The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2015.09.08Tuesday, September 8, 2015 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers CLOSED SESSION - 5:45 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda b. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time. C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Labor Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code 54957.6(a) City Negotiators: Leslie Loomis, Scott Hunter, Lisa Goldman Carol Augustine Glenn Berkheimer (IEDA). Employee Organization: AFSCME Locals 829 2190 STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Burlingame School District Request for Water Main Cost Sharing Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 913/2015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 8, 2015 a. Introduction of San Mateo Union High School District Superintendent Kevin Skelly b. Presentation announcing the Jeffery T. Griffith Scholarship Fund G. Presentation of a Proclamation to the Studio Shop Recognizing 100 Years in the Community d. Presentation of a Proclamation for Bill Tod 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approval of City Council Meetinq Minutes of August 17, 2015 Attachments: 8-17-15min.d oc b. Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Impending Vacancies on the Traffic. Safety and Parking Commission Attachments: Staff Report C. Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Applications for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for Major Renovations to an Existing Single -Family Dwelling, including First- and Second -Floor Additions. at 2753 Burlinqview Drive Attachments: Staff Report Appeal Letter d. Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Section 18.07.130 to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Creating an Expedited Procedure for Permitting Small Rooftop Residential Solar Systems Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 91312015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 8, 2015 e. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project by Robert A Bothman, Inc.. City Project No. 83150 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment Copy of the Construction Contract Award Staff Report dated February 19 2013 f. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a California Office of Traffic Safety Grant and Amending the Police Department's Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Attachments: Staff Report California Office of Traffic Safety Grant #PT1697 Resolution 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20. 010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the CitV Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance b. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amendinq Chapter 15.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Additional Penalties and Enforcement Mechanisms for Violation of Water Shortage Emergency Restrictions Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Discussion of Response to Broadway/US 101 Closure Attachments: Staff Report SMC Alert Summary b. City Council Direction Regarding the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission's Recommendation Relative to Caltrans' Proposed EI Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Proiect Attachments: Staff Report August 13, 2015 TSPC Staff Report with Attachments 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. City otBurlingame Page 3 Printed on 9/3/2015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 8, 2015 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, September 21, 2015 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 9/3/2015 Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 �� ciTr o BURLINGAME �oqa BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of August 17, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Meaghan Hassel -Shearer was sworn in as the new City Clerk by former City Clerk Mary Ellen Kearney. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Mary Ellen Kearney. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz, Root MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. Mayor Nagel advised that the Council had a study session prior to the meeting to discuss the proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Nagel reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Ross Bruce thanked the City for its support of the bike rack program. BCE president Angela Dubovsky invited the community to the 4t' annual Burlingame Spirit Run on September 7, 2015. Burlingame Lions members Viviana Bolivar-Cuspo and Nirmala Bandrapalli invited the community to participate in the Lion's weekly lunches on Monday at noon. Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 Burlingame residents Isabel Christopher, Cynthia Cornell and Mauricia Savella spoke about the high cost of rental units in Burlingame and just cause eviction protection. Burlingame resident Mary Hunt spoke about how the Burlingame Woman's Club planted the Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real and asked for the Council's help in protecting those trees. Burlingame resident and former Mayor Cathy Baylock thanked Mary Ellen Kearney for her years of service and her title of "Highest Vote Getter." 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Nagel asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Nagel removed item 8a and Vice Mayor Keighran removed 8b, 8c, and 8e. Councilmember Brownrigg removed 8j, Councilmember Ortiz removed 8h and Councilmember Root removed 8f. Councilmember Root made a motion to adopt items 8d, g, i, k, l and m of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 6.2015 CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of July 6, 2015. Mayor Nagel asked that the minutes be amended to reflect that due to the late hour of the July 6, 2015 meeting that the Council postponed reporting on their committee and activities until the next meeting. Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt the amended minutes; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CM Goldman requested Council call for applications for the two vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission by October 16, 2015. Vice Mayor Keighran asked that in the future, staff include the names of the Commissioners whose terms were ending on the Staff Report. Mayor Nagel requested that the names of Commissioners be listed on the website. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt item 8b; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. c. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL FOUR IMPENDING VACANCIES ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION CM Goldman requested Council call for applications for the four vacancies on the Beautification Commission by October 16, 2015. 2 Burlingame City Council - August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt item 8c; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REPEALING INTERIM ORDINANCE 1911 AND AMENDING CHAPTER 6.39 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS CA Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance 1918 repealing Interim Ordinance 1911 and amending Chapter 6.39 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regulating massage establishments. e. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 8.18 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN MULTI- FAMILY DWELLINGS CA Kane requested Council adopt Ordinance 1919 amending Chapter 8.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to prohibit smoking in multi -family dwellings. Councilmember Brownrigg wished to note that this Ordinance was widely supported by the community and thanked Councilmember Root for putting it on the agenda. Vice Mayor Keighran stated her concerns with the City's attempts to regulate what occurs within the confines of an individual's dwelling and the practicality of enforcing this Ordinance. Councilmember Root noted that while he was also concerned about privacy issues that this was a health concern that needed to be addressed. Both Mayor Nagel and Councilmember Ortiz echoed the health concerns. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Ordinance 1919; seconded by Councilmember Root. This motion was approved by voice vote 4-1. (Keighran voted against) £ ANNUAL RENEWAL OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS L"ROVEMENT DISTRICT (DBI)): RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2014-15 ANNUAL REPORT; DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 AND SETTING REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 21,2015 FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 76-2015. Councilmember Root requested that the FinDir Augustine invite DBID to the Council meetings for general updates and to address the lights on the trees. Juan Laredo, from DBID was in attendance and answered a few questions the Council had concerning the lights on the trees on Burlingame Avenue. He stated that the lights need to be rewrapped and that currently DBID is working on procuring this service. Councilmember Root made a motion to adopt item 8f; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. g. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2015 FinDir Augustine requested Council adopt the Quarterly Investment Report. Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 h. APPROVAL OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 FinDir Augustine requested Council approve the City's investment policy for fiscal year 2015-16. Councilmember Ortiz asked FinDir Augustine for clarification of the term "supranational investments." FinDir Augustine explained that supranationals are also known as multi -laterals; they are formed by partnering governments that provide financial services to developing countries and have high credit ratings. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt item 8h; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. i. ADOPTION OF A REOSLUTION ACCEPTING THE GRANT OF AN EASEMENT OT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES AT 1500 EASTON DRIVE DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt 77-2015. j. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESPONSE LETTER TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT TITLED G°FLOODING AHEAD: PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE" DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt 78-2015. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there was a deadline for the letter. DPW Murtuza stated that the deadline was September 3, 2015. Councilmember Brownrigg wished to point out that although the Grand Jury thinks the County is the reasonable decision making body with respect to defending against sea level rising, this is a regional issue and deserves a regional approach. Mayor Nagel stated that at the California League of Cities, Supervisor Don Horsley stated that he wanted to create a subcommittee of regional supervisors to discuss this matter. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt item 8j; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. k. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES FOR THE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANT AND WATER QUALITY AND METER LEAD WORKER POSITIONS HR Loomis requested Council adopt 79-2015. 1. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME LIBRARY MILLENIUM PROJECT CONTRACTED TO AND CONSTRUCTED BY ZOLMAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83320 Lib McCulley requested Council adopt Resolution Number 80-2015. 4 Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 m. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY'S "PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE FREE SPRINKLER NOZZLES PROGRAM FOR AUGUST 1, 2015 THRU JUNE 30,2016" AND APPROVE A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET REQUEST Sustainability Coordinator Michael requested Council's authorization for the City Manager to execute participation agreement for the free sprinkler nozzle program. Vice Mayor Keighran asked that this program be advertised on the City's website and in the Burlingame e - newsletter. CM Goldman assured the Vice Mayor that the City had plans to advertise the program and to encourage the community to participate. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE 50/50 PROGRAM COSTS: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COLLECTION OF PROPERTY OWNERS' COSTS AND RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE 2014 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM BY GOLDEN BAY CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83160 Public Works Engineer Victor Voong reviewed the staff report which requested three actions: (1) hold a public hearing to hear any protests and approve 50/50 sidewalk costs; (2) adopt a resolution accepting the maintenance program by Golden Gate Construction; and (3) adopt a resolution authorizing the collection of the homeowners' share of the cost. Victor went on to explain that last year, through the 50/50 program the City was able to replace 46,000 square feet of sidewalk with 51 properties participating at an average cost of $308 to the property owner. Mr. Voong stated that under the 50/50 program, the staff sent notices to the public about the City's intention to fix the sidewalk in front of their house, the total cost, and that a hearing would be held on August 17, 2015. Mayor Nagel asked when the next sidewalk review was scheduled to begin. Victor stated that the program for the upcoming year is in its fmal stages, and that it will go out to bid later this year with construction scheduled for the spring. Mayor Nagel encouraged those who needed their sidewalk repaired to contact DPW. Councilmember Ortiz asked what the response from homeowners was. Victor stated that a majority of the homeowners were happy about the repairs and the sharing of the costs. He also stated that the City had not received any written complaints. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and Burlingame residents Richard Huang and Pat Giorni spoke. Burlingame resident Richard Huang explained that his family was being asked to participate in the 50/50 program and that he didn't think that the residents should have to pay for the damages that the city trees caused to the sidewalk. DPW Murtuza responded that the program was established primarily for damage caused by trees. DPW Murtuza went on to explain that under the State of California Streets and Highway Accord the City could require adjoining properties to pay for 100% of the repairs. However, in 2010, the Burlingame City Council voted that the cost should be shared 50/50 between the City and the adjoining properties. Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 Burlingame resident Pat Giorni stated that when the Council passed the 50/50 program in 2010, the Council had discussed that when the economy improved the City would once again fond 100% of the repairs. Mayor Anne Keighran moved to adopt Resolution Number 81-2015 accepting the 2014 Sidewalk Maintenance program by Golden Gate Construction; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg moved to adopt Resolution Number 82-2015 for the collection of property owners' costs; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5- 0. Councilmember Brownrigg noted that he believed there was a benefit to maintaining the 50/50 program as it ensured that citizens and government alike were held accountable for monitoring sidewalk issues and the health of trees. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 18.07.130 TO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CREATING AN EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR PERMITTING SMALL ROOFTOP RESIDENTIAL SOLAR SYSTEMS Building Official Joe Cyr reviewed the staff report stating that Assembly Bill 2188 requires that all cities and counties adopt an ordinance that creates an expedited process for residential solar panels. He stated that since 2007, the City of Burlingame had eliminated fees associated with solar panels and expedited the process so that citizens obtained approval in 3-5 business days. To comply with the new law, the City has posted information concerning the requirements to use a residential solar system and the application on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Mayor Nagel stated she was happy to hear that since 2007, Burlingame had a zero permit fee for solar system installation. She asked Cyr how many permit applications they received a year. He stated they averaged 50 a year. Mayor Nagel requested that the City Clerk read the proposed Ordinance. Vice Mayor Keighran moved to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance within five days of the public hearing. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing for comments. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Mayor Nagel commented that the Council had interviewed five excellent candidates who applied for the one opening on the Library Board of Trustees. Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 Mayor Nagel opened the item for public continent, no one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg echoed Mayor Nagel's comments that the candidates were outstanding and asked that those who were not selected consider assisting the Library in other ways. CC Kearney gave each Councilmember a ballot to vote for one of the five candidates. As no candidate received a majority of the votes, the Council went to a second ballot. Councilmember Brownrigg asked that the candidates be discussed. All Councilmembers commented on the high quality of candidates. The second ballot resulted in Randi Murray being appointed to the Library Board of Trustees for a three-year term, ending June 30, 2018. b. REVIEW OF STREET TREE "THEMED BLOCK" POLICY P&RD Glomstad reviewed the staff report and requested that the Council approve the proposed amendment to the street tree "themed block" policy. She stated that the decision to create an amendment came about as a result of the concerns of citizens who did not wish to have a themed tree in front of their house. Therefore, at the March Beautification Commission meeting, the Commission determined that there should be a procedure established to allow citizens the ability to remove a themed block. The Commission proposed that if an individual wished to remove a themed block, they would need to secure signatures from at least three-quarters of the property owners on that block. If they were successful in obtaining the necessary signatures, the Commission would then review the application to ensure that the change did not adversely impact the community. Council discussion followed concerning when trees are replaced, what type is replanted, and whether a block could become a theme block. Mayor Nagel opened the item for public comment. Burlingame resident Karen Dittman, a former member of the Beautification Commission discussed that the amendment was carefully established to ensure that while citizens should be provided an opt out that there is first consensus from the block. Burlingame residents Nirmala Bandrapalli, Jennifer Pfaff, Cathy Baylock, Pat Giorni, and Chris Bush spoke about ensuring safeguards to protect the trees in Burlingame while still allowing citizens opt outs when necessary. Mayor Nagel closed public comment and opened the discussion up to the Council for questions. Vice Mayor Keighran discussed her concerns that what was being considered would undo the work that was done by citizens in 2008 to establish themed blocks. She further explained that in 2008, the Commission carefully chose themed blocks and she was concerned that by allowing individuals to opt out we would be disregarding an established plan. Councilmember Brownrigg explained that an opt out with the oversight of the Beautification Commission would ensure that major changes did not occur, while still allowing for necessary departures from the original policy. Councilmember Ortiz and Mayor Nagel echoed the opinions of Councilmember Brownrigg. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to approve the recommended changes for an "opt out" policy; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. This motion was approved 4-1 by a roll call vote. (Keighran voted against) 7 Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 c. CALTRANS LETTER REGARDING ITS FINDINGS OF NO ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE REAL AT THE FLORIBUNDA AVENUE INTERSECTION DPW Murfuza reviewed the staff report and requested guidance from the Council concerning the City's response to Caltrans letter stating that the Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Improvement Project would not adversely effect the Howard -Ralston Euclayptus Tree Rows Historic District. DPW Murtuza went on to explain that staff disputes Caltran's letter in four ways: (1) while Caltrans states it will only be removing 5 trees, equating to 1.4% of the Historic District it is actually 14 trees making up 5% of the Historic District; (2) Caltran's letter only focuses on the historic aspect and not the aesthetics nor the community's repeated requests for alternatives; (3) in accordance with the definition of adverse effect under 36 CFR 800.5(a)(2), the removal of the trees does alter the characteristics of the historic property thus resulting in an adverse effect; and (4) Caltran does not consider less invasive approaches to addressing the traffic safety concerns that would not negatively impact the trees. DPW Murtuza further explained that based on conversations he had with Caltran, the earliest construction could start on this project was 2019. He also explained that he and members of the Council would be meeting with Caltran the following week to discuss the letter, options and the importance of both safety and the trees. Mayor Nagel asked if Caltran's decision to move forward with this project was based on the possibility of losing federal funding. DPW Murtuza stated that he believed this project was being funded by the Grand Boulevard federal grant. He further stated that the Council and staff continue to offer alternatives, but that Caltran was not responsive to this point of view. Mayor Nagel also asked if Hillsborough had been contacted by Caltrans about this project. DPW Murtuza stated that they had not received a similar letter but had instead been told that their property was being prepared for condemnation. Vice Mayor Keighran stated her frustrations that this process was deadlocked with Burlingame airing its concerns and receiving no direct response from Caltran on these concerns. Therefore, Vice Mayor Keighran suggested that at the next meeting with Caltran, it might be beneficial to have Hillsborough in the meeting to ensure a united front from the cities. DPW Murtuza agreed to contact Hillsborough. DPW Murmza then explained that because the project was occurring in a historical area, that Caltran would have to present their findings to the State Historic Preservation Office "SHPO". Interested individuals had until August 21, 2015 to write to S14PO with their concerns on this project. Councilmember Brownrigg asked Burlingame resident Jennifer Pfaff to explain her work on establishing the Howard -Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Row as a historic district. Jennifer Pfaff explained that she was able to get this area designated as a historic district not just because of the species of the trees, but also because of the canopy effect that is created by having the trees close to the narrow street. Accordingly, she stated that by widening the road and removing trees, the integrity of the historic district would be damaged. Vice Mayor Keighran stated that in reading Jennifer Pfaff s letter to SHPO she learned that in 1997 Caltran had planned to remove 25% of the trees on El Camino Real for traffic safety. Accordingly, she stated that Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 there was a long history of Caltran trying to widen the road and remove the trees at the Floribunda intersection. Mayor Nagel opened the item for public comment. Burlingame residents Charles Voltz, Cathy Baylock, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Diane Condon-Wirgler, Pat Giorni, Phil Lalonde, Donna Colson, Jennifer Pfaff, Betsy McGinn, Chris Bush, Jeff Londer, and Dianne Sylvan all spoke about the need to protect this historical row and implement alternative safety measures. Each raised concerns about the impact that the removal of the trees would have on the street and that removing the trees would not improve the safety of the street. As well, citizens discussed either receiving or having heard that others received condemnation letters from Caltran. Burlingame resident Gaird Schlesinger spoke on the safety concerns at the Floribunda and El Camino intersection stating that while he understands the need to protect the trees that the intersection needed to be made safer for our citizens and children. Howard Wettan from the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission stated that the Commission had discussed this issue on August 13, 2015 and determined that the City should take actions now to remediate issues at this intersection even assuming the City doesn't get cooperation from Caltran. Mayor Nagel closed public comment and opened the discussion up to the Council. Mayor Nagel asked CA Kane about the condemnation letters that Hillsborough and Burlingame citizens had received from Caltran. CA Kane stated that while she had not seen the condemnation letters that if an agency was sending a condemnation letter they were now in the planning phase of carrying out the asserted action. As well CA Kane added that there may be some CEQA ("California Environmental Quality Act") issues with Caltran sending out condemnation letters at this point. Mayor Nagel suggested having the staff draft a response to Caltran that would include the Council and public's concerns. Mayor Nagel and Councilmember Brownrigg decided that based on their previous experience with Caltran that they would assist the staff in drafting the response. Councilmember Brownrigg asked DPW Murtuza to focus on the historical aspect as to why there was an adverse effect. Vice Mayor Keighran voiced her concern that this was the first step for Caltran in widening the rest of El Camino Real. Furthermore she requested that DPW Murtuza incorporate these future adverse effects in the letter. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no requests for future agenda items. 9 Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Agenda Item 8a Date: 8/17/2015 a. Commission Minutes: Library, April 21, 2015 b. Department Reports: Building, May 2015 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel Shearer City Clerk 10 Burlingame City Council August 17, 2015 Unapproved Minutes au R- ,iNcapte AGENDA NO: 8b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 8, 2075 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Impending Vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two impending vacancies on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. The vacancies are due to the expiring terms of Commissioners J. Mark Noworolski and Howard Wettan. The recommended due date is October 9, 2015. This will allow applicants two opportunities (September 10 and October 8, 2015) to attend a Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission meeting. BACKGROUND The City's current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The City maintains a list of all those who have applied for Commission appointments over the past two years. All applicants on this list will be informed of the vacancies. a STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8c MEETING DATE: September d, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Applications for Design Review and a Hillside Area Construction Permit for Major Renovations to an Existing Single -Family Dwelling, including First- and Second -Floor Additions, at 2753 Burlingview Drive RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council set the date of the public hearing on the appeal for September 21, 2015. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of August 10, 2015, the Planning Commission approved requests related to the major renovation of, and additions to, an existing single-family residence at 2753 Burlingview Drive. The appeal period following the Planning Commission's action ran until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 20th. On that date, a timely appeal of the Commission's action was filed with the City Clerk's office (letter attached). FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: Appeal Letter 1 City Clerk City of Burlingame, California Dear Ms Hassel -Shearer, RECEIVED ,I UG 14;_ : I T Y OF BURLINGAME ;p PLANNING DIV. Subject: Design Review of Residence At 2753 Burlingview Dr August 14, 2015 On August 10, 2015 the Burlingame Planning Commission approved a design for a new residence at 2753 Burlingview Dr. I live at the adjacent residence at 2759 Burlingview Dr. I wish to appeal the Planning Commissioners' decision to the Burlingame City Council. I enclose my check for the required fee of $485.00. Sincerely, Terry McAloon H -ph- 344-4201 C -ph -773-4350 Email- jojtlmca@aol.com aSTAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8d MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Adding Section 18.07.130 to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Creating an Expedited Procedure for Permitting Small Rooftop Residential Solar Systems RECOMMENDATION The City Council should adopt the following ordinance by motion: "An Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 18 of the Municipal Code of the City of Burlingame to Provide an Expedited, Streamlined Permitting Process for Small Rooftop Solar Systems" BACKGROUND On September 21, 2014 Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 2188, which requires cities and counties to adopt, on or before September 30, 2015, an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. A small solar energy system is defined as capable of generating 10 kilowatts or less of electrical current or 30 kilowatts of thermal energy. The bill also requires the jurisdiction to create and adopt checklists and sample plans that facilitate the process for application submittal, plan review, and inspections. The state has long supported solar energy projects, starting with the California Solar Rights Act, which became law in 1979. The legislation establishes the right of homeowners and businesses to access sunlight in order to generate solar energy, and it limits the ability of local governments and homeowner associations to prevent the installation of solar systems. The Solar Rights Act requires local government to use an administrative, non -discretionary review for the processing of applications. Furthermore, it prohibits restrictions for aesthetic reasons, unless it can be proved that the installation adversely impacts public safety. DISCUSSION The City Council introduced the proposed ordinance and conducted a public hearing on the ordinance at its regular meeting of August 17, 2015. Following closure of the public hearing, there were no changes made to the draft ordinance presented for consideration that evening, so direction was provided to the City Clerk to schedule the item for adoption at the Council's next 1 Adoption — Streamlining Permitting for Small Rooftop Solar Systems September 8, 2015 regular meeting on September 8, 2015. The ordinance is attached to this report and is ready for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: Ordinance Streamlining Permitting for Small Rooftop Solar Systems 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO PROVIDE AN EXPEDITED, STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS FOR SMALL RESIDENTIAL ROOFTOP SOLAR SYSTEMS The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows: Division 1. Background: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame seeks to implement AB 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes 2014) through the creation of an expedited, streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar energy systems; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame wishes to advance the use of solar energy by all of its citizens, businesses, and industries; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame seeks to meet the climate action goals set by the City of Burlingame and the State; and WHEREAS, solar energy creates local jobs and economic opportunity; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame recognizes that rooftop solar energy provides reliable energy and pricing for its residents and businesses; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the health, welfare, and safety of the people of the City of Burlingame to provide an expedited permitting process to assure the effective deployment of solar technology. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. The Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18 is amended by the addition of the following Section: ORDINANCE NO. Chapter 18.07 UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 18.07 Section 130 added — Streamlined permitting process for small residential rooftop solar systems Section 130 of the 1997 Uniform Administrative Code is added to read as follows: 130 Streamlined permitting process for small rooftop solar system installations. Purpose. The purpose of the Ordinance is to adopt an expedited, streamlined solar permitting process that complies with the Solar Rights Act and AB 2188 (Chapter 521, Statutes 2014) to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of small residential rooftop solar energy systems. The Ordinance encourages the use of solar systems by removing unreasonable barriers, minimizing costs to property owners and the City of Burlingame, and expanding the ability of property owners to install solar energy systems. The Ordinance allows the City of Burlingame to achieve these goals while protecting the public health and safety. Definitions. A. Solar Energy System means either of the following: 1. Any solar collector or other solar energy device whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for space heating, space cooling, electric generation, or water heating. 2. Any structural design feature of a building, whose primary purpose is to provide for the collection, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating or cooling, or for water heating. B. Small residential rooftop solar energy system means all of the following: 1. A solar energy system that is no larger than 10 kilowatts alternating current nameplate rating or 30 kilowatts thermal. 2. A solar energy system that conforms to all applicable state fire, structural, electrical, and other building codes as adopted or amended by the City of 2 ORDINANCE NO. Burlingame, and all state and City of Burlingame health and safety standards including paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 714 of the Civil Code. 3. A solar energy system that is installed on a single-family or duplex family dwelling. 4. A solar panel or module array that does not exceed the maximum legal building height as defined by the City of Burlingame C. Electronic submittal means the utilization of one or more of the following: 1. Email; or 2. The Internet D. Association means a nonprofit corporation or unincorporated association created for the purpose of managing a common interest development. E. Common interest development means any of the following: A community apartment project; or 2. A condominium project; or 3. A planned development; or 4. A stock cooperative F. Specific, adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. G. Reasonable restrictions on a solar energy system are those restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or significantly decrease its efficiency or specified performance, or that allow for an alternative system of comparable cost, efficiency, and energy conservation benefits. H. Restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency or specified performance means: 3 ORDINANCE NO. 1. For Water Heater Systems or Solar Swimming Pool Heating Systems: an amount exceeding 10 percent of the cost of the system, but in no case more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or decreasing the efficiency of the solar energy system by an amount exceeding 10 percent, as originally specified and proposed. 2. For Photovoltaic Systems: an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) over the system cost as originally specified and proposed, or a decrease in system efficiency of an amount exceeding 10 percent as originally specified and proposed. Applicability. This Ordinance applies to the permitting of all small residential rooftop solar energy systems in the City of Burlingame. Small residential rooftop solar energy systems legally established or permitted prior to the effective date of this Ordinance are not subject to the requirements of this Ordinance unless physical modifications or alterations are undertaken that materially change the size, type, or components of a small rooftop energy system in such a way as to require new permitting. Routine operation and maintenance shall not require a permit. Solar energy system requirements. All solar energy systems shall meet applicable health and safety standards and requirements imposed by the state and the City of Burlingame and the Central County Fire Department. Solar energy systems for heating water in single-family residences and for heating water in commercial or swimming pool applications shall be certified by an accredited listing agency as defined by the California Plumbing Code and California Mechanical Code. Solar energy systems for producing electricity shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. Submittal requirements. All documents required for the submission of an expedited solar energy system application shall be made available on the City of Burlingame website. Electronic submittal of the required permit application and associated documents for small, residential rooftop solar energy system permits shall be by email, or the Internet. As an alternative an applicant may submit a permit application and associated documents at the Building Division front counter during regular business hours. 0 ORDINANCE NO. An applicant's electronic signature will be accepted on all forms, applications, and other documents in lieu of a wet signature. The City of Burlingame shall adopt a standard plan and checklist of all requirements with which small residential rooftop solar energy systems must comply to be eligible for expedited review. The small residential rooftop solar system permit process, standard plans, and the checklist shall substantially conform to recommendations for expedited permitting, including the checklist and standard plans contained in the most current version of the California Solar Permitting Guidebook adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. All fees prescribed for the permitting of small residential rooftop solar energy system must comply with Government Code Section 65850.55, Government Code Section 66015, Government Code Section 66016, and State Health and Safety Code Section 17951. Plan review, permit, and inspection requirements. The Building Division shall provide an administrative, nondiscretionary plan check review process to expedite approval of small residential rooftop solar energy systems within 30 days of the adoption of this Ordinance. The Building Division shall process, review, and approve the application for the installation or use of a solar system in the same manner as an application for review of an architectural modification to the property, and shall not be willfully avoided or delayed. If an application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for resubmission. If an application for the installation of a solar system is not denied in writing within 45 days of receipt of a complete application the application shall be deemed approved, unless the delay is the result of a reasonable request for additional information. The City of Burlingame Planning Division may require an applicant to apply for a use permit if the Planning Division finds, based on substantial evidence, that the solar energy system could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety. Such decisions may be appealed to City of Burlingame Planning Commission. Review of the permit application shall be limited to the Building Division's review of whether the application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements. If a use permit is required, the building official may deny an application for the use permit if the building official makes written findings based upon substantive evidence in the record that the proposed 5 ORDINANCE NO. installation would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid, as defined, the adverse impact. Such findings shall include the basis for the rejection of the potential feasible alternative for preventing the adverse impact. Such decisions may be appealed to the City of Burlingame Planning Commission. Any condition imposed on an application shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost. A "feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact' includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the City of Burlingame on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. The City of Burlingame shall use its best efforts to ensure that the selected method, condition, or mitigation meets the conditions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Section 714 of the Civil Code defining restrictions that do not significantly increase the cost of the system or decrease its efficiency or specified performance. The City of Burlingame shall not condition approval of an application for a small residential rooftop solar energy system on the approval of an association, as defined in Section 4080 of the Civil Code. Only one inspection shall be required and performed by the Building Division for small residential rooftop solar energy systems eligible for expedited review. During the required inspection, if it is found that the installation does not conform to the approved plans and/or comply with the current California Building Code requirements then an additional, follow-up inspection shall be required. If a small residential rooftop solar energy system fails inspection, a subsequent inspection is authorized and required but need not conform to the requirements of this Ordinance. A separate fire inspection may be performed by the Central County Fire Department, if required. The inspection shall be done within three business days and may include consolidated inspections. Division 3. This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall become effective 30 days thereafter. Terry Nagel, Mayor 11 ORDINANCE NO. I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of August, 2015, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk BURS STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: C&,a MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project by Robert A Bothman, Inc., City Project No. 83150 Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project constructed by Robert A. Bothman, Inc., City Project No. 83150, in the amount of $12,035,172. On February 19, 2013, the City Council awarded the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Robert A. Bothman, Inc., in the amount of $10,997,414. Additionally, the City Council approved an estimated total budget of $16.5 million for construction contingencies, construction engineering, inspections, public outreach, and to address unforeseen site conditions. The project was funded by a combination of Parking Meter Rates, Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Special Assessment District, Water and Sewer Enterprises, Storm Drainage Fees, Gas Tax, Apple Computer Trust Funds, and a Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) Grant. DISCUSSION The project has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is $12,035,172, which is $1,037,758, or 9.4%, over the contract base award amount, and under the authorized budget. The increase in cost was the result of additional scope added to the project and extra work resulting from unforeseen conditions. The major items contributing to the increase in the construction cost are: • Unforeseen field conditions and conflicts encountered during underground utility work related to water line, sewer main, and storm drain facilities; • Delays and extra work caused by conflicts with PG&E and AT&T facilities; • Addition of decorative paving pattern at the Park Road Intersection; • Accelerated construction schedule to avoid work during the holiday season in 2013; • Additional work to provide custom paver cutting at tree grates and utility boxes; and • Adjustments in bid quantities to conform to field conditions. 7 Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project Acceptance September 8, 2015 The landscape maintenance period for the contractor will end upon City acceptance of the project. City staff is satisfied with the streetscape landscape improvements and will begin maintenance following City Council acceptance of the project. FISCAL IMPACT The approved construction budget for the project was $16,500,000. The following are the estimated final construction expenditures: Expenditures Construction Contract $ 12,035,172 Construction Inspection & Testing $ 1,140,800 Construction Engineering & Public Outreach $ 606,229 City Furnished Materials, Smart Meters, Other Expenses $ 1,060,321 Engineering Administration $ 601,138 Total: $ 15,443,660 Sufficient funds are available in the Capital Improvements Project budget to cover the estimated final construction expenditures with the funding sources as follows: Fundina Sources Water Enterprise Funds $ 2,584,013 Sewer Enterprise Funds $ 1.819,228 Storm Drain Funds $ 735,404 Special Assessment District, Parking Meter Rates, Gas Tax, Apple Trust Funds, TLC Grant $ 10,305,015 Total: $ 15,443,660 Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment • Copy of the Construction Contract Award Staff Report dated February 19, 2013 2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY ROBERT A. BOTHMAN, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 83150 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by Robert A. Bothman, Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated March 12, 2013, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 83150. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8`h day of September, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk Job Stamp: CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE BURLINGAME PROGRESS PAYMENT VOUCHER CITY PROJECT NO: 83150 fto— Progress Payment Period Final Payment Ending: Original Contract Paid to Dale: Approved CCO Total To Date: Contract Total Authorized to Dale: CONTRACTOR Make Payments to: ROBERT A BOTHMAN 650 QUINN AVE SAN JOSE, CA - 95112 Progress Payment No. $ 10,882,795.70 %COMPLETE: $ 1,152,374.73 %TIME: $ 12,035,170.43 #20 100.0% 100.0% I bscW'y xrprr ANeu xw6, incbdbe.oh wn..w.db1aau1 .srs xwhreoaa., MMJ[h p.yneotm b 6.mea. on Abxtlmeb, h.a Sean sone In e¢[Nerea Who. Con6xr.ne xa,.meM.Ily e.ecWea wn6emcnaa. an.... m a[wanx.m,n. cm6.[txaAi. nnau[atlan 6,rP.vmax A. c.n6aawi. x6'maroo.ymxnm m. amounaan.an a6are. RESIDENT ENGINEER Approved for Payment: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TOTAL PAID TOTAL PAID THRU PAY THIS TO DATE LAST ESTIMATE ESTIMATE 1. Original Contract Items $ 10,882,795.70 $ 10,882,795.70 $ - 2. Contract Items Materials on Hand $ - $ - $ - 3. a. Contract Change Order C Force Account $ - $ - $ - b. Contract Change Order @ Lump Sum $ - $ - c. Contract Change Order Agreed Unit Price $ 1,152,374.73 $ 1,094,059.82 $ 58,314.91 d. Contract Change Order BM Items $ - $ - 4. Co vact Adjustments $ - $ - $ - 5. Amount Earned Subject to Retention $ 12,035,170.43 $ 11,976,855.52 $ 58,314.91 5. Total Work Completed $ 12,035,170.43 $ 11.976,855.52 $ 58,314.91 7 a. Contract Retention (nl0 $ 601,758.52 $ 598,842.78 $ 2,915.75 b. Unsatisfactory progress $ - $ - $ - 8 Total After Retention $ 11,433,411.91 $ 11,378,012.75 $ 55,399.16 9 Net Payment This Estimate to Contractor 55 399.16 I bscW'y xrprr ANeu xw6, incbdbe.oh wn..w.db1aau1 .srs xwhreoaa., MMJ[h p.yneotm b 6.mea. on Abxtlmeb, h.a Sean sone In e¢[Nerea Who. Con6xr.ne xa,.meM.Ily e.ecWea wn6emcnaa. an.... m a[wanx.m,n. cm6.[txaAi. nnau[atlan 6,rP.vmax A. c.n6aawi. x6'maroo.ymxnm m. amounaan.an a6are. RESIDENT ENGINEER Approved for Payment: DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR rtl LO W � V � W aa6 2 � maww w o jr� °a a � ANO LL m f U E u rtl LO QU 3 xZELI O - - - ory em ogoaa000uj 'o, 'o "o 8e^,_e _oR N 2RSSeemmnnan-.�Ao m& m S'S In vo sXXXXX XX XXXX X'p XX XX saa s.XX XXX.. XXXXXXX n. as sXX X X X X'..o XX o,ryo mryn WU 6X O u�iSNSSnSSBngoaa000moombwgo F v 0 a $ N n O In o S8o a o a O j WWu1000 ¢¢ a a uS ul a ul Q uS ul a u1WWW G G G ¢¢<¢ WWWW ¢Q WWWWW�JWul�ul G¢ G G ¢< a Q¢¢Q ulWW...��WLL��W� 4a aa e �O QE i4U mQ Q o4 M t ac s ao 5 mr .Qy ^s ai p� o 0 n t e 0 0 �o m � ne„m„'� '- i s. n0 In m000wmwmwom mW W'`23oNU €U �eUQ mOO mmm n ma w m®cmm U N NN r5m N5m mtom o y Om�NNO ® qo a'9c o€9 p€ 3NLLm'.m =i w m m o$$$$¢ .� ® Amano o Eta U rum m Z .. .a XoUNoE rr'r oc c c o N a O�q ppe s'. £¢ Nq g N c9 m 3 N NI m m m 0p 6 6 LL y g.Sii adm i` 3 Wa a z m$ <<SSSgP N N N c. o o e t t @ t t @ t q E _ m �`ee c. c• .. 0 ogf' f- — r. z n22u mN mmmam�eY�'�w.SSY� rn�SC na ma9E rN u�1 u�uE1 qg W jnN z.o OO o [$�XXssao�uu�3�n” 3 x u 2 uum 2 2 9' ��Eq3 m nmu�rx d c c SCE o 9 a2€€€€9 cw N in In 6fm �iU��nUO EE. ~1 rNm o000000N L aJ NNNNNNKKKKKK6000mNK f °2 a 6” N q K¢¢NNd y <ootoIn ataQQQQQ��6.'�QQWQQ m '.I¢¢¢¢a000Qm ry m m m�m Q Q6a6Q¢ Q mlm. WV Q f i I ~o n$mna'a E . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oo . . . . «qa ymNe9. c�[TI 1IT! j XXXXX$oXXi°oXne XeXX X X0 X X X X X X .oX XA°XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXa°XXXXXe°LXXX d°XXX 0. WVa M�o a$N a e CF 858988888$0 08888 mm ry�8 a �I= �Iw m .N^ m99 mm nim " 's �sso _- �I„ o a s aim x I I I I I _ I Ems m " I'- 2 U Emm LL W ��y o a °Imm` `. i mmOm S`cccc` v mull u�ig € d d z o oo o m m r a $ 3. 2RH IC ®N od" `�`�PF�:- N sFs u 0 3 oe coo�22E 2...`c c c 33333v33.33i�@@;�N@hums @elm mmmo,wmmmmwwo,mnaaa� n'KaUUUUUKKKU UUU.f2 Z Q o "16 6W� 6t0 m0�m 0�®$0mm"00 m m mm u� yu Ni YV �.�M�.%%g��%e `" mSnm%a«%m . m.a------ od< _ Fpm m3m Mir f Wmm gry moagmen on �Ym M n$umi 00 'mmY g x xxxxxxxxxxxxx x'x xxxxxx a�xx x�x xxxxXxxXxxxxxxxxxxx'x xxxxe�xx xxxXx � ,mm, ry S ai0 - :Im aXg 0 O6 oryg g�gg mo, dry mm�om mm g$g ago a o 0Hill ------------ dao^m'mrv�aomma<.-^fie^=^mh'SoSa a a MR: � R, vmv„L .mn_000 _o@tt�oumi_n mumi_nmmnomNmm_ooao f'mmn�nvn��mm«. a >' mwmmmemmmm al=000000g000..... qg?ggoo'o, omo,?q'?mo,oSq'q Sn�S%%m m m mlm og gIg o�g r Fo ?Q u WWWWWWWWWWWWIum �NWUN � 0220201N LLu NNNULLLLULLULLLLNWI9NWWWWWWWW-WWWWWWWWWWNJ�JU fFF _ N I I p b � C m o` e _ U� . mUm € a cm W m 2, �• b b<< e p @m«n °Q O�mbtf�om�C�EEm3 u'. cu0 nim' �SO�m m 5 a 0 0 0 0 y N U M y ` `'a a m c o_= -000 m ma UU' & mU(j4 m Yp c N o n=_ 2 o e?° �Iu m'& 9 v N m u� � 5` �j `d' m 2 � m q� 6 .b y w x s c rc m c v� g 2 v v `m a v c `m . . u u O E w en m m m m W m c U LQ' EQQ U O. £QQ g g mm w ip en a_= 'a _ o o a" .. yy aC a 9 m 9 a w 9 c u' a mm m u 8€ o 9 n$ x® 3®® m w p d `m f ^ u m m° 9 m X% g ppIpp p m-_ t 2 °Jry QUUVUUU riLL�LLQQ 9000¢U QKKmJQQ� - _ m2c �w UU7EUUu1 io W1-UNIgm3LL�2mULLttLLmdmmmu� Tn �<m o'lo mIm y6uWgmm -�UN_U�U-.Ugn�U�mUm�UO�N UUUUUUUUoU mdNmnmmUa�NU MdUUMUUUmUmUaU�UNUMUOUUUUUUVUUUtmVmym mn dmm�mwo�a.. M&mr&n mm UU UUUUUUUUVUUOU 01 E 0 m mmm oSSSa$yg umi_o,S $$oo$o$$$$$$$000 e$o_s'iumi w$wo,T�_'a_F%`a"aa�m'�°$_d_me_�nmm"e'm ewmsumi$_'nmm_m�$n$_9i_o_mn8no_eo U� £_-------------- O$$ ymo ogry NQ XoXXX aiX XXXX XXX'.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX''.X XXXXXX X'X XXXXX za o -lo m nim oo IN aXS e m $8m oiomm o SIN 'o$S S$,8$ u I qIS «$ S$ ��8m e:'O:'88^�m«mamoomaa$%mmmMMmn�o$ $8S,800008$8$$SSSSSSS88$$BSSSSSmmBSS$SSSS mm'mm $mo $$$ w - - m�$ S$$$$ J¢ m �Xm �saaQQQQaaaa WWWWW as W'iiW ��WWN��LLW��NNWWW ¢¢QQ aa QQQQQQaQaQa WW WW WWWWWWWWWWW��WW aaaa¢<aaa aaaaaaaaQQaaaa W.W WWWWW��'�W�NN� QQ I n m KnK° n LL Z2 mm _ N 93 bem acm � aFv aN OM m',c c= z» Uva g mm�EEE ccs U gF N c c gMM q�0 � m n �L �_ u`u ubbp.g LNC qqgq -mmli °mNu >nomm �m4 ° Z� M Nc 11111111190- 1111190 WUmu>A9gJ9aN p aW g3Ng a�)�'v UVU �yi.'.Nm® aSin {{gg mUi�666L mfYLdKKoa.t�6 N'NNm�om °a�`ar`"m 8 s aomm ... �n5 FF'.CE gctNNMN a 99g 3=m$m N'.�6i�°8mb.5 w5 N�' wwLL6Am 5 PIE, r r r x'> ' m s n 5 3 w w° a rc'rc rc rc rc a o m' z n ➢' o' Oc m 3 a m rc dao ado . ..0..0000 'u vvci�o�uuoo��$�$��000a000000a000000 |°•�§ @ � |r ; ..;..; ... .. as©© § _ .e% SSSS\Q:2 ; i §,l,,,! # ! ! , E/ § OF )/|§)§21. |g E\ . w s s #RRe;®\® � AGENDA ITEM NO: 9a suA?�rr3 B .E STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: February18, 2013 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by uAx;i Date: February 19,201 3 Approved by (/ From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director (650) 558-7230 Subject RESOLUTIONS AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, FIELD ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC OUTREACH SERVICES FOR BURLINGAME AVENUE STREETSCAPE AND UTILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT — CITY PROJECT NO. 33160 RECOMMENDATION; It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolutions for Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Project as follows: A. Awarding Construction Contract to Robert A. Bothman, Inc. (RAB) in the amount of $10,997,414. B. Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Hanna Group for Construction Management Services in the amount of $998,182. C. Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Eder and Kalinowski, Inc. (EKI) for Public Outreach Services In the amount of $194,000. D. Authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with Royston Hanamoto Alley & Abey (RHAA) for Construction Field Engineering Services in the amount of $297,857. E. Amending the adopted budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 to include $1,300,000 from the lease revenue bond proceeds. BACKGROUND: For the past two years, staff has been working with community members, businesses, and merchants in the downtown area to develop project plans for the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape project. The streetscape project was developed as part of upgrading the 100 year old water and sewer systems infrastructure under Burlingame Avenue. The project design team has worked with stakeholders and property owners to prepare a final concept plan that was approved by Council in January, 2012. A special assessment district was formed by the property owners in May 2012 to participate in the project funding. In addition, the Council approved parking meter rate increases to provide funding for the streetscape project. Based on Council direction, staff successfully completed the final project plans and construction documents for bidding. The project was advertised in local as well as major northern California newspapers and Gearing houses. Staff contacted over 40 qualified contractors to ensure they were aware of the project. A mandatory pre-bid meeting was conducted on January 1Q, 2013, to discuss the project details with qualified contractors and to provide a tour of Burlingame Avenue. Approximately 25 contractors particjpated in the mandatory pre bid meeting. The pie -bid meeting generated several inquiries from contractors which were responded to by staff through the issuance of several addendums and clarifications. Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Contract February 19, 2013 DISCUSSION: Construction Contract: The project bids were opened on January 29, 2013 and seven bids were received ranging from $10,654,874 to 13,903,667. RAB is the lowest responsible bidder, with its base bid amount of $10,654,874 being 19% below the engineer's estimate of $13,218,240. After a thorough verification and examination of bid documents, staff conducted a pre -award interview with RAB and their major utility subcontractor JMB Pipeline. RAB demonstrated that they are well qualified to effectively undertake and complete the project. They have a past history of successful construction projects for Burlingame as well as for other public agencies in the Bay Area. They have been in business for over 34 years and have performed many similar and complex projects in the Bay Area, including VTA platform improvements in downtown San Jose; streetscape improvements in Los Gatos, Saratoga, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Los Altos; Palo Alto Caltrain Transit facility; campus -wide improvements at Canada Gateway Campus in Redwood City; and BART A-line South facility (See attached RAB January 31, 2013 letter to the City). Staff received one bid protest from McGuire and Hester, the third apparent low bidder. The protest alleges that RAB does not have adequate qualifications and also indicates that the second low bidder Gordon Ball, Inc. is not qualified. The protest letter requests that these bids be rejected and the contract be awarded to McGuire and Hester. Staff reviewed the lowest responsible bidder's qualifications at the pre -award Interview and determined that RAB met the requirements of the project specifications and is the successful lowest responsible bidder. With the favorable bid prices, staff recommends adding Bid Add Alternate #1, to change the intersections from integral colored concrete to vehicular concrete pavers, for $67,540. Additionally, staff recommends that Council replace the colored concrete in the parking areas with pavers similar to the sidewalk pavers. This will enhance the overall design and was requested by Council as one of the preferred concept alternatives. Staff has negotiated a scope change with RAB to include the addition of concrete pavers in the parking areas in the amount of $275,000. Thus, the total recommended construction contract award to RAB is in the amount of $10,997,414. Construction schedule: Construction is anticipated to begin by April 2013, with night work for all the underground utilities. The contractor proposes to start construction activities at the east end of Burlingame Avenue near California Drive, and proceed west along the Avenue. After the completion of certain portion of the utilities work, the contractor plans to initiate some portions of streetscape work in late summer of 2013. There will be no construction activities during the Holiday Season to reduce impacts to businesses except for emergency work. The construction activities will resume in earnest once the Holiday Season is over. Barring any unforeseen conditions, staff anticipates the construction to be completed by summer of 2014. It should be noted that there will be construction disruption, noise, inconveniences, and parking impacts during the construction period. Staff will do everything possible to work with the contractors and coordinate -with businesses, merchants, and residents to minimize impacts as best as possible. Construction Management Services: In September 2013, staff issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for construction management and public outreach services and received four proposals from qualified consultants. Staff interviewed all consultant teams and selected Hanna Group / EKI / ArcPath for their extensive knowledge of Burlingame and the downtown community. The construction management and public outreach contracts have been separated to minimize additional consultant administration surcharges. I Hanna Group has been working with staff on the Marsten Pump Station project and has successfully completed construction management duties for the Waste Water Treatment Plant Retention Basin project. Their extensive experience in construction management services 2 Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Contract February 19, 2013 includes successful performance on major construction projects for Burlingame and for similar streetscape projects for other agencies. Staff has negotiated the following scope of construction management services with Hanna Group: • Construction services including daily meetings, coordination, submittal review and processing request for information (RFI) reviews, and project documentation. • Construction management and inspection services for both day and night time construction; monitoring of the contractor schedule and progress; design clarification review; recommendation of change orders and progress payments; and procurement coordination. • Material testing and quality assurance services. • Storm water management pollution protection services. • Project completion including equipment startup, testing, project acceptance, resolution of disputes and claims, preparation of record drawings, and project closeout. Staff has. negotiated a professional fee in the amount of $998,182 for the above scope of services. The fee includes sub -consultant budgets of $79,957 for materials testing and $28,075 for Storm Water Management Pollution Protection. The total fee represents approximately 9% of the estimated construction cost, which is well below the industry standard given the complex nature of this project. Public Outreach Services: EKI/ArcPath consultants have teamed up to provide public outreach services and coordination with businesses/merchants during the construction. EKI has performed successful work for many other city programs and utility projects, including coordination with individual residents on several water main replacement projects that required re -plumbing of individual homes. ArcPath is represented by Fred Ponce who has extensive experience in working with downtown businesses and merchants during the Safeway project. Staff has negotiated the following scope of services with EKI/ArchPath in the amount of $194,000: • A staffed phone hot line for information and response to all questions during the construction. • An on-call person to respond to all requests. • Preparation and distribution of information flyers for all construction related activities. • Updating of project web site regarding construction activities. • Regular newsletters to businesses and merchants for project information. • Maintenance of businesses and property owner data base for all contacts and inquiries. • Design of an on-site business directory sign(s) to direct pedestrians to all the businesses during construction. Outreach management coordination with the contractor and construction management team, merchants, businesses and City staff. Construction Field Engineering Services: Staff has negotiated the following scope of services for construction field engineering with RHAA in the amount of $297,857: • Reviewing and approving contractor submittals and shop drawings. • Site surveying and construction staking. Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Contract February 19, 2013 • Providing clarifications and responding to request for information from contractors. • Utilities coordination and review. • Performing risk evaluation and recommendation for Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP). • Other agency permitting and coordination such as PG&E, AT&T and Caltrans. • Construction observation as needed. • Review of Change Orders. • Attendance at construction meetings as needed. • Field inspections for conformance with design and engineering plans and specifications. • Punch list review and preparation. • Coordination of As Built plans as prepared by the contractor. The professional fee of $297,857 for the above scope of services represents 2.70/0 of the estimated construction cost which is within anticipated costs for this type of work. Project Contingencies: The industry standard for construction contingencies is generally about 15% of the construction bid. Given the complexity of the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape project and potential unknown underground conditions including private basements extending into the public right of way, staff requests that Council set aside additional general contingencies of approximately $733,000 to deal with unforeseen conditions during construction. FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Year 2012-13 Capital Improvements Project Budget included budget appropriations of $9.0 million in projected bond proceeds from the sale of Lease Revenue Bonds for this project. Due to favorable market conditions and the very positive rating received by the City, actual bond proceeds were $10.3 million. Therefore, the City Council would need to adopt the attached resolution appropriating the additional $1.3 million in revenue. The following are the estimated project expenditures: Construction Contract $10,997,414 Construction Contingency $ 1,650,000 City Furnished materials — street lights, box culverts, etc. $ 450,000 Smart Parking Meters $ 100,000 Other agency construction coordination (PG&E, AT&T Caltrans, etc.) $ 100,000 Construction Management and Public Outreach $ 1,375,000 Streetscape Construction Field Engineering Support Services $ 345,000 Water and Sewer Utilities Field Engineering Support Services $ 100,000 Staff Administration $ 650,000 General Contingency $ 732.586 TOTAL $16,500,000 0 Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Contract February 19, 2013 The project is funded by a combination of Parking Meter Rates, Property Owners Assessment District, Utilities Enterprise Funds, Storm Drain Fee, Gas Tax and Grants as follows: Bond proceeds (Parking Rates and Special Assessment District) $10,300,000 CIP 327-83150 (Sewer Enterprise Funds — Streetscape) $ 1,840,000 CIP 326-83150 (Water Enterprise Funds — Streetscape) $ 2,390,000 CIP 326-82060 (Water Enterprise Funds — Downtown) $ 195,000 CIP 328-83150 (Storm Drain Fee — Streetscape) $ 530,000 CIP 328-82580 (Storm Drain Fee — Bridge and Culverts) $ 230,000 CIP 329-83150 (Gas Tax Funds — Downtown) $ 500,000 1308 Burlingame Avenue -Apple Computer Trust funds $ 215,000 TLC grant for street lights $ 300.000 TOTAL $16,500,000 Exhibits: • Resolution and agreement awarding construction contract to Robert A. Bothman, Inc. • Resolution and agreement awarding construction management to Hanna Group • Resolution and agreement awarding construction engineering support services to RHAA • Resolution and agreement awarding public outreach to EKI • Resolution amending the adopted budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 • Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Bid Summary • Letter from RAB dated January 31, 2013 regarding qualifications • Bid Protest Letter from McGuire and Hester dated February 4, 2013 • Letter from RAB dated February 6, 2013 in response to bid protest • Project Map Jane Gomery, Program Manager C: Robert A. Bothman, Inc.; Hanna Group; RHAA; EKI / Archpath; McGuire and Hester 5 AGENDA NO: Sf BURL STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Eric Wollman, Chief of Police — (650) 777-4124 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a California Office of Traffic Safety Grant and Amending the Police Department's Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2015-2016 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting a $258,700 California Office of Traffic Safety Grant and amending the Police Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2015-2016. BACKGROUND In January 2015, the Police Department submitted a grant application to the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), for funding of a county -wide selective traffic enforcement program grant (S.T.E.P.). OTS approved the grant application, and the Police Department was subsequently awarded grant #PT1697 in the amount of $258,700 for the 2015-2016 federal fiscal year, October 1, 2015 through September 30, 2016. This grant is designed to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors. The program will concentrate on drunk and drugged driving, speed, distracted driving, seat belt enforcement, enforcement operations at intersections with disproportionate numbers of traffic - related crashes, and special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety. This county- wide endeavor will continue to improve traffic safety through heightened public awareness and increased traffic enforcement, and it will facilitate the exchange of effective traffic safety strategies among traffic units of the 21 participating agencies. These strategies are also designed to earn media attention, thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect. DISCUSSION The majority of the grant amount will be allocated for overtime salaries for funding personnel from the Burlingame Police Department and allied agencies to conduct traffic enforcement deployments throughout San Mateo County on a monthly basis. Approximately $15,000 will be allocated to purchase a Traffic Collision Reconstruction System for the Burlingame Police Department. With this Traffic Collision Reconstruction System, members of the Burlingame Police Department will be able to diagram and record a traffic collision scene and perform calculations. Costs may include a laptop, software, an electronic distance measuring device, and accessories. 1 California Office of Traffic Safety Grant #PT1687 September 8, 2015 Burlingame PD will coordinate with allied agencies to conduct four traffic safety presentations/ bike rodeos, where officers will instruct elementary school aged children in lower socio-economic neighborhoods (East Palo Alto, unincorporated Redwood City, Half Moon Bay, and Daly City) on how to safely ride their bikes in their neighborhoods, and provide them with helmets if they do not have them. The grant funds approximately $3,000 to purchase children's bicycle helmets that will be given away duringchildren's bike safety presentations in order to prevent/ minimize injuries. The grant also provides approximately $10,000 to fund a Grant Manager. The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will be responsible for planning all of the traffic enforcement deployments. These deployments will include DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, traffic enforcement operations, distracted driving enforcement, motorcycle safety enforcement, bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement, and seat belt enforcement. In addition, the Burlingame Police Department and participating allied agencies will participate in National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April, and the Statewide Click It or Ticket mobilization in May. The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will facilitate training of officers in the areas of Standard Field Sobriety Testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and Drug Recognition Expert. The Grant Manager will be responsible for the preparation of all claims and writing the quarterly and final reports. FISCAL IMPACT This grant funds the overtime costs associated with conducting the above mentioned deployments, grant management and the purchase of bicycle helmets and traffic collision reconstruction system. Grant expenditures will be reimbursed through the Office of Traffic Safety on a quarterly basis, based on expense claims filed. There will be no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund, other than staff time associated with administering this grant. Exhibits: • California Office of Traffic Safety Grant #PT1697 • Resolution 2 State of California - Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT - Page 1 OTS -38 (Rev. 4/15) GRANT NUMBER PT1697 1. GRANT TITLE SELECTIVE TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM (STEP) 2. NAME OF AGENCY CITY OF BURLINGAME 4. GRANT PERIOD From: 10/1/15 3. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT To: 9/30/16 5. GRANT DESCRIPTION To reduce the number of persons killed and injured in traffic crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors, "best practice" strategies will be conducted. The funded strategies may include: DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols, warrant service operations, stakeout operations, a "HOT Sheet" program, educational presentations, and court stings. The program may also concentrate on speed, distracted driving, seat belt enforcement, operations at intersections with disproportionate numbers of traffic crashes, and special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect. 6. FEDERAL FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED: 258,700 7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement: • Schedule A (OTS -38b) -Problem Statement, Goals and • Exhibit A -Certifications and Assurances Objectives and Method of Procedure • Exhibit B* - OTS Grant Program Manual • Schedule B (OTS -38d) -Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub -Budget Estimate (if applicable) • Schedule B-1 (OTS -38f) - Budget Narrative and Sub - Budget Narrative (if applicable) *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.eov. We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are duly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and conditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. 8— APPROVAL. SIGNATURES _ A. GRANT DIRECTOR B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF AGENCY NAME: Jay Kiely PHONE: (650) 777-4151 NAME: Eric Wollman PHONE: (650) 777-4124 TITLE: Police Lieutenant TITLE: Chief of Police FAX: (650) 697-8130 FAX: (650) 697-8130 ADDRESS: 1111 Trousdale Drive ADDRESS: 1111 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, Ca 94010 Burlingame, Ca 94010 E-MAIL: kiely@burlingamepolice.org E-MAIL: ewollman@burlingamepolice.org (Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Dare) C. FISCAL OR ACCOUNTING OFFICIAL D. OFFICE AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PAYMENTS NAME: Carol Augustine PHONE (650) 558-7201 NAME: Finance Department TITLE: Finance Director FAx:, (650) 558-9269 ADDRESS: 501 Primrose Road ADDRESS: 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca 94010 Burlingame, Ca 94010 9. DUNS NumBER E-MAIL: caugustine@burlingame.org DuNs #: 083559579 REGISTERED 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA ADDRESS & 94010 (Signature) (Date) ZIP: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING A CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANT AND AMENDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 WHEREAS, the City has received an Office of Traffic Safety Countywide Regional Enforcement Grant in the amount of $258,700 (Grant #PT1697); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Police Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2015-16 to appropriate the additional $258,700 needed to fund the Office of Traffic Safety activities; and WHEREAS, the offsetting grant revenues will also be reflected as General Fund revenues in the fiscal year 2015-16 operating budget, with no net impact on General Fund balance. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to adjust the fiscal year 2015-16 budget to include the necessary appropriations for the expenditure of the grant funds. Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of September, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 9a n MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7263 Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Stop Signs at Various Locations in the Citv Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add stop signs at the below listed intersections: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue By taking the following actions: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance; 2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance; 3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance; 4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for a second reading and adoption; and 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND The City periodically receives requests for new stop signs to address traffic safety needs. In order to determine the viability of stop signs, a stop sign warrant analysis and associated traffic studies are conducted by staff as required by State laws. The stop sign warrant analysis includes review of traffic counts and reported accident data of the affected intersections. Other factors taken into consideration are the proximity to a school, the traffic controls at adjacent intersections, as well as right-of-way assignment. 1 Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code September 8, 2015 Staff originally received requests to add stops signs at six street intersections, as listed below: • Rollins Road and Toyon Drive • Quesada Way and Ray Drive • Highway Road and Mills Avenue • Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue • California Drive and Murchison Drive • California Drive and Trousdale Drive Staff conducted the stop sign warrant analysis and determined that all the six locations satisfied warrants for stop signs to be installed. The six locations were presented to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) for comments. Based on the Commission's discussion and public comments, four of the locations are being recommended to the City Council for consideration. The TSPC felt that introducing stop signs along the California Drive corridor north of Broadway might result in potential adverse impacts, specifically queuing of traffic. The Commission agreed that additional analysis should be completed and then brought back to a future TSPC meeting for further discussion. As a result, staff is proposing installation of stop signs at only four locations at this time. Below is the information pertaining to the traffic safety concerns from residents and staff's analysis and recommendation for installation of stop signs. Rollins Road and Toyon Drive intersection The residents in the vicinity of the Rollins Road and Toyon Drive intersection have expressed concerns to City staff about traffic safety while making right and left -turns from Toyon Drive onto Rollins Road. In addition, the residents have been concerned about vehicles speeding along Rollins Road. Along with citing accidents at this intersection, residents also relayed their concerns about the number of "near misses" at the intersection. A review of traffic pattern and accident data supports these concerns, and staff believes the installation of stop signs on Rollins Road at the Toyon Drive intersection will improve traffic safety and alleviate residents' concerns. Quesada Way and Ray Drive intersection Staff has received complaints from residents regarding the motorists on Quesada Way not yielding to vehicles on Ray Drive. Quesada Way and Ray Drive is a tee -intersection where Quesada Way actually terminates at Ray Drive. In accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21800, vehicles on the terminating roadway (Quesada Way) must yield to the continuing roadway (Ray Drive). Staff believes installation of a stop sign on Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive will help reinforce the right-of-way compliance and improve traffic safety. 2 Ardinance Amending Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code September 8, 2015 Mills Avenue and Highway Road intersection Staff has received complaints from residents in the Mills Avenue and Highway Road area regarding the fact that the vast majority of vehicular traffic on Highway Road does not yield to pedestrians and vehicles on Mills Avenue. Mills Avenue and Highway Road is also a tee - intersection, and in accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21800, vehicles on the terminating roadway (Highway Road) must yield to the continuing roadway (Mills Avenue). Staff is proposing a stop on Highway Road to reinforce the right-of-way for motorists on Mills Avenue. This will address residents' concerns and will improve safety. Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection Residents in the vicinity of the Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection have expressed concerns about the safety of school students crossing Ray Drive. Their concerns stemmed from the fact that eastbound vehicles on Ray Drive have been observed speeding to catch the green light signal at EI Camino Real and Ray Drive intersection. The downhill grade of eastbound Ray Drive, as it approaches Balboa Avenue, also potentially causes conflict with the pedestrians crossing Ray Drive at the Balboa Avenue intersection. The Ray Drive and Balboa Avenue intersection was reviewed using a school -related warrant due to its proximity to Lincoln Elementary School. The warrant analysis supports the installation of a stop sign at the intersection. Staff believes the addition of a stop sign at this intersection will alleviate the pedestrian/motorist conflict and improve overall safety. In accordance with the Burlingame Municipal Code, the installation of any permanent stop signs must be approved by the City Council through the adoption of an ordinance. Therefore, staff has prepared the attached ordinance to amend Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add stop signs on Rollins Road, Quesada Way, Ray Drive, and Highway Road for Council consideration. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the installation of stop signs and roadway stop markings are minimal and will be absorbed within the Public Works Department operations budget. Exhibit: • Ordinance 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD STOP SIGNS STOP SIGNS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IN THE CITY The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the Public Works staff has received requests for and conducted stop sign warrant analysis for stop signs at six intersections at various locations in the City as follows: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue • California Drive at Murchison Avenue, and • California Drive at Trousdale Avenue: and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department conducted traffic studies and performed warrant analysis, and all the six intersections satisfied the warrants for the addition of new stop signs; and WHEREAS, the six locations were presented to the Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission (TSPC) for concurrence; and WHEREAS, based on the Commission's discussion and public input, the TSPC and the Public Works Department recommends only four of the six locations for stop signs installations at this time as follows: • Rollins Road at Toyon Drive • Quesada Way at Ray Drive • Highway Road at Mills Avenue; and • Ray Drive at Balboa Avenue NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. The City Council hereby adds the following to Chapter 13.20.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to read as follows: "Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive", "Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive", "Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue", 'Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue;" Section 3. The City Engineer and the City Transportation Engineer are directed to install permanent stop signs and stop markings on Rollins Road approaching Toyon Drive, Quesada Way approaching Ray Drive, Highway Road approaching Mills Avenue, and Ray Drive approaching Balboa Avenue. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing occurred at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 8th day of September, 2015, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21St day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk aSTAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 15.06 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add Additional Penalties and Enforcement Mechanisms for Violation of Water Shortage Emergency Restrictions RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider the introduction of an ordinance to amend Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 to add additional penalties and enforcement mechanisms for violation of water restrictions during declared water shortage emergencies. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND The State of California is in a severe drought crisis. The Governor and the State Water Resources Control Board earlier this year issued consumption reduction requirements that apply to the City of Burlingame and all other water suppliers in the State. Through a robust education campaign and the significant efforts of Burlingame's water customers, the City has thus far been able to exceed the reduction targets set forth by the State. However, individual reduction levels vary. While the City has succeeded in getting individuals and businesses to come into compliance with the water restrictions currently in place, existing enforcement mechanisms under the current Chapter 15.06 are limited in scope. For this or a future water crisis, additional flexibility in the available water restriction enforcement tools may be necessary in order to address particular cases of overuse. 1 Water Emergency Enforcement Ordinance September 8, 2015 Existing Chapter 15.06 governing water shortage emergencies was last amended in 1988. Since that time, the City's general code enforcement provisions have been updated to allow for more robust and flexible enforcement mechanisms. Additionally, recent case law may render some avenues for enforcement preferable to others as regards to charging increased rates for water. Currently, Section 15.06.060 provides that the possible penalties for overconsumption during a declared water shortage emergency are: a) imposing an excess use charge for each unit in excess of the allowed amount; b) restricting water flow to the home or business in question; or c) discontinuing water service. Section 15.06.070 states that the provisions of the chapter may be enforced by the water department, public works department, and the fire department. The attached proposed ordinance would add the existing code enforcement mechanisms from Title 1 of the Municipal Code to the list of permissible methods for addressing overconsumption of water during a drought. The proposed ordinance does not take away any of the existing penalties, but it adds the possibility of fines (in the amount of $100, $200, and $500 for successive violations) as well as administrative hearings for those cases that might benefit from a more thorough treatment of the underlying conditions causing the violations. Additionally, the proposed ordinance adds the City Attorney and Code Compliance Officer to the list of employees authorized to enforce the water restrictions. Those two positions are responsible for administering code enforcement under Title 1, so they are added to the list of staff in order to effectuate the Title 1 remedies. Additionally, those staff members can bring actions in court as necessary, thereby permitting resolution of the most recalcitrant cases. As a matter of policy, primary enforcement will remain with the Director of Public Works and his designees. However, adding potential enforcement tools and authorized staff would provide greater flexibility and responsiveness to deal with difficult cases. FISCAL IMPACT Minimal. Exhibit: Proposed ordinance 2 W131110/V[of cez a ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD ADDITIONAL PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR VIOLATION OF WATER SHORTAGE EMERGENCY RESTRICTIONS WHEREAS the City adopted provisions governing water shortage emergencies in 1988; and WHEREAS those provisions establish certain enforcement mechanisms; and WHEREAS the State of California is currently enduring a historic drought and cities across the State are required to meet certain water use reduction targets; and WHEREAS a review of the existing enforcement provisions for water shortage emergencies indicates that additional enforcement mechanisms could increase compliance with water restrictions and make for more efficient regulation of water use; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 15.06 is hereby amended as follows: 1. Current Chapter 15.06, Water Shortage Emergencies, is hereby amended in the identified sections below as follows: 15.06.060 Penalties for excess water consumption. A subsection (d) shall be added, as follows: (d) Fines and penalties as provided in Title 1 of this Code. Persons violating the provisions set forth in this Chapter may also be subject to the fines and penalties set forth in Title 1 of this Code. 15.06.070 Enforcement. A sentence shall be added at the end of the existing text, as follows: In addition to the foregoing, the City Attorney, Code Compliance Officer and their designees shall are authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter through the mechanisms provided in Title 1 of this Code. DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. TERRY NAGEL, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2015 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: ATTEST: MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk 0BURL,INGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 10a ' MEETING DATE: September 8, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 John Kammeyer, Fire Chief — (650) 558-7600 Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director — (650) 558-7230 Eric Wollman, Chief of Police — (650) 777-4124 Subject: Discussion of Response to Broadway/US 101 Closure RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review the information about the City's response to the recent Broadway/US 101 closure. It is important to note in this discussion that, because this incident happened on US 101, the City was not the lead agency in charge. Caltrans, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and PG&E all had larger roles to play in communications, traffic detours, and safety. Although City staff's emergency response and communications efforts were thorough, an interdepartmental team of staff from the Police Department, Central County Fire, Public Works, and the City Manager's Office has met to review the incident and determine any process improvements that can be made to ensure an even more effective response to the next emergency situation. BACKGROUND On Friday, August 28, at approximately 9:30 p.m., a contractor working for Caltrans on the Broadway/101 interchange project struck a high-voltage PG&E tower, causing the tower to buckle. High-voltage lines fell onto the Broadway overpass, the pedestrian crossing, and both northbound and southbound US 101. Nobody was injured by the falling power lines, and no injuries were reported as a result of the subsequent extreme traffic congestion. The Transportation Management Center (TMC), which is jointly operated by Caltrans and the CHP, issued a Sigalert at 9:53 p.m. to inform motorists about high-tension power lines blocking all lanes in both directions on US 101. Northbound and southbound freeway traffic was removed from the freeway at Anza Boulevard and Millbrae Avenue, respectively, and the immediate on - ramps on southbound US 101 at Millbrae Avenue and northbound US 101 at Anza Boulevard were also closed. Some motorists on the freeway in the immediate vicinity of Broadway were trapped in their cars until after 3 a.m. The TMC activated 55 overhead electronic changeable message signs (CMSs) throughout Bay Area freeways advising approaching motorists about the freeway closure and to take alternate routes. Those alternate routes included Burlingame streets. The freeway remained closed until 1 BroadwayAlS 101 Closure September 8, 2015 late afternoon on August 29. The freeway was closed again on Sunday, August 30, from approximately 10 p.m. until approximately 4 a.m. the next day for emergency PG&E work. The Broadway overpass itself remained closed until Monday morning. During the closure, Caltrans activated trailblazer signs in the field to inform drivers about detours. Signs were activated along northbound and southbound EI Camino Real at San Bruno and Poplar Avenues, and northbound EI Camino Real at 4th Avenue. In addition, the signal timing between Murchison Drive and Route 92 on EI Camino Real was increased to accommodate the increase in volume exiting and returning to US 101. The traffic light green time at Humboldt Street and Peninsula Avenue was increased to accommodate traffic exiting northbound US 101. Caltrans staff also restored to normal operations several signals along EI Camino Real at Lincoln Avenue, Carmelita Avenue, and Sanchez Avenue that had gone into flashing red operation as a result of the power failure. By Saturday morning, stories about the closure appeared in the online version of the San Francisco Chronicle, as well as on local television and radio stations and other media outlets. DISCUSSION As described above, the City was not the lead agency responding to this incident. Nevertheless, the City's Police Department, Public Works Department, and City Manager's Office, as well as the Central County Fire Department, were actively engaged in responding to and communicating about the incident. Emergency Response In the immediate aftermath of the incident, the Incident Command System was activated, and a command post was established with agency representatives from the Burlingame Police Department (BPD), Central County Fire Department (CCFD), CHP, County Office of Emergency Services (OES), and PG&E. US 101 was closed in both directions. The San Bruno Police Department, Foster City Police Department, and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office assisted with on-ramp and freeway closures. The Hillsborough Police Department assisted with calls for service. The immediate focus for BPD was to protect life safety by preventing access at all potential access points to the affected areas. These multiple access points were centralized around the Broadway/US 101 overpass and pedestrian overpass. While BPD personnel focused on preventing access to the live wires, the Hillsborough Police Department and San Mateo County Sheriff's Office -Millbrae Bureau assisted in taking Burlingame calls for service. In preparation for the extended nature of this event, BPD called in overtime personnel (both officers and parking enforcement officers) to staff three locations identified as primary ingress points to the overpass to prevent civilian access while PG&E established temporary power poles in lieu of the compromised transmission tower. Through Sunday evening and into Monday morning, over 55 hours of staff overtime were required to keep cars and pedestrians off of the overpass and pedestrian overpass. This does not include the on -duty staff hours dedicated to mitigate the effects of this event. At one point, barricades were placed to prevent both pedestrian and vehicle 2 Broadway/US 101 Closure September 8, 2015 access to the affected area. Shortly after setting up the barricades, however, it became apparent that without actual officers stationed at the locations, pedestrians and cars would go around (even drive on the wrong side of the road) in order to bypass the barricades. CCFD had one Battalion Chief and three engine companies on scene until approximately 4 a.m. working with BPD, the CHP, and PG&E in a unified command. Once the specialty crews from PG&E arrived, they determined that they would not be able to completely secure the power. A task force of CCFD, PG&E, and CHP personnel then went car by car to determine if it was safe to extract the passengers. On Saturday, CCFD crews and BPD personnel supported a PG&E long line helicopter operation by staffing a landing zone at Bayside Park. On the Public Works front, immediately after receiving a call from BPD Dispatch, Maintenance staff responded to the scene and installed over 100 barricades, with "Road Closed" signs, sand bags, and traffic cones at several locations including: Cadillac Drive and Rollins Road, Broadway and Carolan Avenue, Broadway and Rollins Road, Broadway and 101 Overcrossing, Broadway and Old Bayshore Highway, Old Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard, Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard, and Anza Boulevard and US 101 northbound ramp. In addition, all available electronic message sign boards were placed along streets leading towards the interchange area. The Public Works Director coordinated with Caltrans and the CHP to activate the emergency freeway electronic signs boards along US 101, 1-380, 1-280, CA 92, and CA 82 to detour the traffic away from the affected area. The Director also coordinated with the County Office of Emergency Services, Caltrans, PG&E, and the Giants, who had a game on Saturday, to provide information to news media outlets about the freeway closure and to inform the public of alternate routes and to use Caltrain. Finally, Public Works brought in a signal maintenance contractor to modify the traffic signals at Cadillac Drive, Rollins Road, and Broadway to help with the traffic problems, and coordinated with Caltrans traffic operations to activate the Smart Corridor system along EI Camino Real and other alternate routes to US 101. Local Communications Shortly after the incident occurred, the City and partner agencies, including County OES, began publicizing the closure of the freeway and recommending that people stay off the roads or take alternate routes. The City Manager posted nine updates to the Burlingame City Hall Facebook page between Saturday and Monday. The Police Department's Traffic Sergeant and another Sergeant on scene were instrumental in ensuring that up-to-date information was communicated via their social media sites. They posted nine updates to the Burlingame Police Department's Facebook page between Friday night and Monday, and they sent out eight messages via NextDoor between Saturday and Monday. Both the Burlingame City Hall and Burlingame Police Department Facebook pages link to Twitter accounts, so the information was cross -posted to Twitter as well. The Central County Fire Department also sent out 12 notifications via Twitter the night of the incident, and 24 total throughout the weekend. In addition, County OES and the Burlingame Police Department activated the SMC Alert system. Eleven SMC Alerts were issued between Friday night and Monday morning (see attached). Many 3 Broadway/US 101 Closure September 8, 2015 of these alerts were issued countywide. The County also activated a "reverse 911" system to send a recorded voice message to registered users via telephone and mobile phone. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibit: • SMC Alert Summary 0 Iy�silW deSMb.m.Yb6a1w YYYp..O4YWnlpISY1�IYs6liYet C9• On �e • Mwn llyuvy 101 VN.b - IYp1Ypy 1alUW.b.SaON.b lm b9.YnWYYnNIJinqun.YYn.0 mam1mr14.m.etm.Ylw..Y.ww�lbo.wl..wsvbnaone.nr- BeY11%n9.Y�beSY/rbbbl.Nlb.nW W eh WbY1i1 qN'q Vii /Y a•1YYwYm CF>al M7 --l In giRgnymivYs dl•6 EpbnWn YB1LEW nbltrYlb/YiY6.000 Jdn Kvntll Yba SNYi. hpYH. WISmD19 611E YpnMIM Tla Bn WbofMYSI�Y.PbeYbb..YM! WN1afE1MSYIH Wn4Y0dave dKyury 10f b5pm. N W1Nq N.b.�rN /+aYmrYlpb ml6eli i ib.IYCOM Y4Y AMYL T1/1pb 1m BONeY IenrldplL. ili.)Mpp.b TrpO Im YgP.OE$1$Jp>rI1 1315wv�me ViAa. AwnwmrurpblM Bg11u6b4trtl YrtlaL Spn. WPBtvA rwptgn. do BM4C Nuv1 61YC1y.I+gm1 H. fi:515:Y)m NO'n./ 101 UpAu TN MMw Wef d wOSYvn 101 n BVYpnbp vw qyn. )M NOMm rvq Mrtmn(rbn 1MibM 101 xb daeE b Aa V WE bmYnY.14 Y.bALGFB W IMPb.YrdwYbeeG 101 w rYwap�Mm M. mpe ytY1 p.bb tlObi/np.Yt OE6 W On Mb. Nle. M.Cq.Mgn H.ID131�Sp9 M(A.y 16111{WY - 4olOu.tl 101 ppuyiMnpienrovgw. MYIYUN i61YY6tS1Y0WbY31sYJ64Mbv46 1wYmmPed dl�npubruiu.n G>al baore YeLOFBW 9pMu.0 tln hbplgRybq n rwcpp IbNnu.b Im Y�ebbl4d.bbYYbgbiloY OE9 W YLt%rbY 1MIf6bl YYPYYan bN A. L.Al5b YilLuibbYl: 31. M1594MMWnn• bl'Fbb�6TYYMMYtr�^Mb W Wtl. IB1p1 Bel/vfim� b rbblYonbbvlMbmS�bb RlrMun Sb IYp bLt%Ibuvun r1 b rbea han/na &ubrw m ero 1v1b9Ygv�m 1bw..m nxmb. mna Y IbMyv SAW W9 b Liyl M9b hYJ EB b V11% wbb�b. Fbp W9 b 4'At bHb5fl4t Pilb YLl% IFbYYw �r bb41uY9 �r\YvbbYN pbIllblpbY4' bmb mPY6 Ymbluvp�•®v nnYplm/b(vpy�i Pob enY�Yawil�Ybv 1pn 1m@n YwY�bbOb��pt}ivbmOYun Yb nb Y VYv wybWYL 9 B"R STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: \O {b- MEETING DATE: September S, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 8, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: City Council Direction Regarding the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission's Recommendation Relative to Caltrans' Proposed EI Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection Safety Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction regarding the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission's (TSPC) recommendation to take proactive and unilateral action prohibiting eastbound traffic onto Floribunda Avenue from EI Camino Real (ECR) in light of the proposed Caltrans Intersection Safety Project. BACKGROUND As the Council is aware, Caltrans is in the project development process for the ECR/Floribunda Avenue Intersection Left -tum Safety Project. In November of last year, Caltrans released a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Caltrans also held a public meeting and invited comments from the general public, the Town of Hillsborough, and City of Burlingame. The City submitted a formal response to the DEIR in the form of a City letter by current Councilmember and former Mayor Brownrigg, dated November 17, 2014. Based on recent discussions with Caltrans, it has become evident that they are currently in the process of developing the project EIR. According to Caltrans, the EIR is tentatively expected to be certified by the end of 2015, at the earliest. The final EIR will include responses to all the public comments submitted during the commenting period. As part of the City's formal comments in response to the DEIR, the City requested that Caltrans consider two, less -invasive alternate options as possible ways to mitigate the safety concerns at this intersection, while still preserving the historic trees along the ECR corridor. Those measures included split phasing the traffic signal and restricting southbound left -turns from ECR to Floribunda Avenue. As part of the commenting process, the TSPC also submitted its comments, which were incorporated into the City's official comments. Since then, the TSPC has been anxiously awaiting a response from Caltrans regarding the City's comments. The Commission is concerned that no response thus far from Caltrans might be an indication that the State has plans to move forward with the project as planned, and without further consideration of any suggestions submitted by the public and the City. Having not heard from Caltrans, the TSPC felt that the City should take some type of proactive and pre-emptive action, and not wait any longer for a response from Caltrans. 1 City Council Direction Regarding Traffic Safety & Parking Commission's September 8, 2015 Recommendation Relative to the EI Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection At the August 13, 2015 TSPC meeting, the Commission discussed the matter and voted 3-1 to recommend that the City Council take proactive and unilateral action as follows: • Send a letter to Caltrans informing them that the City is considering prohibition of all eastbound traffic onto Floribunda Avenue from EI Camino Real; • Inform Caltrans that the City would await their response for an appropriate period of time, such as sixty (60) days, before proceeding with City plans; • Inform Caltrans that the City will be considering such an implementation shortly after the response period; • Implement the prohibition of eastbound Floribunda Avenue traffic by way of cones, sand - filled barricades, concrete bulb -out curbs, or water filled k -rails at the southeast corner of Floribunda Avenue and ECR; and • Post appropriate traffic warning signage for motorists about the eastbound traffic prohibition. As the TSPC is clearly frustrated with the situation, and in order to preserve the historic trees along the ECR corridor while addressing the issue of left -turn safety at the intersection in an expedient manner, the Commission is recommending taking the unilateral action described above. Closing off the eastbound traffic on Floribunda Avenue within Burlingame's jurisdiction will require traffic studies and the installation of appropriate signage improvements on ECR, as well as on Floribunda Avenue west of ECR in the Hillsborough. Both Caltrans and the Town of Hillsborough would have to concur with this plan and accept any associated potential liability. The Commission's recommendation is to inform Caltrans of the City's intent to take action unilaterally, without obtaining any permission or approval from the State. Staff believes that taking such an action on ECR will have serious implications for the City. ECR is a designated state highway, and the State has the responsibility to implement and maintain any improvements or changes to its facilities. With the City taking action on its own, it could be considered "adverse encroachment" on the State's rights of ownership and a "hostile action' against the State. Also, any installation of signage or improvements on ECR without the State's concurrence will have liability consequences to the City, especially since such actions would be outside of any agreement between the State and the City with established responsibilities and liabilities. Because of the above reasons, staff does not support the concept of the City taking unilateral action at this time. Instead, staff recommends that the City continue to work with Caltrans to persuade them to implement the previously suggested less -invasive options first, and study the results prior to taking next steps. Towards this goal, Mayor Terry Nagel and Councilmember Michael Brownrigg, along with City Manager Lisa Goldman and Public Works Director Syed Murtuza, met with Caltrans District 4 Director Bijan Sartipi on August 26, 2015, to discuss the City's continued concerns regarding the project and the importance of preserving the trees on ECR, while improving the intersection's safety through less -invasive measures. During the meeting, Mr. Sartipi acknowledged the City's concerns and the importance of preserving the trees 2 City Council Direction Regarding Traffic Safety 8 Parking Commission's September 8, 2015 Recommendation Relative to the EI Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue Intersection to the community. He indicated that he would review these concerns in light of the overall public safety needs, and get back to the City. Based on the information provided by Caltrans regarding the project's schedule, construction would not begin until the end of 2017, at the earliest. This further shows that there is still ample time available for the City to continue to work with Caltrans to advocate for trying less -invasive measures first, before taking any other action at this time. Should the City Council determine that it wishes to pursue the TSPC's recommendation, staff would need to undertake further analysis, including a detailed traffic analysis of all circulation movements in the vicinity, and return to the City Council at a later date with information regarding next steps. Staff estimates the cost of the traffic study as $50,000 to $60,000. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact and liabilities associated with TSPC's recommendation are difficult to calculate and unknown at this time. Exhibit: • August 13, 2015 TSPC Staff Report with Attachments 3 a STAFF REPORT To: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission Date: August 10, 2015 AGENDA ITEM NO: 7.a — Floribunda Traffic Calming MEETING DATE: August 13, 2015 From: Andrew Wong, Transportation Engineer — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Item 7.a — EI Camino Real/Floribunda Avenue Update Staff recommends that the Commission review the information in this staff report and vote to either concur with the staff determination, or forward its own recommendation based on the proposal in BACKGROUND In 2008, the Town of Hillsborough contacted Caltrans and the City'of Burlingame to relay the town's concern regarding left -turn collisions at the intersection of Floribunda/EI Camino Real. Between 2008 and 2014, several meetings were held between the staff of all the three agencies to discuss the issues and concerns in greater detail. Because the EI Camino Real corridor falls within the jurisdiction of Caltrans, it is the State's responsibility to evaluate the collision data and examine ways to address any safety concerns. Caltrans initially drafted preliminary ideas regarding the feasibility of adding dedicated left -turn lanes to this portion of EI Camino Real (ECR). This concept would require widening ECR, which would mean removal of the existing trees along the corridor. This concept was objected to by both the City and Town. Caltrans was also informed that such a project would also be greeted with high public resistance. In November 2013, Caltrans hosted a public meeting to receive public comments. As predicted, a major public concern revolved around the preservation of trees along the ECR corridor. Caltrans gathered the comments and concerns, and informed the public that they would include and address them as their analyses progressed. Caltrans programmed a project to improve the traffic and safety situation at ECR/Floribunda. As part of that process, Caltrans began work on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). Caltrans released the DEIR in October 2014, and then held another meeting in November 2014 to receive input from the public. The City responded to the DEIR, and also sent additional comments in a letter dated November 17, 2014. In the letter the City strongly objected to Caltrans' findings, and raised questions regarding the engineering analysis found in in the DEIR. Also in the letter, the City requested Caltrans to 1 Item 7.a - EI Camino Real/Floribunda Avenue Update August 13, 2015 review all feasible alternatives. Furthermore, the City emphasized that Caltrans study two specific alternatives on a pilot basis: 1) Prohibiting southbound left -turns, and 2) Split -phasing the northbound and southbound approaches. The City advocated that these alternatives should be incrementally phased -in with the above order, and monitored so that their effectiveness could be evaluated before considering other alternatives. Some Commissioners have expressed concerns that the City has waited long enough for Caltrans to implement reasonable solutions to the conditions at this intersection. Members of the Commission have drafted a proposal outlining a process (Attachment A). This process includes a request that the City Council consider giving notice to Caltrans that, if they do not field test the two options identified in the Mayor's letter within the next three months, or if they proceed with their proposed project for this intersection; the City will implement a pilot test within its own right of way to address the conditions described above. The pilot test would consist of the following: 1) Temporarily install sand -filled crash cushions, or other temporary barriers along the eastern approach of Floribunda at ECR. This test would essentially be a lane closure to narrow Floribunda, to a single westbound lane from where it meets ECR to the first driveway nearest the intersection. This change would not affect westbound traffic along Floribunda, as this traffic would still be able to enter ECR. This lane closure would prevent: (a) eastbound traffic from Floribunda in Hillsborough from crossing the EI Camino Real at Floribunda; (b) southbound vehicular traffic from making left -turns from ECR to Floribunda; and (c) northbound vehicles from making a right -turn from ECR to Floribunda. After examining and studying the proposed pilot program by members of the Commission, staff has serious concerns. As previously stated, Caltrans is responsible and ultimately liable for the ECR corridor. The ECR corridor is Caltrans' right-of-way, which the City does not have legal authority over. The City cannot unilaterally implement any actions which could have potential impacts along the Corridor and potentially assume liability. 1) The City has no legal authority to implement unilateral action, even on its own streets if that action directly impacts EI Camino Real without Caltrans' concurrence. The approach of installing crash barriers on Floribunda will not work without proper signage warning drivers to the turn restrictions at ECR/Floribunda. Installing barriers or signs will require Caltrans approval, and cannot be unilaterally done. At a minimum, an encroachment permit from Caltrans would be required. The suggested closure of a portion of Floribunda would result in the restriction of northbound right - turns and southbound left -turns from ECR, as well as traffic crossing ECR from Hillsborough. These changes are not only likely to redirect traffic to other City streets, thereby creating new traffic concerns; but will impact traffic movements at the intersection where issues do not currently exist. As the DEIR has not been approved, there are still milestones for Caltrans' proposed project to reach prior to any implementation. Until that process has been exhausted, staff will continue to 2 Item Ta - EI Camino Real/Floribunda Avenue Update August 13, 2015 request that Caltrans install a sign restricting southbound left -turns from ECR to Floribunda. Staff will also request that Caltrans use the opportunity to review the impacts created by the turn restriction. This request will differ from previous attempts as it will be submitted to Caltrans' Maintenance Division. This approach was not done before as staff was working with Caltrans Design and Operations Divisions as part of the DER process. Staff understands the Commission's reasoning behind trying to implement their pilot program. However, due to the liability for the City, the unknown traffic impacts to city streets, and the need to have concurrence from Caltrans; staff cannot support their recommendation. Staff recommends continuing through the DER process with Caltrans. At the time the DER is finalized, staff will provide an update to City Council seeking direction. 3 ATTACHMENT A PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew From: TSP Commissioner -Nick Akers Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 12:52 AM To: TSP Commissioner -Nick Akers; TSPC Commissioner -John Martos; tspcmartos@gmail.com Cc: PW/ENG-Chou, Augustine; PW/ENG-Wong, Andrew Subject: Request re Floribunda/EI Camino John, A discussion draft of a resolution follows. Will you ensure that this is presented to the Commission at the August meeting in my absence? I am not asking that you support it or present it as your own, but merely that you ensure that it is shared with the full Commission when this matter is discussed. Thank you, Nick [DRAFT] RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL RE FLORIBUNDA DRIVE Over the last few months the Commission has received input and recommendations from staff and members of the public. it has also received and reviewed information provided by CalTrans, and the Commissioners have independently visited and observed conditions along Floribunda Drive and at the Floribunda / EI Camino Real intersection. Background: 1. The Floribunda / EI Camino intersection, over which the City of Burlingame, Town of Hillsborough, and CalTrans share responsibility, is one of a series of intersections along EI Camino Real in Burlingame that have been the site of an unfortunately high number of collisions. These collisions frequently involve vehicles engaged in turning movements. The curvature of EI Camino south of Floribunda also creates a condition that limits visibility at the intersection. These conditions also create a hazard to pedestrians walking along EI Camino when they cross Floribunda. 2. In its present configuration Floribunda serves as a thoroughfare connecting Hillsborough to California Drive. Residents along Floribunda, which is at points a narrow street, remain concerned by the amount and perceived speed of traffic traveling along the street between EI Camino Real and California Drive. The Floribunda/Ansel intersection, which falls in the middle of this stretch of Floribunda, is a key crossing point for pedestrian traffic traveling between downtown Burlingame and the neighborhoods to the north. It is also a key crossing point for pedestrian traffic traveling between McKinley School and the neighborhoods to the south. 3. Nine months ago, on November 17, 2014, the Mayor wrote to CalTrans to ask that the agency test two options to address collisions at this intersection, specifically: (a) split phasing and (b) implementation of a no left turns restriction at Floribunda for vehicles traveling southbound along EI Camino Real. To date CalTrans has not: (a) implemented these actions; or (b) responded to the Mayor s Letter. Recommendation: The City has waited long enough for CalTrans to implement reasonable solutions to the conditions at this intersection. The Commission therefore recommends that the Council consider giving notice to CalTrans that, if CalTrans does not begin a field test of the two options identified in the Mayor s letter within the next three months, or if it proceeds with the project that the agency has proposed for this intersection, the City will implement a pilot test within its own right of way to address the conditions described above. The pilot test would consist of the following: Burlingame will block traffic from entering Burlingame at Floribunda and EI Camino. It will do so by temporarily blocking the north/west bound lane of Floribunda at the intersection of EI Camino, potentially through the use of sand filled barrels or other temporary barriers, and placing associated signs. This would essentially narrow Floribunda, which is a City street, to a single south/west bound lane from where it meets EI Camino to the first driveway nearest the intersection. This change would not affect traffic traveling south/west along Floribunda. That traffic would still be able to enter EI Camino. But it would prevent: (a) traffic from Floribunda in Hillsborough from crossing the intersection and entering Burlingame at Floribunda; (b) traffic flowing south along EI Camino from turning left onto Floribunda; or (c) traffic flowing north along EI Camino from turning right, onto Floribunda Burlingame s unilateral implementation of these measures would reflect the first concrete effort to address the issues described above. And it would provide a critical opportunity for the City, the Town, and CalTrans to observe the resulting -traffic -patterns -and co lision-dataxo-evaluate-the-effectiveness-of-this-0t-other--patential-interventions ai the -- intersection and along the Floribunda corridor. If the pilot test proves successful, the City may consider replacing the temporary barriers with a more permanent and aesthetically pleasing barrier incorporating landscaping and pedestrian improvements. Caveats: Prior to implementing this recommendation, the Council should: (a) obtain City Attorney review; (b) seek input from the Central County Fire Department to ensure that the changes are implemented in an acceptable manner; and (c) encourage further public comment by providing postcard notice to the residents of Almer and Floribunda south/west of Ansel, posting signs in the affected area, and publicizing the proposed change in the a -news. Adopted August 2015