of 11
Rev 5/22
SECTION 3 - DUTIES OF CITY

CITY shall provide pertinent information regarding its requirements for the project.

CITY shall examine documents submitted by CONSULTANT and shall render decisions pertaining thereto promptly, to avoid unreasonable delay in the progress of CONSULTANT's work.

SECTION 4 - TERM

The services to be performed under this Agreement shall commence on July 25, 2022 and be completed on or about December 31, 2023.

SECTION 5 - PAYMENT

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 not to exceed $120,938, pursuant to rates stated in Exhibit B to this Agreement, attached and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 6 - TERMINATION

Without limitation to such rights or remedies as CITY shall otherwise have by law, CITY shall have the right to terminate this Agreement or suspend work on the Project for any reason, upon ten (10) days' written notice to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT agrees to cease all work under this Agreement upon receipt of said written notice.

Upon termination and upon CITY's payment of the amount required to be paid, documents become the property of CITY, and CONSULTANT shall transfer them to CITY upon request without additional compensation.

SECTION 7 - OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS

All documents prepared by CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, although instruments of professional service, are and shall be the property of CITY, whether the project for which they are made is executed or not.

SECTION 8 - CONFIDENTIALITY

All reports and documents prepared by CONSULTANT in connection with the performance of this Agreement are confidential until released by CITY to the public. CONSULTANT shall not make any such documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by CONSULTANT or CITY without the written consent of CITY before any such release.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 317 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 3 of 11
Rev 5/22
SECTION 9 - INTEREST OF CONSULTANT

CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the services under this Agreement.

SECTION 10 - CONSULTANT'S STATUS

It is expressly agreed that in the performance of the professional services required under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall at all times be considered an independent contractor as defined in Labor Code Section 3353, under control of the CITY as to the result of the work but not the means by which the result is accomplished. Nothing herein shall be construed to make CONSULTANT an agent or employee of CITY while providing services under this Agreement.

SECTION 11 - INDEMNITY

CONSULTANT agrees to hold harmless and indemnify CITY, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, loss, liability, damage, and expense arising out of CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement, except those claims arising out of CITY’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. CONSULTANT agrees to defend City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents against any such claims.

SECTION 12 - INSURANCE

CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract and three years thereafter (five years for building or major improvements) the insurance specified in Exhibit C to this Agreement.

SECTION 13 - NON-ASSIGNABILITY

Both parties hereto recognize that this Agreement is for the personal services of CONSULTANT and cannot be transferred, assigned, or subcontracted by CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of CITY.

SECTION 14 - RELIANCE UPON PROFESSIONAL

SKILL OF CONSULTANT

It is mutually understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that CONSULTANT is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the work agreed to be done under this Agreement and that CITY relies upon the skill of CONSULTANT to do and perform the work in the most skillful manner, and CONSULTANT agrees to thus perform the work. The acceptance of CONSULTANT's work by CITY does not operate as a release of CONSULTANT from said obligation.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 318 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 4 of 11
Rev 5/22
SECTION 15 - WAIVERS

The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any provisions of any ordinance or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant, condition, ordinance or law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement or of any applicable law or ordinance.

SECTION 16 - SEVERABILITY

If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

SECTION 17 - COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

Attorney fees in total amount not exceeding $5000, shall be recoverable as costs (by the filing of a cost bill) by the prevailing party in any action or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement. The above $5000 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 of this Agreement that neither party shall have to pay the other more than $5000 for attorney fees arising out of an action, or actions to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.

SECTION 18 - NON-DISCRIMINATION

CONSULTANT warrants that it is an Equal Opportunity Employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither CONSULTANT nor any of its subcontractors shall discriminate in the employment of any person because of race, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, sex, or age, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SECTION 19 - MEDIATION

Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, any party may request that it be submitted to mediation. The parties shall meet in mediation within 30 days of a request. The mediator shall be agreed to by the mediating parties; in the absence of an agreement, the parties shall each submit one name from mediators listed by either the American Arbitration Association, the State Mediation and Conciliation Service, or other agreed-upon service. The mediator shall be selected by a blind draw.

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.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 319 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 5 of 11
Rev 5/22

SECTION 20 - LITIGATION

CONSULTANT shall testify at CITY'S request if litigation is brought against CITY in connection with CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement. Unless the action is brought by CONSULTANT, or is based upon CONSULTANT's wrongdoing, CITY shall compensate CONSULTANT for preparation for testimony, testimony, and travel at CONSULTANT's standard hourly rates at the time of actual testimony.

SECTION 21 - NOTICES

All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

To CITY: Bethany Lopez
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

To CONSULTANT: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attn: Anusha Musunuru
155 Grand Avenue, Ste. 505
Oakland, CA 94612

SECTION 22 - AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL
UNDERSTANDINGS; AMENDMENT

This document represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and agreements, either written or oral.

This document may be amended only by written instrument, signed by both CITY and CONSULTANT.

SECTION 23 - AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT

CONSULTANT has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.

SECTION 24 - GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE

This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and, in the event of litigation, venue will be in the County of San Mateo.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 320 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 6 of 11
Rev 5/22
[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 321 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 7 of 11
Rev 5/22
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, CITY OF SAN MATEO and KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written.

CITY OF SAN MATEO

CONSULTANT

Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director

Date Dave Mills
Its Authorized Agent
Operations Leader

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

ADDITIONAL CORPORATE

OFFICER
(if necessary per the above)

Linh Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney
Date Marc Butorac
Senior Principal Engineer

Date

Attachments:

Exhibit A: Scope of Services
Exhibit B: Fee Rates
Exhibit C: Insurance Requirements

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 6/21/2022
6/21/2022
322 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 8 of 11
Rev 5/22

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 323 of 615
Signing In Process
Scope of Services
TASK 1. DETAILED WORK PLAN AND STRATEGY

TASK 1 PURPOSE
Facilitate regular communication with the City of San Mateo project manager and staff so that the LRSP development remains on schedule and meets the needs and interests of the City.

Project Management
As project manager, Anusha Musunuru will use the following approaches to ensure project success:

Proactive Communication
Routine communication between Anusha and San Mateo’s project manager will confirm that we are meeting or exceeding needs in our approach and performance of the work.

Management of Team Members
Anusha will define a detailed work plan for the consultant team at the time the contractual scope of work with City of San Mateo is established. The detailed work plan will identify internal team milestones related to quality control milestones as well as individuals responsible for conducting the work, reviewing the work, and confirming comments are adequately addressed.

Managing Schedule
Actively managing the schedule is critical. Anusha, Matt, and Damian will work with task leads to identify and provide the resources necessary to adhere to the established schedule.

Controlling Allocation of Resources
Anusha will help ensure that the appropriate allocation of resources is spent on each task by first establishing clear expectations with the San Mateo project manager and the task leads about desired outcomes. Furthermore, Kittelson’s internal budget tracking tools enable project managers to identify budget status of any project or task at any time during the week or day and will be applied to help control allocation of resources.

Quality Deliverables
We deeply care about the services we provide. Damian Stefanakis (Principal -in-charge) will assist with quality control and assurance, as will our team’s dedicated senior advisor, Matt Braughton.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 324 of 615
Signing In Process
Task 1.1 Kick-off Meeting
Kittelson will prepare for and conduct a project kick-off meeting with City of San Mateo project manager and staff to confirm schedule, scope, project objectives, goals, and key interests, and identify near-term data or other information needed. Kittelson will also request and obtain relevant City safety policies, programs, partners, and additional documentation from the City to document existing safety efforts and progress. This information will be included in the LR SP as required.

Task 1.2 Monthly Progress Meetings, Progress Reports, and Invoices Kittelson’s project manager will conduct 30-minute monthly conference calls with the City.

Based on the agenda and any topics for resolution, specific invites for local agency participation or other partners will be extended prior to the call. The focus of these calls will be to provide an update regarding ongoing work, identify any potential issues that require resolutio n, and provide a recurring opportunity for the City project manager to provide our team with feedback to be sure we are meeting or exceeding expectations.

Based on the current conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate the kick-off meeting and all monthly progress meetings would be held virtually. If desired by the City and appropriate given the current local public health conditions, Kittelson may conduct the kickoff meeting in person at City offices.

Task 1 Deliverables
▪ Virtual kick-off meeting with City
▪ Final work plan
▪ Monthly virtual progress meetings, including meeting agendas and notes TASK 2. STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

TASK 2 PURPOSE
Establish a Project Development Team/Steering Committee comprised of multidisciplinary agency stakeholders and organizations and engage them throughout the process of developing the LRSP. Support City staff with preparing and presenting project -related materials for outreach and at public meetings.

Task 2.1 Project Development Team Meetings
Kittelson will work with City of San Mateo project manager and staff to identify potential safety partners to serve as part of the Project Development Team. We anticipate the roster for the PDT to include multidisciplinary partners which may include neighboring jurisdictions, Safe Routes to School program, disabled community, traffic safety advocacy groups, California Highway Patrol (CHP), Caltrans, San Mateo Police Department, and/or emergency services representatives. We also recommend including San Mateo school districts and representatives from San Mateo County Health to allow for a broader discussion of roadway safety. Ultimately, the invited participants of the PDT could become a regular steering committee to address roadway safety from a variety of perspectives for the City.

Based on our prior experience with LRSPs and similar roadway safety plans, we propose two (2) Progress Meetings with the PDT at the following critical points in the LRSP development to provide the greatest benefit for the plan:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 325 of 615
Signing In Process
▪ Progress Meeting #1: Introduction to the LRSP and safety management process, discussion of PDT member roles, discussion of crash analysis results, and priority locations. ▪ Progress Meeting #2: Review the Draft LRSP and priority projects, identify changes for the Final City of San Mateo LRSP.

Based on the current conditions under the COVID-19 pandemic, we anticipate that the initial meeting will be held virtually. If those conditions change and an in-person meeting is feasible, we will conduct these meetings in-person. Kittelson would coordinate the meeting dates and times. If it is feasible to hold either of these meetings as in-person meetings, we would work with City of San Mateo to identify an appropriate meeting space for the size of the group and accessible for all partners. Kittelson is well-versed at holding and facilitating stakeholder meetings virtually including coordinating and conducting breakout sessions as part of the meeting format. We bring a wide range of tools for virtual meetings including a variety of videoconference platforms (Zoom, Microsoft Team, etc.). We also regularly use visual tools including Concept Boards and Mural.Co that enable stakeholders to view and comment directly on content as others are also viewing and commenting. Those tools help simulate a workshop type of environment.

For each meeting, Kittelson will prepare an agenda, meeting materials, facilitate the discussion and activities, take meeting notes, and disseminate the notes to attendees following the meeting.

Task 2.2 Community Engagement Support
Kittelson will work carefully with the City to tailor outreach activities to the unique characteristics of the city. We will integrate communication techniques, evaluation tools, technical expertise, and interactive mapping into the planning process to enhance safety analysis and evaluation.

Throughout this project, we will structure our outreach approach around the belief that low - income, minority status, or Limited English Proficiency (LEP) should never be a barrier to meaningful engagement.

Task 2.2.1 Project Website
Kittelson will develop and maintain a separate LRSP project website for the City of San Mateo.

The City will have a unique URL (San Mateo name in the website address) that can be provided on the City’s website and social media platforms. The project website will have a landing page that will explain the LRSP process and reason the City is developing an LRSP. This website will house an interactive map that allows comments to be placed at specific locations, i.e., roadways or intersections throughout the City by the public. This website will remain live throughout the LRSP process and public comments will be summarized and addressed through the plan development.

Task 2.2.2 Public Workshop
Kittelson will prepare presentation exhibits and conduct one in-person public workshop, if desired by the City and appropriate given the current local public health conditions . This engagement phase is an opportunity to engage with public to present safety analysis results, gather public feedback on the LRSP and associated goals and strategies.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 326 of 615
Signing In Process
Task 2.2.3 Selected Communities Public Engagement
Not all roadway segments/intersections in the City have the same safety performance, crash history, or warrant similar treatments. Similarly, not all community groups within the City will require the same material, approach, or level of engagement. Kittelson has built this phase into the process because some places and community groups like downtown area and north central neighborhood will require an additional level of care and coordination.

We will work with the City staff to identify “selected communities/groups” that are expected to be most challenging to gather input through the project website and public workshop. After identifying the selected communities, we will meet with public in these areas by organizing pop - up events/presentation exhibits as part of any other event that’s happening in the neighborhood or in coordination with an existing community group meeting for use during targeted outreach. Kittelson will plan to host one (1) pop-up event/presentation exhibits and up to three (3) smaller scale pop-in/pop-up events in the City. These smaller scale pop-in/pop-up events could be at the farmers market, Hillsdale Mall, or at any non-profit organization events.

This engagement phase is an opportunity to go and engage with public where they are to gather their feedback.

Kittelson team will be prepared to schedule, coordinate, and lead all these meetings, however, we recognize that these meetings may be sensitive, and we will rely on the City staff to advise on which meetings should be scheduled and coordinated to pay special attention to these selected communities. Translation and interpretation services will be provided as necessary at the pop-up event/presentation exhibits.

Task 2.2.4 Public Meetings
Kittelson will assist City staff with preparing and presenting materials, answering questions, and providing notes for up to four (4) public meetings. It is anticipated that the first meeting would focus on presenting safety analysis results, second one on plan vision, goals, objectives, and emphasis areas, third one on priority locations, countermeasures, and non-engineering treatments, and the final one would be for LRSP approval at City Council. This scope assumes Kittelson staff virtual attendance at both public hearings. If desired by the City and appropriate given the current local public health conditions, Kittelson may attend the public meetings in person.

Task 2 Deliverables
▪ Attendance, facilitation, agendas, notes, and materials for up to two (2) PDT meetings ▪ Project website and interactive map
▪ Lead one (1) public workshop
▪ Lead one (1) selected community engagement event
▪ Lead up to three (3) smaller scale pop-in/pop-up events ▪ Public comments summary and participation statistics
▪ Attendance at up to four (4) public meetings
▪ Presentation materials and meeting notes

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 327 of 615
Signing In Process
TASK 3. BACKGROUND REVIEW, PLAN VISION, GOALS, AND

OBJECTIVES

TASK 3 PURPOSE
Establish safety goals, priorities, and objectives for the roadway safety management process in the City. Develop measurable actions that align with the City’s goals and priorities.

Kittelson will work with San Mateo project manager, city staff, and the PDT to create a vision, mission statement, and goals that guide the LRSP and align with City Council priorities, City’s existing plans, California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), the National Road Safety Strategy, and current best practices in safety including the Safe System Approach. The team will confirm a vision statement and goals that go beyond engineering to encompass the four (4) E’s of Safety. The vision statement will guide the City’s approach to improving roadway safety.

This task will happen in conjunction with Task 4 and Task 5 to allow for the crash and roadway data analysis to inform the development of goals and objectives that directly speak to crash patterns, trends, and risk factors within the City. The goals and objectives are created to supplement the vision and mission statements of the City and are aimed at measurable actions the City can take to improve roadway safety performance. The LRSP goals and objectives will include identifying emphasis crash types and patterns to be addressed, crash risk factors, identifying high-priority locations for crash risk, and implementing the low-cost countermeasures systemically during regular maintenance or capital improvement projects to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. This will be virtually presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission to request feedback and recommendations for the goal-setting process.

Kittelson will work with the City to collect and synthesize recent relevant City safety-related plans, engineering studies, and safety improvements. This information will be referenced in subsequent tasks and documented in the final LRSP. Comments will be collected and incorporated into the final LRSP as a part of Task 7.

Task 3 Deliverables
▪ Memorandum summarizing vision statement, mission statement, goals, and priorities ▪ Virtual presentation, materials, and notes to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission

TASK 4. COLLISION AND ROADWAY ANALYSIS

TASK 4 PURPOSE
Through a systemic approach, Kittelson will identify roadway characteristics and user behaviors associated with crash risk based on crash history (“risk factors”) to prioritize locations based on the presence of risk factors rather than solely focusing on where crashes have occurred.

Task 4.1 Comprehensive Database Establishment
Kittelson will obtain SWITRS and TIMS crash data for the latest five years of available data.

Kittelson will work with the City to determine any additional crash data available and confirm DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 328 of 615
Signing In Process
the desired data period. A consolidated, uniform set of reported crashes will be mapped in a GIS-based platform. Kittelson will also obtain available land use and roadway data to help identify any contributing factors related to crashes in subsequent tasks.

Task 4.2 Crash Trends and Patterns Safety Analysis
With the roadway data and crash databases established in Task 4.1, Kittelson will conduct a network screening to identify high crash frequency and/or severity locations for both intersections and roadway segments. Kittelson will prepare a highly graphical memorandum of analysis findings, which will include a list of priority locations, identified risk factors, and common contributing factors for the crashes. The memorandum will include charts and exhibits illustrating key findings related to factors like personal attributes/human factors (e.g., driver impairment, behavior), vehicular and equipment factors (e.g., braking, occupant restraints), and roa dway and environmental factors (e.g., speed limits, roadway geometric design).

As an example, we have constructed a crash tree diagram presented in Figure 1 indicating the breakdown of crashes by party type (i.e., vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorc yclists) and location (e.g., intersections vs. roadways). Within the project, such findings could be further disaggregated by crash type, for example, to focus desired emphasis areas. The tree demonstrates, for example, the elevated risk for pedestrians along roadways – they are involved in 7% of reported crashes but 45% of fatal and severe injury crashes.

Figure 1: Crash distribution by Mode
Task 4 Deliverables
▪ Consolidated crash and roadway databases in GIS format ▪ Memorandum summarizing crash patterns and trends

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 329 of 615
Signing In Process
TASK 5. EMPHASIS AREAS AND COUNTERMEASURES

TASK 5 PURPOSE
Establish emphasis areas for the City. These will be informed by findings from prior tasks and input from the City, stakeholders, and public to ensure sufficient buy-in for future improvements.

Identify countermeasures to address emphasis areas.

Task 5.1 Identify Emphasis Areas
Kittelson will identify emphasis areas using results from the safety analysis in Task 4. Each emphasis area will include goals and strategies that will support the LRSP vision and reduction in crashes consistent with the emphasis area. Kittelson will also help identify safety partners that will be instrumental in supporting the goals of each emphasis area and the vision of the LRSP as a whole. Kittelson will prepare a memorandum that includes the emphasis areas and their goals and strategies and supporting safety partners.

Task 5.2 Identify Countermeasures
Kittelson will work with City of San Mateo staff to identify strategies to help achieve the safety vision established as part of Task 3 and address findings of Task 4. Engineering and non - engineering countermeasures will be considered when identifying potential solutions. Kittelson will develop a memorandum that provides a countermeasures toolbox appli cable to their safety crash trends. The toolbox will include:

Engineering Countermeasures most relevant to the roadway safety vision and goals, high-priority locations, and crash risk factors using the latest version of the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, the FHWA’s Crash Modification (CMF) Clearinghouse website, HSIP set -aside categories, and other recent countermeasures used or encouraged by the City.

Non-Engineering Countermeasures including education, equitable enforcement, and emergency services strategies that can be implemented to modify user behavior or reduce the likelihood of severe crash outcomes. Partnership with the stakeholder team, review of NHTSA’s Countermeasures that work, the Caltrans SHSP Implementation Plan, and Safe Systems approach and its five elements will help identify feasible solutions that can be utilized to target behavior-related crash factors identified in Task 4.

The emphasis areas, strategies and the countermeasure toolbox will be virtually presented to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission to request feedback and recommendations on the emphasis areas and countermeasures. Kittelson will produce a draft memorandum and will revise based on a consolidated set of comments from City staff and additional stakehol ders identified by the City.

Task 5 Deliverables
▪ Memorandum summarizing emphasis areas and strategies to increase safety performance pertinent to each of the emphasis areas
▪ Countermeasures toolbox memorandum
▪ Virtual presentation, materials, and notes to the Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 330 of 615
Signing In Process
TASK 6. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND

PRIORITIZATION

TASK 6 PURPOSE
Identify high priority locations which will be used as the basis for assessing safety improvement opportunities and for future safety evaluations by the City. Prepare an actionable implementation plan for the City LRSP.

Task 6.1 Identify Priority Locations
Kittelson will identify up to 20 priority locations based on results from Tasks 4 and 5. Kittelson will start with the top high crash frequency and/or severity locations identified in Task 4 and will consult with the City to identify any changes to the top 20, based on recently completed or planned improvements. Kittelson will summarize the priority locations and include comparative attributes with the City, which could include, for example:
• Location type (intersection, roadway, or all)
• Crash history (number of crashes, crash severity score, targeted crashes) • Top reported crash types and primary crash factors
• Alignment with emphasis areas
Task 6.2 Identify Potential Improvements
Kittelson will identify potential improvements using the list of priority locations from Task 6.1.

Kittelson will develop systemic and location-specific project concepts for up to ten (10) locations based on the analysis in Task 4 and the countermeasure toolbox developed in Task 5.2. Project development will consist of countermeasures matched to locations based on crash history and systemic location characteristics.

Task 6.3 Prepare Implementation Plan
Kittelson will work with City of San Mateo and key stakeholders to develop an actionable LRSP implementation plan to prioritize projects, identify funding opportunities to implement projects, and what actions are needed to achieve the goals, objectives, and vision set forth in the LRSP.

The implementation will also serve as a resource to identify and engage key stakeholders and partner agencies to maintain momentum and commitment to the LRSP mission statement and help address cross-jurisdictional roadway safety performance.

A first component of the implementation plan will be developing the communication approach to keep City staff, key stakeholders (i.e., PDT members), and multidisciplinary partners engaged with the LRSP implementation. This could take a variety of forms from developing an approach for annual reporting on safety performance to forming a City safety steering committee to meet, discuss, and move forward safety strategies for implementation. We will outline the best approaches and strategies for the City to keep everyone informed and actively involved as part of LRSP implementation. As part of this plan, Kittelson will also help the city to develop approaches and practices for integrating safety management into existing work practices.

Our team will prepare a draft LRSP implementation plan providing guidance and actions for City staff to implement the LRSP vision. Based on a consolidated set of comments provided by San Mateo staff and the PDT, Kittelson will finalize the LRSP implementation plan for inclusion in the overall LRSP.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 331 of 615
Signing In Process
Task 6.4 HSIP Applications
Kittelson will work with City staff to identify and prepare up to two (2) HSIP grant applications for the HSIP Cycle 12. Kittelson will prepare materials necessary for the applications, including project concepts, cost estimates, and maps, and provide all supporting documentation and materials.

Task 6 Deliverables
▪ Priority Locations List (up to 20 locations)
▪ Up to ten (10) project concepts
▪ Draft/Final LRSP implementation plan
▪ Two HSIP grant applications, including preliminary concept designs, cost estimates, and supporting information necessary for the applications.

TASK 7. DRAFT AND FINAL LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

TASK 7 PURPOSE
Prepare an LRSP including goals, emphasis areas, high-priority locations, improvements, and strategies to implement roadway safety management process, and to improve roadway safety in the City of San Mateo.

Kittelson will prepare a draft and final City of San Mateo Local Roadway Safety Plan following the Local Roadway Safety Plan guidance and requirements. The LRSP will include:
• Executive Summary
• Previous efforts to address roadway safety
• Partners and process to develop the LRSP
• Vision and mission statement, goals, and objectives of the LRSP • Current roadway safety performance including the high-injury network and recurring crash trends and patterns, crash data modeling and risk analysis results • Emphasis areas
• A list of high-priority locations for future City evaluations • Safety countermeasures and strategies identified in the Four Safety E’s section of the LRSP • Project concepts for five (5) systemic safety project templates • Implementation plan for LRSP, which includes the funding sources, key stakeholders’ continuous involvement, and suggested timeline for updating the LRSP

Our team will prepare a draft LRSP report and distribute it to the City of San Mateo staff for review.

We will revise the draft based on comments compiled and provided by City staff, City Council, and partners. We will provide all textual work products in both PDF and Microsoft Word formats, as desired. All relevant project data will be packaged and shared to the City for their future use.

Task 7 Deliverables
▪ Draft LRSP
▪ Final LRSP
DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 332 of 615
Signing In Process
TASK 8. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

TASK 8 PURPOSE
Prepare a guidance document that identifies potential safety impacts and issues for new projects which will trigger a detailed environmental analysis.

Kittelson will prepare a guidance document that outlines the process to identify issues which will trigger a detailed environmental analysis for priority projects. Kittelson will review and follow th e process outlined in Caltrans Interim Land Development and Intergovernmental Review (LDIGR) Safety Review Practitioners Guide, published in 2020, to develop guidance for safety impacts review. The guidance document will include the following, but not limited to:
▪ Safety plans and programs relevant to specific areas/throughout the City ▪ Map that includes high-injury network, and/or network-screening results from Task 4 that refer to the underlying crash risk presence on City’s roadways The LRSP can help the City of San Mateo obtain resources and funding to improve safety performance on roadways and will also be an input to assessing the potential safety impacts of new land use projects and plans. This environmental guidance document will help the City conduct its own safety review in the future to determine whether potential projects’ contribution to the adverse safety impacts identified through the process and maps above constitutes a significant impact under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

We will revise the draft based on one round of consolidated comments provided by City staff, City Council, and partners. We will provide all textual work products in both PDF and Microsoft Word formats, as desired.

OPTIONAL Task 8.1 Scope and Scale of CEQA Analysis
Given that the scope and scale of the safety projects are unknown at this time, Kittelson will work with City staff to determine the scope and scale of CEQA analysis required to environmentally clear the priority projects identified in the LRSP. Following that determination, Kittelson will work with the City to prepare a detailed scope and budget for this optional task to conduct the work.

No budget has been assumed for this task.

Task 8 Deliverables
▪ Draft Environmental Guidance Document
▪ Final Environmental Guidance Document

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 333 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 9 of 11
Rev 5/22

EXHIBIT B

FEE RATES

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 334 of 615
Signing In Process
Project Name: San Mateo LRSP
Project Manager: Anusha Musunuru
KAI Project Number: 275160.000
Date: May 31, 2022
LABOR ESTIMATE - San Mateo LRSP
Stefanakis,
Damian
Braughton,
Matthew
Musunuru,
Anusha Carsky, Grace Liu, Samantha Taylor, Katie
Task Notes Staff DXS MYB AZM GAC SYL KET 001 Detailed Work Plan and Strategy

1.1 Kickoff Meeting 1 2 4 2 9 $1,475

1.2 Monthly Progress Meetings, Reports, and Invoices 1 6 12 4 23 $3,695 Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #001 - Subtotal 2 8 16 6 0 0 0 32 $5,171
002 Stakeholder and Community Engagement

2.1 PDT Meetings 6 12 12 30 $4,375

2.2.1 Project Website & Interactive Map 2 4 8 16 30 $4,344

2.2.2 Public Workshop (includes presentation materials) 12 12 24 8 56 $8,321

2.2.3 Selected Communities Public Engagement (incl. translation services) 16 16 12 8 52 $8,324

2.2.3 Smaller scale Pop-ins and Pop-ups (includes presentation materials) 12 12 12 4 40 $6,255

2.2.4 Public Meetings 16 16 16 8 56 $8,788
Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #002 - Subtotal 2 66 76 68 24 28 0 264 $40,407
003 Background Review, Vision, Goals, and Objectives
Vision Statement and Goals 2 6 6 8 22 $3,522
Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #003 - Subtotal 2 6 6 8 0 0 0 22 $3,522
004 Collision and Roadway Analysis

4.1 Comprehensive Database Establishment 2 4 8 16 30 $3,781

4.2 Crash Trends and Patterns Analysis 6 8 24 16 54 $7,035 Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #004 - Subtotal 0 8 12 32 32 0 0 84 $10,816
005 Emphasis Areas and Countermeasures

5.1 Identify Emphasis Areas 4 4 8 12 28 $3,719

5.2 Identify Countermeasures 6 6 8 16 36 $4,882
Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #005 - Subtotal 0 10 10 16 28 0 0 64 $8,600
006 Project Identification, Evaluation, and Prioritization

6.1 Identify Priority Locations 4 4 12 6 26 $3,487

6.2 Identify Potential Improvements (up to 10 locations) 16 16 44 32 108 $14,411

6.3 Prepare Implementation Plan 8 8 16 32 $4,651

6.4 HSIP Applications 8 8 24 32 72 $9,295
Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #006 - Subtotal 0 36 36 96 70 0 0 238 $31,844
007 Draft and Final Local Roadway Safety Plan
Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan 8 12 24 16 8 68 $9,373
Final Local Roadway Safety Plan 2 4 6 16 4 4 36 $5,185
Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #007 - Subtotal 2 12 18 40 20 12 0 104 $14,558
008 Environmental Document
Draft and Final Environmental Document 6 12 8 8 34 $6,022 Reimbursable Expense $0
Task #008 - Subtotal 6 12 8 8 0 0 0 34 $6,022
TOTAL HOURS 14 158 182 274 174 40 0
LABOR RATE $249.05 $201.33 $147.82 $116.11 $116.11 $168.02 LABOR COST $3,487 $31,810 $26,903 $31,814 $20,203 $6,721 842 $120,938 Rates shown above are for budgeting purposes only. Additional staff may be billed at the time services are performed. $0
$120,938

TOTAL HOURS

TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET

TOTAL LABOR

TOTAL REIMBURSABLES
Project Budget Form

WORK TASK/

TASK HOURS

WORK TASK/

TASK COST
Kittelson & Associates Inc. H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\admin\p - 27516 - San Mateo LRSP\7_Additional-Scope\27516_San Mateo LRSP additional budget_20220531.xlsm DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 335 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 10 of 11
Rev 5/22

EXHIBIT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office (ISO) Form CG 00 01 12 07 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products-completed operations, personal & advertising injury, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000 aggregate

If the CONSULTANT maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT.

Other Insurance Provisions
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Primary Coverage
For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, and agents. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its elected and appointed officials, employees, or agents shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 336 of 615
Signing In Process
Professional Services Page 11 of 11
Rev 5/22
Notice of Cancellation
Each insurance policy required above shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled, except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for non-payment) has been given to the City.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require the CONSULTANT to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 09487D47-CA60-4581-A592-4AB64F1F522B 337 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
5 7

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 18 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 10-4666 File ID: 22-6410 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration – Agreements
RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Amended and Restated Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreements for the Campus Drive and Norfolk Shuttles with Commute.org for extension of shuttle operations for a total of $73,375 and authorize the Public Works Director to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

On August 18, 2014, City Council approved agreements with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) for shuttle bus service on two routes (Campus Drive and Norfolk Area) that connect the City’s Caltrain Stations with the major business parks. The agreements have been extended by amendment, with the most recent Amendment 7 extending the term of service through June 30, 2022. Beginning in July 2022, the shuttle program administration will be managed by Commute.org, requiring an amended agreement outlining the new management structure. For both the initial agreement with the PCJPB and the new management under Commute.org, the City has agreed to fund 25 percent of costs.

The most recent amendment was approved by City Council on June 21, 2021, extending the contract from July 1, 2021 until June 30, 2022. The proposed amended and restated agreements will extend the contract through June 30, 2023, update the management and operations structure for the shuttle program, and update the mutual funding responsibilities for Commute.org and the City. Under the new agreement, the City will continue to contribute 25 percent of the program costs, or approximately $73,375 annually.

Due to service disruptions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and related local health orders and the reduced number of commuters utilizing shuttle service in favor of telecommuting, the Norfolk shuttle route is currently on hold. The route and schedule for the Norfolk route will be provided by Commute.org when the service resumes.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The total cost for shuttle operations is $293,500. Commute.org’s maximum contribution is 75 percent of the total cost, or $220,125. The City is responsible for the remaining portion of the total cost, including any amounts over the estimates shown in the table below. This equates to approximately 25 percent of the total cost, or $73,375. This amount is $3,675 more than the prior fiscal year. The City’s portions will be funded from the Citywide Parking and Transportation budget.

The table on the following page summarizes the estimated costs and funding sources for the shuttles. 338 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
5 7
Shuttle Route Estimated
Operating Costs
Commute.org
Funding City Costs
Campus Drive $152,600 $114,450 $38,150
Norfolk $140,900 $105,675 $35,225
Total $293,500 $220,125 $73,375
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Approval of these agreements 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 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Sue-Ellen Atkinson, Principal Transportation Planner
[email protected]
(650) 522-7288
339 of 615
18275263.3

AMENDED AND RESTATED

RAIL SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT -

CAMPUS DRIVE - CALTRAIN
(SamTrans Operated & Commute.org Managed)
This Amended and Restated Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement ("Amended and Restated Agreement") is entered into this ____ day of _______, 2022 ("Effective Date"), among the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a joint powers authority ("JPB"), City of San Mateo ("Lead Organization"), and Commute.org formerly Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. For clarity, references to "the Parties" mean the Lead Organization and Commute.org.

RECITALS
A. Lead Organization has applied to the JPB for authorization to participate in a shuttle bus service ("Shuttle Service") as part of the JPB's Shuttle Bus Program ("Program"), and the JPB has approved this application, subject to the execution of this Amended and Restated Agreement.

B. The Lead Organization and JPB have modified the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement dated August 26, 2014 by Amendments 1 through 7 to extend the term of the Agreement, to modify the financial contribution shares, to update the Notice and Liaison information in Sections 12 and 13, and to modify Exhibits A through F.

C. At this time, the JPB and Commute.org desire to assign the JPB's rights in the Amended and Restated Agreement to Commute.org and Commute.org desires to accept such assignment.

D. The purpose of this Amended and Restated Agreement is to set forth the above described assignment and the terms and conditions of Lead Organization's proposed operation of the Shuttle and participation in the Program.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:

1. Authorization. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, Lead Organization hereby is authorized to participate in the Program. The Campus Drive Shuttle 340 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 2 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
(“Shuttle”) shall operate to and from the Hillsdale Caltrain Station, in San Mateo, California, and other employment areas along the route shown on the map attached to this Amended and Restated Agreement as Exhibit A, and described in the schedule attached to this Amended and Restated Agreement as Exhibit B. The route and frequency of the Shuttle may be reasonably modified by Commute.org from time to time. Lead Organization understands and agrees that more than one participant may be served by the Shuttle.

2. Lead Organization. Lead Organization acknowledges that it has been selected and accepts the position of Lead Organization on behalf of all organizations served by the Shuttle. As Lead Organization, Lead Organization shall provide the projected minimum Twenty-Five Percent (25.0%) financial share annually, excluding contributions from Commute.org described under Section 5 of the Agreement, Maximum Contribution; Payment; as amended.

Lead Organization may seek appropriate contributions from participating organizations for reimbursement of amounts expended by Lead Organization hereunder, it being understood that Lead Organization shall not seek or make a profit from serving as Lead Organization.

Commute.org has no responsibility to collect any such amounts from such other organizations participating in the Program to be serviced by the Shuttle.

3. Shuttle Service Vendor. Commute.org shall make available to Lead Organization the above described Shuttle Service operated by the San Mateo County Transit District's Shuttle Provider (“Vendor”) in full accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract between SamTrans and the Vendor. Commute.org or its designee will have daily management responsibilities for the Shuttle.

Commute.org shall be responsible for supplying and/or completing any grant-related reporting information. Lead Organization shall assist Commute.org in obtaining appropriate reporting information.

4. Term. The term of this Amended and Restated Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2014 and end on June 30, 2023. Any obligations which are incurred under the Amended and Restated Agreement which are expressly provided to extend beyond the term of this Amended and Restated Agreement, including any contribution obligations incurred by Commute.org pursuant to Section 5, shall remain valid until fulfilled as provided for in this Amended and Restated Agreement. This Amended and Restated Agreement may be terminated by either party without cause by giving thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other in the manner provided below.

All subsidy funds provided for the Program shall be generated from non-Commute.org revenue streams. At no time shall Commute.org be liable for additional revenue not included as part of the external authorized grant or for expenses disallowed by the granting entities (grantor).

Commute.org budget decisions are subject to the discretion of Commute.org's Executive Director and Commute.org's Board of Directors. This Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, if funds are not appropriated for the current fiscal year to fund the Shuttle Services. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the current fiscal year, this Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, 341 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 3 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, at the end of the term for which the funds are appropriated. If expected revenues, from pending or future grant applications, which are intended to fulfill any portion of Commute.org contribution under this Amended and Restated Agreement, are not approved and/or received by Commute.org, this Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, at the end of the term for which the funds are appropriated. Commute.org has no obligation to make appropriations for this Amended and Restated Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements.

The term of this Amended and Restated Agreement may be extended to cover additional funding periods of up to twelve months each, by mutual written agreement. In the event that the Amended and Restated Agreement term is extended, the Parties shall set forth any terms, including Commute.org's maximum contribution that will be applicable during the period of extension.

5. Maximum Contribution; Payment. Commute.org's maximum annual contribution (which includes contributions from all other funding agencies involved, if any) for Shuttle Service shall not exceed One Hundred Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Dollars ($114,450) or Seventy-Five point (75.0%) of the estimated total operating costs for the Shuttle Service as determined by Commute.org whichever amount is less.

6. Lead Organization's Payment. Lead Organization shall pay Twenty-Five Percent (25.0%) of the total actual annual costs of operating the Shuttle Service described in Section 1 of this Amended and Restated Agreement. Lead Organization's 25.0% share shall equal Thirty- Eight Thousand One Hundred Fifty dollars ($38,150) annually, subject to a final adjustment as provided below.

Lead Organization shall pay based on monthly invoices from Commute.org. Lead Organization shall pay each invoice within thirty (30) days from the date of the invoice. In the event 25.0% of the actual cost of operating the Shuttle during the term of this Amended and Restated Agreement exceeds Lead Organization's total payments, excluding any Administration fee, upon adequate substantiation of such cost overrun, Lead Organization shall pay to Commute.org the difference within thirty (30) days of Commute.org's request for it. All payments required under this Amended and Restated Agreement shall be made by check or money order and delivered to the following address:

Commute.org
Attention: Shuttle Department
400 Oyster Point Blvd., Suite 409
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Lead Organization shall be solely responsible for collecting any amounts owed by other organizations participating in the Program to be serviced by the Shuttle, if any.

7. Audit Requirements. For the duration of this Amended and Restated Agreement, and for a period of three years thereafter, Lead Organization shall make available, during normal business hours and upon reasonable notice, to Commute.org and/or the grantor supplying funds 342 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 4 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
for this Shuttle Service, or an independent auditor selected by either or both of them, all records relating to Lead Organization's participation in the Program including, but not limited to, all records of receipts and expenditures, promptly upon request. Commute.org and/or grantor shall bear its own costs connected with such audit, including the cost of an independent auditor. Lead Organization shall only be responsible for its own costs for making available all records relating to Lead Organization's participation in the Program in the event such an audit is requested.

8. Reporting Requirements. For the duration of this Amended and Restated Agreement, including any extension terms, and for a period of three years thereafter, Lead Organization shall assist Commute.org with any reporting requirements related to the performance of this Amended and Restated Agreement. Commute.org shall bear its own costs connected with such reporting. Lead Organization shall only be responsible for its own costs for making available all records relating to the Lead Organization’s participation in the Program in the event such a report is requested. Records may include, but are not limited to ridership reports, rider surveys, customer compliments/complaints, schedule variants and effective dates.

9. Marketing Program. The Commute.org countywide shuttle marketing program description will be attached and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit C – MARKETING PROGRAM. Funding benchmark targets may change periodically during the term of this Amended and Restated Agreement; the current targets are attached and made a part of this agreement as Exhibit D – FUNDING BENCHMARKS. These targets are subject to change during the term of this Amended and Restated Agreement. Commute.org will notify the Lead Organization or its Agent of such changes and any additional requirements that may apply as a result, which Lead Organization shall then comply with.

Any brochures, handbooks, articles, news releases, timetables, web content, or other publications regarding the Shuttle (collectively “Collateral”) if provided by Lead Organization, shall occur at its sole expense with no additional reimbursement from Commute.org. All such Collateral must be approved by Commute.org in advance of publication. All Collateral shall identify the grantors as funding sources in a manner approved by Commute.org, with copies to Commute.org. See Exhibit E. – GRANTING ENTITIES. During the term of this Amended and Restated Agreement, funding sources may change. Commute.org will notify the Lead Organization of such changes and any additional marketing requirements that may apply as a result. The updates will not require Lead Organization consent. Lead Organization shall comply with update for newly drafted marketing materials.

10. Passenger Comments. Lead Organization shall refer any passenger comments and/or complaints regarding quality of service or equipment, to Commute.org (650.588.1600) or website (Commute.org), unless otherwise instructed.

11. Indemnification. Lead Organization shall indemnify, keep and save harmless Commute.org, the San Mateo County Transit District, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“TA”) and their respective directors, officers, agents and employees (collectively, "Indemnitees") against any and all suits, claims or actions arising out of any injury to persons or property that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, in the course of the operation of the Shuttle caused by an act or omission of Lead Organization or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, representatives or agents. Commute.org will notify Lead Organization promptly 343 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 5 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
of any claim, the Lead Organization will have control of the defense of such claim and related settlement, and at the Lead Organization’s request and Lead Organization’s sole cost and expense, the Indemnitees will cooperate reasonably in the defense by providing information related to the Shuttle that is within their control. Except in the event of sole negligence on the part of Indemnitees, Lead Organization further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgment be rendered against the Indemnitees in any such action, Lead Organization shall, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Amended and Restated Agreement and or any extension thereof.

Commute.orgCommute.org shall indemnify, keep and save harmless the Lead Organization and its directors, officers, agents and employees (collectively, "Lead Organization Indemnitees") against any and all suits, claims or actions arising out of any injury to persons or property that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, in the course of the operation of the Shuttle caused by an act or omission of Commute.orgCommute.org or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, representatives or agents. Lead Organization will notify Commute.orgCommute.org promptly of any claim, Commute.orgCommute.org will have control of the defense of such claim and related settlement, and at Commute.orgCommute.org’s request and Commute.orgCommute.org’s sole cost and expense, the Lead Organization Indemnitees will cooperate reasonably in the defense by providing information related to the Shuttle that is within their control. Except in the event of sole negligence on the part of the Lead Organization Indemnitees, Commute.orgCommute.org further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgment be rendered against the Lead Organization Indemnitees in any such action, Commute.orgCommute.org shall, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Amended and Restated Agreement and or any extension thereof.

Lead Organization shall be included as an Indemnitee in the agreement between Commute.org and Vendor. A copy of that indemnity provision is attached as Exhibit F – INDEMNITY INCLUSION.

12. Notices. Any notice, report, request, instruction or other document required by this Amended and Restated Agreement will be in writing and delivered in person to a representative of the parties at the address below, or by mailing the same by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

If to Commute.org: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance 400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 409
South San Francisco, CA 94080
ATTN: Executive Director
If to Lead Organization: Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director
City of San Mateo
344 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 6 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
330 W. 20th Ave.

San Mateo, CA 94403
[email protected]
Any notice served personally shall be deemed received upon delivery; any notice mailed via registered or certified mail as provided above shall be deemed received two (2) days after it is postmarked by the U.S. Mail Service. Either party may change its address by sending notice of the change to the other party as provided herein.

13. Liaison. Commute.org and Lead Organization shall each designate one or more persons to act as contact or liaison with the other party with regard to the day to day activities of the Program. Lead Organization's liaison shall be responsible, among other things, for complying with all reporting requirements specified in this Amended and Restated Agreement, as well as coordinating the marketing program required by Section 9 above. Each party's liaison is as follows:
345 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 7 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
Commute.org Liaison: Richard Fontela
Senior Shuttle Programs Coordinator
(650) 588-8170
[email protected]
When the primary Lead Organization’s Liaison is unavailable, a secondary contact shall be:

John Ford
Executive Director
(650) 588-8170
[email protected]
Lead Organization's Liaison:

Sue-Ellen Atkinson
Principal Transportation Planner
(650) 522-7288
[email protected]
When the primary Lead Organization’s Liaison is unavailable, a secondary contact shall be:

Lead Organization's 2nd Liaison: Nicolette Chan
Assistant Transportation Planner
[email protected]

14. Attorneys' Fees. In the event legal proceedings are instituted by either of the parties to enforce any term of this Amended and Restated Agreement or to determine the rights of the parties hereunder, the prevailing party in said proceedings shall recover, in addition to all court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees.

15. Relationship. Pursuant to this Amended and Restated Agreement, Commute.org is merely a partial funding agency for transportation provided on behalf of the Lead Organization to their (and other participants, if any) tenants, employees, contractors, or designated agents under the Program. Nothing herein shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint venture, independent contractor or employment relationship between Commute.org and Lead Organization.

16. Governing Law. This Amended and Restated Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California as applied to contracts made and performed entirely in California.

17. Successors. These Amended and Restated Agreement obligations created under this Amended and Restated Agreement shall be binding on, and the rights established herein shall inure to the benefit of, the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 346 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 8 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

18. Assignment. Lead Organization may not assign any of its rights nor transfer any of its obligations under this Amended and Restated Agreement without the prior written consent of Commute.org. As of the Effective Date, the JPB hereby assigns, transfers, and conveys all of its rights, obligations, title, and interest in and to the Amended and Restated Agreement to Commute.org. JPB further assigns, transfers, and conveys all liabilities in and to the Amended and Restated Agreement, arising after the Effective Date of the Amended and Restated Agreement. Commute.org hereby accepts such assignment and assumes all of JPB's rights, obligations, title, and liabilities in and to the Amended and Restated Agreement as described herein. Lead Organization hereby consents to the assignment of the Amended and Restate Agreement from JPB to Commute.org and agrees to look solely to Commute.org for the continued performance of the Amended and Restated Agreement.

19. Modification. This Amended and Restated Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document signed by both parties.

20. Dispute Resolution. Commute.org and the Lead Organization agree to attempt in good faith to resolve all disputes informally. If agreed to by both parties, alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as mediation, may be utilized. Unless otherwise directed by Commute.org, the Lead Organization shall continue performance under this Amended and Restated Agreement while matters in dispute are being resolved.

21. Interpretation. Section headings are solely for convenience and are not intended to affect the interpretation of the Amended and Restated Agreement. The Amended and Restated Agreement will be interpreted reasonably, not in favor of or against either party.

22. No Third Party Rights. The parties do not intend this Amended and Restated Agreement to create rights in any third parties and nothing in this Amended and Restated Agreement should be construed to do so.

23. Commute.org Warranties. Commute.org makes no warranties or representations, either express or implied, beyond such as are explicitly stated in this Amended and Restated Agreement.

24. Severability. If any provision of this Amended and Restated Agreement or any portion thereof is held to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason, that provision will be reformed and/or construed consistently with applicable law as nearly as possible to reflect the original intentions of this Amended and Restated Agreement, and in any event such provision will be severable and will not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision.

25. Entire Agreement. This Amended and Restated Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings of the parties on the same subject. This Amended and Restated Agreement may only be amended in a writing signed by both of the parties hereto. The parties intend this Amended and Restated Agreement to be an integrated agreement.
347 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 9 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amended and Restated Agreement on the date first written above with the intent to be legally bound.

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT

POWERS BOARD
By:

Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
JPB Attorney
PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION CITY OF SAN MATEO*

RELIEF ALLIANCE
By: By:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

By:

Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
PTCRA Attorney
*If Lead Organization is a corporation, this Agreement must be executed by any person authorized by the corporation to bind the corporation to a contract of this nature. 348 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 10 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT A

MAP OF SHUTTLE ROUTE
(Effective July 1, 2022)
Effective: 8/30/2021
Route subject to change with Commute.org's permission.
349 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 11 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF SHUTTLE SERVICE
(Effective July 1, 2022)
Effective: 8/30/2021
Schedule subject to change with Commute.org's permission. 350 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 12 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
Effective: 8/30/2021
Schedule subject to change with Commute.org's permission. 351 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 13 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT C

MARKETING PROGRAM
(As of July 1, 2022)
Commute.org has developed a countywide shuttle marketing plan that serves as the basis for promoting the shuttle program throughout San Mateo County. Commute.org and its partners use a variety of tools to create and execute focused marketing for the shuttle program.

The Commute.org and SamTrans websites serve as a primary source of information about the shuttle program. Riders, and potential riders, use the sites to get information about routes and schedules as well as real-time vehicle location tracking. The mobile version of the Commute.org site is optimized to provide shuttle riders with streamlined access to the information they need during their commute.

Commute.org maintains and publishes route specific GTFS data that is used by transit planning apps including those managed by Google, Apple, 511 and app developers. Passengers can plan trips that include shuttles anywhere Commute.org shuttles operate. Route and schedule information is also available in hard-copy format.

Commute.org works with the cities and property owners where shuttles operate to install and maintain signage indicating where the shuttles stop. New signage is being installed at stop locations throughout San Mateo County.

Commute.org shuttle and employer outreach staff provide presentations about the shuttle program directly to employers and their employees as well as at community events. Rider appreciation events are conducted throughout the year and allow the Commute.org team to thank shuttle riders for their commitment to using shuttles for first/last mile transportation. 352 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 14 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT D

FUNDING BENCHMARKS
As of July 1, 2022
Following are funding benchmarks that will be evaluated for the Shuttle Service to remain eligible for continued grant funding. Benchmarks that are not met may result, in Commute.org’s sole discretion, in the elimination of funding. Due to the competitive grant process, a Shuttle Service meeting the following benchmarks is not guaranteed to receive continued funding:

1. Cost per passenger equal to or less than $9.00;

2. Passengers per service hour equal to or greater than 15.

THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
353 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 15 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT E

GRANTING ENTITIES
(As of July 1, 2022)
Following are all granting entities requiring acknowledgement on all marketing Collateral:

1. Commute.org.

2. San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“SMCTA”)
Citing the funding entities in text or official logo form will be deemed acceptable once prior layout approval has been obtained from Commute.org Liaison.

THE BALANCE OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 354 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 16 18275263.3
6 8
5 1

EXHIBIT F

INDEMNITY INCLUSION
THE BALANCE OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 355 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 17 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
356 of 615
Att 1 - Campus Drive Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 18 18275263.3
6 8
5 1
357 of 615
18275250.5

AMENDED AND RESTATED

RAIL SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE ADMINISTRATION AGREEMENT -

NORFOLK - CALTRAIN
(SamTrans Operated & Commute.org Managed)
This Amended and Restated Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement ("Amended and Restated Agreement") is entered into this ____ day of ________, 2022 ("Effective Date"), among the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a joint powers authority ("JPB"), City of San Mateo ("Lead Organization"), and Commute.org formerly Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance. For clarity, references to "the Parties" mean the Lead Organization and Commute.org.

B. The Lead Organization and JPB have modified the Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration Agreement dated August 27, 2014 by Amendments 1 through 7 to extend the term of the Agreement, to modify the financial contribution shares, to reinstate the Agreement for the period of August 27, 2014 through August 31, 2016, to update the Notice and Liaison provisions in Sections 12 and 13, and to modify Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F.

C. At this time, the JPB and Commute.org desire to assign the JPB's rights in the Amended and Restated Agreement to Commute.org and Commute.org desires to accept such assignment.

AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties agree as follows:
358 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 2 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

1. Authorization. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth below, Lead Organization hereby is authorized to participate in the Program. The Norfolk Shuttle (“Shuttle”) shall operate to and from the Hillsdale and/or Hayward Park Caltrain Station(s), in San Mateo, California, and other employment areas along the route shown on the map attached to this Amended and Restated Agreement as Exhibit A, and described in the schedule attached to this Amended and Restated Agreement as Exhibit B. The route and frequency of the Shuttle may be reasonably modified by Commute.org from time to time. Lead Organization understands and agrees that more than one participant may be served by the Shuttle.

Commute.org has no responsibility to collect any such amounts from such other organizations participating in the Program to be serviced by the Shuttle.

Commute.org shall be responsible for supplying and/or completing any grant-related reporting information. Lead Organization shall assist Commute.org in obtaining appropriate reporting information.

Commute.org budget decisions are subject to the discretion of Commute.org's Executive Director and Commute.org's Board of Directors. This Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, if funds are not appropriated 359 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 3 18275250.5
6 8
5 0
for the current fiscal year to fund the Shuttle Services. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the current fiscal year, this Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, at the end of the term for which the funds are appropriated. If expected revenues, from pending or future grant applications, which are intended to fulfill any portion of Commute.org contribution under this Amended and Restated Agreement, are not approved and/or received by Commute.org, this Amended and Restated Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to Commute.org, at the end of the term for which the funds are appropriated. Commute.org has no obligation to make appropriations for this Amended and Restated Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements.

5. Maximum Contribution; Payment. Commute.org's maximum annual contribution (which includes contributions from all other funding agencies involved, if any) for Shuttle Service shall not exceed One Hundred Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars ($105,675) or Seventy-Five Percent (75.0%) of the estimated total operating costs for the Shuttle Service as determined by Commute.org whichever amount is less.

6. Lead Organization's Payment. Lead Organization shall pay Twenty-Five Percent (25.0%) of the total actual annual costs of operating the Shuttle Service described in Section 1 of this Amended and Restated Agreement. Lead Organization's 25.0% share shall equal Thirty- Five Thousand Two Hundred Twenty-Five dollars ($35,225) annually, subject to a final adjustment as provided below.

7. Audit Requirements. For the duration of this Amended and Restated Agreement, and for a period of three years thereafter, Lead Organization shall make available, during normal business hours and upon reasonable notice, to Commute.org and/or the grantor supplying funds for this Shuttle Service, or an independent auditor selected by either or both of them, all records relating to Lead Organization's participation in the Program including, but not limited to, all records of receipts and expenditures, promptly upon request. Commute.org and/or grantor shall bear its own costs connected with such audit, including the cost of an independent auditor. Lead Organization shall only be responsible for its own costs for making available all records relating to Lead Organization's participation in the Program in the event such an audit is requested.

11. Indemnification. Lead Organization shall indemnify, keep and save harmless Commute.org, the San Mateo County Transit District, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“TA”),and their respective directors, officers, agents and employees (collectively, "Indemnitees") against any and all suits, claims or actions arising out of any injury to persons or 361 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 5 18275250.5
6 8
5 0
property that may occur, or that may be alleged to have occurred, in the course of the operation of the Shuttle caused by an act or omission of Lead Organization or its employees, contractors, subcontractors, representatives or agents. Commute.org will notify Lead Organization promptly of any claim, the Lead Organization will have control of the defense of such claim and related settlement, and at the Lead Organization’s request and Lead Organization’s sole cost and expense, the Indemnitees will cooperate reasonably in the defense by providing information related to the Shuttle that is within their control. Except in the event of sole negligence on the part of Indemnitees, Lead Organization further agrees to defend any and all such actions, suits or claims and pay all charges of attorneys and all other costs and expenses arising therefrom or incurred in connection therewith; and if any judgment be rendered against the Indemnitees in any such action, Lead Organization shall, at its expense, satisfy and discharge the same. This indemnity shall survive the termination of this Amended and Restated Agreement and or any extension thereof.

Lead Organization shall be included as an Indemnitee in the agreement between Commute.org and Vendor. A copy of that indemnity provision is attached as Exhibit F – INDEMNITY INCLUSION.

If to Commute.org: Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance 400 Oyster Point Blvd, Suite 409
South San Francisco, CA 94080
362 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 6 18275250.5
6 8
5 0
ATTN: Executive Director
If to Lead Organization: Azalea Mitch
Public Works Director
City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave.

Commute.org Liaison: Richard Fontela
Senior Shuttle Programs Coordinator
(650) 588-8170
[email protected]
When the primary Lead Organization’s Liaison is unavailable, a secondary contact shall be:

John Ford
Executive Director
(650) 588-8170
[email protected]
Lead Organization's Liaison:

Sue-Ellen Atkinson
Principal Transportation Planner
(650) 522-7288
[email protected]
When the primary Lead Organization’s Liaison is unavailable, a secondary contact shall be:

Lead Organization's 2nd Liaison: Nicolette Chan
Assistant Transportation Planner
[email protected]
363 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 7 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

19. Modification. This Amended and Restated Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document signed by both parties.

23. Commute.org Warranties. Commute.org makes no warranties or representations, either express or implied, beyond such as are explicitly stated in this Amended and Restated Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amended and Restated Agreement on the date first written above with the intent to be legally bound. 365 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 9 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT

POWERS BOARD
By:

Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
JPB Attorney
PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION CITY OF SAN MATEO*

RELIEF ALLIANCE
By: By:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

By:

Name:

Title:

APPROVED AS TO FORM
PTCRA Attorney
*If Lead Organization is a corporation, this Agreement must be executed by any person authorized by the corporation to bind the corporation to a contract of this nature. 366 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 10 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT A

MAP OF SHUTTLE ROUTE
(July 1, 2022)
TO BE PROVIDED BY COMMUTE.ORG

WHEN RESUMING
Route subject to change with Commute.org's permission.
367 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 11 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF SHUTTLE SERVICE
(July 1, 2022)
TO BE PROVIDED BY COMMUTE.ORG

WHEN RESUMING
Schedule subject to change with Commute.org's permission. 368 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 12 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT C

Commute.org shuttle and employer outreach staff provide presentations about the shuttle program directly to employers and their employees as well as at community events. Rider appreciation events are conducted throughout the year and allow the Commute.org team to thank shuttle riders for their commitment to using shuttles for first/last mile transportation. 369 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 13 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT D

FUNDING BENCHMARKS
(As of July 1, 2022)

Following are funding benchmarks that will be evaluated for the Shuttle Service to remain eligible for continued grant funding. Benchmarks that are not met may result, in Commute.org’s sole discretion, in the elimination of funding. Due to the competitive grant process, a Shuttle Service meeting the following benchmarks is not guaranteed to receive continued funding:

1. Cost per passenger equal to or less than $9.00;

2. Passengers per service hour equal to or greater than 15.

THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
370 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 14 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT E

GRANTING ENTITIES
(As of July 1, 2022)
Following are all granting entities requiring acknowledgement on all marketing Collateral:

1. Commute.org.

2. San Mateo County Transportation Authority (“SMCTA”).

Citing the funding entities in text or official logo form will be deemed acceptable once prior layout approval has been obtained from Commute.org Liaison.

THE BALANCE OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 371 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 15 18275250.5
6 8
5 0

EXHIBIT F

INDEMNITY INCLUSION
THE BALANCE OF THE PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.

372 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 16 18275250.5
6 8
5 0
373 of 615
Att 2 - Norfolk Amended and Restated Agreement.pdf 17 18275250.5
6 8
5 0
374 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
6 8

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 19 Section Name: CONSENT CALENDAR Account Number: 72-4674-09 File ID: 22-6436 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Public Works Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project – Memorandum of Agreement RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution to approve a Memorandum of Agreement between the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, City and County of San Francisco through its Public Utilities Commission, Mid- Peninsula Water District, and Silicon Valley Clean Water for the development of a basis of design report for the SF- Peninsula Regional Purewater project, which will incorporate the City as a party to the agreement and commit to a cost share not to exceed $100,000; and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form presented.

BACKGROUND:

With on-going drought conditions in the area and a growing population, there is a regional need to explore alternative water supply sources for improved resiliency. Since 2016, the City has been working with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, City and County of San Francisco through its Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), and Silicon Valley Clean Water (SVCW) to study potable water reuse opportunities in the Mid- Peninsula region. The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with these agencies and a number of assessments were developed as part of the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP) effort. PREP Phase 1 Study: Finalized in 2017, this effort evaluated groundwater reuse replenishment in the San Mateo Plain Basin and reservoir water augmentation at the Crystal Springs Reservoir and Bear Gulch Reservoir, potential water supply options from wastewater treated by SVCW and the City’s wastewater treatment plant, and alternative locations for advanced water purification treatment facilities. PREP Phase 2 Study: This study evaluated options and determined construction costs for an advanced treatment water purification facility and pipelines. This work was finalized in 2019 and highlighted the need for additional analyses to evaluate the impacts of reservoir water augmentation to Crystal Springs Reservoir. Further, the participating agencies identified an opportunity to explore direct potable reuse options in addition to the development of an indirect approach.
PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study: Mixing, retention times, and operations at the Crystal Springs Reservoir were assessed and alternatives for direct potable reuse on the San Francisco Mid-Peninsula region were evaluated.

Alternatives, costs, benefits, and risks were developed for several options.

Through Phase 3 of the PREP, all parties have supported the recommendation to proceed with the SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater (SPRP) effort, which would involve the development of preliminary engineering design drawings for an advanced water purification facility that would treat wastewater generated from the City and SVCW. This facility would produce water suitable for indirect potable reuse and reservoir water augmentation and supply SFPUC’s Crystal Springs Reservoir. The facility would also be designed to allow for a future expansion for direct potable reuse / treated drinking 375 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
6 8
water augmentation for Redwood City, Cal Water, and possibly the Mid-Peninsula Water District. The project would produce up to 12 million gallons per day of potable water and is estimated to cost $700 million. The development of the SPRP project preliminary design documents and CEQA checklist costs approximately $1 million and the requested contribution from the City for this phase is $92,700. However, staff recommends for the City Council to approve a contribution in an amount up to $100,000 to account for any unforeseen costs.

While the City is not a water purveyor, the effluent from the wastewater treatment plant could be a valuable resource to the region in addressing extended years of drought. Through a regional approach and collaboration with partnering agencies, the City would continue to support an integrated water management strategy. Staff recommends approval of a Memorandum of Agreement for the SPRP project.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The City's contribution to the total cost of SPRP project of $1,030,000 will be capped at $100,000 and will be funded from the Sewer Fund operating budget - Sewer Fund Engineering Services/Clean Water Program.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This 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 - Proposed Resolution
Att 2 - Memorandum of Agreement

STAFF CONTACT
Azalea Mitch, Director of Public Works
[email protected]
(650) 522-7303
376 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022)

APPROVE A MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR THE SF-PENISULA REGIONAL PUREWATER PROJECT BASIS

OF DESIGN REPORT
WHEREAS, the City supports environmental responsibility and recognizes the need to analyze the potential to produce drinking water from the City’s wastewater; and WHEREAS, the City supports local, regional, and State goals for recycled water use; and WHEREAS, since 2016, the City has been working with the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, City and County of San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission, and Silicon Valley Water (collectively “Agencies”) to study potential potable water reuse opportunities in the mid- peninsula region; and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Agencies for a Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP) effort; and
WHEREAS, through PREP, the City and Agencies support a recommendation to proceed further in development of the SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project (SPRP); and WHEREAS, the development of a basis of design report is necessary component to proceed with development of SPRP; and
WHEREAS, the basis of design report is estimated to cost approximately $1,030,000, with a contribution from the City in an amount not to exceed $100,000; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to proceed in the development of the basis of design report for the SPRP.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:

1. This City Council action in approving a Memorandum of Agreement with the Agencies is not a project subject to CEQA review 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).)

2. The City Manager is authorized to execute the Memorandum of Agreement between the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, California Water Service Company, City and County of San Francisco through the Public Utilities Commission, Mid-Peninsula Water District, and Silicon Valley Clean Water to participate in the development of Basis of Design Report for the SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater Project and commit the City to a cost share not to exceed $100,000. 377 of 615
1 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AMONG

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY,

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY, CITY OF REDWOOD CITY,

CITY OF SAN MATEO, CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC

UTILITIES COMMISSION, MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT

AND SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER

REGARDING SF-PENINSULA REGIONAL PUREWATER PROJECT

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made in the State of California on this ____ day of _______, 2022, is by and among the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (“BAWSCA”), California Water Service Company (“Cal Water”), City of Redwood City (“Redwood City”), City of San Mateo (“San Mateo”), City & County of San Francisco acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission (“San Francisco” or “SFPUC”), Mid-Peninsula Water District (“MPWD”), and Silicon Valley Clean Water, a Joint Powers Authority (“SVCW”), referred to collectively herein as the “Parties” and individually as a “Party.”

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS, the Parties represent, own, and/or operate independent water or wastewater treatment systems that collectively serve the needs of over 2.7 million residents and businesses in the San Francisco Bay Region; and

2. WHEREAS, the Parties recognize that California is prone to droughts, which will be exacerbated by climate change, and that the use of advanced water purification technology for potable reuse may provide increased water supply reliability and/or water quality benefits to the Parties and the public they all serve; and

3. WHEREAS, BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, San Mateo, SFPUC, and SVCW have worked collaboratively since 2016, under two separate agreements dated November 3, 2016 (amended in April 2018) and December 11, 2020, to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Francisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (“PREP”); and

4. WHEREAS, this collaboration has thus far produced three feasibility studies, which analyzed, in succeedingly more technical detail, a number of potable reuse alternatives and described the risks and viabilities of those alternatives; and

5. WHEREAS, through these studies, the six Parties developing the PREP have identified a phased, hybrid potable reuse concept that they wish to move into the 378 of 615
2 design phase and have named the SF-Peninsula Regional Purewater (“SPRP”) Project; and

6. WHEREAS, MPWD, which has not participated in the PREP to date, wishes to join the other six Parties in the development of the SPRP Project under this Agreement; and

7. WHEREAS, the Parties wish to engage a consultant to produce a “Basis of Design Report,” which will further develop the SPRP Project concept, establish design criteria, create design drawings, delineate a preliminary project footprint, and analyze costs, and have together prepared a scope of work for the Basis of Design Report, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 1 (“Scope of Work”); and

8. WHEREAS, SVCW has an existing contract with the consulting firm Kennedy Jenks (“Consultant”) under which the Parties would like the Consultant to produce the Basis of Design Report via task order, and the total maximum costs for such services shall not exceed $1,030,000; and

9. WHEREAS, SVCW and the Consultant have also entered into a separate agreement concerning the Scope of Work and the Consultant’s obligations under its existing contract with SVCW with respect to its performance of the Scope of Work (“SVCW- Consultant Agreement”), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as part of Attachment 1, and that said SVCW-Consultant Agreement, together with the Consultant’s existing contract with SVCW, is referred to in this Agreement as the “Contract”; and

10. WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this Agreement setting forth the respective roles and responsibilities of the Parties, and the cost sharing allocations and procedures, regarding the SPRP Project Basis of Design Report;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the Parties herein expressed, the Parties agree as follows:

1. TERM
a) This Agreement shall become effective on the date that all Parties have signed the Agreement, with the condition precedent that SVCW and the Consultant must have signed the SVCW-Consultant Agreement for this Agreement to be effective. b) This Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2024, or when all obligations under this Agreement have been performed, whichever occurs first, unless the Agreement is earlier terminated as otherwise provided herein. 379 of 615
3 i. Payment obligations under Section 6, Cost Sharing and Payment, and Section 10, Termination, shall survive the termination of this Agreement until obligations under those sections are satisfied.

2. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to:
a) Define the general roles and responsibilities of all Parties, and the additional roles and responsibilities of SVCW, for the development of the SPRP Project Basis of Design Report. All work associated with the Basis of Design Report is to be conducted in accordance with the Agreement, and the Parties agree that no work on the Basis of Design Report shall commence until this Agreement has been executed by all Parties.
b) Establish the cost sharing allocations among the Parties for the Basis of Design Report and the procedures by which the Parties will contribute their individual cost shares and be reimbursed for any funds collected that are not expended for the Basis of Design Report.

3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Parties agree that the work contemplated in this Agreement, as it involves the preparation of the Basis of Design Report, is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

4. GENERAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES
The general roles and responsibilities of each Party under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Work cooperatively with the other Parties and the Consultant, as applicable, and commit staff time, as needed, to develop and complete the Basis of Design Report, as described in the Scope of Work, and complete other related tasks and activities.
b) Provide oversight of, and review and prepare comments on, the Consultant’s draft and final deliverables as well as other work product prepared for the Basis of Design Report.
c) Contribute its share of the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report, as specified in Section 6 of this Agreement.
d) Share relevant engineering, permitting, regulatory, and operational information regarding its own facilities and permits with other Parties or the Consultant when requested, if such information is necessary forthe Basis of Design Report. 380 of 615
4 e) Provide other Parties and/or the Consultant with access to facilities and/or operational data when requested, if such access or data is necessary for the Basis of Design Report (such access or data might concern groundwater management, hydrogeology, intakes, aqueducts and pumping plants, transmission lines, reservoirs, treatment plants, interties). If there is also a reasonable need, commit staff time to conduct analysis of its own facilities, permits, operational data, modeling information, procedures or requirements, or any other data and share the information from such analysis with other Parties and/or the Consultant. Access to facilities will be consistent with, and will follow, the facility owner’s standard safety and notification requirements.
f) Conduct general work that is needed to advance the Basis of Design Report’s development. These efforts may include State and Federal grant application and grant administration support, website updating, and outreach.

5. ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SVCW
The additional roles and responsibilities of SVCW under this Agreement are as follows:
a) Subject to approval by SVCW’s governing board, serve as the contracting entity, managing and administering the Contract with the Consultant to develop the Basis of Design Report, as described in the Scope of Work, on behalf of all of the Parties.
b) Prepare and transmit to the other Parties invoices for their respective shares of the total costs of the Basis of Design Report, per Section 6 of this Agreement. c) Receive and pay all invoices from the Consultant for services rendered under the Contract to develop the Basis of Design Report. Costs for the Consultant’s services shall be shared among the Parties as described in Section 6 of this Agreement.
d) Instruct the Consultant to communicate with all Parties directly about the development of the Basis of Design Report and related activities and deliverables. e) Instruct the Consultant to distribute both draft and final deliverables for the Basis of Design Report, and other related work product, to all Parties directly for review and comment.
f) Return to the other Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that are not expended to pay for the Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report, per Section 6 of this Agreement. g) Ensure that the Consultant abides by the terms of the SVCW-Consultant Agreement (included in Attachment 1).
381 of 615
5 6. COST SHARING AND PAYMENT
The Parties agree that the total financial contribution of all Parties for the Basis of Design Report, based on the Consultant’s estimate of the total costs for the services in the Scope of Work, shall not exceed $1,030,000.

The Parties agree to allocate the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report among the Parties in accordance with the following proportions, with each Party’s individual share of the total actual costs not to exceed the following amounts:

Party Cost Allocation &
Refund Percentage
Not to Exceed Amount
SVCW 9% • $92,700
San Mateo 9% • $92,700
BAWSCA 5% • $51,500
Cal Water 9% • $92,700
Redwood City 9% • $92,700
MPWD 9% • $92,700
SFPUC 50% • $515,000
After all Parties have approved and executed this Agreement, SVCW will prepare and transmit to the other Parties invoices for their respective shares of the costs of the Basis of Design Report. The invoice that SVCW prepares and transmits to each Party shall be for the individual Party’s not-to-exceed amount as specified in this Section. The Parties will pay SVCW their individual shares promptly, in a single payment, upon receipt of SVCW’s invoices. SVCW will use the funds collected from the other Parties, and its own financial contribution specified above, to pay the invoices SVCW receives from the Consultant for its performance of services with respect to the Basis of Design Report under the Contract.

After the completion of the Basis of Design Report, SVCW will return to the Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that were not expended to pay for Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report in the proportions identified in the table in this Section, above. 382 of 615
6 If a Party chooses to terminate its participation under the terms of this Agreement, said Party shall remain financially responsible for its individual share of the total actual costs of the Basis of Design Report as specified in Section 10, Termination.

7. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent permitted by California State law and in proportion to fault, each Party will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all other Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the acts or omissions of itself, its respective directors, officials, officers, employees, subconsultants, or other agents in the operation and/or performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that no Party shall indemnify or hold harmless another Party for that Party’s own negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, in the operation and/or performance of this Agreement.

SVCW’s Contract with Consultant shall similarly contain language requiring Consultant, to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the operation and/or performance of this Agreement. In addition, SVCW’s Contract with Consultant shall contain language requiring Consultant, , to indemnify and hold all Parties harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys’ fees, court costs and all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual property claims of any person or persons arising directly or indirectly from the receipt by the Parties of the Consultant’s services under this Agreement.

This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the termination of any Party’s participation in this Agreement. Further, each Party will be liable to the other Party(ies) for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, and all other costs and expenses whatsoever, which are incurred by the other Party(ies) in enforcing this indemnity provision.

8. INSURANCE
Each Party agrees that it will maintain in force, throughout the term of this Agreement, a program of insurance and/or self-insurance of sufficient scope and amount to permit each Party to discharge promptly any obligations each incurs by operation of this Agreement.

If at any time during the term of this Agreement any Party plans to cease to be self- insured for any such possible claims, the Party shall provide the other Parties advance notice of the change in sufficient time for the Parties to negotiate appropriate insurance 383 of 615
7 requirements before any lapse in coverage. If the Parties fail to reach agreement on the terms of insurance policies or policy endorsements required, the Parties may terminate that Party’s participation in this Agreement by giving written notice of termination specifying the date upon which termination shall become effective. If a Party’s participation in this Agreement is terminated under this Section, the additional termination provisions of Section 10 shall apply.

SVCW’s Contract with the Consultant shall require the Consultant to procure and maintain in force the following insurance at all times during the term of this Agreement and its performance of the Scope of Work and to name all other Parties and their directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds: (1) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; (2) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, “Combined Single Limit” for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable, if Consultant uses or causes to be used any vehicles in connection with its performance of services under the Contract; (3) Workers’ Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers’ Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 each accident, injury, or illness with a waiver of subrogation in favor of each of the Parties; and (4) Professional Liability Insurance, applicable to Consultant’s profession, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services provided.

9. DISPUTES
Any claim that a Party may have against another Party or Parties regarding the performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for compensation will be submitted to the other Party or Parties in writing. Parties will meet and confer, first at a staff level and then elevated to a meeting of executive management, as needed, in a good faith attempt to negotiate a resolution of the claim and, if necessary, process an amendment to this Agreement or a settlement agreement to implement the terms of any resolution.

10. TERMINATION
If an individual Party elects to terminate its participation in this Agreement, it may do so by providing each of the other Parties at least thirty (30) days’ written notice of its intention to terminate. The terminating Party’s notice shall state the effective date of its termination. Termination of a Party from this Agreement shall not terminate this Agreement. No portion of the terminating Party’s financial contribution provided under this Agreement for use in preparing the Basis of Design Report shall be refunded to the terminating Party. If the staff of the terminating Party was providing a service to the other Parties for the Basis of Design Report under the terms of this Agreement that was not completed as of the effective date of the Party’s termination, it shall be the responsibilities of the remaining Parties to assume the terminating Party’s staff role or 384 of 615
8 roles. If SVCW is the terminating Party, the obligations of the Consultant under the Contract with SVCW with respect to the Basis of Design Report shall also terminate, and it will become the responsibilities of the remaining Parties to pursue further development of the Basis of Design Report from the Consultant (or another consultant) independent of either SVCW or the Contract entered into by the Consultant with SVCW. Under such circumstances, the remaining Parties to the Agreement shall have joint ownership of and access to the deliverables that were produced under the Agreement by Consultant and SVCW as of the effective date of SVCW’s termination, per Section 12 of this Agreement, and SVCW shall return to the other Parties as a reimbursement any funds collected by SVCW under this Agreement that were not expended to pay for Consultant’s services for the Basis of Design Report as of that same date in the same proportions specified under Section 6 of this Agreement, plus SVCW’s remaining individual share of the costs, for the other Parties to use towards the further development of the Basis of Design Report without SVCW's participation; the other Parties shall not be liable for any costs incurred by the Consultant after SVCW’s termination date of this Agreement.

11. MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION OF BOOKS, RECORDS, AND

REPORTS
All Parties will maintain and, upon reasonable advance written notice, make available for inspection to the other Parties all records, books, and other documents directly relating to the Basis of Design Report as well as any other work related to water supply institutional arrangements and agreements that are necessary for the Basis of Design Report, except where privilege applies. If a Party receives a request for information or records related to the Basis of Design Report from a non-Party, including but not limited to requests under the California Public Records Act, San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance (San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 67), a subpoena, or court order, the Party that has received the request shall provide prior written notice to any other Party to whom the request pertains to provide the Party or Parties the opportunity to obtain a protective order to prevent disclosure, if applicable. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to affect the applicability of the Sunshine Ordinance to documents that would otherwise have to be disclosed under the terms of the ordinance.

12. OWNERSHIP OF RESULTS
The Parties shall have joint ownership of and access to the deliverables that are produced under this Agreement, including any final: drawings, plans, specifications, blueprints, studies, reports, memoranda, computation sheets, computer files and media or other documents prepared by the Parties or the Consultant for the purposes of this Agreement.

13. AGREEMENT NOT A PRECEDENT
The Parties intend that the provisions of this Agreement will not bind the Parties as to the provisions of any future agreement between them. This Agreement was developed for the specified Agreement term.
385 of 615
9 14. NOTICES
Any notice, demand, or request made in connection with this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed properly served if delivered in person or sent by United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses of the Parties identified in this Section.

Any Party may change its signatory authority, delegated project contact, or agency phone number or mailing address to which notices are to be sent by giving written notice thereof to the other Parties. Day-to day communications about the Basis of Design Report and related tasks and activities under this Agreement will be among the delegated project contacts identified in this Section.

AGENCY SIGNATORY

AUTHORITY

DELEGATED PROJECT

CONTACT
AGENCY

MAILING

ADDRESS AND
PHONE
NUMBER
Bay Area
Water
Supply and
Conservation
Agency Nicole M.

Sandkulla

Tom Francis
[email protected]
(650) 349-3000
Bay Area Water
Supply and
Conservation
Agency
155 Bovet Road,
Suite 650
San Mateo,
California 94402
(650) 349-3000
California
Water
Service
Company
Rob Kuta
Ken Jenkins
[email protected]
(408) 367-8200
California Water
Service Company
1720 North First
Street
San Jose, CA
95112-4508
(408) 367-8200
(800) 750-8200
toll-free
San
Francisco
Public
Utilities
Commission
Dennis Herrera

YinLan Zhang
[email protected]
(415) 487-5201
San Francisco
Public Utilities
Commission
525 Golden Gate
Avenue
San Francisco, CA
94102
(415) 551-3000
Silicon
Valley Clean
Water
Teresa Herrera
Arvind Akela
[email protected]
(650) 832-6485
Silicon Valley
Clean Water
1400 Radio Road
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 591-7121
386 of 615
10 San Mateo Azalea Mitch

Azalea Mitch
[email protected]
(650) 522-7309

City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th
Avenue
San Mateo, CA
94403
(650) 522-7000

Redwood
City
Melissa
Stevenson Diaz

Justin Chapel
[email protected]
(650) 780-7469

City of Redwood
City
Public Works
Services
1400 Broadway
Street
Redwood City, CA
94063
(650) 780-7469
Mid-
Peninsula
Water
District
Tammy Rudock
Tammy Rudock
[email protected]
(650) 591-8941

Mid-Peninsula
Water District
3 Dairy Ln,
Belmont, CA
94002
(650) 591-8941

15. NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES
No third-party beneficiaries are intended or created by this Agreement.

SVCW’s Contract with the Consultant shall contain language granting third-party beneficiary status to the other Parties that are contributing funds towards the performance of the Consultant’s services in the Scope of Work under this Agreement.

16. SAN FRANCISCO CERTIFICATION OF FUNDS
San Francisco’s financial obligations under this Agreement are subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City and County of San Francisco’s Charter. Charges will accrue only after prior written authorization certified by the City’s Controller, and the amount of the SFPUC’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to the SFPUC at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. The SFPUC has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. San Francisco budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. THIS SECTION

CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS
387 of 615
11 AGREEMENT. ALL PARTIES MAY TERMINATE WITHOUT PENALTY IF THE REQUIRED FUNDS UNDER SECTION 6 ARE NOT APPROPRIATED BY THEIR RESPECTIVE GOVERNING BODIES.

17. SAN FRANCISCO MAXIMUM COSTS
As provided in Section 6 of this Agreement, in no event shall the amount of this Agreement for the SFPUC exceed $515,000. The SFPUC’s payment obligation under this Agreement cannot at any time exceed the amount certified by the City's Controller for the purpose and period stated in such certification. Absent an authorized Emergency per the City Charter or applicable Code, no City representative is authorized to offer or promise, nor is the City required to honor, any offered or promised payments under this Agreement in excess of the certified maximum amount without the Controller having first certified the additional promised amount and the Parties having modified this Agreement as provided in Section 22 of this Agreement.

18. PAYMENT OF PREVAILING WAGES
The Parties agree to comply with all applicable City and County of San Francisco, State of California, and federal lawsrespecting the payment of prevailing wages for services provided under this Agreement.

19. PROHIBITION ON USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR POLITICAL

ACTIVITY
In performing activities under this Agreement, the Parties shall comply with San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 12G, which prohibits funds appropriated by the City for this Agreement from being expended to participate in, support, or attempt to influence any political campaign for a candidate or for a ballot measure. The Parties are subject to the enforcement and penalty provisions in Chapter 12G.

20. SEVERABILITY
If any term or provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction or by operation of any applicable law, it will not affect the validity of any other provision, which will remain in full force and effect.

21. ASSIGNMENT
This Agreement is not assignable either in whole or in part, except upon mutual written consent of the Parties.

22. AMENDMENT AND WAIVER
Except as provided herein, no alteration, amendment, variation, or waiver of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed and approved in the 388 of 615
12 same manner as this Agreement by all Parties except those Parties, if any, who have withdrawn from the Agreement before the amendment is made.

23. SUCCESSORS
This Agreement shall bind the successors of the Parties in the same manner as if they were expressly named.

24. INTERPRETATION
This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared equally by all Parties, and its individual provisions shall not be construed or interpreted more favorably for one Party on the basis that the other Parties prepared it.

25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, together with the attachment hereto, represents the entire agreement of the Parties as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written communications among the Parties shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered hereunder.

26. TIME OF THE ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in this Agreement.

27. WAIVER
The waiver at any time by any Party of its right with respect to default or other matter arising in connection with this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver by that Party with respect to any subsequent default or matter.

28. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement is governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

29. COUNTERPART SIGNATURES
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, which taken together constitute one and the same Agreement. A scanned, electronic, facsimile, or other copy of a Party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

If all Parties agree, electronic signatures may be used in place of original signatures on this Agreement. Each Party intends to be bound by the signatures on the electronic document, is aware that the other Parties will rely on the electronic signatures, and hereby waives any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement based on the use 389 of 615
13 of an electronic signature. After all Parties agree to the use of electronic signatures, all Parties must sign the document electronically.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

390 of 615
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Nicole M. Sandkulla
General Manager and CEO

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

391 of 615
15 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Robert Kuta
VP Eng & Chief WQ & ECO

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

392 of 615
16 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Melissa Stevenson Diaz
City Manager

Approved as to form:

By:____________________________
Veronica Ramirez,
City Attorney

393 of 615
17 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager

Authorized by SFPUC Resolution No. _________

Approved as to form:

David Chiu, City Attorney

By:_____________________________
Deputy City Attorney

394 of 615
18 CITY OF SAN MATEO

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Drew Corbett
City Manager

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________
Linh P. Nguyen
Assistant City Attorney

395 of 615
19 SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________

ALICIA AGUIRRE

CHAIR, SVCW COMMISSION

By: ___________________________

GEORGE OTTE

SECRETARY, SVCW COMMISSION

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________
Christine C. Fitzgerald
SVCW General Counsel

396 of 615
20 MID-PENINSULA WATER DISTRICT

By: ___________________________ Date: ____________
Tammy Rudock
General Manager

Approved as to form:

By:_____________________________

397 of 615
21 398 of 615
22 ATTACHMENT 1

CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK FOR

SPRP PROJECT BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

AND SVCW-CONSULTANT AGREEMENT

399 of 615

https://kjcnet.sharepoint.com/sites/WIBUMarketingStaff/Proposals/Silicon_Valley_Clean_Water_CA/2022_PREP Pre- Design/03_Working_Documents/PREP_BODR_DRAFT_ScopeFee_2.22.2022.docx Scope of Work
Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP)
Basis of Design Report (BODR)

The Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan (PREP) is a regional effort to resolve multiple water supply and wastewater issues, while realizing the benefits of shared infrastructure, asset recovery, economies of scale and a more competitive strategy to pursue funding. PREP Parties include the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, Cal Water, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Silicon Valley Clean Water, and other wastewater providers and recycled water users in the area.

Kennedy Jenks Consultants (KJ) has led the technical work and facilitated a series of interactive webinars and workshops with the PREP Parties over three phases, which have focused on identifying and evaluating concepts for potable reuse on a local and regional scale. Through the PREP studies, the Parties have utilized an integrated approach to identifying projects that enhance local water supply resiliency and reduce discharge to the San Francisco Bay, with the goal of developing a regional project with multiple economic, environmental, and social benefits. The three phases include:
• The PREP Phase 1 Initial Study considered potable reuse alternative concepts, including groundwater replenishment reuse and Reservoir Water Augmentation (RWA) at Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR) and Bear Gulch Reservoir.
• The PREP Phase 2 Concept Study further defined the concept of a RWA project at CSR. Phase 2 also included a parallel study of PREP Institutional Considerations, which provided a preliminary evaluation of institutional considerations related to the implementation of a potable reuse project that augments CSR with purified water.
• The PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study was initiated in 2020 to further simulate the impact of reservoir augmentation on the regional water system and explore direct potable reuse opportunities through raw water augmentation and treated drinking water augmentation.

The outcomes of Phase 3 have identified a short-list of projects to move forward for further analysis. The completion of this study is good timing for the SFPUC Regional Water System’s overall water supply planning efforts, for which SFPUC has projected a shortfall of dry year supply by 2025. A PREP Project is one of multiple projects that can address dry year supplies in a short year. SFPUC has made a commitment to the SFPUC Commission to present project(s) that are ready for analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by July 2023.

The next steps for the PREP is to develop a hybrid project, resulting from the short list of alternatives identified in Phase 3, to be “CEQA Ready”. “CEQA Ready” to SFPUC means preparation of a conceptual- level design at or near the 10-percent level, and completion of an abbreviated CEQA checklist document, 400 of 615
P age 2
which would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects. The PREP Parties identified the need for a Basis of Design Report (BODR) to satisfy these requirements.

At the most recent meeting with the PREP Parties on Jan 25th, 2022, the Parties aligned on developing the BODR for a phased potable reuse project, described as follows:
• Phase 1 – Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) via Reservoir Water Augmentation (RWA) at Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR)
• Phase 2 – Direct Potable Reuse (DRP) via Treated Drinking Water Augmentation (TDWA) for local use by the City of Redwood City, Cal Water and/or potentially the Mid-Peninsula Water District. • Construction of a new Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) that meets regulatory requirements for IPR in Phase 1 and DPR for the Phase 2 expansion. • Conveyance infrastructure to deliver tertiary effluent to the new AWPF, purified water to the place of use and brine for discharge via the SVCW outfall. • Upgrades at SFPUC’s Pulgas Facility to treat and discharge purified water into CSR. • Source water derived from up to 8 mgd of tertiary effluent from SVCW and 8 mgd of tertiary effluent from the San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTF) • An operational strategy where the new AWPF would produce up to 12 mgd of purified water for potable reuse, with 6 mgd or more delivered to CSR.

The PREP Parties are also interested in preparing a US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) Title XVI Feasibility Study (FS) / SWRCB Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) to be able to get in line for funding through US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and for SRF funds. The report will aim to meet the requirements of both funding agencies in one document. Given the available funding remaining in Phase 3 budget, the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study will be submitted in a format to match the USBR Title XVI FS requirements, with a cross-walk to meet the SWRCB RWFPS requirements. The initial work completed as part of the BODR will be integrated into the Title XVI FS to define the recommended project and considerations for environmental, legal, financing and research needs, which are elements required by USBR. Due to limited USBR staffing resources, the timing for review and approval are uncertain at this time, however, the goal will be to submit a Draft Title XVI FS to USBR by end of June in hopes of having an approved Final Title XVI FS by the end of 2022.

This scope of work presented herein has been prepared to develop a Basis of Design Report (BODR) that meets SFPUC definition of “CEQA Ready” by July 2023. The following Attachments are included to support this Scope of work:
• Attachment A: Agreement between SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. • Attachment B: Detailed Fee Breakdown and Rate Schedule • Attachment C: CEQA Checklist
• Attachment D: USBR/SWRCB Report Outlines and Cross-Walk 401 of 615

Page 3 ends

Scope of Work
The scope of work includes the following tasks to develop a BODR for a phased, hybrid potable reuse project that meets the requirements of SFPUC’s definition of CEQA Ready by July 1, 2023. The scope of work includes the following tasks, major deliverables and task specific meetings summarized in Table 1, and described in the scope sections herein.

Table 1: Summary of Tasks, Major Deliverables and Task Specific Meetings Tasks Major Deliverables Task Specific Meetings
Task 1: AWPF Basis of
Design & Drawings
AWPF Design Criteria TM
(Draft/Final)
AWPF Mtg#1 - Process/WQ for AWPF Design
Criteria (SFPUC/SVCW/SM)
AWPF Conceptual Site Maps AWPF Mtg#2 - Review Design Criteria and Discuss Siting Considerations (SFPUC/SVCW)
AWPF Conceptual-Level
Design Drawings (Draft/Final)
AWPF Mtg#3 - Walk through comments on
Draft drawings
Task 2: Conveyance
Basis of Design &
Drawings
Conveyance Design Criteria
TM (Draft/Final)
Conveyance Mtg#1 - Conveyance Design
Criteria and Data Requests
Pipeline Conceptual
Alignments and PS
Conceptual Site Maps
Conveyance Mtg#2 and Mtg#3 - Review
Design Criteria and Discuss Alignments and
Repurposing Assets
Conveyance Conceptual-Level
Design Drawings (Draft/Final)
Conveyance Mtg#4 - Walk through
comments on Draft drawings
Task 3: Pulgas Facility
Upgrades Basis of
Design & Drawings
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Design Criteria TM
(Draft/Final)
Pulgas Mtg#1 - Breakpoint Chlorination
Design Criteria (SFPUC)
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Conceptual Site Maps
Pulgas Mtg#2 and Mtg#3 - Review Design
Criteria and Discuss Upgrades and Facility
Siting (SFPUC)
Pulgas Facility Upgrades
Conceptual-Level Design
Drawings (Draft/Final)
Pulgas Mtg#4 - Walk through comments on
Draft drawings (SFPUC)
Task 4: Technical
Support
Source Control TM
(Draft/Final)
Source Control Mtg#1 & Mtg#2 - Data
Request/Info Gathering (SVCW, San Mateo)
& Walk-through TM
Brine Disposal TM
(Draft/Final)
Brine Disposal Mtg#1 to Mtg#3 - Data
Request/Info Gathering (SVCW, San Mateo),
Regulatory Meeting & Walk-through TM
Preliminary CSR Operational
Strategies TM (Draft/Final)
Ops Strategy Mtg#1 & Mtg#2 - Strategy
Discussion (SFPUC) & Walk-through TM
Drinking Water Distribution
System (DWDS) TM
(Draft/Final)
DWDS Mtg#1 to Mtg#6 - Data Request/Info
Gathering (CalWater, MPWD, RWC) & Walk-
through TM
402 of 615

Page 4 ends

Tasks Major Deliverables Task Specific Meetings
Task 5: CEQA Checklist
and NEPA
Considerations
CEQA Checklist Report (Admin
Draft, Draft and Final)
CEQA Mtg#1 - Discuss for Title XVI FS
responses and CEQA Checklist tailored for
this project
Summary of additional NEPA
requirements
CEQA Mtg#2 - Walk through comments on
Admin Draft CEQA Checklist
CEQA Mtg#3 - Walk through comments on
Draft CEQA Checklist
Task 6: Cost Analysis
and Financial Planning
Cost Analysis TM (Draft/Final) Cost estimates to be discussed at monthly status meeting
Summary of Funding Sources
and Possible Financial
Approaches
Financial Mtg#1 to Mtg#4 - 2022 Mtgs to
support Title XVI FS Financial Plan, 2023
Mtgs to support BODR
Task 7: Basis of Design
Report
BODR (Outline, Admin Draft,
Draft and Final)
In-Person Presentation of Draft and Final
BODR
Task 8: Public Outreach
Strategy
Meeting agendas and notes Up to 12 meetings (virtual/in-person) with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision
makers, board, commission, or council
members, political appointees and/or
elected officials.

Strategic Outreach Plan (Draft
and Final)
One in-person meeting to present Outreach
Strategy
Task 9: Meetings and
Presentations
Meeting materials and
minutes.

Kickoff and 13 Monthly Status Webinars
Meeting materials and
minutes.

Up to three (3) in-person meetings
Task 10: Project
Management and
QA/QC
Status reports and monthly
invoices (15)
Weekly internal coordination meetings
Concept and Criteria Review
(C&CR) findings
Three (3) internal C&CR meetings
Task 11: As-Requested
Support
To be determined To be determined

The following sections describe each task included in the scope of work, first describing the purpose of the task, followed by a brief description, list of assumptions and deliverables associated with each subtask. The project team, anticipated project schedule and budget are provided following the scope of work.
403 of 615

Page 5 ends

Task 1: AWPF Basis of Design and Drawings
This task will focus on developing a conceptual-basis of design for the AWPF, including defining treatment processes and design criteria to meet IPR and DPR regulatory requirements, siting considerations at up to three locations and preliminary drawings at a conceptual-level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

1.1 AWPF Treatment Requirements and Design Criteria
Purpose: Identify conceptual-level AWPF treatment requirements.

Description: Furthering the design concepts established in the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study, KJ will establish the design requirements and criteria for the advanced water purification facility, which will include the following:
• Regulatory/permitting requirements for RWA/TDWA treatment processes • Summary of the tertiary effluent quality (influent to the AWPF) • Summary of treatment objectives and water quality objectives for RWA/TDWA • Preliminary design criteria for the AWPF, including but not limited to anticipated removal rates, equipment sizing, chemical dosing, etc.
• Code and standard reference requirements
• Phasing implementation plan and schedule
• Staffing requirements and operator certification requirements at potable reuse facilities • AWPF Process Flow Diagram
• AWPF Hydraulic Profile
• Preliminary operational strategies
The AWPF train is expected to consist of the following:
• Ozone and biologically activated carbon (BAC) filtration pretreatment, likely required for TDWA and potentially beneficial for a phased RWA/TDWA project • Low-pressure membrane microfiltration (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF) pretreatment • Reverse osmosis (RO) system
• Advanced oxidation process (AOP), which typically combines UV treatment with the addition of an oxidant, such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or chlorine • Free chlorine or ozone addition (to provide additional log-removal credits for virus or giardia if the dilution credits are insufficient)
• Product Water Stabilization
• Process equalization and storage tanks
• Dechlorination prior to discharge into the reservoir (to meet surface water requirements), which may be achieved via breakpoint chlorination at the AWPF or at the Pulgas Facilities (Task 3) • Nutrient removal after the AWPF process (to reduce nutrients prior to discharge into the reservoir to meet surface water quality objectives), which may also be achieved via breakpoint chlorination at the AWPF or at the Pulgas Facilities.
404 of 615

Page 6 ends

Assumptions:

1. This Conceptual-Design scope and associated level of effort is based on a 12 mgd output capacity AWPF.

2. SVCW will provide the geotechnical, survey, utility or other site-specific information available for the site near SVCW and the Hwy 101 Site prior to start of this task.

3. Power supply requirements to operate the AWPF will be calculated and compared to available power at each site to identify additional power needs. This task does not include discussions with local energy providers to initiate new power agreements. Temporary power requirements during construction will also be estimated.

4. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1.

5. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

6. The conceptual design excludes structural drawings and calculations for the AWPF.

7. Since the preferred delivery approach for the AWPF is unknown at this time, the level of completion for the preliminary design and BODR may not be suitable for all types of procurement methods.

8. SVCW and San Mateo will provide available water quality data for the AWPF influent. Sampling, testing and data collection are not included.

9. Brine minimization will not be considered.

10. The phased approach the AWPF treatment train will consider the merits of (1) two parallel treatment trains to meet RWA and TWDA requirements, (2) one treatment train implemented in a phased approach to add processes to the full flow to meet TDWA requirements or (3) one treatment train implemented to meet TDWA for the initial phase. The conceptual design will only reflect one preferred treatment train.

11. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to discuss available water quality information, process considerations and AWPF design criteria.

Deliverable: Prepare an AWPF Design Criteria Technical Memorandum (TM) that defines the design parameters for use in developing a Conceptual-Design for the AWPF sizing and expanded unit processes.

A Draft and Final AWPF Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

1.2 AWPF Siting
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW and San Mateo County to identify potential siting options at or near SVCW and the Hwy 101 site, as identified in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study. Identify up to two (2) potential sites that have between 4 to 6 acres of available space and identify constraints that would impact the AWPF site layout or orientation (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations). The AWPF site will include pump stations to deliver purified water to CSR for RWA, purified water to TDWA, and RO concentrate to outfall will be .

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to each site alternative, which will guide the conceptual-level design. Siting information/considerations will include:
405 of 615

Page 7 ends

• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Power considerations - based on available record drawings, KJ will identify available power sources near the AWPF sites and compare them to the expected facility power demand (per Task

1.1 design criteria). Transformers and other major equipment needed will be shown on the AWPF site layouts.
• Pump station requirements will be developed as part of Task 2.3. • Structural considerations - based on existing data /desktop structural assessment • Architectural considerations – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking) • Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements).

Assumptions:

1. Two site layouts will be evaluated, one at the AWPF site near SVCW and one at the Hwy 101 Site.

No additional site layouts will be evaluated. A preferred AWPF site will not be identified as part of this task.

2. Siting considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies.

Additional field surveys or site investigations will not be performed as part of this Task.

3. Redwood City and SVCW will provide geotechnical, survey, utility or other site-specific information available for the existing facilities at SVWC, including Redwood City’s storage tanks which maybe repurposed for the project.

4. SVCW will identify preferred points of connection to tertiary effluent (source water) and the existing outfall (RO concentrate disposal).

5. New pipeline connections (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF will be considered in this task. Conveyance design criteria development and evaluation of pipeline alignments will be developed in Task 2.

6. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1. Siting for the pump stations located at the AWPF site will be considered in this task.

7. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to discuss siting, leasing and land purchasing options.

8. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.
406 of 615

Page 8 ends

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing considerations for each AWPF Site.  Conceptual site maps and building footprints.
 Meeting materials and notes (PDF format).

1.3 AWPF Preliminary Drawings
Purpose: Prepare conceptual-level design level drawings for the AWPF, including site layouts for up to two (2) potential AWPF siting options at or near SVCW and at the Hwy 101 Site, including pump stations on the AWPF site.

Description:

This task builds upon Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 to develop the conceptual-level design drawings of the AWPF.

Table 2 lists the drawings and anticipated number for sheets include in the AWP conceptual-level design package.

Table 2: AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Package
Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, and Index of Drawings 1 Standard Abbreviations 1
Site Topography and Grading Plan for Each Site 2
Proposed Site Plan for the AWPF Site near SVCW and the Hwy 101 Site 2 Overall System Process Flow Diagram 1
AWPF Process Flow Diagrams 2
Hydraulic Profile 1
Electrical Single-line Diagram 1
Overall Process Control Block Diagram 1
Total Number of Sheets: 12
The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits and adjacent property lines • Site access and parking (if known)
• Structure footprints
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
Assumptions:

1. Conveyance design criteria development and evaluation of pipeline alignments will be developed in Task 2. New pipeline connections (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF will be shown in the Task 1.3 drawing set.
407 of 615

Page 9 ends

2. Pump station requirement design criteria will be developed as part of Task 2.1. Drawings for the pump stations located at the AWPF site will be included in this task.

3. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

4. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

5. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC, SVCW and San Mateo to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.

Deliverable: Draft and Final AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format).

Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design and Drawings
This task will focus on developing the basis of design for conveyance facilities (pipelines, pump stations and points of connections to existing facilities), including defining conveyance requirements and design criteria to meet regulatory, code and standard reference requirements. This task includes considerations for trenching versus trenchless construction, identification of potential sites for jacking and receiving pits, considerations for repurposing existing assets, and identification of pump stations outside of the AWPF fence line. Preliminary drawings will be developed at a conceptual level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and to fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

As described in the PREP Phase 2 Concept Study and Phase 3 Feasibility Study, the conveyance alignment options to be considered include those listed in Table 3.

Table 3: Summary of Conveyance Options
Alignment
Description
Locations Design
Flow (mgd)
Pump Station Siting Pipeline Alignment Options
San Mateo
Tertiary
San Mateo
 AWPF
8 San Mateo WWTP Option A: Beach Park to SVCW Site
Option B: - Edgewater Blvd to Hwy 101
Site
SVCW Tertiary SVCW 
AWPF
8 SVCW Anchored in abandoned SVCW influent
pipeline with new trenched pipeline
Purified Water
(RWA)
AWPF 
CSR
> 6 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) Option 1: Woodside Road - SFPUC ROW Option 2: San Carlos – Club Drive
Option 3: Edgewood Road
Purified Water
(TDWA)
AWPF 
TWDA
< 6 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) To preferred point of connection identified by water agencies.

RO Concentrate AWPF 
Outfall
4 AWPF Site (Task 1.2) From AWPF to preferred point of
connection to SVCW outfall identified by
SVCW.

The repurposing of abandoned pipelines identified in the Phase 2 Concept Study will further be explored including:
• Repurposing the SVCW Influent Line, a 54-inch RCP pipeline that will be deactivated in advance of repurposing or decommissioning in late 2022. This segment is approximately three miles in 408 of 615

Page 10 ends

length and traverses through the Redwood Shores area, a community that is particularly sensitive to new construction. One, or possibly two, pipelines could be slip-lined into the abandoned pipeline and supported inside to convey: 1) purified water to the place of use; 2) tertiary effluent to the AWPF at the Hwy 101 site; and/or 3) the RO concentrate or reject water back to the SVCW outfall.
• Repurposing the SVCW Abandoned Sewer Line, which includes 48-inch to 54-inch pipeline segments that are also planned to be abandoned in late 2022 after the SVCW Gravity Pipeline Project is complete. This segment is approximately 2.4 miles in length and passes through an environmentally sensitive area on Inner Bair Island (part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service), which would be a challenging and expensive stretch to lay new pipeline. A segment of the pipeline on Bair Island, now decommissioned and out of service, is subject to ground movement in poor soils and has had joint leaks while in service and operating under pressure. This 48-inch segment passes through (and under) the San Carlos Airport, which is owned and operated by the County of San Mateo. The alignment from the Hwy 101 APWF site to Inner Bair Island RCP either passes through airport and under Pulgas Creek that separates Airport from Inner Bair, or it goes down Skyway Road and has a trenchless crossing under Pulgas Creek (SVCW has paid for and recorded a permanent easement for this crossing, which was not used as part of the SVCW 48-inch force main project completed in 2015).

This task will identify a conceptual-level design criteria to repurpose these valuable assets by installing and/or suspending new pipeline(s) within the abandoned pipe.

2.1 Conveyance Requirements and Design Criteria
Purpose: Identify the design criteria for conveying tertiary effluent, RO concentrate, and purified water to CSR for RWA and existing drinking water system points of connection for TWDA.

Description:

Furthering the concepts established in the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study, KJ will establish the design requirements and criteria for the conveyance facilities, including pipelines, pump stations, and connections to existing facilities. The criteria will include the following:
• Regulatory/separation requirements
• Preliminary design criteria for the pipelines and pump stations, including but not limited to pipeline sizing and lengths, preliminary hydraulic calculations, pumping design points, etc. • Requirements for repurposing the existing abandoned pipelines. • Code and standard reference requirements
• Phasing implementation plan and schedule
• Process Flow Diagrams
• Preliminary Hydraulic Profiles
Assumptions:
409 of 615

Page 11 ends

1. This conceptual-level design scope and associated level of effort is based on a 12 mgd output capacity AWPF.

2. SVCW will provide the geotechnical, survey, utility, or other site-specific information available for the existing pipelines to be reused and the approximate alignments prior to start of this task.

3. SVCW will provide relevant documentation prepared for the RESCU project related to construction activities in Inner Blair Island that would be applicable to repurposing abandoned pipelines and installation of new pipelines in the area, which would be considered for future CEQA efforts.

4. San Mateo will identify preferred points of connection to tertiary effluent.

5. Pump station design criteria, including those located at the AWPF site, will be developed as part of this task.

6. SFPUC will provide geotechnical, survey, utility, ROW or other site-specific information available for the alignments following the Bay Division Pipeline ROW and in the vicinity of the Las Pulgas Facilities.

7. Other PREP Parties to provide site-specific information if available.

8. Field work is not included as part of this work. All information will be based on existing data sets, reports, GIS layers and surveys provided by the PREP Parties or available through existing databases.

9. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

10. Since the preferred delivery approach for conveyance facilities is unknown at this time, the level of completion for the preliminary design and BODR may not be suitable for all types of procurement methods.

11. This task includes one (1) meeting to discuss conveyance design criteria and data requests.

Deliverable: Prepare a Conveyance Design Criteria TM that defines the design parameters for use in developing a conceptual-level design for the pipeline alignments, evaluation of repurposing abandoned SVCW pipelines, pump stations and points of connection to existing facilities. A Draft and Final Conveyance Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

2.2 Pipeline Alignments
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW, SFPUC Redwood City, CalWater and MPWD in evaluating the conveyance pipeline alternative alignments identified in Task 2.1. Identify constraints that would impact the pipeline alignments and/or costs (e.g. soil conditions, easements required, surge analysis, corrosion control, major crossings, considerations for construction utilities, micro tunneling sections).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to each alternative alignment. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Preliminary property ownership review – KJ will perform a high-level evaluation of property ownership. Alignments will be located in public utility easements and partner easements (i.e., SFPUC) where possible, minimizing private easements that are required. KJ will also consider revisiting uses in the existing SVCW easements for currently-active force mains in Redwood Shores.
410 of 615

Page 12 ends

• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Traffic considerations
• Corrosion Control
• Surge Analysis
• Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, and Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements)
Assumptions:

1. Additional alignments or conveyance alternatives beyond those listed in Table 3 will not be evaluated.

2. A preferred alignment will not be identified as part of this task.

3. Alignment considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies. No additional field survey, site investigations, or pipeline condition assessments will be performed.

4. KJ will perform a desktop study using available general parcel information from the County of San Mateo Parcel GIS system. KJ will make general assumptions regarding the timing and cost associated with acquiring easements in overall program but will not perform outreach for titles of individual properties. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of property or easements.

5. KJ will evaluate each alignment for major crossings (based on aerial images and available information) that may require trenchless construction methods. Approximate lengths of such crossings will be developed for each alignment alternative and reflected in the estimated costs (Task 6). This task does not include developing a total number of utility crossings for each alternative, performing a USA/dig request, or contacting individual utilities for records along the proposed pipeline alignments.

6. This task does not include outreach or coordination with regulatory/permitting agencies or residents.

7. KJ assumes most of the pipeline alignments will be constructed in existing roads and right-of-way.

The centerline of the alignment will not be identified in the conceptual-level design.

8. New pipeline connections to the AWPF (tertiary, purified, and RO concentrate) and pump stations at the AWPF site will be developed in Task 1.2.

9. This task includes two (2) meetings to discuss alignments, repurposing assets, ROW and traffic considerations.

10. KJ assumes the PREP parties will provide relevant data including geotechnical studies, parcel maps, utility maps, topographic files, etc.
411 of 615

Page 13 ends

11. KJ will identified likely areas for trenchless construction and jacking/receiving pit locations based on aerial photos. The limits of trenchless construction and pit locations will be further investigated during the EIR phase.

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing alignment considerations for each AWPF Site and place of use.  Conceptual site maps for pipeline alignments (GIS based)  Meeting materials and notes (PDF format).

2.3 Pump Station
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SVCW and SFPUC, to identify potential siting options(s) for new pump stations outside of the AWPF footprint, if needed.

Identify the available space and site constraints for the proposed pump station sites (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to the pump station siting. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review – consider right-of-Way and possible encroachment/coordination issues (e.g. with Caltrans, Caltrain, SFPUC, US Fish and Wildlife, BCDC, US Army Corps of Engineers)
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data. • Power Supply – Evaluate the power supply has sufficient voltage and availability near PS location(s).
• Power supply requirements to operate the pump stations will be calculated and compared to available power at each site to identify additional power needs. This task does not include discussions with local energy providers to initiate new power agreements. Temporary power requirements during construction will also be estimated. • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Architectural considerations – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking) • Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code, Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, 412 of 615

Page 14 ends

Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements).

The preliminary design criteria developed in Task 2.1 will be used to develop conceptual site maps and pump station footprints.

Assumptions:

1. No additional field survey or site investigations will be performed.

2. Additional site alternatives will not be evaluated.

3. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.

4. Siting considerations for the pump stations and pipeline connection points located at the AWPF site will be included under Task 1.2.

Deliverables: Summary tables summarizing considerations for each pumps station based on available information. Conceptual site maps and building footprints.

2.4 Conveyance Preliminary Drawings
Purpose: Prepare conceptual-level design drawings for the conveyance pipeline alignments and pump stations outside the AWPF (if needed).

Description:

This task builds upon Tasks 2.1 through 2.3 to develop the pre-design to a conceptual-level design. These drawings will include pump stations outside of the AWPF and the conveyance alternatives.

Table 4 lists the drawings and anticipated number of sheets included in the conveyance conceptual-level design package. The drawing list assumes that the layouts and grading for the pump stations located at the AWPF site are included in Task 1. The purified pipeline alignment drawings will show possible connections to the potential AWPF sites, Pulgas facility and potable drinking water system tanks and pipelines. The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including:
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits • Topographic and aerial background
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
• Structure footprints for pump stations (outside AWPF) • Preliminary pipeline alignments (plan view only) with considerations for points of connections at a conceptual-level of design
• Preliminary estimate of lane closures
• Approximate lengths of open trench and trenchless construction for each alternative and preliminary number and locations of jacking/receiving pits • Conceptual laydown areas, if known
413 of 615

Page 15 ends

• Major anticipated utility crossings, where known (note: KJ map all small diameter utilities, minor crossings, or lateral crossings).

Table 4: Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Package
Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, Index of Drawings, Standard Abbreviations 1 San Carlos Tertiary Pump Station – Site Topography, Grading, and Site Plan 1 SVCW Tertiary Pump Station – Site Topography, Grading, and Site Plan 1 San Carlos Tertiary Pipeline –Option A (Plan View) 2
San Carlos Tertiary Pipeline – Option B (Plan View) 2
SVCW Tertiary /RO Concentrate – Option A: AWPF at SVCW Site (Plan View) 1 SVCW Tertiary /RO Concentrate – Option B: AWPF at Hwy 101 Site (Plan View) 1 RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 1 (Plan View) 4
RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 2 (Plan View) 2
RWA Purified Water Pipeline – Option 3 (Plan View) 3
SVCW Tertiary Pipeline – Option B: AWPF at Hwy 101 Site (Plan View) 2 TDWA Purified Water Pipelines(s) Alignment Alternatives (Plan View) 2 Hydraulic Profiles (San Carlos and SVCW Tertiary Alignments) 1 Hydraulic Profiles (Purified Pipeline Alignments) 1
Hydraulic Profiles (TDWA Purified Alignments) 1
San Carlos Tertiary Pump Station – Electrical Single-Line Diagram 1 SVCW Tertiary Pump Station – Electrical Single-Line Diagram 1 Process and Instrumentation Diagrams 4
Total Number of Sheets: 31
Assumptions:

1. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

2. The points of connections from the proposed pipeline alignment options to existing tertiary effluent facilities (at SVCW and San Mateo WWTP), SVCW’s brine outfall pipeline, Pulgas Facilities, potable drinking water systems (tanks or pipelines) will be developed at a conceptual- level of design based on preferences by the agency that owns the existing facility.

3. Drawings for the pump stations located at the AWPF site are included under Task 1.3.

4. Technical specifications will not be provided.

5. Pipeline profiles are not included.

6. Utility locating will not be performed along the pipeline alignments.

7. This task includes one (1) meeting with to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.
414 of 615

Page 16 ends

8. Drawings developed under Tasks 1.3, 2.4 and 3.3 will be submitted as a combined set in the BODR document. The Title Sheet (Location Map, Vicinity, Map, and Index of Drawings) and Standard Abbreviations sheet are included in Task 1.3.

Deliverable: PREP Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format) Task 3: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades - Basis of Design and Drawings This task will focus on developing the basis of design for new facilities and upgrades at SFPUC’s Pulgas Facilities, including defining the point of connection to accept purified water and treatment requirements and design criteria to reduce nutrient concentrations in the purified water to meet background water quality objectives for Crystal Springs Reservoir (CSR). This task includes siting considerations for identified facilities and upgrades and preliminary drawings at a conceptual-level of design to support the cost analysis in Task 4 and fulfill the CEQA checklist requirements in Task 5.

3.1 Pulgas Facilities Additional Treatment Requirements and Design Criteria Purpose: Identify the treatment requirements and design criteria for the Pulgas facilities upgrades needed to accept and treat purified water prior to discharge into CSR.

Description:

Furthering the design concepts established in the PREP Phase 2 and Phase 3 Feasibility Studies, KJ will work with SFPUC to establish the design requirements and criteria for the Pulgas Facilities upgrades, which will include the following:
• Regulatory/permitting requirements for RWA
• Preliminary design criteria for the Pulgas Facility upgrades, including but not limited to treatment objectives, sizing, storage, chemical dosing, blending, required treatment retention time etc. • Code and standard reference requirements
• Pulgas facilities upgrades process flow diagram
• Pulgas facilities upgrades hydraulic profile
• Process and Instrumentation Diagrams
• Preliminary operational strategies
The Pulgas Facilities upgrades may consist of the following:
• New connection of the purified water line to the existing Pulgas Facilities • Additional chemical storage and dosing, contactor pipe, and break tank for additional retention time
• Consider breakpoint chlorination (to provide nutrient removal prior to discharge into the reservoir to meet surface water requirements), with and without the addition of ozone at the AWPF.

Assumptions:
415 of 615

Page 17 ends

1. This conceptual-level design scope and associated level of effort is based on 6 to 12 mgd of purified water augmentation to CSR.

2. SFPUC will provide the record drawings, geotechnical, survey, utility, or other site-specific information available for the Pulgas Facilities and site prior to start of this task. KJ will work directly with SFPUC’s staff to identify design criteria and understand existing facility and operational constraints.

3. Noise studies and any associated acoustical design elements are not included in this scope of work.

4. This conceptual-level design scope excludes structural drawings and calculations.

5. SFPUC will provide relevant water quality data for the Pulgas Facilities (e.g. from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS) and CSR). Sampling and data collection are not included.

6. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to discuss system connections, breakpoint chlorination design criteria and chemical dosing process controls Deliverable: Prepare a Pulgas Facility Design Criteria TM that defines the design parameters for use in developing a conceptual-level design for upgrades or new facilities required at the Pulgas Facility points of connection to existing facilities. A Draft and Final Pulgas Facility Design Criteria TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

3.2 Pulgas Facility Upgrades Siting
Purpose: Review existing background information and participate in discussions with SFPUC to identify potential options to located new facilities or implement upgrades at the Pulgas Facilities site, as identified in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, including the possible location(s) for the new connection to the purified water line and placement of potential additional break tanks for retention time. Identify the available space and site constraints that would impact the Pulgas Facilities upgrades (e.g. height restrictions, ability to construct below grade facilities, need for supporting piles, and other construction considerations).

Description:

KJ will review available background information to develop a list of considerations pertaining to the Pulgas Facilities site, which will guide the conceptual-level design. Siting information/considerations will include:
• Existing topographic/survey data
• Existing property ownership review
• Environmental considerations and potential mitigation requirements • Geotechnical considerations – based on available geotechnical studies/evaluations • Utility considerations – based on record drawings and existing/desktop utility survey data • Structural considerations - based on existing/desktop structural data • Architectural considerations, if applicable – general descriptions only, architectural renderings will not be developed.
• Traffic considerations (e.g. site access and parking) 416 of 615

Page 18 ends

• Relevant codes and building requirements, including: Building Occupancy Classification, Construction Classification(s), Hazardous Materials Storage and Use including Contaminated Soils, Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Requirements, LEED and/or other Sustainability, Energy Code , Fire Code (NFPA 820), Building Code, Electrical Code, Stormwater requirements, and Planning department requirements (e.g. setbacks, appearance, height restrictions, and other local requirements)
The preliminary design criteria developed in Task 3.1 will be used to develop conceptual site maps.

Assumptions:

1. Facility siting considerations will rely on existing survey data and prior site investigation studies.

No additional field survey or site investigations will be performed.

2. One preferred siting location for new facilities will be evaluated based on discussions with SFPUC.

Multiple siting alternatives will not be evaluated.

3. This task includes two (2) meetings with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to discuss breakpoint chlorination facility upgrades and facility siting considerations.

4. This task does not include development of agreements to confirm the acquisition or leasing of a piece of property.

5. This task does not include design related to other planned upgrades by SFPUC at the Pulgas Facilities.

Deliverables:
 Summary tables summarizing considerations for each site alternative based on available information.
 Conceptual site maps and building footprints.

3.3 Pulgas Facility Upgrades Preliminary Drawings
This task builds upon Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 to develop the conceptual-level design drawings for Pulgas Facilities Upgrades. Table 5 lists the drawings and anticipated number for sheets include in the AWP conceptual-level design package.
417 of 615

Page 19 ends

Table 5: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Package Drawing(s) Est. No. Sheets
Title – Location Map, Vicinity, Map, Index of Drawings, Standard Abbreviations 1 Site Topography, Drainage, and Grading Plan 1
Proposed Site Plan 1
Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Process Flow Diagram 1
Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Hydraulic Profile 1
Electrical Single-line Diagram 1
Overall Process Control Block Diagram 1
Total Number of Sheets: 7

The conceptual-level design drawings will include information to support CEQA documentation (Task 5), including:
• General site plan requirements, including overall work limits and adjacent property lines • Site access and parking
• Structure footprints
• Preliminary grading areas (cut/fill) and quantities
• Plot plans for tree removal greater than 4 inches in diameter or 20 feet in height, if any Assumptions:

1. Drawings at the conceptual-level design will not be generated in 3D or BIM formats.

2. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

3. This task includes one (1) meeting with SFPUC Pulgas Facilities staff to walk through comments on draft conceptual-level design drawings.

Deliverable: Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Drawings (11” x 17” PDF Format) Task 4: Technical Support

4.1 Source Control Program Considerations
Purpose: Summarize existing source control programs by SVCW and San Mateo and anticipated DDW requirements for source control for an indirect or direct potable reuse project.

Description: Review existing pre-treatment and source control programs by SVCW and San Mateo and available information (e.g. industrial pretreatment program reports and associated sampling) on significant industrial users (SIUs) in the SVCW and San Mateo wastewater service areas. Review existing sampling event data and results developed by others. Identify gaps and future studies needed to develop a Source Control Program for the PREP Project. Evaluate and provide considerations for a source control strategy that could include either a phased or combined approach to comply with existing RWA source control requirements and anticipated future enhanced source control requirements for TDWA. 418 of 615

Page 20 ends

Assumptions:

1. Additional sampling and data collection are not included and will be provided by others in response to an information request.

2. This task includes two (2) meetings with SVCW and San Mateo to understand current source control efforts, request industrial/commercial data prepared for NPDES permit compliance, and walk through the Draft TM.

3. Developing, amending, revising and/or implementing the source control program is outside the scope of this task.

Deliverables: Prepare a Draft and Final Source Control TM to document items above and next steps to implement supplemental source control, including summary of additional source control sampling and periodic review of SIUs for project implementation, identification of agency responsibilities for source control activities including potential coordination and governance approaches and summary of DDW requirements for potable reuse. A Draft and Final Source Control TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

4.2 Brine Disposal Considerations
Purpose: Summarize existing NPDES discharge permit requirements and identify additional studies needed to discharge brine through existing outfalls.

Description: Review existing NPDES discharge permits for SVCW and San Mateo, describe results of Task

4.1 - Source Control Program Considerations to estimate changes in concentration/flow of industrial pollutants through brine concentration process. Summarize how other potable reuse projects have or are addressing brine discharge from a new AWPF to an existing outfall (e.g. San Diego, Padre Dam, Oceanside, Monterey One Water) to identify potential issues and approaches. Develop preliminary list of studies (e.g. mixing zone, dilution credits, toxicity etc.) to be submitted with NPDES revised permit application; confirm needed studies, future monitoring, schedule and other considerations with call with Regional Board staff.

Assumptions:

1. This task includes two (2) meetings with SVCW to discuss point of connection to brine outfall, water quality/permitting considerations and walk through the Draft TM.

2. This task includes one (1) meeting with Regional Board staff to discuss and review studies to be conducted and anticipated future NPDES permit requirements

3. Developing, amending, revising and/or implementing a revision to the existing NPDES permit requirements is outside the scope of this task.

Deliverable: Prepare a Draft and Final Brine Disposal TM to document items above including likely brine disposal connection point, estimated brine concentration and flow, next steps/future studies and schedule to update NPDES permit(s) to include brine as a discharge. A Draft and Final Brine Disposal TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.
419 of 615

Page 21 ends

4.3 Preliminary Operational Strategies
This task will identify preliminary operational strategies for the RWA and TDWA deliveries, building on prior work in the Phase 3 Feasibility Study
• RWA operational strategies to meet regulatory requirements for dilution and retention were developed as part of the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, utilizing a Reservoir Operations Model (ROM), utilizing data from SFPUC’s monthly timestep water balance model called the Hetch Hetchy Local Simulation Model (HHLSM). For the PREP Phase 3 Study, the HHLSM model was primarily used to understand the amount of available storage space for purified water in the RWS in dry years, the associated water supply benefits for the RWS, and conversely to evaluate the amount of water that would “spill” from the RWS to make room for purified water when the reservoir system is full (e.g. primarily in wet years). Three RWA operational scenarios (continuous, seasonal ramp down and seasonal shut down) were evaluated to assess the impact of continuous versus seasonal augmentation with purified water, to calculate how reduced production of purified water would reduce the amount of spill during wet years. • TDWA operational strategies do not have to adhere to retention requirements, however there is still a nexus with the blending of purified water with other water (e.g. potable water or raw water) to provide additional dilution, which may guide the need for additional treatment processes (e.g. ozone and biological activated carbon (BAC)). Additionally, augmenting a local drinking water system with purified water could theoretically result in a “spill” from the RWS when the reservoir system is full and those. The Phase 3 Feasibility Study did not assess TWDA operational scenarios.

Purpose: This task will summarize the preliminary operational strategies for both RWA and TDWA to support the development of AWPF design and operational criteria. For RWA, operational strategies to meet dilution and retention criteria will guide treatment process selection for meeting log-removal value (LRV) requirements set forth by the Division of Drinking Water (DDW). For TWDA, operational strategies will consider potable water demands and the percent of purified water augmenting each Agency’s drinking water distribution system. The potential for “spill” from the RWS will be addressed for both RWA and TDWA.

Description: This task will describe the following:
• Overall approach for introduction of purified water into CSR to meet RWA regulatory requirements for retention and dilution, based on the ROM outcomes. • Operational strategies that could be applied to maintain retention greater than or equal to 6 months and dilution greater than or equal to 100:1 to minimize LRV requirements • Operational strategies to minimize the amount of Hetch Hetchy water that would “spill” in the upcountry system as a result of purified water addition to CSR, based on the HHLSM model outcomes from the Phase 3 Feasibility Study. This could include ramping down or shutting down the AWPF during wet months of wet years, as evaluated in Phase 3. 420 of 615

Page 22 ends

• Estimation of the amount of purified water that would be blended with potable water in that portion of each water agency’s service area that is augmented by purified water, based on the outcomes of Task 4.4.
• The need for a three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic numerical model of the Crystal Springs – San Andrews Reservoir System to simulate mixing, dilution and retention within the reservoir, and evaluate compliance with the key elements of the RWA regulations.

Assumptions:

1. The ROM will be run to identify emergency scenarios and operational constraints to avoid the calculated retention going below 6 months.

2. A three-dimensional (3-D) hydrodynamic numerical model will not be developed as part of this task.

3. Field data collection will not be performed as part of this task.

4. Drinking water distribution system considerations will be addressed in Task 4.4.

Deliverable: Prepare a Preliminary Operational Strategies TM to document items above. A Draft and Final Preliminary Operational Strategies TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

4.4 Drinking Water Distribution System Considerations
Purpose: Identify preferred points of connection to introduce purified water into the existing drinking water distribution systems owned and operated by the City of Redwood City, CalWater and/or the Mid- Peninsula Water District, and determine potential operational and hydraulic constraints and infrastructure requirements.

Description: For TDWA, purified water would be delivered to the drinking water distribution system for local distribution. Potential tie-in locations would consist of potable water storage tanks, distribution and/or transmission pipelines. The following potential points of connection will be considered:
• Redwood City’s existing Redwood Shores tanks, which have a combined storage capacity of 6.2 million gallons (MG). Additional points of connection to be identified by Redwood City and their modeling group.
• CalWater has various locations within its distribution system that could serve as potential tie-in locations in San Carlos and San Mateo. Cal Water is planning to add additional storage tanks that could potentially be an additional tie-in. Additional points of connection to be identified by CalWater and their modeling group.
• Mid-Peninsula Water District service area potential points of connection to be identified by their modeling group.

Understanding the boundary conditions for augmenting each drinking water system is important to defining flow restrictions and infrastructure requirements.

Assumptions:

1. Purified water would be delivered to the existing potable distribution systems via:
421 of 615

Page 23 ends

o Existing tanks via an air gap or an existing inlet manifold o Direct pipe-to-pipe connections within the distribution system. This option would require coordination regarding the hydraulic grade line (HGL)/operating pressure of the existing potable water pipeline at the tie-in location. Pressure reducing valves/systems will be identified as needed.

2. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD would provide information on their respective systems, hydraulic capacities, operating HGLs and pressures at each tie-in location, operational constraints, and preferred locations and infrastructure requirements to tie-in.

3. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD will share considerations for planned and future CIP projects that may be impacted by or benefit from the project.

4. This task includes up to six (6) meetings with Redwood City, CalWater and MPWD to discuss point of connection to their potable water system, coordinate with their modeling groups and walk through the Draft TM.

5. Redwood City, CalWater and the MPWD would run their respective drinking water distribution system models and provide operational and design criteria and limitations (e.g. pressure requirements, maintenance and operational requirements, etc.) as appropriate.

6. Development of a new distribution system hydraulic model is not included in this task.

Deliverable: Prepare a Drinking Water Distribution System TM to document items above, define infrastructure and system operational requirements and identify additional evaluations needed to support the next phase of design. A Draft and Final Drinking Water Distribution System TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

Task 5: SFPUC CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations

5.1 CEQA Checklist
Purpose: In order for the proposed project to be considered “CEQA Ready” by SFPUC, SFPUC’s CEQA Checklist for environmental review would need to be submitted to provide SFPUC’s Bureau of Environmental Management (BEM) with sufficient information about the project and alternatives to begin environmental review. The completed CEQA Checklist would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects.

Description: This task will address relevant elements of the SFPUC CEQA Checklist, provided in Attachment C, based on the conceptual-level design in Tasks 1 through 3, and additional efforts performed as part of Task 4 or the Phase 3 Title XVI Feasibility Study.

Assumptions:

1. This task is focused on providing information about the project to meet SFPUC’s BEM initial requirements to perform environmental review.

2. The Checklist will be developed using information developed as part of conceptual-level design , known site conditions, and anticipated permit requirements. 422 of 615

Page 24 ends

3. No additional site work or coordination with permitting or trustee agencies will take place as part of Task 5.

4. This task assumes three (3) meetings with SFPUC BEM staff to answer questions about CEQA Checklist items and discuss comments received on the Admin Draft and Draft CEQA Checklists.

Deliverable:
 Admin Draft, Draft and Final CEQA Checklist Report, which will be included as an appendix to the BODR.
 The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

5.2 NEPA Considerations
Purpose: Since the project will potentially pursue federal funding in the future, either through USBR Title XVI program or EPA loan programs (e.g. WIFIA), NEPA analysis may be required in the future. The purpose of this task will be to identify the additional analyses needed to comply with NEPA (e.g., “cross- cutters”) Cross-cutting federal authorities are the requirements of other federal laws and Executive Orders that apply in the case of federally funded projects. In the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs, compliance with federal cross-cutting authorities is required by all recipients of these federal funds.

Typical federal cross-cutters that need to be addressed include: the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act , the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Environmental Justice Executive Order, Flood Plain Management, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act.

Description: The USBR Title XVI Feasibility Study report, completed as part of Phase 3, does not require National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, however, USBR does require a discussion on whether, and to what extent, the proposed Title XVI project will have potentially significant impacts on endangered or threatened species, public health or safety, natural resources, regulated waters of the United States, or cultural resources. As well as identification of additional and/or unique environmental risks, environmental and cultural compliance measures or NEPA compliance measures (e.g. use of CEQA+ approach to satisfy NEPA Requirements) , which will be discussed with SFPUC BEM staff who will be responsible for leading future CEQA efforts.

SFPUC’s CEQA Checklist (Attachment C) notes that if projects are pursuing federal funding or require federal permits then NEPA analysis would be required and would need to analyze a range of alternatives with a co-equal level of detail. The approach for Task 1 to look at two alternative AWPF sites and Task 2 to look at multiple alignments would serve to support this requirement.

Assumptions: The description of NEPA considerations will be developed using information developed as part of conceptual-level design, known site conditions, and anticipated permit requirements. No additional site work or coordination with permitting or trustee agencies will take place as part of Task 5. 423 of 615

Page 25 ends

Deliverable: A list of additional analysis that would need to occur, above and beyond that typically performed to comply with CEQA, to meet the federal cross-cutters and make the project eligible for federal funding. This information will be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning

6.1 Engineers Estimate of Probable Costs for Conceptual-Level Design Purpose: The engineers estimate of probable cost will include a summary of cost assumptions, construction, operations and maintenance (O&M), unit life cycle costs and other cost considerations. The cost analysis will be at a Class IV level (AACE) sufficient to reflect the conceptual-level design.

Description: This task will identify capital and O&M costs for the proposed project and any sub- alternatives identified as part of the basis of design, reflecting annual costs to construct, operate and maintain the system. Unit life cycle cost will be developed to compare the project cost to projected wholesale water rates over time.
• Capital Costs: will be developed at a Class IV level, representing quantity take-offs from the preliminary design, capturing anticipated material and labor costs by discipline and appropriate markups. Unit costs will be based on equipment quotes, recent projects and professional experience for treatment, pipelines, pump stations, storage tanks and other facilities. Site development costs will be based on earthwork quantities developed as part of the conceptual-level civil design work.

Additional facility costs yard piping, electrical, and instrumentation and controls are assigned as a percent of facility costs. Sales taxes, mobilization costs, engineering and design, environmental permitting, contractor overhead and profit costs, and an estimate contingency are applied to all alternatives as a percent of facility direct costs. An annual inflation rate will be applied to represent anticipated escalation to the mid-point of construction, based on an estimated construction schedule.
• Annualized Construction Costs: Construction costs will be converted to annualized life cycle costs using basic assumptions about discount rates and life expectancy of project components. • O&M Cost: will be developed, representing O&M requirements from the preliminary design, capturing anticipated material and labor costs by discipline and appropriate markups. Annual O&M costs include energy, labor, chemicals, and maintenance costs with a contingency applied to all O&M costs. Operational considerations, such as ramping or shutting down the AWPF will be incorporated into the O&M costs.
• Life Cycle Unit Cost: Annualized construction costs will be added to O&M annual costs to get a total annualized costs for the project. Total annualized costs will be divided by the purified water delivered over the life of the project to obtain a uniformly derived unit cost of water in dollars per acre-foot ($/AF), which is also converted to dollars per gallon ($/gal) and dollars per hundred cubic feet ($/CCF).
424 of 615

Page 26 ends

• Cost of “Spill”: The amount of “spilled” water will be estimated based on the Reservoir Operations Modeling work done in Phase 3 and discussions with SFPUC. The cost of spilled water may be estimated based on the projected wholesale water rate over time or another rate schedule, to be determined by SFPUC. The intent is to reflect the lost opportunity to capture upcountry supplies if there is insufficient storage in the Regional Water System (RWS).

Assumptions: PREP Parties will provide feedback on proposed cost assumptions and provide recent relevant project bids, if available. Given current chain supply issues, an additional contingency will be included in the cost estimate to reflect increased bid prices received for pipeline projects in the area.

Opinions of probable construction cost will be at a preliminary level (+50%/-15%) accuracy with allowances and contingencies applicable to this level of estimate.

Deliverable: Prepare a Cost Analysis TM that defines the cost assumptions used to develop the Class IV costs and includes detailed and summary cost tables for construction, O&M and unit life cycle costs. A Draft and Final Cost Analysis TM will be included as an appendix to the BODR.

6.2 Project Implementation Schedule
Purpose: a proposed project implementation schedule will be developed to support the unit life cycle cost analysis, financial plan and CEQA checklist (Task 5). The schedule will reflect a phased project that begins with RWA and expands to include TDWA.

Description: the schedule will identify milestone dates for design, environmental documentation, permitting, contract bidding, equipment procurement, construction, testing and start-up.

Assumptions: Project delivery strategies can be discussed but a preferred method (e.g. design bid build, design build, progressive design build, or other) will not be identified as part of this effort. A discussion of how these different strategies will impact the schedule can be provided.

Deliverable: Proposed project implementation schedule and discussion of implementation considerations, to be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

6.3 Financial Planning Considerations
Purpose: The purpose of this task is to identify potential approaches to fund the project as it moves into construction. This task will focus on funding considerations irrespective of institutional agreements, cost sharing and ownership framework, which will not be determined as part of this task.

Description: The financial plan will utilize the cost analysis (Task 4.1), identify typical funding sources (financing approaches, bonds, grants/loans) and discuss common pricing policies to identify key considerations for financial planning. Since the project sponsor will not be identified as part of this study, the financing plan will be at a conceptual level, documenting established vehicles used by the PREP Parties to fund capital projects and recovery annual costs. This task will identify the connectivity between design, environmental/permitting and construction activities on funding (e.g. eligibility for grants/loans to payback considerations).
425 of 615

Page 27 ends

Assumptions:

1. SFPUC’s consultant, under a separate contract, will be performing a financial analysis for this project as well as other projects in the alternative water supply portfolio. This task includes up to two (2) meetings to coordinate with SFPUC’s financial consultant.

2. Two additional task focused meetings are assumed to understand vehicles used by the PREP Parties (water and wastewater agencies) to fund capital projects and recovery annual cost.

3. The development of institutional agreements and cost-sharing commitments are not included in this task, However, partnership goals and objectives discussed during the status meetings could be integrated in the BODR to support future governance activities.

4. The Phase 2 Institutional Study considerations will be summarized, as-appropriate, and that report could be included as an appendix to the BODR.

Deliverable: Tables summarizing available funding sources and general financing approaches. This information will be incorporated into the appropriate section of the BODR in Task 7.

Task 7: Basis of Design Report (BODR)
Purpose: KJ will prepare a BODR summarizing the content of the work performed in Tasks 1-6 and from the Phase 3 Feasibility Study, where appropriate. The TMs and design drawings will be included in an appendix and/or attachment to the BODR. The BODR will represent a preliminary design for key project facilities at a conceptual-level design, which is deemed to be at a suitable level to confirm that the project is CEQA Ready.

Description: The BODR is anticipated to include, but not be limited to, the following components:

1. Introduction – Background, Parties, Goals

2. Project Definition – Source Water, Flows, Place of Use, Regulatory Overview,

3. Project Facilities – Overview of Treatment, Conveyance, Brine Disposal, Reservoir Augmentation, Drinking Water System Points of Connection,

4. AWPF Basis of Design

5. Conveyance Basis of Design

6. Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design

7. Operational Strategies and Controls

8. Environmental Considerations (CEQA/NEPA)

9. Opinion of Probable Costs

10. Implementation Considerations - Schedule, Phasing Plan, Institutional, Funding, Outreach, Attachments may include but not be limited to:

A. AWPF Design Criteria TM, Brine Disposal TM and supporting information B. Conveyance Design Criteria TM and supporting information C. Pulgas Facility Upgrades Design Criteria TM and supporting information D. Cost Analysis TM (with detailed cost sheets)
426 of 615

Page 28 ends

E. CEQA Checklist and supporting environmental information F. Source Control TM
G. Preliminary CSR Operational Strategies TM
H. Drinking Water Distribution System TM
I. Phase 3 Feasibility Report (Title XVI FS)
A separate Design Package will include:

A. AWPF Conceptual-Level Design Drawings
B. Conveyance Conceptual-Level Design Pre-Design Drawings C. Pulgas Facilities Upgrades Conceptual-Level Design Drawings General Assumptions:

1. The BODR will not include reservoir modeling at CSR, institutional agreements, land purchase/ROW agreements, financial and cost sharing agreements

2. No other special studies not identified in the scope are included unless added by amendment.

3. Front-end specifications, bid documents, procurement documents, and/or standard form contracts are not included for the BODR

4. Technical specifications, vendor pre-qualification, and equipment selections will not be provided.

Review and Response Expectations
• The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.
• Each agency will provide one set of consolidated comments, submitted in a digital format (.doc, .pdf and/or .xls)
• Conflicting comments between agencies will be discussed at project meetings • Responses to editorial comments on the BODR text will be provided in the .doc in track changes mode
• Responses to substantial technical comments on the BODR will be prov ided in a spreadsheet format to track how decisions were made an integrated.
• Responses to comments on the design drawings will be provided in a spreadsheet format to track how decisions were made an integrated.

7.1 Outline and Admin Draft BODR
Description: Develop a BODR outline early in the process to solicit input from the PREP Parties on elements to be include in the BODR. Develop and submit Admin Draft BODR sections for preliminary review and comments. The Admin Draft BODR sections may be submitted at different times to allow Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)
427 of 615

Page 29 ends

3. General comments on the Admin Draft BODR comments will be discussed during task specific meetings with and monthly status webinars all parties, which are anticipated to include the following participants.
• AWPF Basis of Design Section (SFPUC and SVCW)
• Conveyance Basis of Design Section (All Parties)
• Pulgas Upgrade Basis of Design Section (SFPUC)
• General and Implementation (All Parties)
Deliverables:
 Draft and Final BODR Outline (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)  Admin Draft BODR (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format) – potentially submitted in sections, not including the executive summaries

7.2 Draft BODR
Description: Develop a Draft BODR that responds to and updates the Admin Draft BODR sections based on the comments received from the PREP Parties. The Draft BODR will include an Executive Summary Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

3. This task includes one (1) task-specific meeting to discuss Draft BODR comments.

Deliverables:
 Response to comments on Admin Draft Sections of the BODR (in track changes vers ion of the document).
 Draft BODR with Executive Summary (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)

7.3 Final BODR
Description: Develop a Final BODR that responds to and updates the Draft BODR sections based on the comments received from the PREP Parties.

Assumptions:

1. The schedule assumes that the PREP parties will review and return comments on submitted deliverables within two weeks.

2. Each agency shall submit one set of consolidated comments, preferrable in a digital format (track changes/comments in word and pdfs)

3. The final report will be provided in a print-ready format. Hard copies will not be provided. 428 of 615

Page 30 ends

Deliverable:
 Response to comments on Draft Sections of the BODR (in track changes version of the document).  Final BODR Report (digital .doc, .pdf, .xls format)

Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy
The public outreach strategy will be led by Data Instincts

8.1 Outreach Focused Meetings
Purpose: Initiate conversations with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board/commission/council members, and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project.

Description: To help us prepare and develop a stakeholder/public outreach strategy we will gather PREP Agency input and views regarding certain education and outreach approaches that could be used, while evaluating and considering potable reuse alternatives that would directly affect constituents in their respective service areas. DI’s efforts would include applying lessons learned from similar successful water reuse projects and building upon them for this effort.

Assumptions:

1. Effort includes participation in up to three (3) PREP Monthly meetings to identify individuals for outreach focused meetings and report out on outreach activities.

2. Effort includes up to 12 meetings (virtual/in-person) with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board, commission, or council members, political appointees and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project

3. This does not include outreach to NGOs, stakeholder groups or the public.

Deliverable: Meeting agendas and notes, with recommendations based on cumulative input gathered.

8.2 Develop Outreach Strategy
Purpose: Develop an outreach strategy, based on the input received through Task 8.1, which provides a road map for communicating with stakeholders and the public when/if the PREP Project is selected to move forward.

Description: Developing a public outreach action plan in collaboration with Partner Agencies and their respective locally elected officials and policymakers. There are several ways as a region the communication and engagement with customers could be advanced. Achieving these in a sensitive and appropriate manner will be key to initial and long-term community and regional acceptance. An outreach strategy will encompass these goals:
• Crafting of key messages regarding augmenting water supplies with purified water, for external audiences and interested parties, Board members, and staff of water retailers and cities throughout the region
429 of 615

Page 31 ends

• Inform stakeholders about recycled and purified water, including the many possible uses • Ensure understanding and acceptance of the science and technology behind purified water and potable reuse
• Minimize confusion, opposition, and discomfort about using purified water for potable reuse • Identify potential Agency partnership opportunities and draft an initial strategy to guide development of such opportunities
• Create and maintain a pathway for all stakeholders to easily access clear and credible information • Seek balanced media coverage throughout the region as appropriate

Assumptions: Strategy will be based on input received in Task 9.1 and consideration of successful approaches elsewhere.

Deliverable:
 Provide a written Strategic Outreach Plan (Draft and Final) for consideration by PREP  Present strategic outreach plan to PREP leaders in a meeting: explain objectives, methods and tactics, and respond to questions/concerns

8.3 Additional Outreach Support
Purpose: This effort would be in support of the initial conversations in Task 9.1 that typically result in requests for additional outreach or technical support to address concerns related, but not limited to:
• The significance of unknown or perceived health risks and characterization of health risks from recycled water exposure for potable reuse (i.e., potential concerns related to Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs), and Pharmaceuticals & Personal Care Products (PPCPs) • Rational, scientific approaches to identifying potential risks to human health or the environment to make informed, defensible environmental management decisions (such as, Management of Source Waters)
Description: Support the PREP Parties in addressing concerns of their decision makers, board/commission/council members, and/or elected officials about potential risks associated with the PREP Project. From prior experience, we anticipate the following services:
• Development of, and participation in, additional meetings/workshops with PREP Agency outreach staff, decision makers, board, commission, or council members, political appointees and/or elected officials regarding the PREP Project
• This does not include outreach to NGOs, stakeholder groups or the public. • Presentations to elected officials and tours of existing demonstration and educational potable reuse facilities
• Guidance to existing documentation and/or preparation of a technical white paper on state of the science and risk analyses

430 of 615

Page 32 ends

Assumptions: This is a vital component of outreach to communities considering/evaluating augmentation of their water supply with advanced purified water. This would be needed to support initial outreach efforts, to address any health and environmental concerns raised and could be provided as-requested by the PREP Parties up to the budget established for this task.

Deliverables:
 Outreach materials developed per PREP project components and referencing state requirements  Development of Communications materials (frequently asked questions, key messages, videos, fact sheets, maps, web, social media, project emails, presentation slides, info-graphics, etc.) in support of PREP related web pages and descriptions for public viewing, public workshops, and public meetings (virtual/in-person)
 Draft and Final technical white paper defined above (optional) Task 9: Meetings and Presentations

9.1 Monthly Status Webinars with PREP Parties
Purpose: Monthly meeting will be conducted via webinar to provide status updates, align on decisions and obtain input from all PREP parties.

Description: This task assumes one (1) kickoff meeting and 13 monthly status meetings via webinar, 1.5 hours in duration, including time to prepare meeting materials in advance and send out minutes, highlighting action items, after each meeting.

Assumptions: A monthly recurring meeting will be scheduled during the kick-off meeting. The anticipated focus of each meeting is described in Table 1, in the schedule section of this proposal.

Deliverables: Meeting materials and minutes.

9.2 In-Person Meetings or Presentations
Assume three (3) in person meetings to present (1) Outreach Strategy, project concepts and design criteria, (2) Draft BODR Presentation and (3) Final BODR Presentation. If the ability to meet in person is limited by statewide or local quarantine requirements these meetings will be held via video conferencing and/or webinar.

Assumptions: SVCW or SFPUC to identify schedule based on availabilities of parties and coordinate logistics for meeting location.

Deliverables: Meeting materials and minutes.

Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC

10.1 Project Management
Project management includes project setup, submittal of monthly project status reports, tracking of project schedule and budget. The scope herein assumes a 15-month project duration 431 of 615

Page 33 ends

Deliverables: Status reports and monthly invoices (assume 15-month duration).

10.2 Internal Coordination Meetings
Internal coordination meetings with project teams and subconsultants, assume weekly check-ins between Project Manager, Deputy Project Manager for the conceptual-level design and Deputy Project Manager for overall project.

10.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) activities are integrated into KJ’s project management system from project inception, through execution to final document submission. KJ uses experienced senior staff, familiar with, but not directly involved in the project work, to provide QA/QC review of work products and project deliverables. All submittals will be reviewed by senior engineers prior to submittal to the PREP Parties. This task includes three (3) internal concept and criteria review (C&CR) meetings to discuss design criteria and conceptual layouts for the AWPF, Conveyance and Pulgas Facilities.

Deliverables: outcomes from the C&CR will be integrated into deliverables and discussions for task specific meetings and monthly status webinars.

Task 11: As-Requested Support
As-requested items would be upon authorization only. Activities may include but not be limited to:
• Additional alternatives or more detailed analysis of flows, • water quality or ROM analysis beyond assumptions in Task 1, • engineering support for Pulgas Facility point of connection • additional meetings/webinars beyond those defined in Task 4, • institutional support provided by Paul Brown, if requested, • initial public outreach considerations such as a potential program timeline, public outreach concept strategy, development of FACT sheets and listing of funding opportunities, as previously included in earlier versions of the scope of work, and
• new items identified by PREP Parties.

A budget allowance will be assigned but the actual effort will be confirmed with the PREP parties prior to authorization.
432 of 615

Page 34 ends

Project Team
KJ will lead the BODR Study. Key team members are highlighted in the organization chart in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Project Organization Chart

Note: Data Instincts, led by Mark Milan, will lead Task 8 Public Outreach Strategy 433 of 615

Page 35 ends

Anticipated Project Schedule
The anticipated project schedule is shown in Figure 2. Due to the limited time frame for the project, the intent is to stagger deliverables and task specific meetings and to discuss preliminary findings with the broader group at the monthly status webinars. Standing meetings will be established early in the process along with identification of points of contact for task specific meetings. Timey reviews of interim and draft deliverables by the PREP Parties prior and prompt responses to requests for information will be paramount to keeping to the schedule.

Figure 2: Anticipated Schedule

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Phase 3 Title XVI Feasibility Study
Admin Draft for PREP Parties Review   
Draft for USBR Submittal and PREP Parties Review  USBR review duration unknown Final to Respond to USBR/PREP Parties Comments 

Notice to Proceed 
Task 1: AWTPF Basis of Design & Drawings
AWPF Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual AWPF Site Maps   
AWPF Drawings   
Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design & Drawings
Conveyance Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual Alignment Maps, pit/staging identification     AWTF Drawings   
Task 3: Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design & Drawings Pulgas Facility Upgrades Design Criteria TM   
Conceptual Pulgas Facility Upgrades Site Maps    
Puglas Facility Upgrade Drawings   
Task 4: Technical Support
Source Control TM    
Brine Disposal TM    
Preliminary Operational Strategies TM    
Drinking Water Distribution System TM        
Other (TBD)
Task 5: CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations
General CEQA/NEPA Considerations 
Admin Draft and Draft CEQA Checklist   
Final CEQA Checklist  
Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning
Eng Estimate of Probable Costs (Class IV - 10% Design)   Schedule and Financial Plan    
Task 7: Basis of Design Report
Admin Draft Sections    
Draft 
Final 
Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy
Outreached Focused Mtgs    
Strategy Outreach Plan    
Task 9: Meetings and Presentations
Monthly Status Meetings (via Webinar) KO W#1 W#2 W#3 W#4 W#5 W#6 W#7 W#8 W#9 W#10 W#11 W#12 W#13 In-Person Meetings or Presentations   
Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC                Task 11: As-Requested Support
Meetings Deliverables
Monthly Status Webinar W# Interim/Admin Draft 
Task Focused Mtgs  Draft 
In Person Presentation  Final 
Task and Key Deliverables 2022 2023
LEGEND
434 of 615

Page 36 ends

Budget
A summary of the budget for each task is provided in Table 6. A detailed fee sheet is included in Attachment B. Figure 3 shows the anticipated monthly effort to meet SFPUC’s requirements for a “CEQA Ready” Project by July 2023.

Table 6: PREP Pre-Design Study Budget by Task
Tasks
Total Est
Hours
Total KJ
Labor
SUB
Data
Instincts
Total
Expenses
Total Labor
+ Subs +
Expenses
Task 1: AWTPF Basis of Design & Drawings 559 $125,000 $0 $0 $125,000 Task 2: Conveyance Basis of Design & Drawings 910 $189,250 $0 $0 $189,250 Task 3: Pulgas Facility Upgrades Basis of Design
& Drawings 357 $74,500 $0 $0 $74,500
Task 4: Technical Support 526 $119,500 $0 $0 $119,500
Task 5: CEQA Checklist and NEPA Considerations 331 $80,000 $0 $0 $80,000 Task 6: Cost Analysis and Financial Planning 352 $78,750 $0 $0 $78,750 Task 7: Basis of Design Report 342 $79,500 $0 $0 $79,500 Task 8: Public Outreach Strategy 74 $17,500 $75,000 $0 $100,000 Task 9: Meetings and Presentations 193 $49,500 $0 $5,500 $55,000 Task 10: Project Management and QA/QC 328 $83,500 $0 $0 $83,500 Task 11: As-Requested Support 0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000
TASK 1 - 11 Total 3972 $946,999 $75,000 $5,500 $1,035,000 Figure 3: Anticipated Monthly Effort
435 of 615

An Agreement between SVCW and KJ regarding the PREP Pre-Design Study is included in Attachment A.

This Agreement provides additional indemnification and insurance requirements related to the PREP Parties for this Scope of Work. This Agreement is only applicable to the PREP BODR Study Task Order, which is being contracted under the KJ Master Services Agreement for Professional Consulting Services with SVCW, dated 14 August 2008.

Closing
We look forward to continuing to work with you to support the PREP Project and develop a BODR that meets SFPUC definition of “CEQA Ready” by July 2023. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions on this proposal.

Very truly yours,
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.

Dawn Taffler, PE, LEED
® Mark Minkowski, PE
Project Manager Principal-in-Charge

436 of 615
ATTACHMENT A I Agreement

AGREEMENT BETWEEN

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER AND KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC

REGARDING POTABLE REUSE EXPLORATORY PLAN

BASIS OF DESIGN REPORT

RECITALS

1. WHEREAS the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ("BAWSCA"), California Water Service Company ("Cal Water"), City of Redwood City ("Redwood City"), City of San Mateo ("San Mateo"), City & County of San Francisco acting by and through its Public Utilities Commission ("San Francisco" or "SFPUC"), Mid-Peninsula Water District (MPWD) and Silicon Valley Clean Water, a Joint Powers Authority ("SVCW"), referred to collectively herein as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party," have worked collaboratively since 2016 under one agreement, dated November 3, 2016, which was subsequently amended in April 2018 and expired in April 2020, and under a second agreement dated December 11, 2020 to be terminated in December 2022 or when all obligations are performed, to develop a coordinated plan for potable reuse in the San Francisco Bay Region, known as the Potable Reuse Exploratory Plan ("PREP"), through the PREP Phase I Initial Study and PREP Phase 2 Concept Study; .and the PREP Phase 3 Feasibility Study.

2. WHEREAS the Parties recognize an additional study is needed to prepare a conceptual-level design at or near the 10-percent level, and completion of an abbreviated CEQA checklist document, which would allow the project to move forward with CEQA and to be compared with other projects. The Parties identified the need for a "Basis of Design Report (BODR)" to satisfy these requirements and have developed and approved a scope of work for the study to be performed by a consultant, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment 1 ("Scope of Work"); and

3. WHEREAS the Parties propose to enter into an agreement to define the roles and responsibilities of the Parties for the study and share the costs of hiring a consultant to perform the Scope of Work ("SF-Peninsula Regional PureWater (SPRP') Project Basis of Design Report (BODR) Agreement"); and

4. WHEREAS under the SPRP BODR Agreement, SVCW is designated by all Parties as the entity to retain the consultant to perform the Scope of Work and to administer and manage the contract with the consultant; and

5. WHEREAS the SPRP BODR Agreement sets forth certain requirements for SVCW's contract with the consultant and the consultant's performance of the Scope of Work with respect to third-party beneficiaries, indemnification, and insurance; and

6. WHEREAS SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc have a Master Agreement for Professional Services, dated August 14, 2008 ("Master Agreement"); and

7. WHEREAS, SVCW proposes to obtain the services of Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work through a task order under the Master Agreement; and 437 of 615

8. WHEREAS, Notwithstanding the terms of the Master Agreement, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc desire to enter into this agreement to set forth the terms for third-party beneficiaries, indemnification, and insurance that will apply to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's performance of services under the Master Agreement for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work, which shall control against any conflicting terms within the Master Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations herein expressed, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agree as follows:

1. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
BAWSCA, Cal Water, Redwood City, San Mateo, MPWD and SFPUC are Third Party Beneficiaries under the Master Agreement with respect to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's performance of services for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work.

2. INDEMNIFICATION
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless all Parties and their respective directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees for any and all claims, suits, judgments, damages, penalties, costs, expenses, liabilities, and losses (including without limitation, sums paid in settlement of claims, actual attorneys' fees, paralegal fees, consultant fees, engineering fees, expert fees, and any other professional fees) that arise from or are related in any way to the operation and/or performance of this SPRP BODR agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement for the SPRP BODR Scope of Work.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to also indemnify and hold all Parties harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs and all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual property claims of any person or persons arising directly or indirectly from the receipt by the Parties of the Consultant's services under this SPRP BODR agreement.

3. INSURANCE
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc agrees to procure and maintain in force the following insurance at all times during the term of the SPRP BODR Agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement to perform the Scope of Work, and to name all Parties and their directors, officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, (1) Commercial General Liability Insurance with limits not less than $2,000,000 each occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Contractual Liability, Personal Injury, Products and Completed Operations; (2) Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, "Combined Single Limit" for Bodily Injury and Property Damage, including Owned, Non-Owned and Hired auto coverage, as applicable, if Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc uses or causes to be used any vehicles in connection with its performance of services under the this agreement and the task order under the Master Agreement to perform the Scope of Work; (3) Workers' Compensation, in statutory amounts, with Employers' Liability Limits not less than $1,000,000 438 of 615
each accident, injury, or illness with a waiver of subrogation in favor of each of the Parties; and (4) Professional Liability Insurance, applicable to Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc's profession, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services provided.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.

KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC
/11x4/1/P7kawfk/ By: Mark Minkowski (Jul 7, 2022 09:48 PDT) Mark Minkowski
07/07/22 Date:

SILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER
By:

Teresa Herrera
Date: 07/07/22
439 of 615
P age 4
profession, with limits not less than $1,000,000 for each claim with respect to negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services provided.

I
N WITNESS WHEREOF, the SVCW and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc have executed this Agreement by their duly authorized representatives, in counterpart.

ENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS, INC
B
y: _______________________________________________ Date: ____________ S

ILICON VALLEY CLEAN WATER
B
y: ______________________________________________ Date: ____________ 440 of 615

ATTACHMENT B | Fee Breakdown

441 of 615

ATTACHMENT C | CEQA Checklist

CER CHECKLIST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (PROJECT DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENTS) Project Name:

Project Number:

PM:

PE:

EPM:

This checklist is designed to provide the design team assistance in determining the type of information that must be provided to Bureau of Environmental Management (BEM) for environmental review. These Description Requirements should be provided at the Draft CER stage. Each team, at the project’s initial conception, should contact environmental staff for assistance in completing this form. The use of this form will be iterative as the project is developed, new environmental issues are identified, and additional detail is needed until CEQA certification and all permits are obtained.

Please note that although this form is titled “checklist”, it is not a form that simply requires check marks.

It is a set of required descriptions of the project components, to be supplied in text and graphics in sufficient detail, the adequacy of which will be determined by the Environmental Project Manager (EPMs). The checklist must be provided at the Draft CER stage, but no later than six (6) months prior to completion of the first administrative draft of the EIR or MND. In addition to filling out the checklist, the PM should provide a description of the project including all the project components covering construction, operation, and maintenance.

The checklist must be completed before a date can be set to present the CER to the Program Steering Committee. A project description outline is provided for your information only. Descriptions will vary depending on the project.

442 of 615

Page 2 ends

*** Only text in RED is required to meet SFPUC’s definition of CEQA Ready (Per SFPUC) *** *** Additional notes pertaining to this project, from discussion with SFPUC, are provided in GREEN *** Project Objectives

1. Describe the purpose and need for the project. What will this particular project accomplish?

2. List and describe specific project objectives (not Program objectives).

Site Plan
Provide a site plan on a topographic map. Everything should be labeled as either new or existing. Information on the site plan should include the following, including square footage, length, diameter, etc.:

1. Structural footprints (general areas) – existing and created by the project.

2. Roadways and parking areas – existing & created by the project (both permanent and temporary).

3. Utility lines, including construction utilities such as electrical or dewatering lines. Water crossings should be clearly marked. Estimated pole locations should be marked.

4. Emergency generators, SCADA equipment. *estimate as best as possible

5. Fencing (permanent and construction). *types of fencing is not necessary

6. Spoils areas.

7. All grading areas, such as cutting into a slope. *be clear about areas that will be disturbed, “absolute limits” disturbed is important to be broad enough b/c that will guide surveys

8. Laydown/staging areas.

9. Absolute limits on construction area (provide map, square feet/acreage of the project site). Nothing can occur outside of this area – no parking cars for the workmen, no ground disturbance, nothing. Give yourself enough room to work. However, don’t add areas you know you will not need, as it makes the environmental review much more difficult. For example, if you show that an area of trees is within the construction area, BEM will assume those trees will be taken down.

10. Estimated cut/fill information (cubic yards and acreages preferred, but LxWxD is OK).

This is necessary for various topical analyses, such as truck haul estimates in the traffic section, land disturbance, etc.

11. Maximum depth of excavation.

12. General information about elevation, and planned changes in topography. This includes spoils areas – provide a cross-section of the fill, or at least some type of quantified description.

13. Specific information about the types of construction equipment to be used. This is to determine noise and air quality impacts. *Specific information about types of construction equipment can be left out b/c it is very involved

14. Information on all structures affected by the project, including age of existing buildings if known. This is necessary for the historic analysis and needs to be coordinated with the 443 of 615

Page 3 ends

environmental team member early in the process to determine if further studies are needed. This is especially important if demolition or alteration of structures is planned.

15. Information on offsite spoils areas (and a list of potential landfills if possible). CEQA addresses environmental impacts on offsite spoils areas.

16. Official address of site (or mailing address if no “official” address), if known. Many PUC facilities do not have addresses. *not relevant for pipelines

17. Description of future and operations maintenance activities.

18. Information on parking/loading spaces (numbers of each, including handicapped spaces). *parking and loading spaces can be optional

19. Preliminary project schedule.

20. Construction durations by type of activity. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review.

21. Blowoff locations, and information on where discharges will drain. Also, shutdown information when it concerns discharges. This should be shown on a map. *not relevant, only provide if known

22. Landscaping plans. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review. (This is not a requirement for a plan but rather a general description of type of land cover.) *not needed if only grass, describe for mitigation areas

* 10% civil drawings will be sufficient define much of the site plan information. Pipeline alignments do not have to identify the centerline, as preferred side of the road may not be known, however it would be beneficial to estimate how many lanes will close during construction. Jacking and receiving pits should be identified where possible.

Land Use

1. Aerials of the project area (including staging areas, spoils areas, etc.).

2. Information on encroachment issues – will anything (structures, trees) need to be removed from our ROW?

3. Parcel maps of the area, showing adjacent properties.

4. Copy of USGS 7.5-minute quad maps for the project area.

5. A list of all property owners within 300 feet of the property line of the site if a GRE, NegDec or EIR is expected. Two sets of address labels are required.

6. San Francisco Master Plan designation and zoning of the project parcels. Sites outside City limits require local designation/zoning information.

7. Present and past use of the site, especially permitted uses, if available. *does not apply for roadways

8. Information on growth-inducing issues. This should be coordinated with the environmental manager.

9. Information on any historic preservation requirements.

10. Information on watershed requirements, including applicable policies of the Watershed Management Plans, if applicable.

11. Information on all other permits other than CEQA, NEPA, & resource agencies for project approval (e.g., NPDES, SPMP, etc.) required for the project. 444 of 615

Page 4 ends

Water, Operations, and Maintenance

1. Dewatering information (estimated location of Baker tanks, location of discharge, estimated quantity if known, etc.) *state if discharge going to the sewer

2. Information on groundwater levels, if known.

3. Flood zone maps, if available.

4. Information on ordinary high water mark for waterways, if applicable.

5. Salt water intrusion information, if necessary. Often occurs as a result of dewatering drawdown.

6. Information on operation water quality/quantity issues (such as any planned discharges, diversion rates, planned releases, etc.).

Hazardous Waste

1. UST information. Coordination with the environmental team member is necessary if USTs exist. A Phase I or II site assessment might be required.

2. Information on chemicals and fuels storage during construction and operation.

3. Site status on the State’s “Cortese List” (list of sites with known hazardous contamination).

4. Existing Phase I, Phase II, or geotechnical studies. Required if you already have them.

However, it is not required for you to perform these studies. * If Phase I/II survey is available for above ground facility site include as general info and soils samples would be useful. Not needed for pipeline alignments.

Noise

1. Information on pile driving, if needed. Indicate the locations and estimated duration of pile/sheet driving. * CEQA assumes impact driven unless otherwise noted. Similar or local work could be used as an example to justify methods/timing

2. Spec. sheets on any noise-generating operational equipment (such as pumps, compressors, or generators – we also need to know the types of actuators being used on valves). This is used with zoning information to determine if operational noise is within an acceptable range. If not, design changes may be required. This should be coordinated with the environmental team member. These spec. sheets do not need to be of the exact equipment that will be used (as that is probably not known). Spec. sheets of representative equipment can be used.

Aesthetics

1. Spec. sheets on proposed lighting elements. These spec. sheets do not need to be of the exact equipment that will be used (as that is probably not known). Spec. sheets of representative equipment can be used. While optional during preparation of this checklist, it will be eventually required for the environmental review.

2. Information on estimated size/height and detail of existing or proposed structures. This includes vaults and proposed access to vaults. *general description and/or block drawing of building would be sufficient (e.g. natural colors, consistent architecture, noted height restrictions, etc.), architectural rendering is not required. 445 of 615

Page 5 ends

3. Information on site lighting. * description to note that permanent lighting would follow guidance (e.g. shine downward and not spill into residential areas). Lighting plan is not required.

4. Planned color of structures, if known.

Geology and Soils

1. Information on faults. This includes if the project is located on an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zone, if known (See http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/ for more information on these fault zones).

2. Information on expansive soil (as per Building code), if known.

3. Geotechnical studies, if available (See hazardous waste above). Required by the Planning Dept. *no field work required

4. Information on geologic work near/adjacent to structures (estimates of vibration effects).

Traffic

1. Traffic information, such as proposed haul routes. *estimate as best as possible, assume shortest routes.

2. Estimated staffing levels of existing or proposed facility. Used to determine parking/traffic issues. *estimate as best as possible

Biological Description
If any trees greater than 4 inches in trunk diameter or taller than 20 feet will be removed, a plot plan is required showing the location, size, and common or botanic name(s) of each. *not needed, no plot plan but do indicate if trees will be taken down. Grading plan can provide some detail.

Air Quality
Information on any generators (including map and spec. sheets) for air requirements. Contact the EPM for the latest requirements and refer to
Sample CEQA Air Quality Information (eDOCS
DM #762889). *operational power requirements are not as important (either PG&E or Hetch Hetchy power) but construction power is important (e.g. temporary diesel generators for large power uses like tunnel boring machines). Note potential areas where there could be a concern to be further evaluated later.

Note on NEPA: If your project has federal funding attached, requires certain federal permits (primarily an “Individual” Corps wetland permit), or is located on federal land, NEPA analysis might be required (NEPA is the federal equivalent of CEQA). NEPA will require that you analyze a range of alternatives in equal level of detail, and also have other informational requirements that will need to be addressed in the CER. Your EPM will have more information on NEPA compliance.

446 of 615

Page 6 ends

Completed by: Signed by:

Signature
Project Manager
Title

Date Date

447 of 615

Page 7 ends

ATTACHMENT D | USBR/SWRCB Report Outlines

This attachment includes the following
• SAMPLE USBR TITLE XVI FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OUTLINE • SAMPLE SWRCB RWFPS REPORT OUTLINE
• SWRCB REPORT CONTENT CROSSWALK

448 of 615

Page 8 ends

SAMPLE USBR TITLE XVI FEASIBILITY STUDY REPORT OUTLINE
Introduction ...................................................................................

1.1 Report Organization ...............................................................................

1.2 Project Overview ....................................................................................

1.3 Identification of the Non-Federal Project Sponsor(s) ..............................

1.4 Description of the Study Area and an Area/Project Map .........................

Background ....................................................................................

2.1 Project Description .................................................................................

2.2 Current and Projected Water Supplies ...................................................

2.3 Current and Projected Water Demands ..................................................

2.4 Water Quality .........................................................................................

2.5 Existing and Future Resources ..............................................................

Water Reclamation and Reuse Opportunities ...............................

3.1 Identified Uses for Reclaimed Water ......................................................

3.2 Water Market .........................................................................................

3.3 Potential Project Challenges ..................................................................

3.4 Stakeholders ..........................................................................................

3.5 Potential Sources of Water to be Reclaimed ..........................................

3.6 Source Water Facilities ..........................................................................

3.7 Existing Water Reuse .............................................................................

3.8 Water Reclamation and Reuse Technology ...........................................

Description of Alternatives ............................................................

4.1 Non-Federal Funding .............................................................................

4.2 Project Objectives (aka. Design Requirements) .....................................

4.3 Water Supply Alternatives (or Preliminary/Refined Alternatives) ............

4.4 Waste-Stream Discharge Treatment and Disposal Water Quality Requirements .........................................................................................

4.5 Alternative measures and technologies ..................................................

Economic Analysis.........................................................................

5.1 Existing Conditions and Future Projections ............................................

5.2 Cost Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................

5.3 Substitute Project Cost Opinion ..............................................................

5.4 Qualitative Benefits and Considerations .................................................

Selection of the Proposed Title XVI Project ..................................

Environmental Consideration and Potential Effects .....................

7.1 NEPA and Federal Law Compliance ......................................................

7.1.1 Potentially Significant Environmental and Cultural Impacts

7.1.2 Additional and Unique Environmental Risks

7.1.3 Environmental and Cultural Compliance Measures

7.1.4 NEPA Compliance Measures

7.1.5 Regional Water Supply and Quality Effects

7.1.6 Public Outreach and Involvement

7.1.7 Historical Impacts and Mitigation

449 of 615

Page 9 ends

Legal and Institutional Requirements ...........................................

8.1 Potential Water Rights Issues (Compliance with State Water Law) .......................................................................................................

8.2 Legal and Institutional Requirements .....................................................

8.3 Multi-Jurisdictional or Interagency Agreements ......................................

8.4 Permitting Procedures ............................................................................

8.5 Unresolved Issues ..................................................................................

8.6 Current and Projected Wastewater Discharge Requirements .................

8.7 Wastewater Discharge Rights ................................................................

Financial Capability of Sponsor .....................................................

9.1 Proposed Project Schedule ....................................................................

9.2 Non-Federal Project Sponsor Preparedness ..........................................

9.3 Funding Plan ..........................................................................................

9.4 Federal and Non-Federal Funding and Restrictions ...............................

Research Needs .............................................................................

10.1 Research Needs and Objectives ............................................................

10.2 Reclamation’s Participation ....................................................................

10.3 Researchers ...........................................................................................

10.4 Research Timeframe ..............................................................................

References .....................................................................................

450 of 615

Page 10 ends

SAMPLE SWRCB RWFPS REPORT OUTLINE
Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Project Area
Study Area Characteristics
Surface Hydrology and Groundwater Basins
Water Quality
Land Use
Population Projections
Section 3: Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
Water Sources and Supply Facilities
Beneficial Uses of Receiving Waters
Groundwater Management
Historical and Projected Water Use Trends
Quality of Water Supplies
Potential Future Water Sources
Section 4: Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
Wastewater Treatment and Collection Facilities
Commercial and Industrial Treatment Facilities

4.3 Existing Recycled Water System
Section 5: Treatment Requirements
Multi-Barrier Approach and Overview of Regulatory
Requirements
Non-Potable Reuse Requirements
Potable Reuse Treatment Requirements
Section 6: Recycled Water Market
Non-Potable Reuse Market Assessment
Potable Reuse Market Assessment
Section 7: Project Alternatives Analysis
Conceptual-Level Engineering Analysis
Description of Recycled Water Alternatives
Alternatives Screening Approach
Alternative Ranking Results
Preferred Alternative Projects
Section 9: Recommended Project
Description of Recommended Project and Potential Users
Preliminary Design Criteria
Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Costs
Implementation and Operational Plan
Section 10: Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program Construction Funding Sources and Considerations
Recycled Water Pricing Policy Options
451 of 615

Page 11 ends

Financial Planning Considerations

452 of 615

Page 12 ends

SWRCB REPORT CONTENT CROSSWALK
The table below reflects a template that can be used to streamline the permitting processes, by clearly indicating where each report element from the SWRCB’s Recommended Outline (Appendix B) is located in the report. Kennedy Jenks has used this approach on numerous RWFS’s to facilitate efficient review and approval by the SWRCB.

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
A Project Area
1 Detailed map(s) showing:
a Vicinity.
b Relevant hydrologic (major streams, streams receiving waste discharges), geologic, and topographic features

c City boundaries.
d Project site and service/study area boundary. (provide GIS shapefile of service/study area boundary to Project Manager).

e Wholesale and retail water supply entity boundaries within study area and adjacent to study area.

f Wastewater agency boundaries within and adjacent to study area. g Groundwater basin boundaries,
h Existing recycled water distribution pipelines, storage, and users. i Each recycled water facilities alternative, showing approximate locations of distribution pipelines, storage, and potential users.

2 Existing land use, trends, and projected land use.
3 Existing population, trends, and population projections of study area (population projections must be cited from an independent source).

B Water Supply Characteristics and Facilities
1 Description of all wholesale and retail entities.
2 All sources of water for study area, major facilities, costs (fixed and variable), subsidies, and customer prices.

3 Beneficial uses of receiving waters, degree of use, and portion of flow that is effluent.

4 Capacities of present facilities, existing flows, estimated years when capacities will be reached for existing major components (water treatment plants, major transmission, and storage facilities).

5 Groundwater basins; including quantities extracted by all users, natural and artificial recharge, losses by evapotranspiration, inflow and outflow of basins, and safe yield or overdraft.

6 Water quality of groundwater and surface water.
7 Water use trends, future demands, prices, and costs.
453 of 615

Page 13 ends

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
8 Sources for additional water and plans for new facilities (for both the local entity and the wholesalers).

C Wastewater Characteristics and Facilities
1 Description of entities.
2 Description of existing facilities, including treatment/reuse processes and schematic(s), design criteria, current capacities, current flows, current water quality characteristics and beneficial uses of the water resources affected by the facility, and the current discharge location(s).

3 Wastewater treatment process schematics (existing and proposed) and flows for each stage of treatment (primary, secondary, and tertiary/advanced).

4 Description of current system users (% residential, commercial, industrial, etc.).

5 Water quality of effluent and any seasonal variation. 6 Additional facilities needed to comply with waste discharge requirements. 7 Sources of other problem constituents and control measures. 8 Existing water recycling users, quantities, and contractual arrangements. 9 Existing water rights for use of treated effluent after discharge. 10 Wastewater flow variations, hourly and seasonally
11 Description of the current asset, operation, and maintenance management systems used at the treatment facilities.

D Treatment Requirements for Discharge and Reuse
1 Future flow increases or other changes to the influent wastewater characteristics.

2 Required water qualities for potential uses.
3 Required health-related water qualities or treatment requirements for potential uses, operational and on-site requirements (backflow prevention, buffer zones, dual plumbing, etc.).

4 Wastewater discharge or reuse requirements and anticipated changes in requirements.

5 Water quality-related requirements of the RWQCB to protect surface or groundwater from problems resulting from recycled water use.

E Recycled Water Market
1 Description of market assessment procedures.
2 Definition of logical service area based on results of market assessment. 454 of 615

Page 14 ends

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Descriptions of all users or categories of potential users, including (a) type of use, (b) expected annual recycled water use, (c) peak use, (d) estimated internal capital investment required (on-site conversion costs), (e) necessary water cost savings, (f) desire to use recycled water, (g) date of possible initial use of recycled water, (h) present and future source of water and quantity of use, (i) quality and reliability needs, and (j) wastewater disposal methods.

4 Summary tables of potential users and related data.

F Project Alternative Analysis
1 Planning and design assumptions
a Delivery and system pressure criteria.
b Peak delivery criteria.
c Storage criteria.
e Planning period over which a water recycling project is evaluated. 2 Water Recycling Alternatives to be Evaluated
a Alternative markets:
i Based on different levels of treatment.
ii Based on Geographical areas.
b Treatment alternatives:
i Alternative levels of treatment.
ii Alternative unit processes to achieve a given level of treatment. iii Plant treatment process prior to construction.
iv Class of plant prior to and after construction (i.e. Class I, II, III, IV, or V). c Pipeline distribution alternatives.
i Route alternatives.
ii Pipeline lengths, diameter, and material.
iii Quantity of service laterals and meters to be installed. d Storage alternatives:
i Location, type, and material.
ii Storage analysis using diurnal flows.
e Pump/lift station alternatives:
i Provide reason for new pump station and/or upgrades.
ii Describe pump types, proposed well design, and proposed components (i.e. debris structure, SCADA controls, backup power, etc.)

iii Provide flow design criteria (average daily flow, peak hour flow, proposed flow for future growth projections) and pump curves.

f Sub alternatives of selected alternative:
i Marginal analysis for selected alternative for certain categories of users or certain geographic areas.

ii Use of water blending during peak irrigation months. 3 Non-recycled water alternatives.
455 of 615

Page 15 ends

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
a Discussion of other potentially viable new sources of water. b Provide economic costs.
4 Water conservation/reduction analysis.
a Description of analysis.
b Impact on recycling, if any.
c Recommendation.
d Implementation.
5 Pollution control alternatives, if applicable, needed to comply with waste discharge requirements, and possible allocation of costs between recycling and pollution control.

6 No project alternative.
7 Information supplied for each alternative to include, but not be limited to:
a Cost tables for each alternative with breakdown of costs by total capital (without grants), O&M, unit processes, and with equivalent annual cost and per acre-foot cost.

b Lists of potential users assumed for each alternative. c Economic analysis in dollars per acre-foot of recycled water produced or delivered

d Energy analysis, including direct and construction energy. e Water quality impacts:
i Effect on receiving water by removing or reducing discharge of effluent, including effect on beneficial uses resulting from reduced flow.

ii Ground water impacts.
8 Comparison of above alternatives and recommendation of specific alternative.

a Discussion of beneficial and adverse environmental impacts on the existing environment, future environment, and individual sensitive environmental issues identified through project management or public participation.

b Analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on sensitive environmental resources.

c Appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives, to mitigate adverse environmental impacts.

d Thorough discussion of the environmental reasoning for selection of the chosen alternative for the project.

9 Comparison of above alternatives and recommendation of specific alternative.

G Recommended Project
1 Description of all proposed facilities and basis for selection. 2 Preliminary design criteria
456 of 615

Page 16 ends

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Cost estimate based on time of construction.(a) Selected project alternative total cost (b) Cost index (c) Discount rate. (d) Useful life (years) (e) Life cycle costs (present worth included O&M costs) (f) Operations and maintenance yearly costs (g) Replacement costs.

4 List of all potential users, quantity of recycled water use, peak demand, and commitments obtained.

5 Reliability of facilities as compared to user requirements. 6 Implementation plan:
a Coordination with water suppliers, determination of recycled water supplier and needed agreements or ordinances.

b Commitments from potential users and ability and timing of users to join system and make on-site investments

c Tentative water recycling requirements of RWQCB.
d Commitments from potential users.
e Water rights impact.
f Permits required for project implementation
g Detailed schedule including, but not limited to, notice-to proceed, construction completion, initiation of operations, etc.

7 Operational plan - responsible people, equipment, monitoring, irrigation scheduling, etc.

8 Description of any key issues to be resolved, particularly items that may significantly impact the project budget or schedule.

H Construction Financing Plan and Revenue Program
1 Sources and timing of funds for design and construction. 2 Pricing policy for recycled water.
3 Costs that can be allocated to water pollution control. 4 Annual projection of:
a Water prices for each user or category of users.
b Recycled water used by each user.
c Annual costs (required revenue) of recycling project. d Allocation of costs to users.
e Unit costs to serve each user or category of users.
f Unit price of recycled water for each user or category of users. g Sensitivity analysis assuming portion of potential users fail to use recycled water.

5 Sunk costs and indebtedness.

J Appendices
1 Tables of all abbreviations.
2 Copies of letters of interest or intent from recycled water users, or other documentation of support from potential users.

457 of 615

Page 17 ends

Sec. # Title / Report Element Corresponding
Report Location
3 Draft of recycled water mandatory use ordinance or model user contract. 4 Drafts of necessary agreements, such as wholesale-retail agreement, joint powers agreement

5 Hydraulic calculations, model output summaries, other related conclusion supporting information.

458 of 615

459 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 20 Section Name: OLD BUSINESS Account Number: 25-3112 File ID: 22-6186 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Community Development Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

General Plan Update – Land Use Map
RECOMMENDATION:

Confirm the draft land use map and the heights and densities associated with each land use category for the General Plan Update, and consider a land use designation request at 1501-1555 Hillsdale Blvd.

BACKGROUND:

The City’s General Plan Update (GPU) kicked off in the fall of 2018 and began with a series of visioning workshops and community meetings. From April 2019 through January 2022, the General Plan team held a series of meetings and events to establish the General Plan study areas, create the range of land use and circulation alternatives, confirm the draft alternatives, and receive feedback on the preferred land use and circulation scenario with the community. In April 2022, the City Council held a public hearing and selected the preferred land use and circulation scenario that would go into the GPU. This meeting to confirm the land use map is the final step in the alternatives phase of the GPU process. More information about the outreach process, including meeting materials and recordings and public comment letters, is available at www.StriveSanMateo.org.

Overview of the Alternatives Process
The land use alternatives explore different possible growth scenarios for how to accommodate future housing, jobs, commercial and retail establishments, and parks and open space. The City is proactively planning to meet the requirements of State housing law, identify solutions for transportation and housing affordability issues, be prepared for the projected population and job growth in the region and locally, and other issues such as improving community health, equity, access to services, sustainability and climate change. This work is guided by the General Plan Vision and Values, which were established at the outset of the project.

The process to create the land use and circulation alternatives, and to ultimately select a preferred land use and circulation scenario, has taken approximately two years and been shaped by community input at every significant step of the process.

In general, each step of the alternatives process includes a similar series of meetings: first, community workshop(s) and outreach events, then General Plan Subcommittee (GPS) meeting(s), followed by Planning Commission meeting(s), and culminating in City Council direction. For additional information about the steps to create the land use and circulation alternatives and selection of the preferred scenario, please refer to the April 18, 2022 City Council Agenda Report.

DISCUSSION:

Preferred Land Use Scenario
The three land use alternatives explored growth of approximately 12,000, 16,000, and 21,000 new residential units. All land use alternatives kept job growth constant despite varying residential growth, with the assumption that the City would not implement policies to either significantly stimulate, nor significantly dampen, job growth. The Alternatives Evaluation 460 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6
Report included an assessment of future jobs/housing balance given these assumptions. Table 1 provides a summary of the three land use alternatives.

Table 1 – Summary of Land Use Alternatives
Existing (2019)
Alternative A (Net
New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Homes 39,200 +11,810 +16,070 +21,080
Population 104,500 +29,500 +40,260 +53,500
Jobs 52,800 +15,430 +15,430 +14,990
City Council Meeting
On April 18, 2022, the City Council held a public meeting to review and provide direction on the draft circulation and land use alternatives. The City Council selected Circulation Alternative C as the preferred circulation scenario (4 -1 vote) and directed staff to address environmental justice issues through implementation of this scenario.

To select the land use alternative, the Council passed individual motions by Study Area to create the preferred land use scenario. The Council’s preferred land use scenario is a combination of Land Use Alternatives, A, B, and C, with an emphasis on Land Use Alternatives B and C. The City Council selected the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Study Areas 2, 3, and 5. Table 2 summarizes the Council’s motion for the preferred land use scenario for each study area.

The Council’s preferred land use scenario is illustrated Citywide in Attachment 1 and by Study Area in Attachment 2.

Table 2 – Summary of Council Preferred Land Use Scenario Motions Study Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Notes
1 – ECR North
X Change the Commercial Neighborhood at East Poplar Ave to Mixed-Use Medium
Change the Residential Medium at El Cerrito Avenue to Mixed-Use Medium
1 – ECR Central X Change the Office High at Borel Avenue to Mixed-Use High 1 – ECR South X Change the Residential Low along 37th Avenue to Mixed-Use Low 2 – Bel Mateo/ Mollie
Stone
X Planning Commission recommendation
3 – Rail Corridor
X Planning Commission recommendation, with these additions:
Change triangle at 17 th Avenue from Residential Medium to Mixed-Use Medium
Include the Hillsdale Garden Apartments at 36 th Avenue and Edison Street within the Study Area boundary and designate it as Mixed-Use Medium Change the Commercial Regional and Residential Medium designations at the Ah Sam Floral site to Mixed-Use High
Change the PetSmart site from Mixed-Use Low to Mixed-Use Medium 4 – Downtown X Change the Residential High along B Street between 5 th and 9th Avenues to Mixed-Use High
5 – Peninsula Ave X Planning Commission recommendation, including designating the 850 Woodside Way property owner request as Mixed-Use Low.
6 – Campus Dr X No changes to Alternative C.
7 – Shoreview X Change Chavez Market site from Mixed-Use Low to Mixed-Use Medium 8 – 101/92
Interchange
X Change PS Business Park from Residential Low to Mixed-Use High (with a goal to transition from high to medium on the west side of site) 9 – Hillsdale/Norfolk X No changes to Alternative C
10 – Bridgepointe *All three alternatives the same*
Ensure open space is incorporated as part of potential redevelopment 461 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6
Suggested Refinements to Preferred Land Use Scenario
Following the April 18, 2022 Council meeting, staff reviewed the Council preferred land use scenario and identified suggested refinements to align with the overall direction Council provided. These refinements include:
Splitting the designation of the PS Business Park site in Study Area 8 so that Mixed-Use High fronts the eastern half of the parcel along South Amphlett Blvd and Hwy 101, and the western half of the parcel adjacent to existing residential neighborhoods is designated as Mixed-Use Medium. During the meeting, Council directed staff to ensure that the Preferred Scenario does not unintentionally reduce residential capacity (aka “downzoning”). Staff identified several small sites scattered around a couple of the study areas where development capacity could potentially be reduced under the Preferred Scenario. To address this, staff recommends adding two new designations to prevent a potential decrease of either the maximum density or the allowed height in the existing General Plan.
oResidential Low/Medium (3-5 stories, 36 to 50 du/ac). The existing High Density Multi-Family designation allows up to 50 units per acre. The Residential Low-Medium designation would be in addition to the Residential Low designation (1-4 stories, 9 to 35 du/ac) and Residential Medium designation (4-6 stories, 40 to 99 du/ac).
oMixed-Use Low/Medium (3-5 stories, 0.25 FAR retail and 3.0 FAR office) as a transition between Mixed-Use Low (1-3 stories, 0.25 FAR retail and 1.0 FAR office) and Mixed-Use Medium (4-6 stories, 0.25 FAR retail and

3.0 FAR office).
For parcels with an existing General Plan designation of High Density Multi-Family (36 – 50 du/ac) and a preferred scenario designation of either Residential Low or Mixed-Use Low, staff suggests changing the designation to Residential Low/Medium or Mixed-Use Low/Medium so that the maximum allowed residential density on these parcels would remain at 50 du/a. Similarly, for parcels with an existing allowed building height of 55 feet and a preferred scenario designation of either Residential Low or Mixed-Use Low, staff suggests a new designation of Residential Low/Medium or Mixed-Use Low/Medium so that the maximum allowed height on these parcels would remain at 55 feet.

General Plan Land Use Designations
Staff is also seeking Council direction on the land use designations for the citywide General Plan Land Use Map. Staff recommends that the 2040 General Plan utilize land use designations that align with the Place Type Menu designations employed throughout the alternatives process. The Place Types are similar to the existing General Plan Land Use designations but utilize a slightly different and simplified naming convention, and propose different density ranges. In addition, the Place Types Menu introduces three new land use categories (i.e. Residential High, Mixed-Use High, and Office High) that would accommodate higher density and taller residential and non-residential structures than currently allowed in the General Plan. Attachment 3 includes a matrix that shows how the proposed land use designations would correlate to the existing General Plan Land Use designations in terms of name, description, height, and density.

As part of the conversion from the Place Types Menu to land use designation, some detail related to the allowable height needs to be confirmed. Table 3 shows the height and density ranges for each level of land use intensity. Specifically, staff is seeking City Council confirmation on the height and density ranges for the Low, Low/Medium, Medium and High designations. These intensities are associated with Residential, Mixed-Use, and Office land use designations. Low – Density max has been reduced slightly, from 39 to 35, to align with the Low/Medium density range, and the height max has been raised from 3 to 4 stories. These changes are proposed to align with existing land uses intensities for areas outside of the 10 study areas.
Low/Medium – New land use designation to accommodate existing sites that have heights and/or densities that exceed those in the Low category. Height range is proposed at 3-5 stories and the density range is proposed at 36-50 units per acre.
Medium – Density range would be unchanged from the Place Types Menu, but staff is suggesting a height range of 4-6 stories for land uses at this intensity. This height limit would support projects with densities of up to 99 units per acre and could better align with transitions between low and high density areas of the City. 462 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6
High – Density range would be unchanged from the Place Types Menu, but staff is suggesting a height range of 6- 10 stories for land uses at this intensity. Since a maximum height was not identified on the Place Types Menu, staff suggests considering setting that limit at 10 stories, which would be sufficient to accommodate projects with up to 200 units per acre.

Table 3 – Proposed Land Use Heights and Densities
Place Types Menu Proposed GPU Land Use MapLand Use
Intensity Height Range Density Range Height Range Density Range Low 1-3 stories 9-39 units per acre 1-4 stories 9-35 units per acre Low/Medium n/a n/a 3-5 stories 36-50 units per acre
Medium 4-7 stories 40-99 units per acre 4-6 stories 40-99 units per acre High 8+ stories 100-200 units per acre 6-10 stories 100-200 units per acre 2040 Study Area Buildout
Table 4 shows the potential growth under the preferred land use scenario in 2040 within the Study Areas, based on the City Council’s direction on April 18, 2022. Although the City is largely “built out,” California law requires cities to plan for housing to accommodate a range of households and income levels. While the buildout projections are estimates, it can be reasonably assumed that the City will continue to grow, and that we will need to zone for that growth in order to meet our legal obligations to the State for the upcoming housing cycles within the General Plan’s 2040 growth horizon. The General Plan Update provides an opportunity to set the foundation for future growth that is logical, orderly, and achieves the community’s vision of San Mateo as a place that is “vibrant, livable, diverse, and healthy.” Although most of the future growth will occur within the 10 study areas, the General Plan applies to the whole City, and General Plan land use designations outside the 10 study areas will change if the designation density ranges change as proposed. Some growth outside the study areas is expected over the next 20 years, such as the San Mateo County Health Campus expansion project, underutilized sites with older buildings, and scattered residential infill sites throughout the city.

Table 4 – 2040 Preferred Scenario Buildout Within Study Areas (Potential Net New) Homes +21,960
Population +55,790
Jobs +15,255
It should also be noted that while the land use designations provide a height and density range, not all sites with that designation will be able to develop to the maximum height and density. The individual zoning designations for a site and neighborhood set specific heights and densities within the range set by the land use designation, but often set lower thresholds based on a variety of factors, including availability of infrastructure and environmental constraints.

Measure Y and the Preferred Land Use Scenario
Measure Y is a ballot measure that was passed by voters in November 2020. It retained existing height and density limits that were adopted under Measure P on new development and has a sunset date of 2030. Overall, the Measure Y height limit is set at up to 55 feet, with a density limit that allows up to 50 units per acre. The height limit allows for exceptions in certain locations and under certain circumstances, and State Density Bonus law allows projects to exceed both limits when certain percentages of affordable units are provided. Some of the land use designations in the Preferred Land Use Scenario include building heights and densities that exceed the limits set by Measure Y. Any GPU components that are inconsistent with Measure Y will require voter approval before they can take effect. Based on the Council’s confirmation of this approach, staff will move forward with incorporating this draft land use map into the GPU and schedule a future study session with the Council to discuss options for addressing elements of the GPU that go beyond the Measure Y height and density limits.
463 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6
1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd Land Use Request
The property owner of the site at 1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd. submitted a letter requesting that the site’s land use designation be changed from Low Density Multi-Family to Residential Medium (Attachment 4). The site is located outside of the study areas, to the southwest of Study Area 6, and is shown on page 8 of Attachment 2. The site is approximately

4.4 acres in size and currently developed with 84 apartment units in two four-story apartment buildings – the Park View Terrace Apartments. Since this site is located outside of the study areas, the request could not be acted upon at the April City Council meeting. The site’s current land use designation of Low Density Multi-Family allows for a density of 9-17 units per acre, and the Residential Medium designation would allow for a density of 40-99 units per acre. The site is located within the Urban Wildland Interface (WUI) for wildfire risk and does have moderately sloping topography.

Does the Council support changing the land use designation to allow for increased density at this site per the owner’s request? Or should the current land use density be maintained? It should be noted that the full density in a land use category is not always the maximum density that can be developed on any specific site as a new development is still subject to compliance with Zoning Code site standards and density, as well as other development review requirements.

City Council Direction and Next Steps
This meeting is the final step in the Alternatives and Preferred Scenario phase of the General Plan Update. Staff is seeking Council confirmation of the Preferred Land Use Scenario, based on the actions from the April 18, 2022 meeting. In addition, Council confirmation of the draft land use categories is being requested. Confirmation of the draft land use map and land use designations will allow staff to proceed with the technical studies and evaluation that will form the basis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) analysis. However, it should be noted that both the land use map and the land use categories will still be in draft form, and will not be finalized until the City Council approves the final General Plan Update. For land use and circulation topics that are not directly related to the maps, such as allowed uses or circulation policies, Council can provide direction to staff and it will be addressed when the GPU goals, policies and actions are drafted as part of the next phase.

The next phase of the project includes preparation of the goals, policies and actions that go into each Element of the General Plan. The draft goals, policies and actions will be published this summer and presented to the public as part of the next round of community outreach and engagement. Community workshops and General Plan Subcommittee meetings will be held over the summer, with meetings before the Planning Commission and City Council in the fall. Preparation of the Draft EIR to analyze potential environmental impacts from the General Plan Update will be happening concurrently with this phase. Publication of the Draft General Plan is targeted for the first half of 2023.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There are no direct budgetary impacts to taking this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

Once the City Council confirms the preferred land use scenario, preparation of the Draft EIR for the GPU will commence.

Publication of the Draft EIR for public review is anticipated in the first half 2023 and will be finished prior to any formal decisions on the updated General Plan. The Draft EIR will have a 45-day public comment period once it is published.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

All comments submitted on this topic are available online at www.strivesanmateo.org/documents/publiccomments. This link includes all comments that have been submitted since the beginning of the GPU effort in September 2018.

NOTICE PROVIDED:

All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Preferred Land Use Scenario Citywide
Att 2 – Preferred Land Use Scenario by Study Area
Att 3 – Land Use Designation Matrix
464 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 3
7 6
Att 4 – 1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd Land Use Request Letter

STAFF CONTACT
City of San Mateo PlaceWorks
Zachary Dahl, AICP, Deputy Director Joanna Jansen, AICP, LEED AP, Principal (650) 522-7207
[email protected]
465 of 615
San Francisco Bay
!7
·|}þ 92
El Camino Real
N Norfolk St
S Idaho St
Alameda De Las Pulgas
N Humbolt StE Poplar Ave
3rd Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Fashion IslandBlvd
WHillsdale Blvd
ParrotDr
B a yridge WayAscension Dr
£¤101
!5
!4×1-N
×1-C
×1-S
!3
!6
!10
!8
!9
!2
£¤101
£¤101
·|}þ 92
·|}þ 82
·|}þ 82

CITY COUNCIL

PREFERRED SCENARIO
Study Areas
San Mateo City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Historic Districts
P Privately Owned Public Open Space
I2 Caltrain Station
Caltrain
1,000 Foot Radius Around Caltrain
½ Mile Radius Around Caltrain
Residential Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Residential Medium (4-/ stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Residential High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Commercial Service (1-3 stories)
Commercial Regional (3+ stories)
Commercial Neighborhood (1-2 stories)
Office Low (1-3 stories)
Office Medium (4-7 stories)
Office High (8+ stories)
Research and Development (3+ stories)
Traditional Light Industrial (3+ stories)
Mixed-Use Low (1-3 stories, 9 to 39 du/ac)
Mixed-Use Medium (4-7 stories, 40-99 du/ac)
Mixed-Use High (8+ stories, 100 to 200 du/ac)
Parks/ Open Space
Public Facilities
Quasi-Public
Transportation Corridor
Utilities
0 0.50.25
Miles
466 of 615
467 of 615
468 of 615
469 of 615
470 of 615
471 of 615
472 of 615
473 of 615
474 of 615
475 of 615
476 of 615
477 of 615
478 of 615
Proposed 2040 General Plan Land Use
Designations
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Designation Description Designation Description
Residential
Very Low
1-2 story, detached single-
family homes including
ADUs; Up to 9 du/ac
Single-Family Residential 1-2 story, detached
homes including ADUs;
Up to 9 du/ac
Residential
Low 1
1-3 story, attached homes
including townhomes,
duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes, condominiums,
and apartments; 9 to 19
du/ac
Low Density Multi-Family
Residential
Typically 1 to 2 story,
attached units such as
duplexes and
townhouses; 9 to 17
du/ac
Residential
Low 2
2-4 story, attached homes
including townhomes,
duplexes, triplexes, and
fourplexes, condominiums,
and apartments; 20 to 35
du/ac
Medium Density Multi-
Family Residential
2-4 story buildings
including condominiums
and apartments; 18 to
35 du/ac
Residential
Low/Medium
3-5 story multi-family
buildings, including
townhomes,
condominiums, and
apartments; 36 to 50 du/ac
High Density Multi-Family
Residential
Typically 3-5 story
buildings including
condominiums and
apartments; 36 to 50
du/ac
Residential
Medium
4-6 story multi-family
buildings including
condominiums and
apartments; 40 to 99 du/ac
High Density Multi-Family
Residential
Typically 3-5 story
buildings including
condominiums and
apartments; 36 to 50
du/ac
Residential
High
6-10 story multi-family
buildings including
condominiums and
apartments; 100 to 200
units per acre

N/A N/A
Mixed-Use
Low
1-3 story buildings with a
mix of commercial, office,
and/or residential
integrated within the same
site or the same building.

0.25 FAR retail and 1.0 FAR
office
Mixed-Use Incentive A mix of commercial,
office, and housing. 1.0
to 3.0 FAR, 25 to 55 ft.

Some areas in the
Downtown allow up to
75 ft
Mixed-Use
Low/Medium
Density
2-5 story buildings with a
mix of commercial, office,
and/or residential
integrated within the same
site or the same building.

0.25 FAR retail and 3.0 FAR
office
Mixed-Use Incentive A mix of commercial,
office, and housing. 1.0
to 3.0 FAR, 25 to 55 ft.
479 of 615
Proposed 2040 General Plan Land Use
Designations
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Designation Description Designation Description
Mixed-Use
Medium
4-6 story buildings with a
mix of commercial, office,
and/or residential
integrated within the same
site or the same building.

0.25 FAR retail and 3.0 FAR
office
Mixed-Use Incentive A mix of commercial,
office, and housing. 1.0
to 3.0 FAR, 25 to 55 ft.

Some areas in the
Downtown allow up to
75 ft
Mixed-Use
High
6-10 story buildings with a
mix of commercial, office,
and/or residential
integrated within the same
site or the same building.

0.25 FAR retail and 5.0 FAR
office

N/A N/A
Neighborhood
Commercial
1-2 story buildings with
small shops, restaurants,
salons, gyms, or shopping
centers that serve the
immediate neighborhood.

1.0 FAR
Neighborhood
Commercial
25 to 45 ft buildings with
commercial uses
such as supermarkets,
bakeries, drugstores,
restaurants,
delicatessens, barber
shops, hair salons,
laundromats, hardware
stores, dry cleaners,
small offices and other
personal services. 0.5 to

1.0 FAR
Service
Commercial
1-3 story buildings with
businesses such as
automotive repair, pet
hospitals, or self-storage.

1.0 FAR
Service Commercial Up to 35 ft buildings that
include uses such as
automobile and truck
repair,
building material yards
and animal hospitals. 1.0
FAR
Regional
Commercial
2-5 story buildings with
large shopping centers such
as Hillsdale Mall and
Bridgepointe Shopping
Center. 1.0 to 2.5 FAR
Regional/Community
Commercial
25 to 55 ft tall shopping
centers that may include
department stores,
banks, furniture stores,
auto dealerships,
appliance stores, toy
stores, hotels and
offices 1.0 to 2.5 FAR
Office Low 1-3 story buildings with
medical or professional
offices. 1.0 FAR
Executive Office 35 to 55 ft office
buildings. Accessory uses
permitted include
restaurants, personal
480 of 615
Proposed 2040 General Plan Land Use
Designations
Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Designation Description Designation Description
services, travel agencies,
printing, ticket outlets,
clubs, and recreation
facilities.0.62 to 1.0 FAR
Office Medium 4-6 story buildings with
medical or professional
offices. 3.0 FAR
Executive Office 35 to 55 ft office
buildings. Accessory uses
permitted include
restaurants, personal
services, travel agencies,
printing, ticket outlets,
clubs, and recreation
facilities.0.62 to 1.0 FAR
Office High 6-10 story buildings with
medical or professional
offices. 5.0 FAR

N/A N/A
Traditional
Light Industrial
1-3 story buildings with
light manufacturing,
warehousing, and
distribution facilities. 1.0
FAR
Manufacturing/Industrial 25 to 90 ft buildings that
include light
manufacturing,
warehousing and
distribution facilities.

FAR 1.0
Research and
Development
2-6 story buildings with
professional office uses and
manufacturing,
laboratories, makers’
spaces, and assembly
processes to support the
development of new
products. 1.0 to 2.0 FAR
Manufacturing/Industrial 25 to 90 ft buildings that
include light
manufacturing,
warehousing and
distribution facilities.

FAR 1.0
Public Facilities Facilities owned and/or
operated by the City, other
government agencies,
and/or the public school
districts
.

Public Facilities Facilities owned and/or
operated by the City,
other government
agencies, and/or the
public school districts.

Parks/Open
Space
Public parks and City-
owned conservation lands
and private open space or
recreation facilities.

Parks/Open Space Public parks and City-
owned conservation
lands and private open
space or recreation
facilities.

Utilities Public utilities such as
electricity, gas, water, and
communications.

Utilities Public utilities such as
electricity, gas, water,
and communications.
481 of 615
Wagner Enterprises, LLC 148 Madison Avenue San Rafael, CA 94903 415.730.6718

May 4, 2022

Zachary Dahl
Deputy Director
City of San Mateo Community Development
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403

Via email: [email protected]

RE: Housing Element Sites Inventory: Inclusion of Property located at 1501-1555 West Hillsdale Boulevard

Mr. Dahl,

I am writing on behalf of the landowners of the 4.4-acre parcel located at 1501-1555 West Hillsdale Boulevard (APN 041330070). The purpose of this letter is to formally request that the City of San Mateo identify in the site inventory as a site that has potential for redevelopment.

The property is currently developed with an 84-unit apartment complex. The landowners are not proposing to remove or alter the existing the apartment units; rather, the landowners are evaluating how best to use vacant and underutilized portions of the property to provide additional housing units.

The current land use designation of Low-Density Multi-Family. The landowners have requested a land use change to Medium -Density Residential land use designation as part of the City’s General Plan Update process. On April 18, 2022, the City Council expressed support for the requested change and directed staff to update the land use designation to Medium-Density Residential on the preferred land use map that will form the base of the General Plan Update.

The updated Medium -Density Residential land use designation allows for a density range of 40-99 units per acre. With this updated land use designation, the property could accommodate an additional 92 to 351 more housing units. With the existing topography and 4-story height limitation, it is most likely that the property could accommodate approximately 200 additional units.

We sincerely appreciate your time and consideration of this request. We hope that you agree with our assessment and that we can work together in the future to increase housing supply in San Mateo.

482 of 615

Sincerely,

Charity Wagner
Wagner Enterprises

Edward Jadallah
Landowner at 1501-1555 West Hillsdale Blvd

483 of 615

Aerial view of 1501-1555 West Hillsdale Boulevard
484 of 615
This is for the Monday City Council Meeting re the GP update...thanks

LAURENCE KINSELLA
Sat 7/16/2022 10:01 PM
To:Clerk <[email protected]>
Under the preferred general plan, what are you going to do about the traﬃc that will be generated in and through the now planned “land locked” Hayward Park area?

Railroad tracks on the East and 4 plus story, high density buildings on the North, South and West with only two streets through Hayward Park: Palm Avenue and B Street.

Larry Paerson promised that when Bay Meadows and the TOD overlay was approved, there would be no net increase in terms of traﬃc on Palm Ave and B St. He said that on the record.

But that is clearly not going to be the case when this GP update is implemented.

Did planning forget to look at these planning issues comprehensively? Or did they just look at various secons of the City, separately - Downtown, El Camino and 92/101, without looking at the cumulave impacts that each of those 3 individual high density secons might have on one parcular neighborhood?

For the GP update, was there cumulave traﬃc studies done on the impact of high density being built on the north, west and south sides of Hayward part or were they just done separately on the downtown, El Camino and Hayward Park TOD secons?

The problem is the cumulave impact of each of those separate secons on Hayward Park itself. This issue happens nowhere else in the City under the preferred GP update.

I would appreciate your response as to the cumulave traﬃc impact on Hayward Park, if the present preferred GP is passed.

A quick ﬁnal note, it also seems that you’re giving up on solar access for a wide swath of Hayward Park residents along the El Camino Real.

Sincerely Yours,

Laurence Kinsella
485 of 615
This is for the Monday City Council Meeting re the GP update...thanks

Railroad tracks on the East and 4 plus story, high density buildings on the North, South and West with only two streets through Hayward Park: Palm Avenue and B Street.

Larry Paerson promised that when Bay Meadows and the TOD overlay was approved, there would be no net increase in terms of traﬃc on Palm Ave and B St. He said that on the record.

But that is clearly not going to be the case when this GP update is implemented.

The problem is the cumulave impact of each of those separate secons on Hayward Park itself. This issue happens nowhere else in the City under the preferred GP update.

I would appreciate your response as to the cumulave traﬃc impact on Hayward Park, if the present preferred GP is passed.

A quick ﬁnal note, it also seems that you’re giving up on solar access for a wide swath of Hayward Park residents along the El Camino Real.

Sincerely Yours,

Laurence Kinsella
486 of 615
City Council
Confirm Preferred Scenario
July 18, 2022
487 of 615
2 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan Team
» City of San Mateo
• Zachary Dahl, Deputy Director
• Manira Sandhir, Planning Manager
• Brian Alexander, Senior Mgmt. Analyst
• Bethany Lopez, Senior Engineer
• Linda Ly, Associate Planner
• Mary Way, Administrative Assistant
» Technical Advisory Committee
• Over 40 staff members from all City
departments and SMCFD
» Consultants
• Joanna Jansen, PlaceWorks
• Carey Stone, PlaceWorks
• Angelica Garcia, PlaceWorks
• Evelia Chairez, PCRC
• Nicholas Hamilton, Good City Co
• Nelson\Nygaard
• Kittelson Associates, Inc.
• Economic & Planning Systems (EPS)
• BKF Engineers
488 of 615
3 StriveSanMateo.org
Objectives for Tonight
» Receive information on preferred land use scenario
• Based on direction from April 18, 2022 City Council meeting » Receive public comments
» City Council discussion and direction on:
• Draft land use map
• Heights and densities associated with each land use category for the General Plan Update
• Land use designation request at 1501-1555 Hillsdale Blvd 489 of 615
4 StriveSanMateo.org
Tonight’s Agenda Discussion
» Presentation
» Next Steps
» Clarifying Questions
» Public Comment
» City Council Discussion and Direction
490 of 615
Project Overview
491 of 615
6 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan: Vision Statement
492 of 615
7 StriveSanMateo.org
Where Are We Now and What’s Next?
2021 2022 2023
We are here.
493 of 615
8 StriveSanMateo.org
Upcoming Community Engagement
» Citywide newsletter mailed out this week (July 18)
» Goals, Policies, and Actions, and Environmental Justice • Community Outreach Events:
 Virtual community workshop: September 8th at 6:30pm
 In-person Spanish-language workshop/Taller en español en persona: Sept 10th at 10am  In-person Open House: September 17th at 10am
 Online survey at StriveSanMateo.com
• General Plan Subcommittee meetings: August 11th, 18th and 30th • Planning Commission meetings: September 13th and 27th • City Council direction: October
» Meeting details and information on www.StriveSanMateo.org 494 of 615
9 StriveSanMateo.org
» Fall 2022 – Goals, Policies and Actions
• Two City Council meetings
» Spring 2023 – Measure Y Discussion
• City Council study session
» Summer 2023 – Draft General Plan
• Three City Council meetings
» Late 2023 – Adoption Hearings
• Two City Council meetings
Upcoming Council Meetings on General Plan
495 of 615
Draft Alternatives
496 of 615
11 StriveSanMateo.org
General Plan
Land Use Map
Map and designations determine:
» What can be built
» Where
» At what intensity or density
497 of 615
12 StriveSanMateo.org
Draft Land Use Alternatives
498 of 615
13 StriveSanMateo.org
Draft Land Use Alternatives
Existing
(2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Homes 39,200 +11,810 +16,070 +21,080
Population 104,500 +29,500 +40,260 +53,500
Jobs 52,800 +15,430 +15,430 +14,990
499 of 615
Council Preferred Scenario
500 of 615
15 StriveSanMateo.org
Council Preferred Land Use Scenario
» Preferred land use scenario is a
combination of Land Use Alternatives A,
B, and C, with an emphasis on B and C
» Council motions with direction on each
study area (12 total)
501 of 615
16 StriveSanMateo.org
Study Area Alt A Alt B Alt C Notes
1 – ECR North
X • Change the Commercial Neighborhood at East Poplar Ave to Mixed-Use Medium • Change the Residential Medium at El Cerrito Avenue to Mixed-Use Medium 1 – ECR Central X • Change the Office High at Borel Avenue to Mixed-Use High 1 – ECR South X • Change the Residential Low along 37th Avenue to Mixed-Use Low 2 – Bel Mateo/ Mollie Stone X • Planning Commission recommendation 3 – Rail Corridor
X Planning Commission recommendation, with these additions:
• Change triangle at 17th Avenue from Residential Medium to Mixed-Use Medium • Include the Hillsdale Garden Apartments at 36th Avenue and Edison Street within the Study Area boundary and designate it as Mixed-Use Medium • Change the Commercial Regional and Residential Medium designations at the Ah Sam Floral site to Mixed-Use High
• Change the PetSmart site from Mixed-Use Low to Mixed-Use Medium 4 – Downtown X • Change the Residential High along B Street between 5th and 9th Avenues to Mixed- Use High
5 – Peninsula Ave X • Planning Commission recommendation, including designating the 850 Woodside Way property owner request as Mixed-Use Low.
6 – Campus Dr X • No changes to Alternative C.
7 – Shoreview X • Change Chavez Market site from Mixed-Use Low to Mixed-Use Medium 8 – 101/92 Interchange X • Change PS Business Park from Residential Low to Mixed-Use High (with a goal to transition from high to medium on the west side of site) 9 – Hillsdale/Norfolk X • No changes to Alternative C
10 – Bridgepointe *All three alternatives the same*
• Ensure open space is incorporated as part of potential redevelopment 502 of 615
17 StriveSanMateo.org
Land Use Alternatives and Preferred Scenario
Existing
(2019)
Alternative A
(Net New)
Alternative B
(Net New)
Alternative C
(Net New)
Preferred
Scenario
(Net New)
Homes 39,200 +11,810 +16,070 +21,080 +21,960
Population 104,500 +29,500 +40,260 +53,500 +55,790
Jobs 52,800 +15,430 +15,430 +14,990 +15,255
503 of 615
18 StriveSanMateo.org
Notes on Preferred Land Use Scenario
» Study Area 8: Split land use designation on the PS Business Park site to better align with Council direction
» Study Area 8: Parkside Plaza maintains Mixed-Use Low
designation from Alternative A per Council motion
504 of 615
19 StriveSanMateo.org
Proposed Land Use Heights and Densities
Land Use
Intensity
Place Types Menu Proposed GP Land Use Map
Height Range Density Range Height Range Density Range
Low 1-3 stories 9-39 units/acre 1-3 stories 9-35 units/acre Low/Medium n/a n/a 2-5 stories 36-50 units/acre
Medium 4-7 stories 40-99 units/acre 4-6 stories 40-99 units/acre High 8+ stories 100-200 units/acre 6-10 stories 100-200 units/acre 505 of 615
20 StriveSanMateo.org
Height Range Recommendations
» Started with the Place Types Menu
• Tool to facilitate discussion during the
Alternatives Evaluation – a menu of land use
typologies that could be considered for
development in the City
» Presented a range of possible
densities, heights and scales
» Transitioning Place Types to Land Use
Designations
• Defining parameters for height and density
506 of 615
21 StriveSanMateo.org
Height Range Recommendations
» Low/Medium range: 2-5 stories
• New transitional category to avoid any density reductions » Medium range: 4-6 stories
• Adjusted to align with community input while still ensuring density range is feasible and achievable
» High range: 7-10 stories
• No max identified in Alternatives Evaluation
• 2022 Community Survey asked about buildings up to 12 stories » Starting point for height discussion
• Balancing input from all facets of the community
• Further discussion during Goals, Policies and Actions Phase 507 of 615
22 StriveSanMateo.org
Relationship to Measure Y
» Measure Y includes a height limit of up to 55 feet and a density limit up to 50 dwelling units per acre
» Any components within the updated General Plan that
are inconsistent with Measure Y will require voter approval before they could take effect
» Preferred land use scenario includes heights and densities that exceed Measure Y
» Future City Council study session to receive direction on approach to GPU and Measure Y
508 of 615
23 StriveSanMateo.org
1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd Land Use Request
» 4.4-acre site, outside study areas
• Southwest of Study Area 6
» Includes 84 apartment units in
two, four-story buildings
» Request to change site from Low
Density Multi-Family (9 to 17
du/ac) to Residential Medium (40
to 99 du/ac)
509 of 615
24 StriveSanMateo.org
510 of 615
25 StriveSanMateo.org
City Council Direction
» Confirm the Preferred Land Use Scenario reflects Council direction » Direction on the General Plan land use heights and densities • Draft land use map and land use designations will form the basis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) analysis.
• Both the land use map and the land use categories will not be finalized until the City Council approves the final General Plan Update
» Confirm land use designation for 1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd 511 of 615
Next Steps
512 of 615
27 StriveSanMateo.org
Public Input on Goals, Policies, and Actions
» Draft Goals, Polices and Actions to be published on July 21 » Online survey live through mid-September
» General Plan Subcommittee meetings:

August 11, August 18, August 30
» Virtual community workshop: September 8
» In-person Spanish-language workshop/
Taller en español en persona: September 10
» In-person Open House: September 17
» Online survey and meeting details at www.StriveSanMateo.org 513 of 615
Clarifying Questions?
514 of 615
Public Comment
515 of 615
City Council Discussion
516 of 615
31 StriveSanMateo.org
City Council Direction
» Confirm the Preferred Land Use Scenario reflects Council direction » Direction on the General Plan land use heights and densities • Draft land use map and land use designations will form the basis of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) analysis.
• Both the land use map and the land use categories will not be finalized until the City Council approves the final General Plan Update
» Confirm land use designation for 1501-1555 W. Hillsdale Blvd 517 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
4 3

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 21 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 22-6387 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Ordinance Introduction – “Minimum Wage” Amendments
RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce an Ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 5.92 “Minimum Wage” to add a Consumer Price Index percentage cap, a catch-up provision, and round the minimum wage to the nearest five cents.

BACKGROUND:

In effort to help close some of the income disparity within our community, in August 2016, the City Council adopted an ordinance to incrementally increase its local minimum wage from $10.00 per hour to $15.00 per hour by 2019. Every year after 2019, the local minimum wage has increased based on the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI). As of January 1, 2022, all employers within San Mateo must pay each employee who performs at least two hours of work per week, a minimum wage of $16.20 per hour.

Staff conducts a minimum wage informational update to City Council every few years and at the last informational meeting held on the June 20th City Council meeting, City Council directed staff to bring forward the following policy amendments to the minimum wage ordinance:
Set a CPI percentage cap of 3.5%.
Include a CPI catch-up provision to allow wages to realign with inflation in later years. Round the wage to the nearest five cents.

The CPI percentage cap of 3.5% per year helps strike a balance between increasing minimum wage but preventing small businesses from having to weather large increases in any given year. This year, the CPI is anticipated to be between 7% and 8% which would have resulted in a sizeable increase in the minimum wage for 2023.

The catch-up provision will ensure minimum wage is realigned with inflation overtime by applying any excess CPI percentage to subsequent years. The calculation will continue until the actual CPI and the cap-adjusted CPI are equivalent.

For example, if actual CPI were to be 7% in year 1, 2% in year 2, and 1.5% in year 3, the cap-adjusted CPI for the purpose of calculating the minimum wage would be 3.5% in year 1, 3.5% in year 2, and 3.5% in year 3. The following year the minimum wage would return to the actual CPI, provided it is below 3.5%.

Lastly, the City will follow the State of California and other neighboring jurisdictions’ policy to round the minimum wage once the CPI increase is applied. The City Council decided to round the minimum wage to the nearest five cents.

The ordinance requires two readings and will take effect and will be enforced at a minimum thirty (30) days after its adoption at the second reading. If approved, the second reading will take place at the City Council meeting on August 15, 518 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
4 3
2022, meaning the proposed ordinance would be effective by September 15, 2022. The existing ordinance requires staff to publish the new minimum wage for 2023 on October 1, 2023.

BUDGET IMPACT:

The proposed amendments to the minimum wage ordinance will not have any budget impact since the City hires above the minimum wage.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This ordinance introduction 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 - Proposed Ordinance
Att 2 – Proposed Ordinance with Tracked Changes

STAFF CONTACT
Denise Garcia, Management Analyst I
[email protected]
(650) 522-7003
519 of 615
6 8
6 3

CITY OF SAN MATEO

DRAFT ORDINANCE
Amend Section 5.92.020 of the Municipal Code to Add a Consumer Price Index Percentage Cap, a Catch-up Provision, and to Round the Minimum Wage to the Nearest Five Cents.

WHEREAS, Staff presented an informational update on the City’s local minimum wage to the City Council;
WHEREAS, Staff received direction from the City Council to amend the City’s ordinance to align with local jurisdictions’ ordinances;
WHEREAS, the policy direction was to include a Consumer Price Index (CPI) cap to steadily increase the minimum wage without negatively impacting small businesses from large increases in any given year. In addition to the CPI cap, the City Council directed staff to create a catch-up provision and to round the wage to the nearest five cents.

Now, therefore, the Council of the City of San Mateo ordains as follows:

Section 1. Section 5.92.020 of the San Mateo Municipal Code is amended as follows:

5.92.020 Minimum Wage.
(a) Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.
(1) For employers which are not non-profit corporations, the minimum wage paid shall be as follows:
(2) Beginning January 1, 2017, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $12.00. (3) Beginning January 1, 2018, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $13.50. (b) Beginning January 1, 2019, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $15.00. (1) For employers which are non-profit corporations, the minimum wage rate shall be as follows:
(2) Beginning January 1, 2017, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $10.50. (3) Beginning January 1, 2018, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $12.00. (4) Beginning January 1, 2019, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $13.50. (c) Beginning January 1, 2020, the minimum wage shall be equal to that of the employers which are not non-profit corporations, and shall be subject to the Consumer Price Index increase as described in subsection (d), with the amount of the Minimum Wage increase rounded to the nearest five cents ($.05). 520 of 615
6 8
6 3
(d) Beginning on January 1, 2020, and each January thereafter, the minimum wage shall increase by an amount equal to the prior year's increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Francisco-Oakland- San Jose as determined by the United States Department of Labor. The change shall be calculated by using the August to August change in the CPI to calculate the annual increase, up to 3.5%, as described in subsection (e). A decrease in the CPI shall not result in a decrease in the minimum wage. (e) Cost of living increases to the Minimum Wage based on the CPI shall not exceed 3.5% annually.

When the actual CPI exceeds the 3.5% cap, the percentage amount in excess of the cap shall be applied to the following year’s CPI increase, up to the 3.5% cap. Excess amounts shall be carried over from year to year until the actual CPI and the cap-adjusted CPI are equivalent. (f) An employee who is a learner, as defined by California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4- 2001, shall be paid no less than 85% of the applicable minimum wage for the first 160 hours of employment.

Thereafter, the employee shall be paid the applicable minimum wage rate. (g) An employer may not deduct an amount from wages due an employee on account of any tip or gratuity, or credit the amount or any part thereof, of a tip or gratuity, against, or as a part of, the wages due the employee from the employer.
(h) Environmental Determination. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this ordinance introduction 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).).
(i) Severability. In the event any section, clause or provision of this Ordinance shall be determined invalid or unconstitutional, such section, clause or provision shall be deemed severable and all other sections or portions hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
(j) 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.
(k) 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. 521 of 615
6 8
6 4
Chapter 5.92

MINIMUM WAGE

5.92.010 DEFINITIONS.

As used in this chapter, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
(a) "Calendar week" shall mean a period of seven consecutive days starting on Sunday. (b) "City" shall mean the City of San Mateo.
(c) "Employee" shall mean any person who:
(1) In a calendar week performs at least two hours of work within the geographic boundaries of the City for an employer; and
(2) Qualifies as an employee entitled to payment of a minimum wage from any employer under the California Minimum Wage Law, as provided under Section 1197 of the California Labor Code and wage orders published by the State of California Industrial Welfare Commission. Employees shall include learners, as defined by the California Industrial Welfare Commission.
(d) "Employer" shall mean any person (including a natural person, corporation, non-profit corporation, general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, limited liability company, business trust, estate, trust, association, joint venture, agency, instrumentality, or any other legal or commercial entity, whether domestic or foreign), who directly or indirectly (including through the services of a temporary services or staffing agency or similar entity) employs or exercises control over the wages, hours or working conditions of any employee. (e) "Non-profit corporation" shall mean a non-profit corporation, duly organized, validly existing, and in good standing under the laws of the jurisdiction of its incorporation and (if a foreign corporation) in good standing under the laws of the State of California, which corporation has established and maintains valid non-profit status under Section 501 subsection (c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (f) "Minimum wage" shall have the meaning set forth in Section 5.92.020 of this chapter.

5.92.020 MINIMUM WAGE.
(a) Employers shall pay employees no less than the minimum wage for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City.
(b) For employers which are not non-profit corporations, the minimum wage paid shall be as follows:
522 of 615
6 8
6 4
(1) Beginning January 1, 2017, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $12.00. (2) Beginning January 1, 2018, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $13.50. (3) Beginning January 1, 2019, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $15.00. (c) For employers which are non-profit corporations, the minimum wage rate shall be as follows:
(1) Beginning January 1, 2017, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $10.50. (2) Beginning January 1, 2018, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $12.00. (3) Beginning January 1, 2019, the minimum wage shall be an hourly rate of $13.50. (4) Beginning January 1, 2020, the minimum wage shall be equal to that of the employers which are not non-profit corporations, and shall be subject to the Consumer Price Index increase as described in subsection (d)., with the amount of the Minimum Wage increase rounded to the nearest five cents ($.05).
(d) Beginning on January 1, 2020, and each January thereafter, the minimum wage shall increase by an amount equal to the prior year's increase, if any, in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose as determined by the United States Department of Labor. The change shall be calculated by using the August to August change in the CPI to calculate the annual increase, if any up to 3.5%, as described in subsection (e). A decrease in the CPI shall not result in a decrease in the minimum wage.
(d)(e) Cost of living increases to the Minimum Wage based on the CPI shall not exceed 3.5% annually. When the actual CPI exceeds the 3.5% cap, the percentage amount in excess of the cap shall be applied to the following year’s CPI increase, up to the 3.5% cap. Excess amounts shall be carried over from year to year until the actual CPI and the cap-adjusted CPI are equivalent. (e)(f) An employee who is a learner, as defined by California Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001, shall be paid no less than 85% of the applicable minimum wage for the first 160 hours of employment. Thereafter, the employee shall be paid the applicable minimum wage rate. (f)(g) An employer may not deduct an amount from wages due an employee on account of any tip or gratuity, or credit the amount or any part thereof, of a tip or gratuity, against, or as a part of, the wages due the employee from the employer.

5.92.030 NOTICE AND POSTING.
(a) By October 1 of each year, the City shall publish and make available to employers a bulletin announcing the adjusted minimum wage rate, to take effect January 1 of the following year. In conjunction with this bulletin, the City shall, by November 1 of each year, publish and make available to 523 of 615
6 8
6 4
employers, in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, a notice suitable for posting by employers in the workplace informing employees of the current minimum wage rate and of their rights under this chapter.
(b) Each employer shall give written notification to each current employee, and to each new employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this chapter. The notification shall be in English and other languages as provided in any implementing regulations, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it will be seen by all employees. Every employer shall also provide each employee, at the time of hire, with the employer's name, address, and telephone number in writing.

Failure to post such notice shall constitute a violation of this Municipal Code. The City is authorized to prepare sample notices and employer use of such notices shall constitute compliance with this subsection.

5.92.040 IMPLEMENTATION.

The City may promulgate regulations for the implementation and enforcement of this chapter.

Any regulation promulgated by City shall have the force and effect of law and may be relied on by employers, employees and other parties to determine their rights and responsibilities under this chapter. Any regulations may establish procedures for ensuring fair, efficient and cost-effective implementation of this chapter, including supplementary procedures for informing employees of their rights under this chapter, for monitoring employer compliance with this chapter, and for providing administrative hearings or determining whether an employer has violated the requirements of this chapter.

5.92.050 ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Enforcement by the City. The City may take any enforcement action set forth in Title 1 of this Municipal Code to address violations of this chapter.
(b) Private Rights of Action. An employee claiming harm from a violation of this chapter may bring an action against the employer in court to enforce the provisions of this chapter and shall be entitled to all remedies available to correct any violation of this chapter, including, but not limited to, back pay, reinstatement, injunctive relief, or civil penalties as provided herein. An employee who is a prevailing party in an action to enforce this chapter is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees, witness fees, and costs.
(c) Remedies.
(1) The remedies for violation of this chapter include, but are not limited to:
(A) Reinstatement, the payment of back wages unlawfully withheld, and payment of an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50.00 to each employee whose rights under this chapter were violated for each day or portion thereof 524 of 615
6 8
6 4
that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this code or State law.
(B) Interest on all due and unpaid wages at the rate of interest specified in subsection (b) of Section 3289 of the California Civil Code, which shall accrue from the date that the wages were due and payable as provided in Part 1 (commencing with Section 200) of Division 2 of the California Labor Code, to the date the wages are paid in full.
(C) Reimbursement of the City's administrative costs of enforcement and reasonable attorney fees.
(D) The City may require the employer to pay an additional sum as a civil penalty in the amount of $50.00 to the City for each employee or person whose rights, under this chapter, were violated for each day or portion thereof that the violation occurred or continued, and fines imposed pursuant to other provisions of this code or State law, where there has been a previous violation of this chapter. (2) The remedies, penalties and procedures provided under this chapter are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of any other available remedies, penalties and procedures established by law which may be pursued to address violations of this chapter. Actions taken pursuant to this chapter shall not prejudice or adversely affect any other action, administrative or judicial, that may be brought to abate a violation or to seek compensation for damages suffered.
(d) Retaliation Barred.
(1) An employer shall not discharge, reduce the compensation or otherwise retaliate against any employee for making a complaint to the City, participating in any of the City's proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under this chapter. Within 120 days of an employer being notified of such activity, it shall be unlawful for the employer to discharge any employee who engaged in such activity unless the employer has clear and convincing evidence of just cause for such discharge. (2) No employer may fund increases in compensation required by this chapter, nor otherwise respond to the requirements of this chapter, by reducing the wage rate paid to any employee, nor by increasing charges to them for parking, meals, uniforms or other items, nor by reducing the citation or other non-wage benefits of any such employee, except to the extent such prohibition would be pre-empted by the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
525 of 615
6 8
6 4
(e) Retention of Records. Each employer shall maintain for at least three years for each employee, a record of his or her name, hours worked and pay rate. Each employer shall provide each employee a copy of the records relating to such employee upon the employee's reasonable request.

5.92.060 WAIVER THROUGH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING.

Except for employees in the property services industry (i.e., janitors, landscapers, groundskeepers, and security guards), the provisions of this chapter may be waived in whole or in part with respect to employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement if all of the following circumstances apply:
(a) Both parties to the collective bargaining agreement agree in writing to such waiver in whole or in part; and
(b) The collective bargaining agreement contains provisions which specifically allow waivers of municipal minimum wage rates in excess of the contractually required wage rates for any group or groups of covered employees; and
(c) The entire collective bargaining agreement, including the provisions referred to in subsection (b) above, was negotiated and entered into prior to the date or when such waiver would take effect.

5.92.070 NO PRE-EMPTION OF HIGHER STANDARDS.

The purpose of this chapter is to ensure minimum labor standards. This chapter does not pre- empt or prevent the establishment of superior employment standards (including higher wages) or the expansion of coverage by ordinance, resolution, contract, or any other action of the City. This chapter shall not be construed to limit a discharged employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful termination.

5.92.080 FEDERAL OR STATE FUNDING.

This chapter shall not be applied to the extent it will cause the loss of any Federal or State funding of City activities.
526 of 615
Minimum Wage:

Ordinance Introduction
Denise Garcia
Management Analyst, City Manager's Office
527 of 615
Amendments to the Ordinance
• Set a CPI percentage cap of 3.5%
• Include a CPI catch-up provision to allow wages to realign with inflation in later years
• Round the wage to the nearest nickel
528 of 615
Recommendation • Introduce an Ordinance to
amend Municipal Code Chapter

5.92 “Minimum Wage” to add a
Consumer Price Index
percentage cap, a catch-up
provision, and to round the
minimum wage to the nearest
nickel.
529 of 615
Thank You
Denise Garcia
Management Analyst/City Manager's Office
[email protected]
530 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
4 5

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 22 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-2021 File ID: 22-6393 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Bay Meadows Community Facilities District – Covenant and Special Tax Levy 2022-23 RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows), City of San Mateo, County of San Mateo, State of California except refunding bonds, approving the fiscal year 2022-23 Special Tax Levy, and approving and authorizing related actions and documents.

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 levy special taxes (CFD Special Taxes) and issue bonds to pay for infrastructure necessary for or incidental to the Bay Meadows Project and to levy CFD Special Taxes for public infrastructure maintenance expenses. The maximum authorized bond amount established for the CFD was $92 million.

The City Council levies special taxes in the CFD pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-1, which was adopted by the City Council on January 3, 2012, and which requires City Council approval of each fiscal year’s levy of CFD Special Taxes.

The City sold bonds in three separate series from 2012 through 2014 (Prior Bonds) in an aggregate initial principal amount of $86,275,000 and used the proceeds to finance public infrastructure in the CFD. As a result of the issuance of the Prior Bonds, there is $5,725,000 principal amount of “new money” bonds that may be issued for the CFD.

On June 30, 2022, the City issued its $72,345,000 City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2022 (2022 Refunding Bonds) to refund the Prior Bonds in order to generate debt service savings for the benefit of the property owners in the CFD.

The Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment for the CFD (RMA) provides that the City may not levy less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax on Developed Property (as those terms are defined in the RMA) unless the City Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional bonds for the CFD except refunding bonds. In other words, the City cannot pass to property owners in the CFD the debt service savings realized from the refunding transaction unless the City Council covenants not to issue any additional bonds for the CFD except refunding bonds.

In connection with the issuance of the 2022 Refunding Bonds, City staff worked with the Bay Meadows master developer, Wilson Meany, to confirm that all infrastructure improvements to be financed by the CFD have been made and that no additional CFD bonds will need to be issued in the future, except to refinance the outstanding bonds for savings.

Consequently, staff recommends that the Council adopt a resolution covenanting not to issue additional bonds for the CFD 531 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
4 5
except refunding bonds. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the CFD the economic benefit of the refunding of the Prior Bonds.

In addition, staff has prepared the proposed fiscal year 2022-23 levy of CFD Special Taxes and recommends that the Council approve the proposed levy. The proposed levy includes the amount required to pay debt service on the 2022 Refunding Bonds, to pay the costs of administering the CFD, and to pay for authorized maintenance services.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Adoption of the resolution will provide for the levy of CFD Special Taxes for fiscal year 2022-23 and allow the City to pass to property owners in the CFD the economic benefit of the refunding of the Prior Bonds. The total fiscal year 2022-23 Special Tax Levy for CFD No. 2008-1 is $4,848,413.38.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This special tax levy 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 – CFD No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows) FY 2022-23 Special Tax Requirement

STAFF CONTACT
Rich Lee, Director, Finance
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
532 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022)
A RESOLUTION (1) COVENANTING NOT TO ISSUE SPECIAL TAX BONDS EXCEPT REFUNDING BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2008-1 (BAY MEADOWS), CITY OF SAN MATEO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (2) APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES AND (3) APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING RELATED

ACTIONS AND DOCUMENTS
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 "CFD”), to authorize the levy of special taxes (the “CFD Special Taxes”) 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 CFD, 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 CFD at a special mailed-ballot election on August 11, 2008; and WHEREAS, the landowner qualified elector within the CFD approved the authorizations contained in the Formation Resolutions by a unanimous vote; and
WHEREAS, the City Council commenced proceedings to change the authorizations contained in in the Formation Resolutions (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 CFD at a special mailed-ballot election on November 21, 2011; and
WHEREAS, the landowner qualified elector within the CFD approved the Proposed Amendments contained in the Resolution of Consideration by a unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, the City Council levies the CFD Special Taxes pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-1 (the “Ordinance”), which was adopted by the City Council on January 3, 2012, which requires City Council approval of each fiscal year’s levy of CFD Special Taxes; and WHEREAS, the Formation Resolutions authorized the issuance of up to $120,000,000 in special tax bonds; and
533 of 615
6 8
2 2
WHEREAS, the 2011 Change Proceedings reduced this authorization to $92,000,000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act the City issued three series of bonds for the CFD (the “Prior Bonds”):
(i) $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
(ii) $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
(iii) $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 Prior Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $86,275,000, the remaining authorization for the issuance of special tax bonds for the CFD (not including refunding bonds as defined in the Act) is $5,725,000; and WHEREAS, for the purpose of refunding the Prior Bonds and achieving debt service savings, the City issued on June 30, 2022 its $72,345,000 City of San Mateo Community Facilities District No. 2008- 1 (Bay Meadows) Special Tax Refunding Bonds, Series 2022 (the “2022 Refunding Bonds”); and WHEREAS the Amended and Restated Rate and Method of Apportionment for the CFD (the “RMA”) provides that the City may not levy less than 100% of the Assigned Special Tax on Developed Property (as those terms are defined in the RMA) unless the City Council has covenanted that it will not issue any additional bonds for the CFD except refunding bonds; and WHEREAS, in connection with the issuance of the 2022 Refunding Bonds, City staff worked with the Bay Meadows master developer, Wilson Meany, to confirm that all infrastructure improvements to be financed by the CFD have been made and that no additional CFD bonds will need to be issued in the future, except to refinance the outstanding bonds for savings; and WHEREAS, consequently staff has recommended that the Council adopt a resolution covenanting not to issue additional bonds for the CFD except refunding bonds, which will allow the City to pass to property owners in the CFD the economic benefit of the refunding of the Prior Bonds; and WHEREAS, staff has prepared the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 levy of CFD Special Taxes and recommends that the Council approve the proposed levy; and WHEREAS, the CFD encompasses approximately 800 projected residential units and a significant amount of non-residential square footage in the Bay Meadows project area; and WHEREAS, approval of the special tax roll prior to the County of San Mateo’s July 31st deadline for inclusion of special taxes on consolidated property tax bills is required pursuant to Section 53340 of the Act; and
534 of 615
6 8
2 2
WHEREAS, the Ordinance authorizes the Public Works Director to determine the amount of the CFD Special Taxes in accordance with the RMA, prepare the annual roll, and present the roll of the CFD Special Taxes to the City Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, the Ordinance requires that the Public Works Director be authorized to send the CFD Special Taxes, the roll of the CFD Special Taxes, and all necessary and appropriate information to the County of San Mateo Auditor to be included in the County secured property tax rolls for collection each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, this City Council action is not subject to CEQA review 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)).

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA HEREBY FINDS AND RESOLVES that:

1. The City Council finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council hereby covenants not to issue additional bonds for the CFD except refunding bonds (as defined in the Act).

3. The City Council hereby approves the proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 CFD Special Taxes levy, as presented by staff to Council, and authorizes the Public Works Director to effect the CFD Special Taxes levy in accordance with the Act and the Ordinance.

4. The Controller is hereby authorized to place up to the assessment, charge, or tax on the property tax roll with the following per unit, per square foot, or per acre amounts identified in the table below:

Furthermore, the lowest per parcel assessment is $0.00, and the expected higher per parcel amount will not exceed $500,000. The total Fiscal Year 2022-23 CFD Special Taxes Levy is $4,848,413.38. 535 of 615
6 8
2 2

5. 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 to accomplish the purposes of this Resolution. All such actions previously taken by City officers and staff are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved.

6. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption.

RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022) adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on _____, 2022, by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
536 of 615
DTA Page 1
Remaining Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Sources of Funds: $675,346.77 Debt Service on 2022 Bonds $635,346.77
Prefunded Administrative Expenses $40,000.00
Remaining Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Obligations: ($675,346.77) Interest Due September 1, 2022 ($635,346.77)
Principal Due September 1, 2022 $0.00
Anticipated Administrative Expenses ($40,000.00)
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Surplus / (Draw on Reserve Fund) $0.00 Series 2022 Refunding Bonds ($4,744,587.50)
Interest Due March 1, 2023 ($1,874,793.75)
Interest Due September 1, 2023 ($1,874,793.75)
Principal Due September 1, 2023 ($995,000.00)
Administrative Expense Obligations ($40,000.00)
Direct Levy for Payment of Authorized Services ($37,301.23) Levy for Anticipated Special Tax Delinquencies (0.5%) ($23,500.00) Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Special Tax Requirement $4,845,388.73 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Actual Levy $4,848,413.38
City of San Mateo
Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows)
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Special Tax Requirement
537 of 615
DTA Page 2
2012 2023
Land FY 2011-12 FY 2022-23
Use Residential Floor Maximum Maximum
Class Description Area (square feet) Location Special Tax Special Tax [1] $2
1 Greater than 2,300 NA $5,405.00 $6,720.44
2 2,151 to 2,300 NA $5,288.00 $6,574.96
3 2,001 to 2,150 NA $4,989.00 $6,203.19
4 Residential Property 1,851 to 2,000 NA $4,973.00 $6,183.30 5 Residential Property 1,701 to 1,850 NA $4,917.00 $6,113.67 6 1,551 to 1,700 NA $4,557.00 $5,666.06
7 1,401 to 1,550 NA $4,069.00 $5,059.29
8 Residential Property 1,251 to 1,400 NA $3,701.00 $4,601.73 9 Residential Property 1,101 to 1,250 NA $3,482.00 $4,329.43 10 951 to 1,100 NA $3,158.00 $3,926.58
11 801 to 950 NA $2,572.00 $3,197.96
12 Less than 801 NA $2,332.00 $2,899.55
13 Greater than 1,400 NA $1,344.00 $1,671.10
14 801-1,400 NA $1,344.00 $1,671.10
15 Less Than 801 NA $1,139.00 $1,416.20
16 NA NA $60,000.00 $74,602.46
17 NA NA $1.77 $2.200
18 NA NA $0.52 $0.650
NA NA NA $132,693.00 $164,987.07
2010
Land Units / Maximum * Step 1 * * Step 2 * * Step 2 * FY 2022-23 Percent Use Acreage as FY 2022-23 Special Special Special Special Tax Levy of Class
of
5/1/2021 Special Taxes Tax Levy
Tax
Levy Tax Levy Per Unit/Acre Maximum$2
1 75 $504,033.00 $407,152.97 NA $5,428.71 80.78%
2 38 $249,848.48 $201,825.18 NA $5,311.19 80.78%
3 24 $148,876.56 $120,261.04 NA $5,010.88 80.78%
4 45 $278,248.50 $224,766.44 NA $4,994.81 80.78%
5 61 $372,933.87 $301,252.37 NA $4,938.56 80.78%
6 58 $328,631.48 $265,465.33 NA $4,576.99 80.78%
7 101 $510,988.29 $412,771.39 NA $4,086.85 80.78%
8 121 $556,809.33 $449,785.18 NA $3,717.23 80.78%
9 16 $69,270.88 $55,956.35 NA $3,497.27 80.78%
10 31 $121,723.98 $98,327.45 NA $3,171.85 80.78%
11 21 $67,157.16 $54,248.90 NA $2,583.28 80.78%
12 5 $14,497.75 $11,711.14 NA $2,342.23 80.78%
13 24 $40,106.40 $32,397.56 NA $1,349.90 80.78%
14 25 $41,777.50 $33,747.46 NA $1,349.90 80.78%
15 2 $2,832.40 $2,287.99 NA $1,143.99 80.78%
16 5.306 $395,840.65 $319,756.24 NA $60,263.14 80.78%
17 1,039,952 $2,287,894.40 $1,848,138.93 NA $1.78 80.91% 18 10,545 $6,854.25 $5,536.80 NA $0.53 81.54%
Undev 4.831 $797,078.11 NA $0.00 $0.00 NA
TOTAL NA $6,795,402.99 $4,845,388.73 $0.00 NA NA
Residential Property
City of San Mateo
Community Facilities District No. 2008-1 (Bay Meadows)
Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Maximum Special Tax Rates
Residential Property
Residential Property
[1] The Maximum Special Tax is subject to 2% escalation through fiscal year 2060-61.

Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Special Tax Levy
Residential Property
Below Market-Rate Units
Undeveloped Property
Below Market-Rate Units
Apartment Property [2]
Non-Residential Property - Office Floor Area
Non-Residential Property - Retail Floor Area
[2] Pursuant to the Rate and Method, any Assessor’s Parcels or portions of Assessor’s Parcels that would ordinarily be classified as Apartment Property that are created after the first 5.306 Acres of Apartment Property have already been established will be classified as Residential Property with Condominium Units or BMR Units located on them, and each dwelling unit located on such Residential Property will be subject to the same Assigned Special Taxes and Backup Special Tax rates as are assigned to Condominium Units or BMR Units, as applicable.

Residential Property
Residential Property
Residential Property
Residential Property
Below Market-Rate Units
538 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: uly 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From:

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:06 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: uly 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This
will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Ada Law
Bay Meadows resident
539 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Aditya Kini
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,
I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Aditya Ramanand Kini

540 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 9:40 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Alex Nueva < >
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 9:23 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Alejandro De los Santos III
541 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Alexandre P < >
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 7:58 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Alexandre Parandian
542 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Dan Jiang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best,
Dan Jiang
543 of 615
544 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Doris And Simon
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:55 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Simon Law

Sent by mobile service

545 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Eran Zawadzki
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 7:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Eran Zawadzki

546 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Eric Park
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 3:36 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for the Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year, which will help families with their tightening financial situations.

Many thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this resolution.

Sincerely,
Eric and Nancy Park

547 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: No special tax bonds for bay meadows

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Hui Hui Huang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: No special tax bonds for bay meadows

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Hui Hui Huang
548 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Bay Meadows Tax Reduction

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jean Holbrook
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 6:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bay Meadows Tax Reduction

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Jean Holbrook
Bay Meadows

549 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Special Tax Bond Bay Meadows

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jennifer McAdam
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Tax Bond Bay Meadows

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Jennifer McAdam

550 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jison Hong
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

To the City Council:

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Jison Hong and Jason Paik
Residents of Bay Meadows

551 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Special Neighborhood Tax Assessment

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: John Leung
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Neighborhood Tax Assessment

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
John Leung

552 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Kelly Moran
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:11 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Rich Lee <[email protected]>
Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

My thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Kelly Moran

553 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Kevin Ngo
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 5:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,
This may seem like a copy of similar emails, but understand that I sincerely write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year. This is the only fair resolution of the economic benefit the city has observed.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Kevin Ngo
554 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Li Lau
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:19 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Li Lau
555 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Li Ziteng
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This is Ziteng Li, and I am a resident at Bay Meadows San Mateo.

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds.This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Ziteng
556 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Lily Chen
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 10:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Lily Chen
Landowndowne HOA Member

----------------------------------------
The information in this email, including any attachments, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank You 557 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Manoj B
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Manoj B
Homeowner-
558 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Please vote "yes" on item 22

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Eliot
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:37 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote "yes" on item 22

Dear City Council,

At tonight’s meeting, please vote in favor of item 22. This will provide substantial savings to Bay Meadows neighborhood
residents on our property taxes. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mark Eliot
559 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 Meeting Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Nicole Weigel <
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:24 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 Meeting Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Respectfully,

Nicole Weigel
Healthcare worker, single parent, and resident of Bay Meadows/San Mateo

560 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Raewadee P
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Rae Parnmukh

561 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Rezi Zawadzki
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mite in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Rosita Zawadzki
562 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Rob Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This
will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Rob Huffman & Emily Smith

563 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Saibal Bhattacharya
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District.

This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Saibal Bhattacharya
564 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Raewadee P
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Rae Parnmukh

565 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:38 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 Meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Sundeep Bhat
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:35 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 Meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year. I very much appreciate your hearing our voices and hope you will take action to support this resolution.

Best regards,

Sundeep Bhat

--
Sundeep R. Bhat, MD

566 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Timothy Huang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Timothy Huang
--

______________________

567 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Bay Meadows Community Property Tax

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Wendy Malabuyo
July 15, 2022 12:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bay Meadows Community Property Tax

To: [email protected]

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Wendy & Paolo Malabuyo

568 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Yige Liu
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:38 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This is Yige Liu, and I am a resident at Bay Meadows San Mateo.

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds.This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Yige
569 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: uly 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From:

Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 9:06 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: uly 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This
will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Ada Law
Bay Meadows resident
570 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Aditya Kini
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:16 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Aditya Ramanand Kini

571 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 9:40 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Alex Nueva < >
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 9:23 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Alejandro De los Santos III
572 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Alexandre P < >
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 7:58 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Alexandre Parandian
573 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Dan Jiang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:35 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds. This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best,
Dan Jiang
574 of 615
575 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Doris And Simon
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:55 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Simon Law

Sent by mobile service

576 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Eran Zawadzki
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 7:56 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Eran Zawadzki

577 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:46 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Eric Park
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 3:36 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Many thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this resolution.

Sincerely,
Eric and Nancy Park

578 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: No special tax bonds for bay meadows

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Hui Hui Huang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:57 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: No special tax bonds for bay meadows

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Hui Hui Huang
579 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Bay Meadows Tax Reduction

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jean Holbrook
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 6:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bay Meadows Tax Reduction

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Jean Holbrook
Bay Meadows

580 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:39 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Special Tax Bond Bay Meadows

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jennifer McAdam
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Tax Bond Bay Meadows

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Jennifer McAdam

581 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Jison Hong
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:22 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

To the City Council:

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Jison Hong and Jason Paik
Residents of Bay Meadows

582 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Special Neighborhood Tax Assessment

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: John Leung
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:33 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Special Neighborhood Tax Assessment

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
John Leung

583 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

My thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Kelly Moran

584 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:48 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Kevin Ngo
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 5:29 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Kevin Ngo
585 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Li Lau
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:19 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Li Lau
586 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:45 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Li Ziteng
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:43 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This is Ziteng Li, and I am a resident at Bay Meadows San Mateo.

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds.This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Ziteng
587 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Lily Chen
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 10:46 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Lily Chen
Landowndowne HOA Member

----------------------------------------
The information in this email, including any attachments, may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this email and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. Thank You 588 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Manoj B
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:26 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Manoj B
Homeowner-
589 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:38 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Please vote "yes" on item 22

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Eliot
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2022 9:37 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote "yes" on item 22

Dear City Council,

At tonight’s meeting, please vote in favor of item 22. This will provide substantial savings to Bay Meadows neighborhood
residents on our property taxes. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mark Eliot
590 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:57 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 Meeting Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Nicole Weigel <
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:24 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 Meeting Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Respectfully,

Nicole Weigel
Healthcare worker, single parent, and resident of Bay Meadows/San Mateo

591 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Raewadee P
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Rae Parnmukh

592 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Rezi Zawadzki
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 1:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Rosita Zawadzki
593 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:13 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Rob Huffman
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 3:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This
will save residents of the city’s most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Rob Huffman & Emily Smith

594 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Saibal Bhattacharya
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:49 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Saibal Bhattacharya
595 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Raewadee P
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 10:02 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Rae Parnmukh

596 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:38 AM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 Meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Sundeep Bhat
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2022 11:35 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 Meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Best regards,

Sundeep Bhat

--
Sundeep R. Bhat, MD

597 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Timothy Huang
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:52 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Timothy Huang
--

______________________

598 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 12:56 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Bay Meadows Community Property Tax

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Wendy Malabuyo
July 15, 2022 12:36 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Bay Meadows Community Property Tax

To: [email protected]

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,

Wendy & Paolo Malabuyo

599 of 615
1 Erin Fellers
From: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Rich Lee; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Patrice M. Olds, MMC
City Clerk | City of San Mateo
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7042 | [email protected]

From: Yige Liu
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2022 4:38 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: July 18 meeting - Item #22 - Bay Meadows Community Facilities District

Dear Mayor Bonilla and City Council,

This is Yige Liu, and I am a resident at Bay Meadows San Mateo.

I write in support of the resolution covenanting not to issue special tax bonds for Bay Meadows Community Facilities District. This will allow the City to pass to property owners in the district the significant economic benefit of the refunding of the prior bonds.This will save residents of the city's most heavily taxed neighborhood many hundreds of dollars per home per year.

Thanks to the City staff for their timely work on this to provide the much-needed tax reduction this year.

Best regards,
Yige
600 of 615
Bay Meadows CFD
Special Tax Levy
July 18, 2022
601 of 615

BACKGROUND

REFUNDI NG
BONDS

SP ECIAL TAX
LEVY

RECOMMENDATION
Q &A
May 2022
• Authorization to issue
refunding bonds
June
2022
• Closed refunding bonds
July 2022
• Public Works confirmed all
required public improvements
have been completed
• Covenant to not issue future
special tax bonds
• Approve 2022-23 special tax
levy
602 of 615

BACKGROUND

REFUNDING
BONDS

SP ECIAL TAX
LEVY

RECOMMENDATION
Q &A
$72.3M
Refunding
Bonds
Principal
$6.7MNPV savings

8.2% NPV %
savings
603 of 615

BACKGROUND

REFUNDI NG
BONDS

SP ECIAL TAX
LEVY

RECOMMENDATION
Q &A
Land
Class
Description Units or
acres
Square
Feet
2022-23
Maximum
Rate
2022-23
Actual
Rate
Diff
1 Residential 75 >2,300 $6,720 $5,429 $1,291
7 Residential 101 1,401 to
1,550
$5,059 $4,049 $1,010
8 Residential 121 1,101 to
1,250
$4,329 $3,717 $612
13 &
14 Below Market
Rate Units
49 >1,400;
801 to
1,400
$1,671 $1,350 $321
16 Apartment 5.306 N/A $74,602.46 $60,263.14 $14,339
17 Non-
Residential –
Office Floor
1,039,952 N/A $2.20 $1.78 $0.42
604 of 615

BACKGROUND

REFUNDI NG
BONDS

SP ECIAL TAX
LEVY

RECOMMENDATION
Q &A
Adopt a resolution covenanting not to issue special
tax bonds for Community Facilities District No.
2008-1 (Bay Meadows), City of San Mateo, County
of San Mateo, State of California except refunding
bonds, approving the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Special
Tax levy, and approving and authorizing related
actions and documents.
605 of 615

O VERVIEW

GENERAL FUND

OT HER FUNDS

P O SITIO N
BUDGET
Q &A
Rich Lee
Finance Director
[email protected]
650-522-7102
606 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
7 0

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 23 Section Name: NEW BUSINESS Account Number: 10-2011 File ID: 22-6438 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Finance Department
MEETING DATE: July 18, 2022
SUBJECT:

Public Employee Pension Reform Act 180 Day Waiting Period Waiver Request – Finance Department RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a Resolution finding the nature of employment for retired annuitant Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary is necessary to fill a critically needed position before 180 days have passed pursuant to California Government Code section 7522.56.

BACKGROUND:

Assembly Bill 340, the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2013 also known as PEPRA, was signed into law on September 12, 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013. PEPRA created Government Code Section 7522.56, which requires public agency retirees to wait 180 days after retirement before returning to work for a public agency. This waiting period may be waived if the City Council determines the nature of employment is necessary to fill a critically needed position before 180 days have passed. Therefore, this request is before Council for approval at this time.

Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary retired as Finance Manager with the City of Livermore on April 22, 2022, capping off a long and dedicated career in municipal finance. Dr. Chaudhary possesses an inactive certified public accountant (CPA) license. Her experience includes many years of leading the year-end audit, preparation of the annual comprehensive financial report, and all other full-cycle accounting tasks and responsibilities.

Implementation of the enterprise resource planning (ERP) system began in March 2022. In order to ensure the successful and timely implementation of the ERP, the Finance Department has backfilled with additional staffing resources from a variety of sources, including other retired annuitants, a staffing firm, and a certified public accounting firm. The variety of staffing resources reflects the extremely high demand for and resultant limited availability of experienced and qualified municipal finance professionals in the current labor market.

The services needed from Dr. Chaudhary include monthly bank reconciliation and various tasks related to the year-end close of fiscal year 2021-22. It is anticipated that these tasks will be completed by November 30, 2022, and Dr. Chaudhary would work no more than 20 hours per week. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends a finding that the nature of Dr.

Chaudhary’s appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position before 180 days have passed.

BUDGET IMPACT:

Similar to the other staff backfill services, the funding source for the cost of Dr. Chaudhary’s services will be from staff vacancy savings, so no additional budget appropriations are needed. 607 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 5
7 0
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This City Council 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.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 - Proposed Resolution

STAFF CONTACT
Rich Lee, Director, Finance
[email protected]
(650) 522-7102
608 of 615

CITY OF SAN MATEO
RESOLUTION NO. ____ 2022
WAIVING THE 180 DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR A RETIRED ANNUITANT TO FILL FOR A CRITICALLY NEEDED

POSITION WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted AB 340 in order to implement comprehensive pension reform through the enactment of the California Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA); and WHEREAS, PEPRA applies to all public employers that participate in the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) on or after January 1, 2013; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 7522.56, as enacted in PEPRA, requires newly retired persons to wait for at least 180 days before returning to work for an employer in the same retirement system in which they receive a retirement allowance; and
WHEREAS, an exception to the 180 day waiting period may be made if the City Council certifies that the nature of the employment and the appointment is necessary to fill a critically needed position and the 180 days has not yet passed; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary (Dr. Chaudhary) retired after a long and dedicated career in municipal finance from the City of Livermore, effective April 22, 2022; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Mateo, the City of Livermore, and Bhavna Chaudhary certify that Bhavna Chaudhary has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement- related incentive; and
WHEREAS, Dr. Chaudhary possesses an inactive certified public accountant (CPA) license and has many years of experience in leading full-cycle accounting tasks for municipal governments; and WHEREAS, the Finance Department began implementation of the new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in March 2022, and it is essential for the successful and timely implementation of the ERP system for Dr. Chaudhary to provide her accounting expertise to support the year-end audit process so that City staff can focus on the ERP implementation; and
WHEREAS, the maximum hourly rate for the Accounting Manager per diem position is $72.36 per hour, and the minimum hourly rate is $60.68; and
WHEREAS the hourly rate paid to Bhavna Chaudhary will be $72.36; and WHEREAS, Bhavna Chaudhary has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit or other form of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY RESOLVES that:
609 of 615
6 8
9 6

1. This City Council action is not 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).)

2. The City Council certifies that the nature of Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary’s employment is necessary to provide critically needed duties, and the 180 day waiting period, pursuant to Government Code section 7522.56 has not yet passed.

3. Bhavna Chaudhary shall be employed as a per diem Accounting Manager at $72.36 per hour, the current hourly base rate for that position, and no other compensation or benefits shall be provided.

4. Bhavna Chaudhary shall work on a temporary basis, supporting the Finance Department as a part of its year-end closing for fiscal year 2021-22, and shall not work more than 960 hours.

5. Bhavna Chaudhary is authorized to be hired as a retired annuitant pursuant to this Resolution from July 19, 2022 through November 30, 2022.

6. Bhavna Chaudhary has certified in writing that she did not, during the 12-month period preceding the reemployment date of July 19, 2022, receive unemployment insurance arising from prior employment with the City of Livermore.

7. This Resolution was adopted at a properly noticed public meeting and was not placed on the consent calendar, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56(f)(1).

8. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. 610 of 615
Waive 180-Wait Period for
Retired Annuitant
July 18, 2022
611 of 615

BACKGROUND

RETIRED

ANNUITANT

RECOMMENDATION
Q&A
AB 340
(PEPRA)
180-day
wait period
Exception
for critical
position
612 of 615

BACKGROUND

RETIRED

ANNUITANT

RECOMMENDATON
Q&A
Q&A
Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary
Municipal Finance Experience
• 12+ years experience
CPA Firm
• 3 years
613 of 615

BACKGROUND

RETIRED

ANNUITANT

RECOMMENDATION
Q&A
Adopt a Resolution to waive the Public Employee
Pension Reform Act 180-day waiting period to hire
retired annuitant Dr. Bhavna Chaudhary for a
critically needed position.
614 of 615

BACKGROUND

RETIRED

ANNUITANT

RECOMMENDATION
Q&A
Rich Lee
Finance Director
[email protected]
650-455-1308
615 of 615

San Mateo City CouncilJuly 18, 2022

San Mateo City Council
July 18, 2022