The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.06.07 City OfBuragame 6VRLINGAME. CITY HALL-5ol PRIMROSE ROAD �y BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA (650)558-7200 Regular Meeting - Monday, June 7, 2004 Page 1 of 3 CLOSED SESSION: a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a): 6:30 p.m. Conference Room A Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line- CPUC Proceeding A 02-09-043 b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)0)) One matter- Pacific Gas &Electric Company 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MRT=S - Regular meeting of May 17, 2004 Approve 5. CEREMONIAL a. Introduce new Battalion Chief, Drew Flinders Introduction b. Recognition of students from OLA record breaking track meet Recognize 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Themayormaylimitspmkerstothreeminvteseach. a. Adopt Ordinance to amend the contract between the City of Hearing/Action Burlingame and the California Public Employees' Retirement System(CalPERS)to provide for Section 20965 credit for unused sick leave and Section 21037 cancellation of payment for optional service credit for local fire members b. Adopt Ordinance amending the standards for placement and Hearing/Action maintenance of news racks in the public-of-way C. Direction on proposed sound wall along west side of U.S. 101 Hearing/Action Freeway from Corbitt Drive to Cadillac Way 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS -At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS City ofBurllrlgame Ck.jITY HALL-50I PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME.CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)558-7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Monday, June 7, 2004 Page 1 of 3 a. Consider appointment to the Planning Commission Appoint b. FY 2004-2005 Community Groups Funding Requests Direct 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the layoff policy into the City of Burlingame's Administrative Procedures- Section 4 Personnel b. Approval of the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A C. (1) Resolutions awarding construction contract in the amount of$1,987,192 to JMB Construction for Burlinghome Easton water main replacement, Phase II; and(2) Approving a professional services agreement in the amount of$280,365 with the Culver Group for construction management of the main replacement project d. Resolution authorizing a designation period to offer the two years additional service credit for miscellaneous and safety employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System(Ca1PERS) e. Rejection of all bids and authorization for staff to re-advertise the Burlingame Park subdivision sewer rehabilitation project, Phase 2 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Beautification,March 4 &May 6, 2004; Traffic, Safety &Parking, May 13, 2004; Planning, May 24, 2004 b. Department Reports: Police, April, 2004; Building, May, 2004 C. Letter from Major General David Petraeus, 101"Airborne City OfBu YIr79ame 8"1 INGAME CrIY HALL-5o1 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA (650)556-7200 Regular Meeting - Monday, June 7, 2004 Page 1 of 3 Division,Fort Campbell, Kentucky thanking the City for adopting Bravo Company, I" Battalion, d. Letter from Comcast concerning elimination of the Tech TV channel 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 MEETING—Monday, June 21, 2004 CITY BURIJNGAME aE o0 0 tco J.rc tl' BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of May 17,2004 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 Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Alexandra Rosales. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey,Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: Galligan 4. MINUTES A correction was made to the minutes of the May 3, 2004 minutes: Councilman Coffey's name on page 5 was misspelled; added that the meeting was adjourned in memory of Carl Auer, husband of Jean Auer, former Mayor of Hillsborough. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2004 Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). A correction was made to the minutes of the May 3, 2004 Finance Authority minutes: change the date of the meeting as it actually began at 12:19 a.m. on May 4th, and the adopted resolution number should read#FA2- 2004. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4th Financing Authority meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). 5. CEREMONIAL a. INTRODUCE NEW BATTALION CHIEF, DREW FLINDERS This item was continued due to an emergency response call that Battalion Chief Flinders was required to respond to. 6. PRESENTATION a. RECOGNITION OF KIMBERLY ROSALES FOR ORGANIZING A FUND RAISING DRIVE FOR THE CITY'S PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAM 1 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes DPR Schwartz introduced Kimberly Rosales and thanked her for organizing a very successful fundraising campaign to assist the Parks and Recreation Department's preschool programs. Mrs. Rosales was presented with a quilt made by the children who attend Village Park Pre-School. 7. PUBLIC HEARING a. WEEDS AND RUBBISH ABATEMENT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY—PUBLIC HEARING AND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION #47-2004 DPW Bagdon recommended Council hold a public hearing to receive any objections to the proposed weed and rubbish removal and approve a Resolution#47-2004 "Ordering the Destruction of Noxious and Dangerous Weeds and Rubbish, a Nuisance in the City of Burlingame". Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve Resolution#47-2004 ordering the destruction of noxious and dangerous weeds and rubbish, a nuisance in the City of Burlingame; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock; approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 9. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STANDARDS FOR PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY DPW Bagdon recommended Council introduce an ordinance amending the standards for placement and maintenance of newsracks in the public right-of-way. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce an ordinance amending the standards for placement and maintenance of newsracks in the public right-of-way; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice cote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND ZONING CODE WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON EMERGING LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE CP Monroe reviewed her staff report regarding the introduction of an ordinance to amend zoning code with the new regulations for development on emerging lots in the R-1 Zone. Philip Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue, Robert Cody, 1240 Drake, Jonathan Wade, 1920 Carmelita, Ken Hoke, 1420 Drake, spoke against the introduction of an ordinance to amend zoning code with the new regulations for development on emerging lots in the R-1 zone. 2 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes After review, Councilman Coffey made a motion not to introduce the ordinance on emerging legal lots as recommended by the Planning Commission; seconded by Mayor O'Mahony, approved by voice vote,4-0-1 (Galligan absent). The reasons cited by the Council members included the following: • The regulation creates 2 classes of"legal" lots; • People who have money and can afford to build a basement can get the full FAR on a lot at the time of construction, rest cannot; • Every new house enhances Burlingame, should be encouraging them; • 10 years is a too long to revert to 40% lot coverage, children are grown and gone before can add on to house; • Young families have rights - opportunity should not always go to the developers with money; • Need to rely on design review to regulate the impact on the block of consecutive development on multiple lots; • Concerned with over building neighborhoods, but don't know if this is the right solution—think the following: o Bedrooms in the basement is a bad idea; o Smaller footprint will increase the size of the second story; 0 2 car garage for a 2 or 3 bedroom house is unreasonable and reduces the living space; o If do this regulation should be limited to only those lots where three lots would emerge. • Issue is mass and bulk not FAR; PC should not be discussing limiting FAR with a basement or garage, mass and bulk should be regulated through design review. C. FY 2004-05 PROPOSED BUDGET TRANSMITTAL & SET TIME FOR STUDY SESSION FD Nava recommended Council accept the proposed FY 2004-05 budget and set the time and location for the budget study session. This meeting will be held on June Is`, 6:00 p.m. in the Library's Lane Community Room. d. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION CM Nantell requested Council consider the recommendation of the interview committee and make appointment, or take other action. Mayor O'Mahony recommended Victor James as the new Traffic Safety and Parking Commissioner to replace Lisa DeAngelis who resigned due to relocation. Councilman Coffey made a motion to appoint Victor James; seconded by Mayor O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). e. CONSIDER APPROPRIATION FROM CONTINGENCY RESERVE TO FUND CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE EMF PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED EMF ORDINANCE CA Anderson requested Council consider appropriation from the City's contingency reserve to fund an EMF consultant to evaluate EMF provisions of proposed EMF ordinance; noted that Dennis Zell, a proponent of the ordinance, obtained a proposal from Cindy Sage of Sage Associates who has done extensive work on 3 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes EMF issues and is willing to assist citizens and the City in the matter. Her projected budget is approximately $18,000. Mr. Zell has requested the Burlingame School District contribute $6,000 and is also seeking the assistance of Peninsula Hospital. Dennis Zell addressed the Council regarding the hiring of the EMF consultant and requested a$6,000 contribution from the City to cover costs. Councilman Coffey made a motion that the City authorized up to $6,000 contingent that the school district and hospital district provide 1/3 of the share of the $18,000 cost; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). Mayor O'Mahony encouraged Mr. Zell to get $2,000 in contributions from the residents so the City would only have to contribute $4,000. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT SPLIT OF LOT 9 INTO PARCEL 9A AND PARCEL 9B, BLOCK 22,MAP OF EASTON ADDITION TO BURLINGAME NO. 2— 1261 BALBOA AVENUE DPW Bagdon recommended Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the above lot split as a tentative and final parcel map subject to the conditions attached to the map. b. RESOLUTION #46-2004 ACCEPTING THE PLAYGROUND REHABILITATION AT WASHINGTON PARK DPR Schwartz recommended Council approve Resolution#46-2004 accepting the playground construction at Washington Park performed by the Community Playgrounds of Novato in the amount of$148,946. C. NPDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN—2004-05 GENERAL PROGRAM BUDGET DPW requested Council endorse the 2004/05 General Program Budget as adopted by the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and use of the San Mateo County Flood Control District as the funding mechanism to support the General Program activities by adopting Resolution#48- 2004 recommending that the District continue to impose basic and additional charges for funding the expanded program scope of work. d. FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1405-07 EL CAMINO REAL, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4, PM 00-05 DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve the condominium map subject to the conditions, covenants and restrictions stated in the staff report. e. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL 4 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes FD Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#94924-95413 duly audited, in the amount of $2,826,376.63 (excluding library checks 94924-94962), Payroll checks #158097-158395 in the amount of $2,080,538.17 for the month of April 2004. L BUDGET STUDY MEETING DATE, TIME AND LOCATION CC Musso requested council hold the budget study meeting on June 1St at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Community Room of the Burlingame Library. g. RESOLUTION #45-2004 ACCEPTING EASTON CREEK STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FOR BOX CULVERTS AT NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND ROLLINS ROAD TO NORTHWEST CONSTRUCTION, CP 80590 DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution#45-2004 accepting $310,155 in improvements to the Easton Creek Storm Drain at North Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road by Northwest Construction. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Galligan absent). 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. OLD BUSINESS Mayor O'Mahony requested CA Anderson report on the following closed session item: a. Meet with City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, City Manager and Bob Bell, Human Resources Director, to discuss labor negotiations with American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees (AFSCME)and the Police Administrators pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. Council instructed CA Anderson on further handling of this claim. a. REOUEST DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO CANCEL THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 19 AND AUGUST 16, 2004 CC Musso requested direction on canceling the Regular Council meetings of July 19 and August 16, 2004. Councilman Coffey made a motion to cancel the July 6th meeting, due to the 4th of July holiday, and August 16th meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, (Galligan absent). 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, March 16, 2004; Planning, May 10, 2004 5 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes b. Department Reports: Building, April 2004; Finance, April 2004 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. in honor of City Manager Nantell's new grandson, Domenic. Respectfully submitted, Ann T. Musso City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council May 17,2004 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 5b Mtg. Date 6/7/04 M b f. d SPECIAL TO THE INDEPENDENT' From left;Joellen Galligan, Amanda Boyle,Theresa Woods and JennilferCareyl were,all.smiles after breaking the PPSL record in the 4x100 'relay with a time of 55.03 seconds. . Flying An els' smash ihllee track records Y g g OurLady of Angels seventh- and Jennifer Carey tied the Boyle took second in the 200. grade girls'track team set three 100-meter record with a blister- Teammate Kelsey Partee was' meet records at the PPSL chain- ing 13.19. seventh in the long jump and. pionships at Chabot College. The relay runners are Joellen Megan Dobiles took ,fourt.h i,n The 4x100 relay team set a new Galligan, Amanda Boyle, The- the shot put with a personal' PPSL mark of 55.03 seconds. resa Woods and Carey.:Woods best of 27 feet,5-1/2 inches.The: The 4x400 relay team broke a also won_the.800 run, Galligan team of only six girls placed . seven-year record with.a 4:34.09 took,second in the 460 and third out of 16 schools. A CITY Z STAFF REPORT BUig.INGAME AGENDA 6a ITEM# MTG. 6/7/04- DATE – — TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCEL SUBMITTED BY DATE: May 27, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance to Amend the Contract between the City of Burlingame and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (Ca1PERS) to provide for Section 20965 Credit for Unused Sick Leave and Section 21037 Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit for Local Fire Members RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council: o Adopt the Ordinance to Amend the Contract with Ca1PER.S to provide for Section 20965- Credit for Unused Sick Leave and Section 21037 - Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit for Local Fire Members. o Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of May 3, 2004, staff introduced the attached ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with Ca1PERS. The City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough recently completed negotiations on a combined Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the combined fire department. The City and Town agreed to provide the same retirement benefits for the employees involved in the merged fire operation. The ordinance will amend the retirement contract to provide the same benefits offered to Hillsborough employees. Credit for unused sick leave allows employees to convert unused sick leave to credible service with Ca1PERS at the time an employee retires. For every 1,000 hours of sick leave, the employee receives approximately 6 months of service. Cancellation of Optional Service Credit allows employees that retire with an industrial disability to stop pre-arranged payments with Ca1PERS for the purchase of additional service time. CalPERS offers service time purchase for such things as military time and/or other public service time in a non-Ca1PERS employer. The employee pays for additional service time. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost for the sick leave benefit enhancement was provided to Council during the negotiations process. It is as follows: o Change in Present Value of Benefits: $333,553 o Change in Accrued Liability: $243,769 o Change in the Total Employer Rate: 0.645% The change in employer rate equals $28,000 annually. This cost was included in the shared fire department cost projections when the agencies analyzing the feasibility of combining departments. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Amendment to Contract I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 3 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE EMPLOYEE MEMBERS WITH CREDIT FOR 4 UNUSED SICK LEAVE AND CANCELLATION OF PAYMENT FOR OPTIONAL SERVICE CREDIT IF RETIRED ON INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY 5 6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 7 Section 1. Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City 8 of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), the City 9 wishes to amend its contract to allow its fire service employees to be eligible for two benefits: 1) 10 Conversion of unused sick leave to creditable service upon retirement; and 2) Cancellation of 11 payment for optional service credit when an employee is retired for an industrial disability. On 12 April 26,2004,the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment at 13 a duly noticed public hearing, and notice of that public hearing has been properly provided. 14 Written comments and oral testimony of all interested persons have been considered. 15 Section 2. The Amendment to Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board of 16 Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of 17 this amendment is attached to this ordinance,marked Exhibit,and by such reference is made a part 18 hereof as though herein set out in full. 19 Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and 20 directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 21 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 22 days after its adoption. 23 24 25 Mayor 26 27 I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 28 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3`d day of 1 I May, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 2 of , 2004, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 7 City Clerk 8 CAF[LES\ORDINANC\calpersemn4.per.wpd 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CaIPERS California Public Employees' Retirement System 410111. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City Council City of Burlingame The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1942, and witnessed July 6, 1942, and as amended effective February 1, 1954, July 1, 1956, April 1, 1963, March 1, 1964, April 1, 1965, March 16, 1967, November 1, 1968, September 1, 1970, April 1, 1973, May 1, 1974, November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1, 1979, December 1, 1985, December 1, 1987, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990, May 26, 1997, December 12, 2000, November 1, 2001, December 30, 2001, July 15, 2002 and June 5, 2003 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective June 5, 2003, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members and age 55 for local safety members. 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof,apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters(herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers(herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS;POLICE CADETS,AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER MARCH 16,1967;AND b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1,1974. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2%at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 55 Full). 7. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members). C. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. d. Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. e. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance). f. Section 21319 (One-Time 15% Increase for Local Miscellaneous Members Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1, 1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 2002. g. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member Contribution Rate). From May 1, 1979 and until December 1, 1985, the normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and local safety member contribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed said Section effective September 29, 1980. h. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614, Statutes of 1978). i. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation). j. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. k. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous members and local fire members only. I. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976. M. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). n. Section 21037 (Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit Upon Retirement for Industrial Disability). 8. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 9. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effective on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF BURLINGAME BY BY KENNETH W. MARZION, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER ACTUARIAL & EMPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Witness Date Attest: Clerk AMENDMENT ER#18 PERS-CON-702A(Rev.8\02) Awl' AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT �- ITEM # 6b MT 6/7/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 18, 2004 BY APPRO FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY � 6 SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STANDARDS FOR PL ZEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold a public hearing to: A. Adopt proposed ordinance. B. Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: Staff met with the Newsrack Committee and local Broadway merchants, including BID President, Ross Bruce, on June 26, 2003, to discuss the attached modified newsrack ordinance which essentially restricts the addition of any new newsracks along Broadway due to safety and access concerns. The existing newsrack locations cited in the ordinance appear sufficient to meet the news space demand, as the ordinance allows ten foot-long newsrack groupings at all four corners of the Chula Vista, Laguna, Paloma and Capuchino Avenue intersections (see map of Broadway newsrack locations). It should be noted that the streetscape improvements were specifically designed to accommodate this length of newsrack groupings. In addition, there are approximately 80 unused newsrack locations available on Broadway side streets. The modified ordinance increases the newsrack height by four inches to accommodate a more aesthetic angled roof design. The ordinance also establishes a six foot minimum distance between tree wells and newsracks to provide sufficient space for maintenance and pedestrians. The Newsrack Committee and merchants support the modified ordinance. However, the committee will review the effect of the ordinance over the next year and may identify additional modifications for Council consideration. EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance; Map BUDGET IMPACT: Any newsrack installation costs resulting from the ordinance will be borne by the newspaper companies. c: City Clerk Ross Bruce SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Ord 4 Newsracks 2.wpd Q' Jti 1100 �P 112a ' 1126 1101 1128- h 136 WAL6l R ANS 1160 1145 1170 ` iyU ,,w 1 1178 1 18181474 it 59 A 1190 111 9 1,� 1199 � WNUrGHOP ,22 1201 1205 1236 �Q 12121 2 123 1239 1300- 124 1310 1251 sub131fr 1322- 1301- 1326 1305 1321- 11360 1327 �tiQh X55- 1400 1399 0 1408- 145 410 Q' 1454 1405- tVv 1480 1433 G Parking Lot R I, 14%e Broadway Commercial Area Existing News Racks on Broadway Sidewalk (Note - does not include any news racks on the side streets) I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 12.23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 3 TO REVISE STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS 4 IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The newsrack ordinance adopted in 2000 has worked well with the 8 cooperation of all concerned. However, issues have arisen with regard to placement of the 9 newsracks on Broadway and near tree wells, and the newsrack industry has developed a 10 newsrack with an angled roof that is easier to maintain in an attractive condition. This 11 ordinance allows newsracks to be an additional four inches tall to meet the angled roof design 12 and will not cause any apparent visibility problems because of the other standards for 13 placement. Broadway has recently undergone an extensive streetscape improvement program 14 in order to make public travel and access easier and more inviting. This ordinance limits 15 placement of newsracks on Broadway to certain locations that have sufficient room for 16 pedestrian travel, landscaping, and newsracks. These locations appear sufficient to meet the 17 demand for newsrack space, because this ordinance also allows up to ten feet in length of 18 newsrack grouping at the key intersections immediately adjacent to Broadway, where the 19 sidewalks have been built specifically to accommodate this newsrack access. In addition, there 20 is no standard for proximity to tree wells and this ordinance will establish a distance that will 21 allow clearance for maintenance and pedestrians so that the trees will be allowed to survive in 22 the urban setting. The Newsrack Committee will review the effect of these ordinance changes 23 and determine if any modifications are necessary in the coming year. 24 25 Section 2. Section 12.23.050 is amended to read as follows: 26 12.23.050 Design. 27 (a)No newsrack shall be installed in the public right-of-way that does not meet the 28 dimensions of- 1 1 (1) not more than fifty-eight(58) inches high including pedestal, measured from the 2 ground to the top surface of the newsrack; 3 (2) not more than two (2) feet deep; and 4 (3)not more than two (2) feet wide; and 5 (4) not less than fifteen(15) inches from the ground as measured from the ground to the 6 bottom surface of the lowest compartment. The bottom of a newsrack may be as low as five (5) 7 inches from the ground, so long as it is set back as required in subsection 12.23.070(a)(3)(c) 8 below. 9 (b)No group of newsracks shall extend for a distance of more than eight (8) feet 10 without the written permission of the director. However, a group of newsracks may extend up 11 to ten (10) feet along Chula Vista, Laguna, Paloma, and Capuchino Avenues at each of those 12 streets' intersections with Broadway. If sufficient space does not exist to accommodate all 13 newsracks sought to be placed at one location without violating the standards set forth in this 14 subsection, the city or its designee shall approve permits for that location as follows: 15 (1) First priority, first come first served basis; 16 (2) Second priority, a lottery will be held to assign spaces. 17 (c) All newsracks shall be permanently affixed to the ground within the Broadway 18 Commercial Area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. 19 (d) The highest operable part of the coin slot, if provided for the newsrack, all controls, 20 dispensers and other operable components of newsracks shall not be greater than forty-eight 21 (48) inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk, nor lower than fifteen (15) 22 inches above the level of the adjacent pavement or sidewalk. 23 (e)Newsracks are not subject to design review. 24 25 Section 3. Section 12.23.060 is amended to read as follows: 26 12.23.060 Placement. 27 (a)No person shall install, stock, use or maintain any newsrack which projects onto, 28 into or over any part of the roadway of any public right-of-way, street, or which rests, wholly or 5/1 7/2004 2 I in part, upon, along or over any portion of a roadway. 2 (b)No person shall install, use or maintain any newsrack which in whole or in part rests 3 upon, in or over any sidewalk or roadway, when such installation, use, or maintenance 4 endangers the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public 5 utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other government use, or when such 6 newsrack unreasonably interferes with or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic, 7 including disabled access, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, or 8 the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, postal service collection boxes or other 9 objects permitted at or near said location. 10 (c) Each newsrack shall be installed in a permanent fashion to the public sidewalk. The 11 owner or operator of the newsrack shall provide the installation pursuant to the provisions of 12 this chapter. Should the newsrack be relocated at any time in the future, the then-owner or 13 operator of the newsrack shall bear the costs of repairing and restoring the sidewalk to a safe 14 and attractive condition. 15 (d) In the Broadway Commercial Area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue 16 Commercial Area, all newsracks shall be contained in modular units for display and sale that 17 meet the specifications established by the city. The distributors shall provide the modular units. 18 The modular newsracks shall be of a multi-unit configuration in order to provide the safe 19 passage of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, while ensuring equivalent access to distribution. The 20 modular units shall be subject to and shall be attached to one another to facilitate consolidation. 21 No alteration of these modular newsracks shall be permitted without the express written 22 direction of the city. 23 (e) A publication not previously circulating in a given area which chooses to do so, may 24 place an industry standard rack on a temporary basis for sixty (60) days so long as: 25 (1) The newsrack is tagged by the distributor with the placement date and the date of 26 removal; and 27 (2) The tag indicates that this is a test location; and 28 (3) By the sixty-first day, the distributor shall either obtain a newsrack permit or 5/17/2004 3 I remove the newsrack; and 2 (4) During the sixty(60) day temporary basis, the distributor adheres to all other 3 aspects of this chapter, except for permanently affixing it to the public sidewalk. 4 (5) This subsection (e) shall not apply to the Broadway Commercial Area. 5 (f) The number and placement of newsracks located on the public right-of-way 6 parallel to Broadway between California Drive and El Camino Real shall be limited as follows: 7 (1) Eight(8) newsracks immediately in front ofl 160 Broadway; 8 (2) Six (6) newsracks immediately in front of 1226 Broadway; and 9 (3) Four(4) newsracks immediately in front of 1308 Broadway. and 10 (4) Four(4) newsracks immediately in front of 1159 Broadway. 11 Any additional newsracks shall be located on the street corners located at Chula Vista, Laguna, 12 Paloma, and Capuchino Avenues. 13 14 Section 4. Subsection 12.23.070(k) is amended and a new subsection 12.23.0700 15 is added to read as follows: 16 (k) Within six (6) feet from the edge of a tree well for a street tree planted in the 17 public sidewalk. 18 (0 If there are any conflicting dimensions with the placement of a newsrack as 19 described in subsections (a)to(k) above, the greater dimensions shall control. 20 21 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 22 23 Mayor 24 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 25 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 171h 26 day of May, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 27 day of , 2004, by the following vote: 28 5/17/2004 4 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 4 City Clerk 5 CAFILES\Public Works\Newsracks\newsrackrev2004.ord.wpd 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5/1 7/2004 5 AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# GC MT 06/07/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: May 26, 2004 BY APPROV FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY "" SUBJECT: DIRECTION ON PROPOSED SOUNDWALL ALONG WEST SIDE OF U.S. 101 FREEWAY FROM CORBITT DRIVE TO CADILLAC WAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: • approve a 16 foot high soundwall from Corbitt Drive to 100 feet north of Toyon Drive • provide direction to staff regarding the soundwall from 100 feet north of Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way John Hessler of David Powers Associates,an engineering consultant for the project,will be making a presentation regarding the soundwall. BACKGROUND: As a part of the U.S. 101 Freeway Auxiliary Lane project between 3`d Avenue and Millbrae Avenue, the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) and Caltrans are proposing to build a soundwall along the west side of the freeway extending from the end of the existing soundwall at Corbitt Drive to Cadillac Way. During the environmental process, the SMCTA held public meetings to obtain comments on the overall project including the soundwall. In addition,the SMCTA performed a noise study along Rollins Road for the purpose of evaluating the noise-reduction benefits of soundwalls of varying heights and lengths (see attached study). On April 22,2004,a special public meeting was held by SMCTA at the request of the City to present soundwall options and obtain feedback from the public. The meeting was attended by both residents and businesses along Rollins Road. The area between Corbitt Drive and Toyon Drive is primarily multi-family residential dwellings. At the meeting, the public unanimously supported a proposed 16 foot high soundwall from Corbitt Drive to Toyon Drive as it significantly reduces noise levels. However,the area between Toyon Drive and Cadillac Way consists of the Lithia Auto dealership,Rector Auto dealership,Kuleto's Trattoria restaurant,a 76 gas station and the North Park Apartments. Representatives from the auto dealerships and the restaurant were concerned about the potential revenue loss due to the lack of visibility from the freeway if a soundwall was constructed of any height (see attached letters). DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED 16 FOOT HIGH SOUNDWALL FROM CORBITT DRIVE TO 100 FEET NORTH OF TOYON DRIVE: The new soundwall would match the existing 16 foot high soundwall at Corbitt Drive. It is estimated that the noise levels would be reduced by as much as 10 decibels, which represents a substantial noise abatement. The residents in the area are in strong support of the soundwall. An apartment building at 900 Rollins Road, immediately north of Toyon Drive and adjacent to Lithia,would not benefit if the wall is terminated at Toyon Drive. Staff believes that extending the wall approximately 100 feet north would significantly reduce noise levels at the apartment building and would not adversely affect the visibility of the Lithia car display area. DISCUSSION OF SOUNDWALL FROM 100 FEET NORTH OF TOYON DRIVE TO CADILLAC WAY:As the area north of Toyon Drive consists of a mix of building uses, it presents a challenge in providing sound attenuation to the apartments and sufficient visibility to the auto dealerships and restaurant. To gain a better understanding of the wall options and their impact on visibility, staff erected story poles from Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way. The poles are at a height of 16 feet and have 8 foot, 12 foot, 14 foot and 16 foot distinctive color markers. Also,staff prepared renderings depicting various height soundwalls as seen from both the northbound Page 2 and southbound direction on the freeway. Staff will present the renderings at the Council meeting. It should be noted that the visibility of the car display areas at Lithia are affected by the proposed soundwall. However,none of the proposed wall options would affect the visibility of the Lithia, Rector Cadillac or Kuleto's signs, which are 30 to 35 feet high. The following are wall options with a description of their effectiveness to reduce noise levels: OPTIONS SOUNDWALL HEIGHT REDUCTION IN NOISE LEVELS 1 No soundwall Existing noise levels of 73-80 decibels will remain 2 8 Foot soundwall • 4-5 decibels reduction in noise at 2"d floor level • 2-3 decibels reduction in noise at 3`d floor level 3 10 Foot soundwall • 5-7 decibels reduction in noise at 2"d floor level • 3-5 decibels reduction in noise at 3`d floor level 4 14 Foot soundwall • 7-10 decibels reduction in noise at 2"d floor level • 7-8 decibels reduction in noise at 3`d floor level 5 16 Foot soundwall • 8-11 decibels reduction in noise at 2nd floor level • 9-10 decibels reduction in noise at 3`d floor level It should be pointed out that a three decibel or less noise reduction is undetectable to the average ear; a four to six decibel noise reduction is noticeable, and a seven or more decibel noise reduction is considered substantial. (A 10 decibel reduction is perceived as half as loud.) SMCTA is requesting Council direction on the above options in order to finalize the project design. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in spring, 2005 and will take approximately two years to complete. EXHIBITS: Noise Study Report; Letter from Lithia Dealership against proposed soundwall; Letter from Chamber of Commerce against proposed soundwall BUDGET IMPACT: This project is totally financed by Caltrans and SMCTA through Measure A funds. Syed za, P.E. City Engineer c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, SMCTA, Lithia, Rector, Kuleto's SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\101-soundwall2mpd MO'C Physics Applied 04-SM-101 KP217/28 EA 264200 US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way (Broadway), West-Side Neighborhood [Evaluations of Additional Soundwall Alternatives] 1/25/04 [Revised] US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement MO'C Physics Applied Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way(Broadway),West-Side Neighborhood Pagel of 8 The Purpose of This Supplement Soundwall Alternatives of This Supplement A prior report [11/28/01]presented a single soundwall Scheme A would simply consist of a continuous alignment along this section of Project wayside. In the horizontal soundwall,much as the one that was evaluated in the dimension, that studied soundwall alignment extended prior study, except that in this Supplement lower continuously from the north end of the existing soundwall near heights of 8 feet and 10 feet are also evaluated at Corbitt Drive,northward to a point just south of Cadillac Way locations north of Toyon Drive(at locations south of (adjacent to Broadway). Two alternative heights of(roughly) 14 Toyon Drive, no schemes involving low wall heights feet and 16 feet were then studied. are presently under consideration due to the general About 60 of the written comments that were received during absence of businesses there that might be substantially the review period of the Initial Study for the entire Project affected by blockage of lines of sight by soundwalls of pertained to noise. In particular, several persons who either live or the previously evaluated heights of 14 feet and 16 feet). work along or own a piece of property or a business that is situated Scheme B would consist of the soundwall that was along this very section of wayside stated views concerning the evaluated in the prior study, except that it would extend desirability of such a soundwall. only a slight distance north of Toyon Drive. With such Business owners and operators most often expressed opposition a truncated alignment the businesses on the frontage based on concerns that a soundwall of such a height would block road North Amphlett Boulevard would retain most lines lines of sight to their business sites and thereby hurt their business of sight to the freeway,but a substantial number of prospects. apartment units would get no abatement. This Supplement is intended to be responsive to the comments Scheme C would be somewhat more complicated in that that were received about the prospective soundwall. To that end, it would include a section at an auto dealership various alternative profiles for a soundwall between Corbitt Drive immediately north of Toyon Drive that would be and Cadillac Way were developed and three general schemes A, B "dipped"down in height, to either 8 feet or 10 feet. and C were evaluated. With Scheme C the soundwall would be continuous and, as with Scheme A, it would extend northward as far as in the original design. The dipped-down section of reduced height would provide some greater visibility for the auto dealership. It could also provide a limited amount of abatement for nearby residences. MO'C physics Applied US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way(Broadway),West-Side Neighborhood Page 2 of 8uirements Strict&Less-Than-Strict Performance Req DisclaimerOne other element of the policies and procedures of Caltrans quirement that sOundwall Decibels and reasonable cost allowances are explained in the should be repeated here,and it is thec is of ttenuat on.Receptor prior report, as are the general policies and procedures of Caltrans abatement must provide at least 5 de and the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)regarding the locations that do not receive such a allowance for t are othe soundwall. At abatement of highway noise. However, one advisement should be contributing to the reasonable cof the repeated here and it is in the nature of a disclaimer concerning the some receptor locations the diminish cation dropping out of the d extents soundwalls that are evaluated in this Supplement. Obviously, given B and C lead to the to of Schemes A, that several general schemes are presented here but only one reasonable cost allowance estimate due to the attenuation there no design can ultimately be built, a given person may not see a amounting to 5 decibels. soundwall of the scheme that he or she prefers built. But,there is A substantial fraction of the noise that is emitted by heavy something else. Even though the decision making process is the ops Of ks, progressing,with public and local agency participation,we are not which have an trucks comes from the exhausststacsurfacetof about 11. feet.The v yet at the point in the process at which soundwall construction average height above the roadway p llundwa d be high costs estimates and other gsight late desi n hale construction-related guidelines of Caltrans state thaetween receptorsand the ops of enough- considerations are folded into the process. Consequently,no to intercept the lines of tacks.The condition pertains only to ground assurances can be given that the Project Sponsor and Caltrans will heavy those exposures at the receptors nearest to the roadway• proceed with any of the soundwall designs that are among floor-level exp soundwalls are generally required to meet this that have been considered to date,or even(worse case)that any Moreover, althoughthe overall reasonableness of soundwall will be built. This follows from the basic fact that the condition,in the process of assessing d the Project Sponsor do not rank the a proposed abatement scheme asoundwall w dallof the relevant procedures of Caltrans an J P nonetheless, m v impact of the Project as"significant condition may roved. circumstances,ultimately be app Methods prepared using the most recent edition of This Supplement was pre p the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model(version 2.0.6)• US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement MO'C Physics Applied Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way(Broadway),West-Side Neighborhood Page 3 of 8 Discussion proxy for construction cost)was not as high as that of some other design. This Supplement does not draw conclusions about which soundwall scheme or soundwall height would be best. The reader The policy of Caltrans is to require the incorporation of will find that the table on the last page summarizes the estimated reasonable cost allowances of soundwalls in project effectiveness of each of the soundwall alternatives at each receptor noise reports, where the allowances are computed according to a location in terms of the decibel reduction that would be brought formula that is specified by Caltrans. The reasonable cost about by the soundwall (e.g., an entry of"8"means that the noise allowance formula does not give consideration to potential adverse level with the wall in place would be 8 decibels less than the noise economic effects of soundwalls on businesses due to blockage of level that would occur without any soundwall at all). lines of sight, but the concept of"reasonableness"is expressly defined by Caltrans to broadly encompass sensible considerations Other readers may wish to pay some attention to the reasonable other than just comparisons of acoustical benefits at sensitive cost allowances at the bottom of the table on the last page. A high receptors to soundwall construction costs. reasonable cost allowance is good, in the sense that it is a measure of the overall benefit to receptors (it is not a construction cost Regarding the interception of lines of sight to the tops of heavy-truck exhaust stacks,the table on the last page of this report estimate, which we might regard to be bad if it were to be a high contains a column that states the approximate minimum height that amount). Generally,where a soundwall alternative shields more a soundwall would have to have in order to intercept the line of receptors the reasonable cost allowance is higher. sight between the receptor and the tops of heavy-truck exhaust One might suppose that it would be a good idea to divide the stacks. In keeping with the letter of the Caltrans policy on this total reasonable cost allowance for each soundwall by the square subject, the estimates are provided only for receptor locations that footage of the soundwall,to thereby get some kind of neat measure have ground-floor-level exposures (which could be at a window or of soundwall effectiveness. One could do that, but it would be door of a living unit or at an outdoor use area). If instead, in the wholly contrary to the policies of Caltrans and the FHWA to act on spirit of noise control, we were to extend the evaluation of truck the basis of simply comparing those particular ratios. In effect the exhaust stack interception to receptors with upper-floor exposures, official policy denies the Project Sponsor the option of finding any we would find that the situation would be more complicated. soundwall to be an unreasonable abatement measure on the basis of cost if it has a reasonable cost allowance that is not lower than its projected construction cost. One may not concern oneself with the margin whereby the reasonable cost allowance exceeds the construction cost. It follows that it would be inappropriate to deny some receptors a soundwall merely because the estimated ratio of the reasonable cost allowance to the square footage (which is a US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement MO'C Physics Applied Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way (Broadway), West-Side Neighborhood Page 4 of 8 For example, whereas, for ground-floor-level exposures, soundwalls that would intercept lines of sight to the tops of exhaust stacks of heavy trucks in the nearest travel lane would also block lines of sight to exhaust stack tops in all of the other travel lanes, that would not generally be the case for upper-floor exposures (except perhaps for some second-floor-level exposures and the very highest soundwalls). However, in all cases, whatever the elevation of the receptor, the estimated time-averaged noise levels and the soundwall- generated reductions in those levels that are given in the table on the last page of this report fully account for the effects of truck exhaust noise, and the interception or lack of interception of lines of sight to truck exhaust stacks— that is all built into the noise model that was used. Also, it is not the case that the noise from a "point source", such as the outlet of a heavy-truck exhaust stack, is sharply reduced when the line of sight is just barely broken but not reduced at all when the line of sight passes just above the top of a soundwall but is not broken. Rather, the change is more gradual, due to the fact that sound does not behave exactly like light (to which we have already directly referred by discussing lines of "sight"). The decibel reductions that are shown in the table on the last page of this report vary over a considerable range. Generally, reductions of three decibels or less would be barely noticeable or not noticeable at all. A reduction of 10 decibels would be sensed as the overall loudness of freeway traffic being reduced by about half. Please note that the given reasonable cost allowances pertain to soundwall alternatives that extend all the way back to Corbitt Drive, even though only the segment north of Toyon Drive is depicted on the figures of Schemes A, B & C. US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement MO'C Physics Applied Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way(Broadway),West-Side Neighborhood Page 5 of 8 Scheme A: Fully Extended, Continuous Soundwall of Uniform Height North of Toyon Drive various heights 114-foot height • • • w' • • • N r-50 METERS-� (164 feet) US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise mud Supplement MO'C Physics ApMQd T pnDi to Cadillac Way(road»a),West-Side Neighborhood Page 6«a Scheme B: Sounawa |! Truncated North of To g2OWv deleteds section ] height s ' , ■ w � . v . .., . » f-50 ME e c W US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement MO'C Physics Applied • • Drive toCadillac (Broadway), • . Neighborhood Page 7 of i SchemeExtended, Continuous SoundwallDipped Section at an Auto Dealership 14-foot • i or • • • ht 14-foot height r-50 ME-ER5 _ • � X111 a. � : . .� � rte• r. , k , . . 4 •,m 'Y,T,�,:„mom:.. .,,,�.�-. .. -_� I y f - .. .. � k , • i i US 101 Auxiliary Lanes Project Noise Study Supplement 111O'C Physics Applied "Toyon Drive to Cadillac Way(Broadway),West-Side Neighborhood Page 8 of 8 Schemes A, B & C: Estimated Future Peak-Hour Noise Levels With Various Soundwall Heights (As Described Above) Floor Truck Exhaust Noise Level Receptor Level Use Intercept Height(ft) in Decibels <-----------------------------Reductions Due to Soundwall----------------------------------> Scheme: None A A A A B B C C Height(ft): 0 8 10 14 16 14 16 8 10 R1 G Apts. 10 77 8 9 10 10 3 4 8 9 R1 2nd Apts. -- 80 6 8 11 11 4 4 6 8 R2 2nd Apts. -- 76 5 6 9 10 0 0 8 9 R2 3rd Apts. -- 77 3 5 8 10 0 0 7 8 R2 4th Apts. -- 78 2 3 5 7 0 0 5 6 R3 2nd Apts. -- 78 4 7 10 11 0 0 10 10 R3 3rd Apts. -- 79 2 3 7 9 0 0 8 8 R3 4th Apts. -- 80 0 2 3 4 0 0 4 4 R4 2nd Apts. -- 73 4 5 7 8 0 0 7 7 R4 3rd Apts. -- 75 3 4 7 9 0 0 8 8 R4 4th Apts. -- 76 2 3 6 7 0 0 6 6 R5 -- Tennis -- 78 5 7 10 11 0 0 11 11 R6 G Restaurant 10 74 5 6 8 8 0 0 8 8 R7 2nd Apts. -- 71 2 3 5 5 0 0 5 5 R7 3rd Apts. -- 72 2 3 5 6 0 0 5 5 R7 4th Apts. -- 74 1 2 4 5 0 0 5 5 R8 2nd Apts. -- 68 1 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 R8 3rd Apts. -- 70 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 2 R8 4th Apts. -- 71 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 Reasonable Cost Allowance($Thou): $4,900 $6,500 $9,300 $9,700 $3,600 $3,900 $9,500 $9,600 Note: The tennis courts are actually somewhat elevated above the ground,hence no truck exhaust intercept height was computed. . 05/24,12004 14:01 541 r rurotn .__ -- IFLITHIA 7TORE AMERSCAR &TR- Sincr 1946 May 24,2004 Thomas B.Stucker 717 Hayne Road Burlinbame,CA 94010 Re-. Construction of Sound Bamer Dear Dr.Stucker: As you are aware,Lithia Real Estate. Inc. is cone vT1edrabout f the dealership from the freeway barrier near Lithia's Burlingame dealership. The �' is a material component of the property's sundhbameility t mttayawe11 alter the proper yse. peview'ng thso las to it appears that the construction of.the so constitute a taking as defined in Section 10 of the lease. truction of We look forward to assisting you in youWetw I" to prevent the be able to attainoasfavorable outcome co-ne in this mnnam optimistic that, with your help, matter. Very t1illy yours, osep R-Davis Senior Counsel Lithia Motors Support Services.Inc. General offices:360 lost Jackson St.-Med otd.Oregott 97501.5592•Phare(541)776-6401•Fax(541)776-6397 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE kq May 25, 2004 Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony Vice Mayor Joe Galligan Council Members: Cathy Baylock, Joe Galligan and Terry Nagel Dear Mayor O'Mahony and Council Members: RE: Soundwall Along 101 Freeway In Burlingame At its May 11 meeting, the Chamber Board addressed the proposed construction of a soundwall along the west side of the US 101 freeway, next to Rollins Road from Corbit Drive to south of Cadillac Way, as part of the US 101 Freeway Auxiliary Lane Project. Chamber members in that area include Kuleto's Trattoria, Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge of Burlingame Inc. and Rector Motor Car Co., all of whom do not want the Soundwall due to the loss of visibility. Historically, Burlingame has been known for its auto rows. Clear freeway visibility is important to attracting customers to auto dealerships and other businesses within our City. The Chamber Board of Directors supports the continuation of the Soundwall to Toyon Drive only. In addition, the Board recommended a solution that would incorporate a fence for safety with landscaping as a natural break instead of the soundwall. Sincerely, Bruce Carlton Chamber Chair 290 California Drive • Burlingame,CA 94010 • 650.344.1735 • Fax 650.344.1763 e-mail:info@burlingamechamber.org • www.burlingamechamber.org CITY o AGENDA 8a � ITEM# _ BURLINGAME I STAFF REPORT DATE e TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT % BY_ DATE: June 2, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Consider Appointment to Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointment recommendation of interview committee and make appointments or take other action. BACKGROUND: One commission position is due for appointment. The position was publicized and seven applications were received. Those applicants were interviewed by Cathy Baylock and Terry Nagel on May 26, 2004. Per the attached email, the interview committee recommended that Ralph Osterling be appointed to the commission. The term will be for three years ending in April 2007. MGR-Shinday, Netie From: Cathy Baylock [cathyb@baylock.com] Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:25 PM To: Netie MGR-Shinday Cc: Terry Nagel Subject: Planning Commission appointment Councilwoman Nagel and I interviewed seven excellent candidates for one open Planning Commission seat. We commend all applicants for their willingness to serve our community and encourage them to stay engaged in the future. We are recommending the reappointment of Commissioner Ralph Osterling. Ralph has served on the commission since 2000 and brings a valuable perspective to the Planning Commission in his role as a professional forester. We appreciate his many years of hard work on the busiest commission in Burlingame! We could like to thank applicants Will Loftis, David Cauchi, Nathanael Duenas, Mark Silva, Phil Saglimbeni and Dennis Zell for exemplifying all that is best in Burlingame. We hope you will apply for a commissioner position in the future. Signed, Cathy Baylock and Terry Nagel 1 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 8b ITEM# 000 MTG. DATE June 7,2004 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED kP elfwl Z'.0— BY DATE: June 2,2004 APPRO BY FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: FY 2004-05 Community Groups Funding Requests RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the requests for funding and decide the appropriate amount to grant these agencies. BACKGROUND: The City Council has historically provided funds to community groups that provide services to Burlingame residents. Last year the Council contributed $52,650 in funding to 17 community agencies. This year the City received funding requests from 18 groups. The requests total $54,670. The FY 04-05 Proposed Budget appropriates $49,100 for community group funding. In a letter dated March 1, 2004, all community groups were asked to decrease their requests by 10% given the reductions in the city's general fund revenues. The city received a request from one agency that has not received city funding in the past. Copies of the funding requests letters were provided to the City Council for their review. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment I. City of Burlingame Community Group Funding—FY 04-05 Attachment II. City of Burlingame Community Groups Funding Notice, March 1, 2004 Attachment I. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING - FY 04-05 Community Group FY 03-04 FY 04-05 FY 04-05 Vice-Mayor Approved Requests Recommended Galligan Cm.Nagel Cm.Baylock CALL Primrose Center $ 4,950 $ 4,450 $ 4,455 $ 4,450 $ 4,450 $ 4,450 Center for Independence of Disabled $ 1,350 $ 1,350 $ 1,215 $ 1,150 $ 1,350 $ 1,215 Community Gatepath $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 4,050 $ x/4,000 $ - $ - Friends For Youth $ 900 $ 800 $ 810 $ 800 $ - $ - Human Investment Project $ 1,800 $ 3,000 $ 1,620 $ 1,600 $ 3,000 $ 1,620 Mission Hospice $ 1,800 $ 1,620 $ 1,620 $ 1,620 $ 1,620 $ 1,620 PARCA $ 1,800 $ 2,000 $ 1,620 $ 1,600 $ 2,000 $ 1,620 . Samaritan House $ 7,200 $ 7,200 $ 6,480 $ 6,500 $ - $ 7,200 • Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County $ 2,250 $ 2,025 $ 2,025 $ 2,025 $ - $ - YFA Crisis Intervention Center $ 2,250 $ 2,250 $ 2,025 $ 2,000 $ 2,250 $ 2,025 • Shelter Network $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 4,050 $ 4,000 $ 4,500 $ 4,050 • Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse $ 3,150 $ 5,000 $ 2,835 $ 3,000 $ 5,000 $ 2,835 • Burlingame Community Theatre $ 3,150 $ 2,835 $ 2,835 $ 2,835 $ - $ - Sustainable San Mateo County $ 1,350 $ 1,500 $ 1,215 $ 1,200 $ 1,500 $ - Project FOCYS $ 3,600 $ 3,240 $ 3,240 $ 3,240 $ 3,240 $ - Broadway By The Bay(Civic Light Opera) $ 900 $ 800 $ 810 $ $ - $ Safe Harbor(Winter Shelter) $ 7,200 $ 7,200 $ 6,480 $ 6,500 $ 7,200 $ 7,200 • Burlingame Historical Society $ - $ 400 $ - $ - $ - $ - Ombudsman Program of San Mateo $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Requests: $ 52,650 $ 54,670 $ 47,385 $ 47,320 $ 36,110 $ 33,835 Budget Appropriation: $ 54,500 $ 49,100 $ 49,100 $ 49,100 $ 49,100 $ 49,100 • Surplus + /Deficit(-): $ 1,850 $ 5,570) $ 1,715 $ 1,780 $ 12,990 $ 15,265 • Funding Recommendations.xls 6/2/2004 CITY Attachment II. A� 1 BURLINGAME WcDq 900 DAATED JURE 6 The City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 DATE: March 1, 2004 TO: Interested Community Group SUBJECT: City of Burlingame Community Groups Funding Notice The City of Burlingame has traditionally funded a number of community programs every fiscal year. A total of$49,100 has been approved by the City Council for FY 2004-05 (which begins July 1, 2004). Given the continued decrease in city revenues, we ask that your request for funding include a ten-percent (10%) reduction from the amount authorized in the current FY 2002-03 budget. If your group wishes to apply for a portion of these funds, please submit a letter to my office by Friday,April 9, 2004. Your letter should contain the following information: a brief description of the purposed use of city funds; the amount of your request; and the number of Burlingame residents that may be served if the funding is granted. Please note that the State of California may impose additional financial restrictions on the City of Burlingame. Any future State actions may result in an additional decrease in funding for community groups. During June, the city council will review all the requests it has received and allocate funds as part of the 2004-05 budget. Please contact me at 650-588-7222 if you have any questions. Cordially, tJesdNava ce Director/Treasurer cc: City Council City Clerk 0F4.CITY k STAFF REPORT BURIJNGAME AGENDA 9a ITEM# MTG. A TEA.AIME b• DATE 6/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: Mav 28, 2004 APPROVE FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the Layoff Policy into the City of Burlingame's Administrative Procedures- Section 4- Personnel RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council: o Approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the Layoff Policy into the City of Burlingame's Administrative Procedures. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame does not have a citywide layoff policy for employees covered under the civil service system. Though the majority of labor units have layoff processes in their Memoranda. of Understanding, the units that have no provisions have no specific policy that promulgates how layoffs will occur. The attached policy clarifies the City's layoff procedure. Under the City's current labor structure,this policy will apply to the following labor units: Burlingame Association of Middle Managers (BAMM) - the association represents exempt level, non- safety classifications in the City. Teamsters -the union represents the Communication Dispatchers in the City of Burlingame. The Human Resources Director, in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney, developed the layoff procedure and has been engaged in the meet and confer process with the aforementioned labor groups. The meet and confer process has been completed and the policy can now be implemented. Though the City Manager has the authorization to approve administrative procedures, staff felt that the policy was of significant importance and should be reviewed by the City Council. BUDGET INIPACT• There is no budget or fiscal impact in implementing this policy. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A-Layoff Policy Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCORPORATE THE LAYOFF PROCEDURE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A INTO THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES - SECTION FOUR - PERSONNEL RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has administrative procedures and civil service rules that govern specific employment rules and practices, and these rules and procedures do not specifically address the process in which employees covered by the rules and civil service system would be selected for layoff; and WHEREAS, the City has met and conferred with employee groups that will be covered by the new layoff provisions as required by State law; and WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public, the City, and City employees; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The City Council has reviewed and hereby approves the layoff procedure attached hereto. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to incorporate the layoff procedure into the City of Burlingame Administrative Procedure, Section 4 - Personnel. Mayor I, ANN MUSSO, 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 day of May, 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: City Clerk EXHIBIT A CITY OF BURLINGAME LAYOFF POLICY A. Policy Statement It is the City's intent to avoid employee layoffs whenever possible. When, however, in the City's judgment it is necessary to abolish a position of employment, the employee holding the position may be laid off or demoted without disciplinary action and without the right of appeal. When feasible and practical, the City will meet with employees of the affected classification and/or their representatives in order to determine whether or not a voluntary reduction in hours or other solution may be mutually agreed to in order to avoid the pending layoff. B. Notice Whenever possible, an employee subject to layoff will be given at least 14 calendar days notice prior to the effective date of the layoff. Layoff notification will be provided in the form of a"Notice of Layoff." At the time of notice, the employee will also be notified of any displacement rights or rights to reemployment, as described below. C. Order of Layoff The City will attempt to effect layoffs first in vacant positions. When it is necessary to eliminate filled positions, employees shall be laid off in the following order: (1) probationary employees, (2) permanent employees. All employees shall be laid off in the inverse order of their seniority within their classification. Seniority is determined by length of service in the classification. "Length of service in the classification" means employment in the classification without interruption, including all days of attendance at work and authorized paid and unpaid leaves of absence with the City. Length of service does not include unauthorized absences or periods of suspension, layoff or breaks in service. Permanent part-time employees will receive classification seniority on a pro-rata basis (i.e. an employee that served 30 hours per week over a 12- month period, would receive .75 year of seniority for that year of service). The 12-month period will begin from the appointment date into permanent part-time status. In the rare case where two or more employees in the classification have exactly the same seniority determination, the following procedure will be used: Employees shall be laid off on the basis of the last overall evaluation rating in the classification, providing such information has been on file at least 30 days and no more than 12 months prior to lay off In such a case, employees shall be laid off in the following order: (1) employees with a "below standard" or similar performance rating, (2) employees having a "meets standards" or similar performance rating, (3) employees with an "exceeds standards" or similar performance rating. D. Displacement Rights Regular employees who are designated to be laid off and have held permanent status in a lower classification within the same classification series (e.g., planning series, engineering series, police series, fire series, etc.) in the same department in the City may displace employees in the lower classification provided that the employee exercising the displacement privilege has greater length of service seniority with the City. An employee cannot displace an employee that is in a different bargaining unit. In order for an employee to displace another, the displacing employee must have an equal or better overall performance evaluation rating from his/her last evaluation when the employee was in the previously held position. If the employee in the higher classification has not held status in a lower classification, then no displacement rights are afforded to that individual. Conditions which affect displacement rights are as follows: (1) The employee exercising the displacement privilege will displace employees in lower classifications in the inverse order of seniority, meaning employees with the least amount of seniority are displaced first. (2) The employee must exercise displacement privileges within 15 working days after receipt of the Notice of Layoff, by written notice to the Human Resources Director. If this choice is not exercised within the specified time period, it is automatically forfeited. "Length of service seniority" is determined by length of service in the City as a permanent employee, including any probationary periods served by the employee. Length of service includes permanent employment without interruption, including all days of attendance at work and authorized paid and unpaid leaves of absence with the City. Length of service does not include unauthorized absences or periods of suspension, layoff or breaks in service. Permanent part-time employees will receive service seniority on a pro-rata basis (i.e. an employee that served 30 hours per week over a 12-month period, would receive .75 year of seniority for that year of service). The 12-month period will begin from the appointment date into permanent part-time status. E. Demotion Upon request of the employee, and with approval of the City Manager or his/her designee, an employee subject to layoff who has not held status in a lower classification may be allowed to demote to a vacant authorized position in the same department if he/she meets all the requirements of the lower position as determined by the City Manager or his/her designee. Employees who are demoted under this paragraph will be paid at the rate of pay for the lower position. The determination surrounding demotion is not subject to grievance under any Memoranda of Understanding and/or the City's personnel and civil service rules. F. Transfer The City Manager or his/her designees may transfer an employee subject to layoff to a vacant, authorized position if the employee is qualified and technically capable of performing the duties as determined by the appointing authority. An employee who is transferred will be paid at the rate of the position to which the employee is being transferred. An employee who does not accept a transfer within 15 working days after a Notice of Transfer is given, will have automatically forfeited the ability to transfer. If the transfer involves a change from one department to another, both department heads must consent unless the City Manager orders the transfer for purposes of economy or efficiency. G. Reinstatement If a position in the classification series from which the employee was laid off becomes vacant or a position in the classification series is reestablished during that two-year period, permanent employees shall be returned to the position in preference to any other person. Written notice shall be given to the regular employee, who has received a satisfactory or better evaluation for the 12 months prior to lay off, has completed his/her probationary period and who has been laid off, and shall be automatically placed on a re- employment list for two(2)years for the classification from which he/she was laid off. The employee will have fifteen(15) days from the date of the written notice to exercise reinstatement rights. ��CITY ,� STAFF REPORT BlJRLJNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9b MTG. DATE 6/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED J&0�.'o BY Ld,4®r%,0'- DATE MAY 18, 2004 f APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY /L SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATI = EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE EXTENSION OF MEASURE A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution adopting the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, to extend Measure A for a 25-year term beginning January 1, 2009. BACKGROUND: The San Mateo County Transportation Authority(TA)prepared the attached Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan in accordance with California Public Utilities Code. A public hearing was held on February 28, 2004; and the TA Board adopted the plan on March 18, 2004. In addition, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission unanimously approved the plan on March 28, 2004; and the City and County Association of Governments unanimously approved the plan on May 13, 2004. The Draft Plan needs to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors, as well as by a majority of cities representing the majority of the population of the incorporated area of the County by a majority vote of their respective councils. The Board is scheduled to hear the item at their July 6, 2004 meeting and will decide whether or not to place the Plan as well as the extension of the local sales on the ballot for voter approval in the November 2004 general election. DISCUSSION: The Plan defines the distribution of the extended tax revenues and includes a balanced strategy for meeting the transportation needs of San Mateo County. The Plan establishes a number of objectives, including reducing commute corridor congestion, making regional connections, enhancing safety, meeting local mobility needs for seniors and people with disabilities, and meeting the unique transportation needs of the cities and County. It provides for funding in six program areas, including transit, highways, local streets/transportation, grade separations, pedestrian and bicycle, and alternative congestion relief projects. The Plan was prepared after receiving input from: • A Countywide Technical Advisory Committee • Public Workshops hosted by the TA • Comments from presentations to elected officials • Available polling information • Comments from the February 28, 2004 Public Hearing hosted by the TA and League of Women Voters Page 2 EXHIBITS: Resolution; Plan; Sales Tax Revenue Distribution, Endorsement by League of women voters BUDGET IMPACT: A 25-year extension of the half-cent sales tax is estimated to generate $1.5 billion in current dollars, which would be distributed as described in the Plan. 22.5% or $337.5 million dollars will be allocated to the cities and County to fund local transportation needs. Based on the Plan formula, the City of Burlingame is projected to receive over $14 million (in 2004 dollars) over the life of the extended Measure. c: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. ADOPTION OF THE DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE EXTENSION OF MEASURE A WHEREAS, on June 7, 1988, the voters of San Mateo County approved a ballot measure known as "Measure A," which increased the local sales tax in San Mateo County by 1/2 percent with the tax revenues to be used for highway and transit improvements pursuant to the Transportation Expenditure Plan that included a provision for the creation of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority; and WHEREAS, in order to extend the local sales tax, California Public Utilities Code Section 131000 et seq. requires the San Mateo County Transportation Authority to prepare a new Transportation Expenditure Plan at least one year prior to 2008, hold a public hearing on the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan and then submit the Draft Plan to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for review and approval; and WHEREAS, upon approval by MTC, the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan must be submitted to the Cities and County of San Mateo for approval by a majority of the Board of Supervisors and by a majority vote of the respective City Councils of the majority of the Cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated areas of the County prior to being ultimately submitted for voter approval at the next general election(November 2004); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the statutory requirements, San Mateo County Transportation Authority prepared a Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, reflecting a year long process that sought input from the public, elected officials and technical committees, that was presented at a public hearing on February 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, the recommended Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A, provides for a balanced program of transportation projects and includes implementation guidelines to ensure flexibility to meet the current and future transportation needs of San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council approve the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, dated March 18, 2004, attached as Exhibit A, for the extension of Measure A for a twenty-five year term beginning January 1, 2009; and Regularly passed and adopted this day of , 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN San Mateo County Transportation Authority March 18, 2004 SAN NFTEO CUVNTY Transportation Authority DRAFT TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Summary 2 II. Goals and Objectives 5 III. Expenditure Plan Summary 7 IV. Project Descriptions 10 V. Governing Board/Organization Structure 17 VI. Implementation Guidelines 18 I. SUMMARY Measure A: Effective and Essential The 1988 voter approval of Measure A, San Mateo County's half-cent transportation sales tax, adopted under provisions of the California Public Utilities Code commencing at Section 131000, has provided the County with a resource to meet its multi-faceted transportation challenges during the past 16 years. The measure also marked the development of the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (hereafter referred to as the TA), the agency created to administer the sales-tax funds. Because the measure ends in 2008, its extension is at the heart of the County's ability to continue meeting its growing transportation needs. Growth in employment during the 1990s has increased traffic congestion along several highway segments in the County. Significant progress has been achieved in the County through investments in Caltrain and highway improvements;however, the task is not yet complete. As the economy rebounds and then continues to grow, we need to maintain our infrastructure to accommodate the accompanying traffic congestion in commute corridors and on local streets and roads. Continuing traffic growth also has underscored the importance of additional safety measures, particularly grade separations along the Caltrain rail line and safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Local transit service, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities, has become increasingly important in communities throughout the County. The extension of Measure A will provide San Mateo County with the resources to continue shaping the transportation program to best meet the needs of County residents. In nearly 20 years since the drafting of the current Transportation Expenditure Plan, the County has seen the emergence of a new set of challenges, which must be met if the quality of life in the County is to be preserved. Developing the Next Transportation Expenditure Plan The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan for the extension of Measure A began with a blank sheet of paper and was assembled through a process which embraced the many and varied constituencies that make up San Mateo County. Beginning in the Spring of 2003, we embarked on a process that included melding technical evaluations with the feedback from the public and elected officials throughout the County. The TA provided an important forum for public input into the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan by sponsoring focus groups,three public workshops and hosting more than 30 outreach events to civic organizations, service groups and neighborhood associations. Through this public process, the TA gained perspectives of residents representing both the general public and groups with special needs. The opinions and suggestions heard at these public outreach events were evaluated by professional staff from the TA, cities and local agencies who worked together to recommend a program which addresses both current and anticipated congestion needs. While all projects were considered for the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, not every project could be included because the total estimated cost of all the suggested projects was more than the current estimated income of an extended Measure A. The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan reflects programs and projects identified by cities and local agencies plus additions from public workshops. When creating the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan, the TA focused on building a balanced plan, consistent with the Countywide Transportation Plan, reflecting the wants and needs of the public combined with the recommendations of engineers and the support of elected officials. Plan Vision Through this multi-party process, a strategy has emerged. • Target key, congested corridors for highway and transit improvements • Continue to improve connections with regional transportation facilities • Enhance safety in all aspects of the transportation system. • Meet local mobility needs, especially those of seniors and people with disabilities • Meet the Cities' and County's unique local transportation needs • Leverage local, state and federal funds • Encourage transportation projects that support transit-oriented development These broad themes have been translated into a balanced plan which provides for the multi-faceted needs of San Mateo County. Specific programs and projects have emerged as components in a countywide strategy. Draft Transportation Expenditure Plan Program Categories The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan provides for investment in six program categories. Each program category receives a percentage share of sales tax revenues, currently estimated at$1.5 billion(in 2004 dollars) over a 25-year period. Program Categoa Percent Share 25-Year Estimated Revenue 1. Transit 30% $450 Million 2. Highways 27.5% $412.5 Million 3. Local Streets/Transportation 22.5% $337.5 Million 4. Grade Separations 15% $225 Million 5. Pedestrian and Bicycle 3% $ 45 Million 6. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1% $ 15 Million Up to one percent of the revenues is allocated for TA staff salaries and benefits. Further detail on the specific program within each category is provided in the Transportation Expenditure Plan Summary and Project Description sections of this plan. Oversight and Administration The implementation of the Transportation Expenditure Plan will be the continuing responsibility of the current San Mateo County Transportation Authority. The TA is composed of seven elected officials representing the Cities in the County, the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Transit District. The TA will be responsible for developing and updating a strategic plan to guide allocation decisions. The TA will develop the initial strategic plan by December 31, 2008, and prepare and update it at least every five years during the term of the Measure. The Citizens Advisory Committee established under the original Measure A will continue to advise the TA. The TA also will work closely and cooperatively with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) on the programming of grant funding for Transportation Expenditure Plan programs and projects. II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The programs and projects contained in the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan are based upon the Countywide Transportation Plan and are essential to meeting the mobility requirements of San Mateo County. Four broad goals for the plan are supported by 15 more specific objectives, many of which are reflective of public feedback heard in workshops and at outreach events. Taken together, these Goals and Objectives are the strategy through which San Mateo County can shape its transportation future. Goal 1. Reduce Commute Corridor Congestion A. Improve mass transit serving the County through investments in Caltrain, BART, ferries and local shuttle services. B. Construct key highway projects which remove bottlenecks in the most congested commute corridors as indicated by engineers and confirmed by public opinion. C. Provide funding for supplemental countywide highway projects determined to be critical for congestion reduction. D. Implement information technologies to optimize the efficiency of the transportation system. E. Provide incentives for employers to continue and expand their financial support for commute alternatives. Goal 2. Make Regional Connections A. Improve Caltrain's Baby Bullet service as an alternative to driving on Highway 101 along the Peninsula. B. Provide San Mateo Counts station and route improvements for the Dumbarton rail line connection with Alameda County. C. Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. D. Provide financial assistance as local match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. Goal 3. Enhance Safety A. Construct roadway under and overcrossings (grade separations) along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines in San Mateo County. B. Provide safe paths for bicyclists and pedestrians. C. Improve or maintain local streets, roads and other transportation facilities. Goal 4. Meet Local Mobility Needs A. Provide adequate paratransit service for eligible seniors and people with disabilities through the Redi-Wheels and other accessible services administered by SamTrans. B. Improve local shuttle services to provide a viable option to the private automobile for local trips, and to meet the needs of transit dependents. C. Provide an assured source of funding to Cities and the County for local street and road improvement and maintenance and to meet the unique transportation needs of each community. III. TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN SUMMARY The draft Transportation Expenditure Plan contains six transportation program categories providing a balanced approach to meeting the mobility needs of San Mateo County. This summary lists the six program categories along with the major projects within each category. The percentage distribution of Measure A sales tax funding for each program category and project is listed along with the estimated dollars of Measure A, other funding and total cost. All dollar estimates are in 2004 dollars. Estimated Estimated Estimated Percent Measure A Other Total Share Funding Funding Cost A. Transit 1. Improve Caltrain service through a 16% $240M $250M $490M combination of capital investments and operational expenditures. 2. Provide local shuttle services to meet 4% $60M $60M $120M local mobility needs and access to regional transit services. 3. Annually,4 percent of the total revenue 4% $60M $228M $288M will be allocated to meet the special mobility needs of county residents through paratransit and other accessible services. 4. Provide financial assistance as local 2% $30M $92M $122M match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. 5. Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' 2% $30M $120M $150M local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. 6. Provide station facilities and 2% $30M $415M $445M enhancements for the Dumbarton rail corridor through East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Redwood City. Transit Total 30% $450M $1,165M $1,615M B. Highways Estimated Estimated Estimated Percent Measure A Other Total Share Funding Funding Cost 1. Funding for projects in key 17.3% $260M $260M $520M congested corridors throughout the County. 2. Funding for supplemental 10.2% $153M $65M $218M roadway projects throughout the County. Highway Total 27.5% $413M $325M $738M C. Local Streets/Transportation 1. Annually, 22.5 percent of the total 22.5% $338M $527M $865M revenue will be allocated to the 20 Cities and the County for the improvement and maintenance of local transportation, including streets and roads. D. Grade Separations 1. Construction or upgrade of 15% $225M $125M $350M underpasses or overpasses at key road crossings along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines. E. Pedestrian and Bicycle 1. Provide safe paths for bicyclists 3% $45M $25M $70M and pedestrians. F. Alternative Congestion Relief Programs 1. One percent of the total revenue 1% $15M $15M $30M will be allocated to fund traffic management projects and creative congestion relief programs. TOTAL $1,486M $2,182M $3,668M Although the draft Transportation Expenditure Plan contains projects with inter-county implications, seeking the support of adjacent counties, as outlined in Section 131051(i) of the California Public Utilities Code, is unnecessary because Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties all have approved Transportation Expenditure Plans, which have been coordinated with San Mateo County. IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS A. Transit Each of these projects is deemed to be of equal importance and they are not expressed in any priority order. Project: 1. Caltrain Improvements Cost: $490 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$240 million, Federal $125-million and State$125-million. Sponsor: SamTrans, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Description: Continue the current program to rebuild and upgrade Caltrain. Funding would be provided for San Mateo County's share of the capital cost of system wide improvements, including conversion of the line from diesel to electric operation. Funding would also be provided for existing stations upgrades, including expanded parking. Up to one-half of the available funding may be utilized to support operating costs. Project: 2. Local Shuttle Service Cost: $120 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$60 million. Other public and private$60 million. Sponsor: SamTrans Description: This project sponsored by SamTrans would provide matching funding for the operation of local shuttle services. Priority will be given to shuttle services which include a portion of the funding from businesses, employers and other private sector sources. Priority shall also be given to local services which connect with Caltrain, BART and future Ferry Terminals. Project: 3. Accessible Services for Eligible Seniors and People with Disabilities Cost: $288 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$60 million. Other funding of$228 million from existing sources and fare revenues. Sponsor: SamTrans Description: Annually, 4% of the tax revenue will be allocated to support the operating and capital needs of providing paratransit or other accessible services to eligible seniors and people with disabilities. Project: 4. San Mateo County Ferry Service Cost: $122 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$30 million, $91 million from bridge tolls, $1 million from federal grants. Sponsors: South San Francisco and Redwood City Description: Provide financial assistance as local match funds for cost-effective ferry service to South San Francisco and Redwood City. Project: 5. Existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension Cost: $150 million. Sales tax contribution estimated $30 million, $120 million from federal grants. Sponsor. SamTrans Description: Provide financial assistance as SamTrans' local match for capital investments and operating expenditures associated with the existing San Mateo County/SFO BART Extension. Project: 6. Dumbarton Rail Corridor Cost: $445 million. Sale tax contribution estimated at$30 million, $415 million from bridge tolls and existing sales tax funding in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. Sponsor. SamTrans Description: Funding provided for station facilities and rail corridor improvements in the communities of Redwood City, Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in conjunction with the Dumbarton Rail Corridor. B. Highways The Highway Program is divided into two components; funding for highway projects in key congested areas as designated by city, county and TA engineers and confirmed by public input; and funding for supplemental projects for all types of roadways (local-collector- arterial-state route) anywhere in the County. 1. Key Congested Areas Each of these projects is deemed to be of equal importance and they are not expressed in any priority order Project: a. Highway 280 North Improvements Cost: $154 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$77 million. State$77 million. Sponsor: Caltrans, Daly City Description: 1) Reconstruct I-280/Route 1 Interchange; 2) Construct Auxiliary Lanes between I-380 and Hickey Blvd.; Project: b. Coastside Highway Improvements Cost: $48 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$24 million. State$24 million. Sponsors: Pacifica, Caltrans, Half Moon Bay Description: 1) Route 1 /San Pedro Creek Bridge Replacement; 2) Route 1/Manor Drive overcrossing improvement and widening; 3) Route 1 and 92 safety and operational improvements within and in the proximity of Half Moon Bay Project: c. Highway 92 Improvements Cost: $100 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$50 million. State$50 million. Sponsors: City of San Mateo, Caltrans, Foster City Description: Auxiliary lanes and interchange improvements between I-280 and the San Mateo Hayward Bridge. Project: d. Highway 101 Mid-County Improvements Cost: $98 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$49 million. State$49 million. Sponsors: Caltrans, Burlingame, San Mateo Description: 1) Reconstruction of the Highway 101-Broadway Interchange; 2) Modification of the Highway 101/Peninsula Avenue Interchange; 3) Operational improvements on Highway 101 from Hillsdale to Route 92. Project: e. Highway 101 South Improvements Cost: $120 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$60 million. State$60 million. Sponsor. Caltrans Description: 1) Reconstruct the Highway 101/Woodside Road Interchange; 2) Highway 101 improvements between Highway 84 and the Santa Clara county line and access improvements to the Dumbarton Bridge. Project: 2. County-wide Supplemental Roadway Projects Cost: $218 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$153 million. State $65 million. Sponsors: Caltrans, Cities and San Mateo County Description: This project provides funding for supplemental roadway projects critical for congestion reduction in addition to those identified in the key congested areas. Supplemental roadway projects may include any type of roadway (local-collector-arterial-state route) anywhere in the County. A partial list of Candidate Projects is included below. Additional Candidate Projects may be submitted to the TA for consideration to account for changing needs during the 25-year term. Funds will not be adequate to construct all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection criteria and prioritization in the Strategic Plan as provided in the Implementation Guidelines. PARTIAL LIST OF CANDIDATE SUPPLEMENTAL ROADWAY PROJECTS Route 35(I-280-Sneath Lane)widening US 101/Produce Avenue Interchange Route 92(I-280-Route 35)truck climbing lane Willow Road adaptive signal control system US 101(Sierra Point Parkway-SF/SM County Line)auxiliary lanes Geneva Avenue extension I-280/John Daly Boulevard-Overcrossing(north side)widening Junipero Serra Boulevard Improvements in Daly City,Colma and South San Francisco US 101/Candlestick Point Interchange US 101(Sierra Point Parkway-San Bruno Avenue)auxiliary lanes I-280/I-380 local access improvement Highway 101/Sierra Point Pkwy Interchange replacement and Lagoon Way extension Triton Drive widening(Foster City) Sand Hill Road signal coordination Woodside Road Widening(US 101-E1 Camino Real) C. Local Streets/Transportation Project: 1. Local Streets/Transportation Cost: $865 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$338-million, Local and State sources$527 million. Sponsors: Cities and County of San Mateo Description: Annually,22.5%of the tax revenue will be allocated to Cities and the County to fund the improvement or maintenance of local transportation,including streets and roads. The County and Cities may use funding to:maintain or improve local streets and roads by paving streets and sidewalks and repairing potholes;promote or operate alternative modes of transportation,which may include funding shuttles or sponsoring carpools,bicycling and pedestrian programs,and develop and implement traffic operations and safety projects including signal coordination,bike/pedestrian safety projects, eliminating hazardous conditions or acquiring right-of-way. The annual distribution shall be based 50%on population and 50%on road miles,which will be adjusted annually. Estimated annual distribution percentage (based on 2004) and dollars to each City and the County are shown below: Allocation Percentage Estimated Funding Atherton 1.886 $ 6,365,250 Belmont 3.543 $ 11,957,625 Brisbane 0.818 $ 2,760,750 Burlingame 4.206 $ 14,195,250 Colma 0.299 $ 1,009,125 Daly City 10.413 $ 35,143,875 East Palo Alto 3.215 $ 10,850,625 Foster City 3.364 $ 11,353,500 Half Moon Bay 1.596 $ 5,386,500 Hillsborough 3.000 $ 10,125 000 Menlo Park 4.851 $ 16,372,125 Millbrae 2.917 $ 9,844,875 Pacifica 5.174 $ 17,462,250 Portola Valley 1.488 $ 5,022,000 Redwood City 9.612 $ 32,440,500 San Bruno 5.034 $ 16,989,750 San Carlos 4.271 $ 14,414,625 San Mateo 11.797 $ 39,814,875 South San Francisco 7.649 $ 25,815,375 Woodside 1.683 $ 5,680,125 County of San Mateo 13.184 $ 44,496,000 County Total 100.000 $337,500,000 D. Grade Separations Project: 1. Rail Grade Separations Cost: $350 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$225 million, State $125 million. Sponsors: SamTrans, San Mateo County, Cities and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Description: This project provides funding for the construction or upgrade of overpasses and underpasses (grade separations) along the Caltrain and Dumbarton rail lines. The Candidate Projects are listed below. Funds will not be adequate to construct or upgrade all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection and prioritization in conjunction with the project sponsors, based upon the California Public Utilities Commission formula and the desire of the City involved. CANDIDATE GRADE SEPARATION PROJECTS City Street City Street South San Francisco Linden Avenue San Mateo 25d' Avenue San Bruno Scott Street Redwood City Whipple Avenue San Bruno San Bruno Avenue Redwood City Brewster Avenue San Bruno San Mateo Avenue Redwood City Broadway San Bruno Angus Avenue Redwood City Maple Street Millbrae Center Street Redwood City Main Street Burlingame Broadway Redwood City Chestnut Street Burlingame Oak Grove Avenue Redwood City Middlefield Road Burlingame North Lane Redwood City 2nd Avenue Burlingame South Lane Redwood City 5th Avenue Burlingame Howard Avenue Atherton Fair Oaks Lane Burlingame Bayswater Avenue Atherton Watkins Avenue Burlingame Peninsula Avenue Menlo Park Encinal Avenue San Mateo Villa Terrace Menlo Park Glenwood Avenue San Mateo Bellevue Avenue Menlo Park Oak Grove Avenue San Mateo 1st Avenue Menlo Park Ravenswood San Mateo 2nd Avenue Menlo Park Marsh Road San Mateo 3rd Avenue Menlo Park Chilco Street San Mateo 4th Avenue Menlo Park Willow Road SR 84 San Mateo 5t'' Avenue East Palo Alto University Avenue San Mateo 9th Avenue CANDIDATE UPGRADE OF EXISTING GRADE SEPARATION PROTECTS San Mateo Poplar Avenue San Mateo Mt. Diablo Ave. San Mateo Santa Inez Avenue San Mateo Tilton Avenue Menlo Park Highway 101 E. Pedestrian and Bicycle Project: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Cost: $70 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at $45 million. State $25 million. Sponsors: Cities and County of San Mateo Description: This project provides funding for the construction of facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians. Eligible projects include paths, trails and bridges over roads and highways. A partial list of Candidate Projects is included below. Additional Candidate Projects may be submitted to the TA for consideration to account for changing needs during the 25-year term. Funds will not be adequate to construct all Candidate Projects. The TA will determine Candidate Project selection criteria and prioritization in the Strategic Plan as provided in the Implementation Guidelines. PARTIAL LIST OF CANDIDATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROJECTS Route 1/Santa Rosa Avenue Pedestrian Overcrossing Route 1 pedestrianibike trail from Montara through Half Moon Bay Route 35/Route 1pedestrian/bike overcrossing Millbrae Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Hillcrest Blvd./US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing to Bay Trail US 101 near Hillsdale pedestrian/bike overcrossing Ralston Avenue/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Willow Road/BayfrontExpressway pedestrian/bike tunnel upgrade Willow Road/US 101 pedestrian/bike overcrossing Portola Road pedestrian/bike path paving F. Alternative Congestion Relief Project: 1. Alternative Congestion Relief Projects Cost: $30 million. Sales tax contribution estimated at$15 million. $15 million from local sources. Sponsors: Cities and San Mateo County Description: This program category provides 0.8 percent of the tax revenue to encourage efficient use of the transportation network through ride sharing, flexible work hours and other commute alternatives. It also provides 0.2 percent of the tax revenue for the planning and design of information systems and Intelligent Transportation Systems, which facilitate more efficient use of available highway and transit capacities. V. GOVERNING BOARD/ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE The Transportation Expenditure Plan recommends: A. That the voters authorize the Transportation Authority to continue administering the funds. The make up of the Transportation Authority shall continue to be as follows: Two members of the County Board of Supervisors. Four representatives selected by the City Selection Committee(one representative from each Judicial Division and one at-large representative). One member of SamTrans (elected city official) selected by SamTrans prior to City Selection Committee selections. All representatives shall be elected officials. B. That the Transportation Authority be authorized to continue to contract its administrative duties to SamTrans or to the County, MTC, or other qualified agency. C. That the Citizens Advisory Committee shall continue to advise the Transportation Authority on the administration of the Transportation Expenditure Plan. The membership of this committee will reflect a broad spectrum of interests and geographic areas of the County. VI. IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES A. The duration of the tax will be 25 years,beginning on January 1,2009 and expiring on December 31,2034. B. Environmental reporting,review and approval procedures as provided for under the National Environmental Policy Act,the California Environmental Quality Act,or other applicable laws will be adhered to as a prerequisite to the implementation of any project. C. Upon expiration of the 1988 Measure A tax,the Transportation Authority will bear responsibility for any outstanding debt incurred under the 1988 Measure A program and all remaining assets under that program will remain assets of the Transportation Authority to be administered under this Transportation Expenditure Plan. In the event that any funds from the 1988 Measure A program remain unexpended as of the expiration of the 1985 Measure A tax,the Transportation Authority will reallocate such funds to complete any project that was commenced under any category in the 1988 Measure A program. If any funds remain unexpended after reallocation to complete projects under the 1988 Measure A program,the funds will be allocated in accordance with the percentage distributions to the Program Categories contained in this Transportation Expenditure Plan. D. Use of the retail transactions and use tax under this Transportation Expenditure Plan will be subject to the following restrictions: 1. The tax proceeds must be spent for the purposes of funding the transportation programs and projects as allowed in this Transportation Expenditure Plan and may not be used for other purposes. 2. In accordance with California Public Utilities Code Section 131100,the tax proceeds will be used to supplement,and may not be used to replace,existing local property tax or other local revenues used for transportation purposes. 3. The tax proceeds will be expended in San Mateo County,except that any expenditure for the Caltrain Improvement Project under the Transit Program Category may be made for systemwide costs and expenditures for the Highway Program Category may be made for projects that reasonably include project costs that minimally extend into adjacent counties. 4. The Transportation Authority is charged with a fiduciary duty in administering the tax proceeds in accordance with the applicable laws and this Transportation Expenditure Plan. Receipt of tax proceeds may be subject to appropriate terms and conditions as determined by the Transportation Authority in its reasonable discretion, including, but not limited to, the right to require recipients to execute funding agreements and the right to audit recipients' use of the tax proceeds. E. Actual tax proceeds may be higher or lower than estimated in this Transportation Expenditure Plan over the 25-year term. This Transportation Expenditure Plan is based on the percentage distributions to each Program Category and Project and the dollar values included are estimates only. Actual tax proceeds will be programmed annually in accordance with the percentage distributions in this Transportation Expenditure Plan. F. The Transportation Authority will prepare a Strategic Plan prior to January 1, 2009, which will identify funding prioritization criteria consistent with the goals and objectives of the Countywide Transportation Plan and this Transportation Expenditure Plan The Strategic Plan will include general procedures for project sponsors to initiate a project and identify an implementation schedule and the programming of funds for each listed project. Criteria will include priority for transportation projects which support transit-oriented development. For those projects which include a list of Candidate Projects(the County-wide Supplemental Project under the Highway Program Category, the Grade Separation Program Category, and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Category), the Strategic Plan will also include the evaluation criteria and prioritization for selection of Candidate Projects. Once a Candidate Project is selected, it will become a fisted project in the Strategic Plan. Lastly, the Strategic Plan will include the evaluation criteria for reallocation of tax proceeds that become available pursuant to Section VI.G below. The Strategic Plan will be updated at least every five years during the term of the Measure. G. The ability to fully fund or complete all programs or projects in this Transportation Expenditure Plan may be impacted by changing circumstances over the duration of the tax. Tax proceeds originally allocated to a listed project may become available for reallocation due to any of the following reasons: 1. a listed project is completed under budget; 2. a listed project is partially or fully funded by funding sources other than tax proceeds; 3. a Project Sponsor requests deletion of a listed project because of unavailability of matching funds; 4. a listed project cannot be completed due to an infeasible design, construction limitation or substantial failure to meet specified implementation milestones; Upon a finding that tax proceeds are available for reallocation due to one of the conditions above, the Transportation Authority may reallocate such tax proceeds subject to the following guidelines: 1. Available tax proceeds can be reallocated only to project(s) within the same Program Category as the original listed project. 2. Reallocation of tax proceeds within a Program Category will be based on criteria specified in the Strategic Plan, which may include impact on congestion, cost-effectiveness, availability of matching funds, project readiness and schedule adherence as determined by the Transportation Authority; provided, however, that in the case of the Highway Program, proceeds made available from any County-wide Supplemental listed project must be reallocated within the County-wide Supplemental component and may not be reallocated to the listed projects in the Key Congested Areas component of the Highway Program Category. 3. Reallocation of tax proceeds within the Transit Program Category only will also require the approval of a majority of the County Board of Supervisors and a majority of the cities representing a majority of the population in the incorporated area of the County by a majority vote of their respective City Councils. H. The Transportation Authority may take the following actions administratively in accordance with these Implementation Guidelines and such actions will not be considered an amendment to the Transportation Expenditure Plan, which adds or deletes a project or is of major significance under California Public Utilities Code Section 131304: 1. The reallocation of tax proceeds. 2. The addition of a new project to the list of Candidate Projects in the County-wide Supplemental Roadway project or Pedestrian and Bicycle Program Category. I. The Transportation Authority is authorized to bond for the purposes of advancing the commencement of or expediting the delivery of transportation programs or projects. The Transportation Authority may issue limited tax bonds, from time to time, to finance any program or project in this Transportation Expenditure Plan as allowed by applicable law and as approved by the Transportation Authority, and the maximum bonded indebtedness shall not exceed the total amount of proceeds of this retail transactions and use tax, estimated to be $1.5 Billion in 2004 dollars. Such bonds will be payable solely from the proceeds of the retail transactions and use tax and may be issued prior to the collection of such taxes beginning January 1, 2009. Future Measure A (2009-2034) Half Cent Sales Tax Revenue Distribution Juridication Percentage Local Share ATHERTON 1.886% 6,365,250 BELMONT 3.543% 11,957,625 BRISBANE 0.818% 2,760,750 BURLINGAME 4.206% 14,195,250 COLMA 0.299% 1,009,125 DALY CITY 10.413% 35,143,875 EAST PALO ALTO 3.215% 10,850,625 FOSTER CITY 3.364% 11,353,500 HALF MOON BAY 1.596% 5,386,500 HILLSBOROUGH 3.000% 10,125,000 MENLO PARK 4.851% 16,372,125 MILLBRAE 2.917% 9,844,875 PACIFICA 5.174% 17,462,250 _PORTOLA VALLEY 1.488% 5,022,000 REDWOOD CITY 9.612% 32,440,500 SAN BRUNO 5.034% 16,989,750 SAN CARLOS 4.271% 14,414,625 SAN MATEO 11.797% 39,814,875 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 7.649% 25,815,375 WOODSIDE 1.683% 5,680,125 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 13.184% 44,496,000 COUNTY TOTAL 100.000% 337,500,000 Total Amount 337,500,000.00 The Leagues of Women Voters of San Mateo County endorse and support the passage of... Page 1 of I COUNTY COUNCIL LEAGUES OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 444 Peninsula Avenue,Suite 1, San Mateo,CA 94401-5853 The Leagues of Women Voters of San Mateo County endorse and support the passage of Measure A, the 1/2-cent sales tax for transportation, and urge you to adopt the proposed plan. The measure is based on the countywide transportation plan, which aims to reduce congestion on streets and roads, meet local mobility needs, and improve air quality. Program categories have been established to fund Transit, Highways, Local Streets/Transportation, Grade Separations, Pedestrian and Bicycle, and Alternative Congestion Relief Programs. The projects included in the measure will help improve connections to regional transportation systems, enhance safety, encourage transit-oriented development, and, most importantly, local cities will have a source of funding for much needed local projects, different in each city. The new Measure A provides 22.5% of the total funds over a 25 year term, compared to the 1988 Measure's 20% over 20 years, resulting in nearly 1-1/2 times as much money in the new plan for local needs. It is estimated that the 25 year life of the measure will generate nearly $1.5 billion in sales tax revenues, but will leverage an additional $2.2 billion in other funding, totaling $3.7 billion in 2004 dollars for much needed transportation improvements in San Mateo County. Without the sales tax used as a local match, leverage of most outside funding would not be possible, and the road and transit projects we need could not be built. As a result of the broad public participation process during the development of the measure, there are some funds for projects outside the scope of the countywide transportation plan. Two percent is provided for a local match for ferry service on the Bay and for SamTrans' local match for capital investments and expenditures for the existing BART service in San Mateo County, especially for work needed at Colma. Both BART and ferry funds are in the transit category. Funds can be reallocated to other projects in the same category if the originally designated projects do not meet criteria established in the measure. Some of the projects listed in the measure will not be built because there is not enough money to do everything; the projects have designated sponsors who are responsible for advancing the projects to the Transportation Authority to qualify for funding. The League of Women Voters is satisfied that the measure includes sufficient and adequate safeguards for development of a Strategic Plan, project selection, advancement of projects, reallocation of funds, and other duties of the Transportation Authority as required by law. We are satisfied with the process by which the measure was developed. This included the active participation of city technical staff, city managers, city councils, CCAG, the Transportation Authority, the staff of Caltrain, SamTrans, and CCAG, many business and civic groups, and numerous occasions for public involvement. Onnolee Trapp Transportation Action Director file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\mkearney\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Intem... 6/2/2004 AGENDA ITEM# 9c BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE June 7, 2004 Submitted TO HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL By DATE: May 25, 2004 FROM: Public Works Approved By: SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS (1)AWARDING CONSTRUCTION CONTR " T TO JMB CONSTRUCTION FOR BURLINGHOME EASTON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT, PHASE II AND (2)APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT OF THE MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT; CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 - PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolutions authorizing: • a contract with JMB Construction for the construction of water mains and service lines in the amount of $1,987,192 • a professional services agreement with The Culver Group for construction management in the amount of $280, 365 DISCUSSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT: Council approved bond funding for an annual water system capital improvement program of$4,500,000. As a result, a construction project was awarded last year for the first phase of water main and service replacements in Easton Subdivision Nos. 5 and 7. The construction has recently been successfully completed. The second phase of work to replace aging, inaccessible water mains in the Easton Addition subdivisions was advertised on April 16, 2004; and bids were opened on May 17, 2004. A total of five bids were received ranging from $1,987,192 to $2,680,632. JMB Construction is the lowest responsive bidder with a bid price of $1,987,192, which is $1,126 higher than the engineer's estimate of$1,986,066. Staff has checked references for JMB Construction and believes the firm is qualified to perform work of this size and nature. DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT: In 2002, staff received responses to a request for proposals from six consultants to provide design and construction management services for citywide water system improvements, including two phases of main replacements in the Easton Addition subdivisions. The Culver Group was selected as the firm with the best qualifications to provide the required services. Over the last two years, Council approved agreements with The Culver Group for the first and second phase of design as well as the first phase of construction management. Staff has negotiated a scope of work and fee of$280,365 for the second phase of construction management services. The fee represents approximately 14% of the total construction cost of$1,987,192 and is within the standard industry range of 10%to 15% which is reasonable given the scope and complexity of the project. The tasks to be performed by the consultant include: • providing construction support services, such as reviewing contractor submittals • construction inspection • coordinating construction issues with the residents • providing construction quality assurance • preparing record drawings STAFF REPORT 7 June 2004 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBITS: Resolutions, Agreements for Public Improvement and Professional Services, Bid Summary BUDGET IMPACT: The following are the estimated construction costs: • construction contract $1,987,192 • construction management $280,365 • staff administration and oversight $75,000 • contingency (15%) $300,000 Total $2,642,557 There is $2,970,000 of funding available in the 2003/2004 Water System CIP budget to cover these costs. cc: City Clerk, City Attorney, Erler& Kalinowski, Inc., JMB Construction, The Culver Group CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BID SUMMARY BURLINGHOME-EASTON WATER LINE REPLACEMENT,PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO.80770-PHASE 2 Bid Opening Date:MAY 17,2004 JMB Construction,IncShaw Construction Inc West Valley Const California Trenchless Pacific Underground ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE San Francisco San Francisco Cambell Hayward,CA San Jose BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM QUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price 1 4"PVC Water Main 12 LF $100 $1,200.00 $100.00 $1,200.00 $100.00 $1,200.00 $475.00 $5,700.00 $80.00 $960.00 $77.00 $924.00 2 6"PVC Water Main 5220 LF $85 $443,700.00 $71.00 $370,620.00 $84.00 $438,480.00 $66.00 $344,520.00 $81.00 $422,820.00 $78.00 $407,160.00 3 8"PVC Water Main 5480 LF $87 $476,760.00 $75.00 $411,000.00 $85.00 $465,800.00 $70.00 $383,600.00 $86.00 $471,280.00 $96.00 $526,080.00 4 6"x 6"Cross Connection 1 LF $300 $300.00 $360.00 $360.00 $300.00 $300.00 $380.00 $380.00 $600.00 $600.00 $525.00 $525.00 5 6"X 6"X 6"TeelWye Connection 1 LF $180 $180.00 $620.00 $620.00 $300.00 $300.00 $270.00 $270.00 $780.00 $780.00 $760.00 $760.00 6 8"X 8"X 8"TeelWye Connection 2 LF $260 $520.00 $400.00 $800.00 $400.00 $800.00 $360.00 $720.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $685.00 $1,370.00 7 8"x 8"x 6"Reducing TeelWye Connection 11 EA $250 $2,750.00 $450.00 $4,950.00 $400.00 $4,400.00 $400.00 $4,400.00 $690.00 $7,590.00 $840.00 $9,240.00 8 8"x 6"Reducer 1 EA $80 $80.00 $180.00 $180.00 $250.00 $250.00 $270.00 $270.00 $300.00 $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 9 6"x 4"Reducer 1 EA $80 $80.00 $160.00 $160.00 $200.00 $200.00 $180.00 $180.00 $240.00 $240.00 $400.00 $400.00 10 6"Plug or Cap 1 EA $100 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $150.00 $150.00 $140.00 $140.00 $240.00 $240.00 $300.00 $300.00 11 10"x 10"x 8"Reducing Tee/Wye Connection 1 EA $360 $360.00 $1,120.00 $1,120.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $900.00 $900.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,375.00 $1,375.00 12 10"11.25 Degree Fitting 0 EA $200 $0.00 $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 13 8"90 Degree Fitting 1 Ea $160 $160.00 $200.00 $200.00 $300.00 $300.00 $265.00 $265.00 $450.00 $450.00 $300.00 $300.00 14 8"22.5 Degree Fitting 4 Ea $160 $640.00 $230.00 $920.00 $300.00 $1,200.00 $178.00 $712.00 $450.00 $1,800.00 $295.00 $1,180.00 15 8"11.25 Degree Fitting 7 Ea $160 $1,120.00 $230.00 $1,610.00 $300.00 $2,100.00 $257.00 $1,799.00 $450.00 $3,150.00 $280.00 $1,960.00 16 6"45 Degree Fitting 2 EA $140 $280.00 $160.00 $320.00 $150.00 $300.00 $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $500.00 $215.00 $430.00 17 6"22.5 Degree Fitting 5 EA $140 $700.00 $160.00 $800.00 $150.00 $750.00 $202.00 $1,010.00 $250.00 $1,250.00 $210.00 $1,050.00 18 6"11.25 Degree Fitting 2 EA $140 $280.00 $160.00 $320.00 $150.00 $300.00 $202.00 $404.00 $250.00 $500.00 $200.00 $400.00 19 6"gate Valve 14 EA $465 $6,510.00 $520.00 $7,280.00 $600.00 $8,400.00 $493.00 $6,902.00 $600.00 $8,400.00 $800.00 $11,200.00 20 8"gate Valve 17 EA $630 $10,710.00 $720.00 $12,240.00 $800.00 $13,600.00 $720.00 $12,240.00 $840.00 $14,280.00 $1,025.00 $17,425.00 21 8"Plug or Cap 4 EA $100 $400.00 $100.00 $400.00 $150.00 $600.00 $165.00 $660.00 $260.00 $1,040.00 $285.00 $1,140.00 22 Remove&Salvage Fire Hydrant 9 EA $150 $1,350.00 $350.00 $3,150.00 $100.00 $900.00 $600.00 $5,400.00 $200.00 $1,800.00 $550.00 $4,950.00 23 Fire Hydrant Install 13 EA $2,650 $34,450.00 $3,500.00 $45,500.00 $2,500.00 $32,500.00 $5,000.00 $65,000.00 $3,200.00 $41,600.00 $5,240.00 $68,120.00 1"Service connection:Short(less than or 24 equal to 15') 160 EA $800 $128,000.00 $600.00 $96,000.00 $850.00 $136,000.00 $775.00 $124,000.00 $600.00 $96,000.00 $860.00 $137,600.00 1"Service connection:Medium(greater 25 thanl 5'and less than or equal to 25') 132 EA $900 $118,800.00 $750.00 $99,000.00 $900.00 $118,800.00 $950.00 $125,400.00 $650.00 $85,800.00 $1,090.00 $143,880.00 1"Service Connection:Long(greater than 26 25') 4 EA $1,000 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 $1,650.00 $6,600.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 27 Air Relief Valve 5 EA $600 $3,000.00 $700.00 $3,500.00 $600.00 $3,000.00 $2,250.00 $11,250.00 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $2,240.00 $11,200.00 28 1"Blowoff 28 EA $300 $8,400.00 $400.00 $11,200.00 $200.00 $5600.00 $500.00 $14,000.00 $750.00 $21,000.00 $1,230.00 $34,440.00 SUBTOTAL#1 $1,244,830.00 OK $1,077,550.00 OK $1,240,830.00 OK $1,117,122.00 not given $1,197,730.00 OK $1,389,909.00 Bid Opening Date:MAY 12,2004 BURLINGHOME-EASTON WATER LINE REPLACEMENT,PHASE 2 29 2"Blowoff 1 EA $440 $440.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $500.00 $500.00 $640.00 $640.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 30 Pipe Profile Adjustment:4",6"and 8",0.5'- 350 LF $6 $2,100.00 $5.00 $1,750.00 $4.00 $1,400.00 $36.00 $12,600.00 $11.00 $3,850.00 $29.00 $10,150.00 31 Pipe Profile Adjustment:4",6"and 8",2.5'- 200 LF $10 $2,000.00 $10.00 $2,000.00 $5.00 $1,000.00 $70.00 $14,000.00 $22.00 $4,400.00 $58.00 $11,600.00 32 Slurry Seal(all streets) ###### SF $0.25 $62,500.00 $0.20 $50,000.00 $0.20 $50,000.00 $0.17 $42,500.00 $0.16 $40,000.00 $0.16 $40,000.00 33 1-114"Service Line Connection(TL) 1052 $27 $28,404.00 $25.00 $26,300.00 $20.00 $21,040.00 $30.00 $31,560.00 $33.00 $34,716.00 $35.00 $36,820.00 34 1"Service Line Connection(Trenchless) 8750 LF $23 $201,250.00 $22.00 $192,500.00 $20.00 $175,000.00 $29.00 $253,750.00 $26.00 $227,500.00 $33.00 $288,750.00 35 1"Service Line Connection(Cut&Cover) 500 LF $12 $6,000.00 $25.00 $12,500.00 $5.00 $2,500.00 $34.00 $17,000.00 $26.00 $13,000.00 $65.00 $32,500.00 1"Service line under the House including penetration,fittings&connection to existing 36 line 4925 LF $8 $39,400.00 $10.00 $49,250.00 $15.00 $73,875.00 $26.00 $128,050.00 $22.00 $108,350.00 $39.00 $192,075.00 ma--service ane unser me nouse mauamg penetration,fittings&connection to existing 37 line 3010 LF $6 $18,060.00 $10.00 $30,100.00 $15.00 $45,150.00 $25.00 $75,250.00 $20.00 $60,200.00 $38.00 $114,380.00 38 Install Water Meter Box 296 EA $60 $17,760.00 $80.00 $23,680.00 $50.00 $14,800.00 $60.00 $17,760.00 $260.00 $76,960.00 $160.00 $47,360.00 39 Install City furnished Water Meter 296 EA $15 $4,440.00 $60.00 $17,760.00 $20.00 $5,920.00 $14.00 $4,144.00 $85.00 $25,160.00 $60.00 $17,760.00 40 Remove&Dispose Existing Water Meter Box 296 EA $15 $4,440.00 $40.00 $11,840.00 $20.00 $5,920.00 $69.00 $20,424.00 $50.00 $14,800.00 $50.00 $14,800.00 41 Remove&Salvage Existing Water Meter 296 EA $15 $4,440.00 $35.00 $10,360.00 $10.00 $2,960.00 $14.00 $4,144.00 $30.00 $8,880.00 $50.00 $14,800.00 42 Electrical Grounding Rod 296 EA $300 $88,800.00 $250.00 $74,000.00 $200.00 $59,200.00 $247.00 $73,112.00 $760.00 $224,960.00 $55.00 $16,280.00 43 Cap-off Existing service Line 260 EA $30 $7,800.00 $50.00 $13,000.00 $50.00 $13,000.00 $14.00 $3,640.00 $70.00 $18,200.00 $30.00 $7,800.00 44 Furnish&Install 1"Pressure Regulator 296 EA $175 $51,800.00 $200.00 $59,200.00 $200.00 $59,200.00 $196.00 $58,016.00 $120.00 $35,520.00 $135.00 $39,960.00 Famish&Install 1"Shut-off Valve including 45 pipe transistion 296 EA $15 $4,440.00 $90.00 $26,640.00 $50.00 $14,800.00 $78.00 $23,088.00 $100.00 $29,600.00 $100.00 $29,600.00 46 Furnish&Install Hose Bibb 296 EA $18 $5,328.00 $80.00 $23,680.00 $10.00 $2,960.00 $65.00 $19,240.00 $40.00 $11,840.00 $75.00 $22,200.00 47 Traffic Control 1 LS $10,000 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $4,450.00 $4,450.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $21,175.00 $21,175.00 48 Mobilization 1 LS $40,000 $40,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $32,700.00 $32,700.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $45,950.00 $45,950.00 56 Abandon Valve Boxes 44 EA $50 $2,200.00 $50.00 $2,200.00 $75.00 $3,300.00 $140.00 $6,160.00 $250.00 $11,000.00 $80.00 $3,520.00 SUBTOTAL#2 $1,846,432.00 OK $1,795,510.00 REVISED $1,853,355.00 OK $1,959,350.00 OK $2,172,266.00 OK $2,399,889.00 MATH ERROR IN LINE#39&#40 ALTERNATE BID ITEMS 51 I Cold Plane A.C.Surface I 4,500 SF I $0 90 ( $4,050.00 $2.00 I $$9,000.00 II $1.100 I $$4,950.00 II $$1.100( $$4,950.00 II $$2.00 I $$9,000.00 I $$1.90 I $$8,550.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BID SUMMARY BURLINGHOME-EASTON WATER LINE REPLACEMENT,PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO.80770-PHASE 2 Bid Opening Date:MAY 17,2004 JMB Construction,Inc Shaw Construction Inc West Valley Const California Trenchless Pacific Underground ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE San Francisco San Francisco Cambell Hayward,CA San Jose BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM OUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price 52 A.C.Resurfacing 5,000 SF $1.25 $6,250.00 $2.00 $10,000.00 $2.25 $11,250.00 $2.15 $10,750.00 $3.00 $15,000.00 $2.00 $10,000.00 53 Aggregate Base 50 Ton $40 $2,000.00 $40.00 $2,000.00 $20.00 $1,000.00 $44.00 $2,200.00 $50.00 $2,500.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 54 Chip Seal #ft##N# SF $0.26 $65,000.00 $0.40 $100,000.00 $0.25 $62,500.00 $0.28 $70,000.00 $0.26 $65,000.00 $0.47 $117,500.00 55 Concrete Curb&Gutter Repair 400 LF $35 $14,000.00 $45.00 $18,000.00 $30.00 $12,000.00 $35.00 $14,000.00 $20.00 $8,000.00 $40.00 $16,000.00 SUBTOTAL4 $104,700.00 OK $171,600.00 OK $126,500.00 OK $138,100.00 OK $141,100.00 OK $232,050.00 VANCOUVERIHALE SUBDRAIN&SIDEWALK INSTALLATION 57 sidewalk 444 SF $9 $3,774.00 $8.00 $3,552.00 $9.00 $3,996.00 $10.00 $4,440.00 $11.00 $4,684.00 $17.00 $7,548.00 58 Valley Gutter 190 SF $27 $5,130.00 $15.00 $2,850.00 $15.00 $2,850.00 $20.00 $3,800.00 $20.00 $3,800.00 $45.00 $8,550.00 59 8"Pipe/Trench 25 LF $85.00 $2,125.00 $30.00 $750.00 $25.00 $625.00 $135.00 $3,375.00 $73.00 $1,825.00 $60.00 $1,500.00 60 4"Pipe[Trench 154 LF $65.00 $10,010.00 $25.00 $3,850.00 $25.00 $3,850.00 $65.00 $10,010.00 $68.00 $10,472.00 $50.00 $7,700.00 61 2"PipetTrench 111 LF $55 $6,105.00 $20.00 $2,220.00 $25.00 $2,775.00 $80.00 $8,880.00 $68.00 $7,548.00 $45.00 $4,995.00 62 Handicap Ramp 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,945.00 $7,890.00 $1,700.00 $3,400.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 63 Impervious Cut-off Wall 43 LF $30 $1,290.00 $20.00 $860.00 $40.00 $1,720.00 $75.00 $3,225.00 $70.00 $3,010.00 $300.00 $12,900.00 64 Reconnstruction Catch Basin 1 EA $2,500 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $2,500.00 $2 500.00 SUBTOTAL#3 $34,934.00 OK $20,082.00 OK $20,316.00 OK $44,220.00 OK $36,639.00 OK $48,693.00 Total base bid Eng.est. $1,881,366.00 OK $1,815,592.00 $134 math error $1,873,671.00 $50 error $2,003,570.00 OK $2,208,905.00 OK $2,448,582.00 Items 49 to 55 $104,700.00 $171,600.00 $126,500.00 $138,100.00 $141,100.00 $232,050.00 Project total $1,986,066.00 $1,987,192.00 $2,000,171.00 $2,141,670.00 $2,350,005.00 $2,680,632.00 Plus 7$Contingency $2,125,090.62 Bid Difference(Estimate-$) ($65,774.00) ($7,695.00) $122,204.00 $327,539.00 $567,216.00 Bid Difference(Estimate-%) -3% 0% 6% 17% 30% Bid Difference(Low Bid) $0.00 $58,079.00 $187,978.00 $393,313.00 $632,990.00 Total Difference(Estimate-$) $1,126.00 $14,105.00 $155,604.00 $363,939.00 $694,566.00 Total Difference(Estimate-%) 0.06% 1% 8% 18% 35% RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES The Culver Groa Water Main Replacements within the Burling_home-Easton Subdivision Nos. 5 and 7 CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 - Phase 2 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be,and he is hereby,authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 day of , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote. AYES: COUNCILMEM13ERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BURLINGHOME/EASTON MAIN REPLACEMENT TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 80770-PHASE 2 WHEREAS,the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the BURLINGHOME/EASTON MAIN REPLACEMENT, CITY PROJECT 80770 -PHASE 2. WHEREAS, on MAY 17,2004,all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$1,987,192. NOW, THEREFORE,be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED,that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., for said project in the amount of$1,987,192,and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 day of 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES WATER MAIN REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE BURLINGHOME, EASTON NO. 5 AND EASTON NO. 7 SUBDIVISIONS CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of 2004, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and THE CULVER GROUP, engaged in providing CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is entering into an agreement with JMB Construction, Inc. for construction services in connection with the construction project titled Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No. 80770-Phase 2, located at the Burlinghome-Easton area of the City of Burlingame. B. The City desires to engage a Construction Management Consultant to provide inspection and testing services for this project. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: EXHIBIT A SHALL BE MADE AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion during the first calendar quarter of 2005. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that Pagel of 6 Agreement for Professional Construction Management Services Water Main Replacements Within The Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 And Easton No. 7 Subdivisions City Project No. 80770 the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. Consultant may retain a copy of such confidential documents for its records. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed$280,365.00; and payment shall be based upon City approval. Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Yev Philipovitch. 9. Project Management and Billings. During the course of the project and to support each and every invoice the consultant shall furnish control reports that shall include the following: (A) A narrative progress report of specific accomplishments during the reporting period, problems encountered or anticipated, plans for resolution of problems, accomplishments scheduled for the next reported period, and results of any significant activities. (B) A cost report for each task showing: 1. Current period and cumulative expenditures to date. 2. Estimated cost to complete and at completion. 3. Estimated date to complete. 4. Approved budget and approved contract amount. 5. A comparison of the estimated cost at completion with the approved budget to show any variance. Completed reports are to be submitted monthly, together with invoice submittal, unless directed otherwise by the City's project manager. The invoice shall be accompanied by a cost breakdown showing specific person and classification being billed for the period by task. Failure of consultant to submit and update plans or furnish required reports as directed shall constitute cause for suspension of payment of the invoices. Mark-up of subcontracted work shall be no more than 10 percent, and mark-up on any materials, supplies, and services shall be no more than 5 percent. There shall be no separate payments for local travel in the Bay Area, any phone service/calls, routine reproduction except for printing of final contract documents, or other support costs for consultant or subconsultant. 10. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written Page 2 of 6 Agreement for Professional Construction Management Services Water Main Replacements Within The Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 And Easton No. 7 Subdivisions City Project No. 80770 consent of the City. 11. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To City: Syed Murtuza, P.E./City Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Yev Philipovitc, P.E. The Culver Group 6850 Regional Street, Ste 210 Dublin, CA 94568 Tel: (925) 556-6252 To Program Manager: Matthew P. Zucca, P.E. Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. 1870 Ogden Drive Burlingame, California 94010 Tel: (650) 292-9100 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 12. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 13. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities are solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, remove such person from the project. Page 3 of 6 Agreement for Professional Construction Management Services Water Main Replacements Within The Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 And Easton No. 7 Subdivisions City Project No. 80770 14. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. 15. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000)combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant shall provide to the City all certificates of insurance, with original endorsements effecting coverage. Consultant agrees that all certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. iv. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than$1,000,000 which is sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. B. General Liability: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. D. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation Page 4 of 6 Agreement for Professional Construction Management Services Water Main Replacements Within The Burlinghome, Easton No. 5 And Easton No. 7 Subdivisions City Project No. 80770 insurance as required by California law and shall provide evidence of such policy to the City before beginning services under this Agreement. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. 16. Indemnification. The Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity that may at any time arise or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work to the extent caused by a willful or negligent act, errors or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. 17. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 18. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior or Municipal Court of the County of San Mateo or Santa Clara. 19. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen(15)days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. 20. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 21. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 22. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party. Page 5 of 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one(1). City of Burlingame By City Manager Consultant:The Culver Group City of Burlingame Print Name Signature Title ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 1 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING This Exhibit describes the professional services to be provided by The Culver Group ("Consultant") to the City of Burlingame ("City"), for construction management services in connection with the construction project titled Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, Phase II, City Project No. 80770 ("Project") located at the Burlinghome-Easton area of the City of Burlingame ("Site"). Construction work for the project, to be performed by the Contractor, includes installing water lines, fire hydrants, water meters, and services in accordance with the project Contract Documents dated April 8, 2004. The Project is planned by City to commence on or about June 21, 2004 and be completed during the first calendar quarter of 2005. Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. ("Program Manager") is serving as the City's Program Manager. 2 SCOPE OF WORK The general scope of these Project elements is discussed below. 2.1 Pre-Construction Activities and Review of Submittals 2.1.1 Project Set Up and Documentation Consultant will establish a documentation procedure and a communication plan satisfactory to City and the Program Manager. Consultant will be responsible for routine communication with the Contractor and, through the Contractor's superintendent, with Contractor's subcontractors. Consultant will be responsible for answering requests for information from the Contractor in coordination with City and the Program Manager in accordance with the approved documentation procedures. Consultant will serve as the City's liaison with the Contractor, working principally through the Contractor's superintendent, and will assist the Contractor and superintendent in understanding the intent of the Contract Documents. Consultant will maintain, at the Site or nearby office satisfactory to City, orderly files for correspondence, reports of meetings and conferences, shop drawing and sample submittals, an up-to-date copy of the Contract Documents including all Addenda, Change Orders, Field Orders, Requests for Information, additional issued drawings and figures, Clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents,progress reports, photographs, and related documents. Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 2.1.2 Pre-Construction Meeting In cooperation with City and the Program Manager, Consultant will schedule and conduct a pre-construction meeting with the Contractor and key subcontractors to discuss the requirements of the Project. Topics to be covered will include project scope, schedule, contract drawings, shop drawing submittal and review, coordination with residents and homeowners, existing conditions, materials, equipment, traffic control, invoicing, lines of communication, public relations issues, construction observation procedures, emergency notification procedures, as-built drawings, and other contract requirements. Consultant will compile and address questions from the Contractor or its subcontractors. 2.1.3 Review and Approval of Project Schedule and Schedule of Values Consultant will review the Contractor's proposed baseline schedule and schedule of values for payment and discuss proposed comments with City and the Program Manager. Consultant will discuss comments and concerns with the Contractor and forward the proposed final baseline schedule and schedule of values to City for approval prior to the start of active construction. 2.1.4 Review of Submittals Consultant will review Contractor shop drawing and sample submittals. Submittals will be processed promptly. All submitted sets of shop drawing copies will be returned to Contractor with clearly-described comments and stamped with the notation"Favorably Reviewed", "Make Corrections Noted", "Amend and Resubmit", or"Rejected". Consultant will coordinate with Contractor to prioritize long lead-time items. Consultant will notify City and the Program Manager of shop drawing receipt and will coordinate with City to obtain City input during review of key submittals. Consultant will promptly advise the City and EKI if work by Contractor is proceeding without needed favorable review by Consultant of required shop drawing or sample submittals. Consultant will keep a log of status of submittals, including date received, date returned to Contractor, notation of review, and indication if submittal is complete or resubmittal required. Consultant will review the Contractor's proposed substitutions in accordance with the procedures in the Contract Documents. Substitutions affecting cost or quality of materials will be reviewed with the City for approval. 2.2 Construction Management and Inspection Services During Construction Consultant will provide a field inspection staff person or persons to observe Contractor's construction activities at the Site in order to monitor Contractor's progress, assess conformance with the intent of the Contract Documents, and provide a City representative at the Site. This task includes the following services: • Daily Progress Reports: Consultant will monitor the progress of the Project and prepare a daily progress report in a format acceptable to City and the Program Manager. Consultant will provide City and the Program Manager with a hard copy, telefaxed copy, or emailed copy of each report no later than two working days after 2 Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 the date covered by the report. Daily progress reports will include, at a minimum, the following information: Contractors and subcontractor personnel and craft, equipment present at the Site that day with notation whether the equipment was active and for what portion of the day; visitors to the Site, weather conditions, construction activities performed on that day; identified construction issues that could affect cost, scope, or schedule; sampling and testing performed and summary of results; lists of visitors; key decisions; materials deliveries; information that may be necessary to document and support a change order or allow assessment of potential Contractor claims; and other pertinent observations. • Photographic Documentation: Consultant will document construction by taking date- stamped photographs and submitting photos in an organized fashion with a photo log indicating photograph date and description. Photos may be emailed in digital form as attachments to the corresponding daily progress report. • Conduct Progress Meetings: Consultant will arrange and conduct weekly progress meetings with the Contractor, City, and the Program Manager. Topics to be discussed during the meetings will include review of the Project goals, progress, and schedule; current issues; and discussion of potential construction issues or disputes, if any. The purpose of these meetings is to facilitate project completion and identify potential conflicts and claims in a timely manner. Consultant shall prepare meeting agendas will provide the City and the Program Manager with copies of meeting minutes, documenting the attendees, discussion topics, key points of issue, agreements, unresolved issues, and action items within two working days of the meeting. • Construction Review: Consultant will conduct on-Site observations of Contractor's completed work and work in progress to determine if the work is proceeding in accordance with the intent of the Contract Documents. Consultant will report to City and the Program Manager whenever Consultant believes that any work is unsatisfactory, faulty, or defective or does not conform to the intent of the Contract Documents; or does not meet the requirements of any inspection, tests, or favorable review required to be made; or if work has been damaged prior to progress payment or final payment. Consultant will advise the City and the Program Manager when Consultant believes work should be corrected or rejected or should be uncovered for observation, or requires special testing, inspection, or review. Consultant shall not undertake any of the responsibilities of the Contractor, Contractor's superintendent, or Contractor's subcontractors to perform the work, and shall not advise on or issue directions relating to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures of construction unless such advise or direction is specifically set forth in the Contract Documents. Consultant shall not advise on or issue directions regarding health and safety procedures or programs or security measures in connection with the Contractor's work on the Project. 3 Rurlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 • Material Testing Acceptance and Rejections: Consultant will verify that all sampling, testing, and system startup and operating and maintenance instruction are conducted as required by the Contact Documents and in the presence of the required personnel. Consultant will verify that the Contractor maintains adequate testing and sampling records, and will report to the City and the Program Manager regarding test procedures and results. Consultant will coordinate with the City in advance of major tests and inspections. For soil material requiring compaction, Consultant will determine the maximum density at optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM D698. Where cohesionless, free-draining soil material is required to be compacted to a percentage of relative density, the calculation of relative density shall be determined in accordance with ASTM D4253 and ASTM D4254. Consultant will perform in-situ field density tests on excavation backfill in accordance with ASTM D1556 or D2922. Consultant may subcontract material testing to a subcontractor whose qualifications have been favorably reviewed by City and the Program Manager. • Requests for Information and Clarifications: Consultant will obtain from the City and transmit to Contractor additional details or information required for the proper execution of the Project. Consultant will forward to the Contractor clarifications and interpretations of the Contract Documents. Issues having the potential to materially change the Project schedule, scope, or budget will be discussed in advance with the City and the Program Manager. Consultant will consider and evaluate the Contractor's suggestions for modification of the Contract Documents, and discuss recommendations in advance with the City and the Program Manager. • Prepare Change Orders: Consultant will promptly evaluate the Contractor's notices of potential claims and, in coordination with the City and the Program Manager, will negotiate a change order for those notices of potential claim that are determined to merit a change in the Contractor's scope of work, compensation, or allowable time for Project completion. Consultant will submit the negotiated change orders to the City for approval. If claims cannot be promptly resolved to the mutual satisfaction of Contractor and the City, Consultant will compile information necessary for the evaluation of such claims. • Public Relations, Visitors, and Accidents: Consultant will be responsible for construction with property owners regarding public convenience issues as they arise during construction and promptly discuss identified issues with the City's public relations consultant. In cooperation with the public relations consultant, Consultant will address issues promptly whenever feasible. For issues that cannot be promptly addressed, or that may materially affect Project scope, schedule, or cost or affect the City's relations with the public, Consultant will promptly discuss such issues with the City and the Program Manager. Consultant will accompany visiting inspectors representing public agencies or utilities having jurisdiction over the work, and will record the outcome of such visits and inspections. Consultant will promptly report to 4 Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 the City and the Program Manager the occurrence of any accident. • Project Website: City will provide a Project Website for use by Consultant to post relevant project information in a common document format. There will be an internal (i.e., restricted access) and a public-facing(i.e., unrestricted access)portion of the Project Website. Consultant shall maintain historical and current project information on the internal Project Website for access and review by City. Additionally, Consultant shall provide weekly construction updates to Public Affairs Management, the City's public relations consultant, suitable for placement on a public-facing Project Website to update residents at the Site of the progress of construction, schedule for construction, and other information, as needed, to maintain a current and informative public-facing Project Website. • Review Construction Schedules Updates: Consultant will review the Contractor's requests for schedule changes, compare these with the baseline schedule, and, if merited, submit the proposed changes with an explanation of changes and potential impacts to the City for approval. • Punch List: Prior to substantial completion of the Project, Consultant will prepare a punch list of remaining items to be completed or corrected and furnish this list to the Contractor. Consultant will monitor the Contractor's completion of punch list items. Before Consultant's preparation of documentation regarding substantial completion or final completion, conduct a final inspection in the company of the City, the Program Manager, and the Contractor, and update the punch list accordingly. Verify that all punch list items have been completed or satisfactorily corrected and furnish recommendations to the City and the Program Manager regarding acceptance. • Obtain Warranties and Other Documentation from Contractor: Consultant will obtain warranty documentation and other paperwork from suppliers or vendors. Catalog this information for transmission to the City. During the course of the Contractor's work, verify that certificates, manuals, and other data and warranties required to be assembled and furnished by the Contractor are applicable to the items actually installed. Deliver this information to the City for City's review prior to final acceptance of the work. • As-Built Drawings: Consultant will verify that the Contractor is compiling accurate and timely as-built drawings in accordance with the Contract Documents. Consultant will provide one set of original as-built plans on Mylar and electronic copies of as- built plans in AutoCAD file format within 4 weeks of project completion. • Review Progress Payment Requests: Consultant will review the Contractor's requests for monthly progress payments and final payment including collecting, coordinating, and evaluating data used to assess appropriate payment for the bid items in the Contract Documents in accordance with the approved schedule of values. Consultant 5 Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No. 80770,Phase 2 will submit the Contractor's favorably reviewed requests for payment to the City for review, approval, and processing. • Attend Meetings: Consultant will attend necessary meetings as requested by the City or the Program Manager. • Issue Final Notices: Consultant will prepare certificates of substantial completion and notices of completion for the City's review, approval, and recording with the appropriate authorities. • Record Drawings_Consultant will collect a set of as-built drawings from the contractor and review for completeness. Consultant will prepare a set of record drawings of the installed pipelines, valves, hydrants, and other appurtenances, in plan view, showing all the utility locations along with a report signed by a registered civil engineer in California that states that the project was completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. In addition, corrections to the existing infrastructure that were identified during the work shall also be marked on the Record Drawings. Consultant will provide the Record Drawing package to the City at the completion of the work. • Update City's GIS Database: Consultant will update the City's existing geographical information system ("GIS") database with new water system infrastructure installed by the Contractor. In addition, corrections to the existing infrastructure that were identified during the work shall also be marked on the Record Drawings and included in the GIS update to provide the City with an accurate database of their in place infrastructure. 2.3 Resident Communications and Response to Inquiries and Complaints From Notice to Proceed until the acceptance of the project by the City, Consultant will be responsible for responding on behalf of the City to inquiries and complaints from residents. Consultant will maintain a detailed information log documenting the response to the resident inquiry or complaint with appropriate information, which at a minimum will include: o Resident name and address o Contact information o Date and time of communication or visit o Resolution to complaint, if applicable o Follow-up required. Consultant will forward in a prompt manner to City and designated representatives all information regarding responses. For those inquiries and complaints that are related to construction of the Project, Consultant will be responsible for coordinating any necessary 6 Burlinghome-Easton Water Main Replacement Project, City Project No.80770,Phase 2 responses, including ensuring Contractor promptly responds to and corrects identified problems. ZABurlingame\A20031.000-CIPTrojects(MRI-9)\MRI-31Phase II\Construction Management\Proposal\Exhibit&ScopeofWork.v2.doc 7 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BURLINGHOME/EASTON MAIN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 2 CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on JUNE 7, 2004, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on JUNE 7, 2004, after notice duly given, the City Council of said City awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for said improvements; and WHEREAS,City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled:BURLINGHOME/ EASTON MAIN REPLACEMENT, PHASE 2, CITY PROJECT NO. 80770. 1 2. The Contract Documents. The Complete contract consists of the following documents: This Agreement,Notice Inviting Sealed Bids,the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal,the complete plans,profiles,detailed drawings,and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds,and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one,and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full,payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of ONE MILLION, NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY-SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY-TWO dollars ($1,987,192.00). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail,postage prepaid. 2 Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. 150 EXECUTIVE PARK BLVD., SUITE 4400 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94134-3309 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Venue The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of this contract shall be the law of the State of California,and the forum and venue for such disputes shall be the appropriate Superior or Municipal Court in and for San Mateo County. 8. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,two identical counterparts of this Agreement,consisting of four(4) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, "CONTRACTOR" A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80770 Water Main Replacement\AGRMTPUB JMB.wpd80520.wpd 4 CITY o� STAFF REPORT 0UFnJNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9d MTG. DATE 6/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ? �� BY DATE: Mav 28, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY l y� '�� SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing a Designation Period to offer the Two Years Additional Service Credit (Section 20903) for Miscellaneous and Safety Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council: o Approve the resolution authorizing a designated period for two years additional service credit (Section 20903) for Miscellaneous and Safety Employees with the California Public Employees'Retirement System(CalPERS). BACKGROUND: At the City Council budget meeting in February, Council authorized staff to offer the retirement enhancement of two years additional service credit, commonly referred to as the golden handshake. The benefit is made available to CalPERS agencies that are undergoing economic difficulties or operational changes that will result in position eliminations. On average, the incentive provides a 4% increase in a retiree's monthly pension benefit from CalPERS. Staff has contacted employees in classifications scheduled for reductions as part of the Tier 3 budget cuts. The Tier 3 budget cuts will be implemented at the start of the new fiscal year. A total of five (5) employees have confirmed that they will be voluntarily laid-off and retire with the golden handshake. The cut positions are as follows: Three (3) full-time Parks Leadworkers One (1) full-time City Arborist One(1) full-time Police Sergeant Though Tier 3 cuts do not include any position eliminations in the librarian classification series, if the State continues to raid City funds to balance the State budget, the City will need to implement some or all of the Tier 4 reductions. There are library positions eliminated in Tier 4. Therefore, staff feels it is prudent to list the classification series as eligible for the benefit at this time. Once the resolution is approved, the retirement incentive can only be offered for a limited period established by the City Council. Ca1PERS requires that the period of time must be a minimum of ninety (90) days and a maximum of one hundred eighty (180) days. Staff is recommending that the window period be one hundred eighty days, beginning on July 5, 2004 and ending on December 31, 2004. There are four employees that will be exiting the organization by the end of August, 2004 and one that will be retiring in December 2004 with the additional service credit. BUDGET IMPACT: This benefit is now part of the normal actuarial evaluation and employer contribution to CaIPERS. As required by Ca1PERS, the costs associated with the two years additional service credit were made public at least two weeks prior to the approval of the resolution. The costs were made public at the regular Council meeting of May 3, 2004. The costs and salary savings of the position eliminations are as follows: o The cost of the two-years additional service credit is projected to be $366,653 o The annual salary saving and benefit savings associated with the positions being cut is $602,219. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO GRANT ANOTHER DESIGNATED PERIOD FOR TWO YEARS ADDITIONAL SERVICE CREDIT WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Burlingame is a contracting Public Agency of the Public Employees' Retirement System; and WHEREAS, said Public Agency desires to provide another designated period for Two Years Additional Service Credit, Section 20903, based on the contract amendment included in said contract, which provided for Section 20903, Two Years Additional Service Credit, for eligible members; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that said City Council does seek to add another designated period, and does hereby authorize this Resolution, indicating a desire to add a designated period from July 5, 2004 through December 31, 2004 for eligible employees in the following job classifications: Library Assistant I Library Assistant II Library Assistant III Librarian I Librarian II Librarian III City Arborist Park Leadworker Police Sergeant Deputy Chief Building Official Adopted and approved this day of , CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME BY Presiding Officer Attest: Clerk/Secretary AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9e 6/7/2004 D D E TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED. DATE: May 26, 2004 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY 'l2 SUBJECT: REJECTION OF ALL BIDS AND AUTHORIZATION FOR AFF TO RE-ADVERTISE THE BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 2,CITY PROJECT NO. 81010 RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the Burlingame Park Subdivision Rehabilitation project for new bids. DISCUSSION: Bids were opened on May 20, 2004 and six bids were received. Bids ranged from $1,413,200 to $2,183,510.The engineer's estimate was$1,276,300. The project consists of rehabilitating all remaining sewer mains within the Burlingame Park Subdivision along the 100 to 500 blocks of El Camino Real,around the City Hall area and in the 1400 block of Capuchino Avenue. During the review of the contract proposals, staff found that the project specifications and special provisions were not clear in explaining the project requirements with respect to the contractor's experience and qualifications for pipe bursting. As this may result in costly change orders and construction delays, staff recommends that Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the project after revising the project contract documents. EXHIBITS: Bid Summary Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, City Attorney S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81010reject.wpd SSSSsaB s 1.sssB 501.8 s s1. 1.1. x00000 s B8 8sB sss e s ° BSS�B8c OOppa 8 S �� woods m 88 XY�B 888 m O SON N u. O.tD .(O(VV.O� OOO O OOi 0 0 A N m tO 0 0Ft N C N M G tV 1f! N >V y O N N �C O W Q C o rt [ 8800888 5 88888 Boss 8 88 88 888880 88 888 888 ME »° Rm o8 m vwwa �1.sssss o �sgss Bs 8. B.asBBB €yg ss oss os O O O Moon �O IpSO' NN O O t� nNM� O A c 11 V V A N m c M N W C m'cWi 858,88,8888888 ��8 8 1.8 88 888888 8� no g�� R 8808 = N N N N N 7 Z X88 0 88888 8588 8 88 88 888855 g On 888 888 8 8 sgsg m SON §m8> � 8. H X88858 LEo �8m�� <��N R °°M »8N» �"pcr N N odd C N M w�u 8888880 08888 �1.�� 8 80 8a 888888 88 808 $8 s www»s � sg sosg g s§ §$00888 �» 3 Z 8888888 8 88888 8888 a BE 88 888888 8 88 888 888 8 8 s" §oo�N� g$§§§ os a e �� oo�� s$ §§§ �� s ng = c m w w a LL mcV 8888888 10 88888 8 8S BOB 888888 88 888 888 s m $ os M �ggamn mR R s Z 888808 58888 8888 8 88 88 888888 a 88 888 988 $000s m $ss os ig 0gg $go so $ ss` s m »a ssw" n s U°a, "R m c ~ X88888 8 888.88 8.888 8 88 880800 88 88.8. 888 ��a $1�Q»o Asa ss �s 91.1. 6.98 n = p � c 8885888 88888 8880 8 88 008 8888008 8 88 888 888 g ° �oos�(VV § ssas� §g s is 8§s88m po ss 9ss Vis$ ps g 2S.90 9;!V R FN w p M N w Y NM M p V N m N 'Ffl 1,1 M O c~ N z o C 8�8 B88858 BB1.� 8 88 88. 888885 88 >paz 3°Sa ^_$�r$w8 a �8�8 0 ave '-s NQWp' 0�2K 7 w °wx00.0.1 0'<S 8888 8808 8 88 88 888888 $ 88 881. 888 8 S m�W� o �a m$$a soon ssOa eo os ��N �a� 12 *M b om W $ " m a EH m M a W 8888888 88888 01.101.0 8 0.01 1.8 888888 88 888 888 �pppy �o� Myo o�S$8 8888 no80 88 8$$888 2F 8§8 88§ c ado N N F C 2 W � ~ y N LL LL LL LL LL ��yy LLQQ a W a a Q LL LL w LL LL QQ a a a a a LL LL LL a a a sQ Z J(9 N J J w J J J W W W W= W W www W W J W W w W W 7 W lV N O y O N L O m W m jno w > 00 0 0 > z 008 m O OZm O� OZOZ pj z Q zp QQW zK ~ w0 Oy wwJ 7 G� >m ow Uoo m 3 14 v m Z; upp _o Q 0z0 U'z Z ¢ 0z (7 W Z zw oo Z o <> Zzzo a s z< Zu a �a Zzo rc fp, w 800 f K w p w poo rc K m a K p O J K w a K D 0 K K a J J J z Zf 3"'2' '�zzZ w xw zo i � � zzz Q aJ WY- . y 0 a z a y : rn--rn K m x 0y y 0 1 az 3omNn4 m K 3 m� VN u �m ~ 0 KO mwa ZZ�ttw zw zz 4z am wz> ¢¢w ZZ'Z U1 FS--M, aN W W �� a~qN W N z UFS-- aye W W F m OoZo z 3�w a�55g z 3ca mS2!K z a Y3 o a ��g LL gg O>U U o U z p Z Z 3 W K F-O 2 J K W a W F'O U O Z m O K ��000w0m w KKw wz- w0 W K O_ W ¢¢ 2 q a 7 aJtp Gl0 w� W Q a0K w0�W F- W WH Ja zUY W W wW t w¢�w¢mzm fes- mg 3w OAF- 2Zw W.5 wg Oma F- m� a U 3w O2 Z p O N N K 2 O Y W K m m W N 2 W- 'w C7a _ O a~ 2 W jW o K a W t0 ow yzz F- pw yM- UJ w W O pmw U- z $w Kam wm: U 3 ° m'a zoo"'DU�z3Zo z¢e' b 'a ; MMg a,- ted' moo w,o - 'a f u�G-waww ma �g� w as mw fga2U 3 Kz «� sg a a z 0 c7 m p w w a 2 0- i4 0 w LL S w O w p w W W N f n W>N Z Z xZZ O F- W W K N Z❑ m w w fA z W W o F- W f d ¢ tOrttKO»:a" w wQQQpO wIK KxZ�F- 2 K W- 03x' U OY>pwa a W bNF� F-F- OZ W W ply Nhl W ulQ�¢�F-Z W W Zw ~aNiD�Z �Oz g o "g-x�3�dWai�cwi�cwi cwio�0�w�oofw��wcwioo-w�Jo000 m��JowaJJ�wZo 9 y w-ui3WmF-aJJgmg gp��ga�22ag mgwgp?�gz�2='d� o Waox w�p wa=iaa0�2 w Z m Z W>K U!a K J a w a a Z x 2 a O Z Z V a W a W a Z 2 a w Z Z Z(� Z Q W W O O K 7 O W 7 W W a W W Q W W W>N<< W a W N W Q a W W a m Q a mmG p a W d N Q a w W W W>N Z~ (7 f U U1 O U a K m m K a K K S K K K m?E f W K a K N K S O K¢O? Q J m Z K a Z 2 K KKK m E 0 K K w z rMIFIll8A �B8 O a' m U a m BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION March 4, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Hesselgren. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Commissioners Carney, Ellis, Grandcolas, Lauder, and McQuaide Absent: Commissioner Webb Staff: Parks Superintendent Richmond, Arborist Porter, and Administrative Secretary Harvey MINUTES Under Reports- Commissioner Lauder,minutes were corrected to read: Commissioner Lauder added that she. Nancy Locke and Mariko Roberts (CalTrans) are in the process of choosing trees to replace the Willow trees that have died [at thel01lBroadway Triangle]. The minutes were approved as corrected. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Superintendent Richmond to Bob Haddad, 831 Crossway Road, that the Beautification Commission voted unanimously to deny the permit for the removal of one Camphor tree at his address because the tree was a viable and healthy tree and that maintaining the roots, and the pruning and thinning of the tree, could have been alternatives to removal. Additionally, the Commission recommended City Staff and applicant negotiate a cash settlement for the illegal removal and replacement with a 36" box size tree or appealing this decision to the City Council. Letter to the Garden Study Club of the Peninsula thanking them for their$50 donation toward the Arbor Day Tree planting at Bayside Park. FROM THE FLOOR- City Manager Jim Nantell addressed the Commission regarding the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act that the League of Cities is proposing to have placed on the November ballot. In essence, the measure would prevent the State from being able to take any more funds from the Cities unless it is approved by a simple majority of the voters. He stated that at the request of the Council, he is meeting with and encouraging City Commissions, Special Interest groups, and citizens ofBurlingame to help in circulating petitions to obtain 1100 signatures from registered voters in the City of Burlingame. Other Cities in the San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties are doing this and are also making contributions towards this effort.He concluded that anyone interested in circulating a ballot may contact Parks &Recreation Director Randy Schwartz at the Burlingame Recreation Center. OLD BUSINESS A. Public Education Regarding Tree Practices & Policies - Chairperson Hesselgren stated the Committee consisting of her and Commissioners Carney and Lauder met and discussed many different ways to inform the public and contractors regarding City tree practices and policies. Commissioner Lauder presented the list of items for discussion. Following the discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas suggested that the Commission identify 4-5 suggested items that can currently be accomplished by the Commission. The Commission then identified the following items: 1)Neighborhood precinct walk, going door to door with information flyers regarding City tree policies. (Commissioner Lauder) 2)Discussing and presenting tree policies to local realtors and title companies , emphasizing the beneficial aspects of trees with regard to property values. (Commissioner McQuaide) 3)Placing tree policy flyers on the City of Burlingame Water Bill. (Staff) 1 i A. Public Education Regarding Tree Practices & Policies - (Contd) 4) Boy and Girl Scouts handing out tree policy flyers at Music in the Park and Art on the Avenue. (Chairperson Hesselgren) 5) Tree Policy flyers mailed out with Recreation Class registration receipts. (Tim Richmond) 6) Broaden next year's Arbor Day event to include information and City information about tree policies. (Tim Richmond) 7)Follow through on Commercial and Residential Projects to verify requirements have been met with regard to tree planting and developing a 5 year protection plan for both Commercial and Residential. (Staffi Commissioner Hesselgren noted that all of the trees that were required for the Rector/Cadillac site at Cadillac Way, between Carolan and Rollins Road, were never planted. She said she believes there are 6 more trees needed. The Carolan Avenue side of the property (owned by Mike Harvey Acura) has nothing planted except the green strip of grass. In checking with the City Planner, Arborist Porter responded that the "green strip of grass" on the Carolan Avenue side of the property was the only requirement in that area. He stated he would check and clarify the number of trees required for the Rector/Cadillac site, and then would work with the current property owner to determine an appropriate species to be planted. He concluded that he would report back to the Commission at subsequent meetings. B. Review of Commission Meetings and Structure - Superintendent Richmond reviewed the Commission Rules of Procedure, Urban Reforestation Ordinance (Private Trees), and the Street Tree Ordinance(City Trees)with the Commission. He noted that when hearing appeals,the Commission can consider and weight the items listed in Section 11.06.060 when considering an appeal before them. He commented that Section 11.06.09 refers to building or construction on a private property where protected trees exist and that, Arborist Porter makes recommendations with regard to private trees for the Planning and Building Departments. Arborist Porter commented that if a tree which is not "significant,falls within the footprint of a proposed project, and if the plan cannot somehow be changed to accommodate the tree, removal with replacement requirements are usually approved. Spring Garden Seminar - Saturday, March 20, 2004, 9:30 to 11:00 am. Alane Weber-Rielly will be speaking on Composting for the Home Gardener;the Commission will provide breakfast cakes and cookies. Commissioner Ellis has delivered the banner to be hung over Burlingame Avenue. REPORTS - Superintendent Richmond - 1) The Commissioners Dinner will be at the Sheraton Hotel on Friday, March 12th. 2) Arbor Day will be celebrated at Bayside Park on Monday, March 8 at 10:00 a.m. 3) The appeal by the Eastmoor residents was tabled by Council. 4) Sycamore pruning continues west of Vancouver and north of Easton 5) Field use picks up dramatically in March - (youth and adult baseball/softball) 6) Washington Park playground renovation proceeding, after rain delays. 7) No major tree losses or damage in intense storm two weeks ago. 8) Parks Office received a number of calls about the Eucalyptus removals on El Camino. Chairperson Hesselgren - Chairperson Hesselgren noted that the squirrel barriers are still in the tree on Lexington. Arborist Porter responded that a second letter will be sent to the property and if not removed after 2 weeks, the City's crew will remove and bill the property owner for labor costs. Commissioner Lauder- Commissioner Lauder submitted to staff a list of City trees with ivy growing up the trunk. She added that she would like to see more of a uniform tree planting because the current practice is unattractive. Arborist Porter responded that planting a monoculture is usually not a good idea because if the species contracts a blight or disease it could infect all the species in the same area as exampled in the planting of Elms on Oxford and Cambridge. 2 REPORTS (Cont'd.) Commissioner Grandcolas - Commissioner Grandcolas reported that he tried to stop Asplundh Tree Company (contracted by PG&E) while they were topping the trees under the primary lines on Walnut Avenue. He then drew an example of the stub cuts that he observed. He was told by the crew leader that this was how they needed to trim the trees. Commissioner Grandcolas also observed in the ordinance that a permit is required to trim City owned trees, but the Asplundh employee told him that it was not required. Commissioner Grandcolas suggested that a committee formed to gather facts and data to determine options that may be available with regard to trimming trees under primary utilities. Commissioner Grandcolas, Lauder, and Ellis will serve on the Committee. Superintendent Richmond suggested the Committee first meet with Arborist Porter to discuss options. The Committee will report back to the Commission at a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Lauder concluded that the City of Burlingame is a Tree City USA, and it looks very bad when Asplundh"flat tops" the trees. Commissioner McOuaide - Commissioner McQuaide noted that some new trees have been planted on El Camino Real and Chairperson Hesselgren noticed that some newly planted trees(that had blown over) between Bayswater and Oak Grove have been restaked. There being no further business, Chairperson Hesselgren adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, tKarlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION May 6, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Hesselgren. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Commissioners Carney, Ellis, Grandcolas, Lauder, and Webb (arrived late). Absent: Commissioner McQuaide Staff. Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Parks Superintendent Richmond, Arborist Porter, Supervisor Disco, and Administrative Secretary Harvey Guests: Nina Hoskinson (1915 Broadway), Bobbi Benson (550 El Camino Real #103); John Campos (212 Stanley); Steven Hamilton, Dan Anderson, and Jennifer Pfaff (Citizens for a Better Burlingame) MINUTES Under FROM THE FLOOR, the comments in the minutes by City Manager Jim Nantell, were corrected to read : " . . the measure would prevent the State from being able to take any more funds from the Cities unless it is approved by a simple majority of the voters. He stated that at the request of the Council, he is meeting with City Commissions special interest groups and citizens of Burlingame to in them of the initiative. " The minutes were approved as corrected. CORRESPONDENCE Ideas to Promote Tree Policies Within the City of Burlingame (March 4, 2004 Beautification Commission Meeting). Copy of Staff Report from City Manager Nantell to Honorable Mayor and City Council regarding Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act. Letter to the Alane L. O'Rielly Weber, Botanical Art, thanking for her interesting presentation at the 25th annual Spring Garden Seminar. Letter to Wacek Dennaoui, TCI Cablevision, thanking him for televising the Arbor Day Ceremonies. Letter from Ario Gregorie suggesting the City require the "state to plant 5 trees for every one they cut down" . . . [on El Camino Real], and that replacement should be with "mature 20 foot trees". . . Memo from Parks Superintendent Richmond regarding Volunteer Maintenance Proposals for City Owned Facilities. Letter to Richard & Nina Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway, informing them that their appeal of the denial for the removal of a protected Cedar tree would be placed on the April I't meeting agenda. Letter to Richard &Nina Hoskinson, 1915 Broadway, informing them that, due to schedule conflicts, the Beautification Commission was unable to obtain a quorum for the April lst meeting, and their appeal would be postponed to the next regularly scheduled Beautification Commission meeting of May 6th, 2004. 1 FROM THE FLOOR- Bobbi Benson stated she was a new resident of Burlingame from Dallas, Texas and was a member of the Dallas County Master Gardeners Association. She has been picking up litter in the planter strip on El Camino and that she has noticed a lot of litter on Burlingame Avenue, Lots K and KI,Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue and suggests the City add more trash cans for litter removal. She added that she has been communicating with Molly Stones regarding planting in the planter strip on El Camino. She stated that she loves Burlingame and is happy to do anything for the City of Burlingame. Chairperson Hesselgren thanked Ms. Benson for her comments and suggested she contact the Burlingame Improvement Committee for volunteer activities related to her interests. John Campos, 212 Stanley Road, stated that he has two Tulip trees in the City's planter strip that are planted too closely together constantly drip sap from aphids and drop black residue, have roots that have lifted the sidewalk and are invading the sewer lateral. Mr. Campos stated that he is not anti tree but is requesting that one of the Tulips be removed and replaced with a Gingko tree. Chairperson Hesselgren thanked Mr. Campos for his comments and advised him to submit his request in writing in order to be placed on the June agenda. OLD BUSINESS - Appeal of the Denial to Remove a Cedar Tree iD_ 1915 Broadway- Arborist Porter stated he denied the removal of the Cedar tree based on criteria that the tree is healthy, there was no significant property damage, and the reasons requested by the applicant were not justified based on criteria used with regard to structure and health. Parks Superintendent Richmond stated that the applicants appeal appears to be based on conditions 1 and 7 of the review process in the ordinance with regard to "proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveway . . ." and, . . . "the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." He added the City Arborist only considers disease, health, and structure issues as well as damage to permanent structures, such as the house foundation; the Commission, however, may consider other issues. Commissioner Lauder stated it is a beautiful Cedar tree and asked Arborist Porter if pruning for weight reduction, trimming out deadwood, and root pruning would help to alleviate some of the concerns. Arborist Porter responded that root pruning could be done to alleviate damage. Chairperson Hesselgren asked if the root heading toward the gas line could be pruned? Arborist Porter stated that the root could be severed without causing any harm to the tree. Commissioner Ellis asked how old the tree was and how fast it will grow? Arborist Porter stated the tree appears to be 50-60 years old and will reach full maturity at about 100 years. The foliage (crown) will grow at a rate of approximately 6-8" each year; it is a mature tree so the trunk will only grow about 1/4" in diameter each year. The Commission further discussed with Arborist Porter the close proximity and repair to the hardscape (patio & neighbors driveway), root pruning, root barriers and other possible alternatives to removal. Chairperson Hesselgren then recognized the applicant,Ms. Nina Hoskinson. 2 OLD BUSINESS -Aaaeal of the Denial to Remove a Cedar Tree (a, 1915 Broadway- (Contd.)— Ms. Hoskinson stated that the trees roots are starting to crack her neighbor's driveway, and they are unable to grow anything under this "acid type tree". Chairperson Hesselgren asked applicant if she has maintained or trimmed the tree? Ms. Hoskinson said "no", that it is a nice tree and has not needed maintaining. Commissioner Lauder asked if the neighbor had considered planting "acid loving plants". Ms. Hoskinson said "No", that the neighbor ended up moving most of the plants out from under the tree to other locations. Commissioner Ellis noted that upon her inspection she did not see any evidence of roots growing into the neighbors yard and the large crack in the driveway looked like it could have been caused by age. She did state, however, that the roses planted very close to the covered area were not blooming as well as those that were in the sun. Commissioner Ellis remarked that the branches of the tree cover the roof and believed cutting the branches back and maintaining the tree would be very helpful in alleviating some of the concerns. Commissioner Grandcolas agreed that maintaining the tree would be helpful and noted he has the same specie tree in his yard. He added it is hard growing plant under the canopy but success can be achieved by trimming back, thinning out, and removing litter. Commissioner Lauder commented that a tree in an area where children play may be the child's first experience with nature, providing shade, and shelter and is a great teaching tool. She added that with proper maintenance and care, the applicant may be able to live in harmony with the tree. Following the discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas moved that the Commission deny the appeal of the denial to remove the Cedar tree because it is a healthy tree and mitigation can be accomplished by the cutting of the roots and trimming of the tree without causing harm to the tree; seconded, Lauder. Motion carried 5-2 (absenVMcQuaide and Webb). Chairperson Hesselgren thanked the applicant and advised of appeal procedures to Council. With permission of the Commission, Chairperson Hesselgren moved the agenda to NEW BUSINESS to accommodate representatives from the Citizens for a Better Burlingame (CBB) wishing to make a presentation. NEW BUSINESS Volunteer Maintenance Proposal - Superintendent Richmond explained that a community group had approached Director Schwartz wishing to organize volunteers to conduct maintenance projects on city owned facilities. The Commission is being asked to consider the overall concept of volunteer maintenance. If the Commission affirms the concept, it will make that recommendation, and Director Schwartz will use the recommendation as he sees fit. Presuming a recommendation is approved, the Commission will then need to define its involvement in the proposal/implementation process. Those considerations may require additional Commission meetings. Finally the Commission will consider an experimental maintenance project proposal by CBB members. Chairperson Hesselgren opened the hearing on volunteer maintenance proposals to public comment. Several residents spoke affirmatively of the concept. Bobbi Benson noted that the President of the Masters Gardeners in Dallas headed up a "Green Team" to do plantings as directed. Volunteers were found through advertising and getting local businesses involved. 3 NEW BUSINESS -Volunteer Maintenance Proposal- (Cont'd.) — Chairperson Hesselgren asked for Commission comment. Commissioner Webb asked how large the projects would be and if City Staff would be involved. Superintendent Richmond stated that the volunteers would provide the people power and supplies; staff would provide minimal direction, approval and oversight. Director Schwartz stated that in the past, the City has only had individuals, such as Eagle Scouts, volunteer to assist the Department. A framework has already been established for individual volunteer efforts, now it will be the Commission's task to establish criteria for volunteer groups and to determine the Commission's level of involvement in these projects. Following the discussion, Commissioner Ellis moved that the Commission recommend that subject to Council comment/approval, the Commission hear, consider, and approve or reject, volunteer beautification/maintenance proposals; seconded,_Grandcolas. Motion carried 6 - 1 (absent/McQuaide). Chairperson Hesselgren then invited representatives from CBB to present their experimental maintenance proposal for Commission consideration. Steven Hamilton, Treasurer for Citizens for Better Burlingame, Dan Anderson, and Jennifer Pfaff discussed with the commission the 'Adopt a Planter' program as an experiment of how the Volunteer Maintenance Proposal would work. The experiment is currently occurring as a volunteer project under Parks Division supervision. Dan Anderson noted with the budget cuts, the planters have gone into disrepair and volunteers can help to bridge the gap to improve the landscaping in the planters. Steven Hamilton then showed a slide presentation of the current 'Adopt-a-Planter' proposal. The current trial is in the planters fronting La Scala and Copenhagen Restaurants on Burlingame Avenue. He noted that since there is no irrigation in the planters, plants will be watered from the merchants sources. Vandalism, volunteer management, care and watering, Burlingame Avenue renovation, and recognition of volunteers are items that will need to be addressed as the project moves along. Key questions that the Commission would address would be what will be planted and how will volunteer management be conducted. Dan Anderson stated that there are other available planters on Burlingame Avenue. The Burlingame Garden Center has offered to work with the group with the pricing of plant material as well as other assistance and has even most recently offered to remove and replace a dying tree in one of the planters. Steven Hamilton stated an example of what the process might look like: The proposals would first be presented to the Parks & Recreation Department staff for approval, staff would then inform the Beautification Commission of the particular proposal, and then the Commission would be responsible for publicizing and recommending approval by City Council. Following the presentation, Commissioner Grandcolas stated that the proposal was well researched, well studied and very thorough and moved that the Commission affirm the trial program; seconded, Lauder. Motion carried 6 - 1 (absent/McQuaide). Chairperson Hesselgren thanked the CBB members for their presentation and asked that the Volunteer Maintenance program be placed on the June agenda for further discussion. 4 Review of Spring Garden Seminar - Superintendent Richmond stated that Alane Weber-Rielly made a very good presentation on composting for the home gardener. The seminar had been well publicized in the newspaper and the recreation brochure, and the banner was hung on Burlingame Avenue, but there were only 9 members from the public in attendance. Superintendent Richmond wondered if the Commission should consider canceling the event because of the lack of public interest that has been experienced over the last 5 years. The Commission discussed possible reasons for the decline in attendance from the types of topics presented, to over-saturation or duplication of topics offered elsewhere and on the internet, to changing the time to a week night rather than a Saturday. Following the brief discussion Chairperson Hesselgren suggested the Commission revisit this item in the Fall and be prepared to discuss different ideas. Chairperson Hesselgren then returned the meeting agenda to OLD BUSINESS. OLD BUSINESS Public Education Regarding Tree Practices & Policies - Chairperson Hesselgren, with permission of the Commission, requested that due to the absence of Commissioner McQuaide who was to make a report on this item, this item be held over to a future meeting. Tree Trimming Policies Under Public Utilities - Commissioner Grandcolas submitted copy of the committees goals, issues, and objectives relative to P.G.&E's current practice "flat topping" (instead of "tunnel-cutting") of City-owned trees under primary utilities. Superintendent Richmond stated that Arborist Porter had recently met with P.G.&E.'s Quality Assurance Specialist, Kathleen Haufmann, to discuss a tree issue; Kathleen Haufmann is also a Certified Arborist. In the course of their conversation, she offered to come to a future Beautification Commission meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern (either from the floor or as an agenda item). Arborist Porter will contact Ms. Haufmann and ask if she would be available to address the Commission either at the June or September Commission meeting. REPORTS - Superintendent Richmond - 1. Soil injection for aphid control on selected City street trees completed. Selected fertilization with injection/tank is now being performed. 2. Burlingame Avenue Downtown Improvement Committee is formulating plans for the Avenue. Mayor O'Mahony suggested that a Beautification Commissioner would be a good addition to that group. Acting Chairperson Lauder attended the April 27th meeting. Chairperson Hesselgren will try to attend the next meeting and Commissioner Carney will act as backup. 3. Park Supervisor Bob Disco tested for and was awarded Certified Arborist certification. 4. Cal Trans representatives made a presentation to Council on Monday, April 4th about the removal of the 11 Eucalyptus trees on El Camino. 5. 3 5 street trees were planted in April. The next planting will be in October. 6. Bids were opened March 31s' for the contract to install the vegetation screen on the east side of California Drive north of Dufferin. The project was approved in 1999 by Council before the BART project began. It involves removal of the existing plants, except for several native Oaks, to be replaced with shrubs, trees, and irrigation. 7. Grand Opening for the new playground at Washington Park occurred on April 17th. 8. Council passed an ordinance giving property owners responsibility for sidewalk repairs fronting their property. Commission will discuss at future meetings, the possible effects of the new ordinance and how it may impact the Commission. 9. A view ordinance concept was mentioned at the last Council meeting. The Commission will likely be involved in any such discussions. 5 REPORTS - Superintendent Richmond (Contd.) - 10. Steve met with PG&E rep regarding a power line/tree issue. In the course of their conversation, she offered to come to a future Beautification Commission meeting to discuss issues of mutual concern (either from the floor or as an agenda item). 11. Steve is working with Rector Motors on the selection of the replacement of landscape trees that blew down. Chairperson Hesselgren - Chairperson Hesselgren noted that she has been contacted by 4 citizens asking if there is any reason why so many "No Parking" signs are required on the green storage fence on the corner of California Drive and Oak Grove and, if the "Got Junk" signs will be removed? Superintendent Richmond will contact the Public Works Department. Commissioner Lauder - Commissioner Lauder asked if a green fence will also be installed in the area of Broadway and California Drive? Superintendent Richmond will ask the Public Works Department to clarify and will report back to the Commission. There being no further business, Chairperson Hesselgren adjourned the meeting at 7:40 pm. 14 Res ectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 6 IBURUNG.,mE The City of Burlingame CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.budingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 Commissioners Present: Russ Cohen, Chair Stephen Warden, Vice Chair Eugene Condon Jim McIver Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dawn Cutler, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Staff Absent: None Visitors: John Balen, 1700 Easton Drive, Burlingame Mark Asbury, 1320 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Tom Seaney, 25 Marialindact, Hillsborough Joan Cleary, 1337 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Brian Bailard, 1329 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Jim Petrucci, 1357 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Frank Lowe, 1333 Cabrillo Avenue,Burlingame Elaine Scoles, 616 Plymouth Way,Burlingame John Wang, 1341 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Peter Wu, 1315 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Ash McNeely, 1236 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame John Ward, 792 Willborough Place, Burlingame Debbie deQuant, 1232 Paloma Avenue,Burlingame Jean Chong, 1513 Burlingame Avenue,Burlingame Ron Field, 1249 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 4 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1 ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for April 8, 2004 It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/McIver) to approve the April 8, 2004 minutes; unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.1.2 Confirm Citizen Committee for Occidental Avenue Chair Cohen stated that the two-member citizens' committee will consist of Frank Kelly and Elizabeth Yost. He said that they each have opposing views on this issue and would supply the Commission with separate quarterly reports. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Condon/Warden)to accept the committee members. Unanimously approved by the Commission. After the committee members receive confirmation, the City will start covering the parking limit signs. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.1 Evaluate on-street parking situation on 1300 block of Cortez Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue Mr. Chou stated that staff had been contacted by Our Lady of Angels (OLA) church and school administrations, as well as the on-site preschool, regarding traffic problems on Cortez Avenue. Several field meetings were conducted involving City staff, OLA representatives, and parents. It was during these meetings that the City was also informed of the traffic problem on Cabrillo Avenue. Mr. Chou explained that there is a clearer plan to address the traffic situation on Cortez, but that a solution to the Cabrillo side was still open for evaluation. He said that under the current situation on Cortez, the existing white zones are not being fully utilized due to their split placement on each side of the mid-block crosswalk. He added that in their current location, the white zones are unusable by the preschool parents because they must park and sign in their children. Staff proposed moving the white zone south of the mid-block crosswalk and eliminating the parking restriction along the rest of the street. From the floor, Ms. Cleary stated she represents the 1300 block of Cabrillo and would like dialogue with the school. She said that other schools seem to manage their traffic issues. Mr. Lowe stated that he was against the white zone on Cabrillo because day workers have difficulty finding parking. Mr. Bailard agreed with Ms. Cleary and added that there are 40 preschool children that need to be picked up and dropped off on Cortez. Mr. Balen stated that there is also a truck loading issue every day, both day and night. He said that regardless of parking zones, people park everywhere. He also added that the "No Parking" sign in front of his house at the The City of Burlingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 corner of Easton and Cortez is usually ignored, and the church on Easton also adds to the parking problem in this area. Mr. Asbury stated that he lives on Cortez near the school's gym where there are a lot of activities going on all the time, and they create a lot of traffic. He stated that since cars are parked everywhere, it is difficult to access his driveway. Mr. Sheaney represented OLA and stated that he is interested in working on a solution. Ms. Scoles works at OLA and stated that Cabrillo is the only place for staff to park and requested the Commission not consider the white zone along Cabrillo. Comm. Condon stated that there is a need for parents' involvement to help move traffic. He suggested making Cortez and Cabrillo one-way streets. Vice Chair Warden stated that the school, parents and neighbors must work together.He suggested Cortez be made one-way southbound and Cabrillo one-way northbound.He also stated that more off-street parking would be available if the school did some paving and striping on the Cortez side, north of the mid-block crosswalk. Chair Cohen recommended formation of a subcommittee made up of parents, residents, school and church administrations and a traffic commissioner to discuss solutions. Comm. Condon volunteered to represent the commission. Chair Cohen requested volunteers to email him, and he would notify them as to when a meeting would take place at OLA. Mr. Chou stated he could take digital pictures showing traffic issues for use by the subcommittee. This will be a Discussion item next month.Chair Cohen requested staff send Commission meeting notices next month to the affected residents and OLA in order to keep everyone informed of the situation. 4.2.2 Request for temporary blue zone at 2668 Martinez Drive Mr. Chou stated that the applicant is asking for a temporary blue zone due to major remodeling construction on a neighbor's house beginning in the near future. The applicant is concerned that the construction trucks will be parked all along the street and impede access to the applicant's residence. Staff recommended denying this request since there is ample on-street parking and stated that this item could be reexamined if a problem exists after the construction has begun at the neighbor's house. Mr. Chou also explained that blue zones are usually installed in high pedestrian areas, like schools or businesses. He also recommended that the City develop some guidelines on approving installation of blue zones. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Condon/Warden)to make this an Action item now. It was then moved and seconded(Comms. McIver/Condon)to deny this request.Unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2.3 Request for parking restriction/limitation in front of 824 Cowan Road Mr. Chou stated that the applicant's business deals with personal injury cases and that their clients generally need handicapped access. This was the reason for requesting special access for their business. Mr. Chou explained that he conducted a field investigation and met with the Rita Bell at the site. He explained that the applicant has some alternatives to address their needs: off-load clients in their own driveway which is alongside the business front door; or, widen the rear business door to accommodate handicapped access in rear private parking lot. Based on these possible solutions, staff recommended denying this request. The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/McIver) to make this an Action item now. It was then moved and seconded(Comms. Warden/McIver)to deny this request. Unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2.4 Request for green zone at 828 Mahler Road Mr. Chou stated that there is an on-site rear parking lot and recommended denial of this request. He also stated that this request had come before the Commission in the past, and that it was denied then. Mr. Chou explained that nothing has changed significantly between then and now. Comm. Warden stated that he viewed this site and saw that the parking lot was only 25% full. Comm. Condon noticed that handicapped clients are picked up and dropped off at the rear parking lot,and that the request was to accommodate a new tenant which would be servicing more handicapped clients. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to make this an Action item now. It was then moved and seconded(Comms. Warden/McIver)to deny this request. Unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2.5 Request for 2-hour parking time limit for 1200 block of Paloma Avenue Mr. Chou stated that according to the request,Broadway merchants take up the majority of the on- street parking on this block, and that residents have no access to on-street parking along Paloma. He added that driveways are partially blocked by the merchants' parked cars. Mr. Chou explained that similar streets off of Broadway have 2-hour parking limits. He also stated that Parking Lots R and P were changed to 2-hour parking as advocated by the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID). The residents of Paloma were concerned that this change in time limits in the lots was contributing to the parking problem on Paloma. Mr. Chou suggested that Mr. Ross Bruce, President of the BID, be contacted to request that Lots P and Q parking limits be changed from two hours back to a combination of two and ten hours. Staff recommended consideration to extend the existing 2-hour parking limit on the 1200 block of Paloma Avenue from 150 feet to about 400 or 500 feet from Broadway. From the floor, Mr. Field stated that the parking lots are currently underutilized. Ms. deQuant stated parked cars on Paloma extend into the driveways making access difficult. She requested 2- hour parking and parking permits exempting residents and making the lots available for merchant parking as before. Ms. McNeely counted more than 100 cars parked on this block of Paloma, while she counted 30 empty spaces in the parking lot. She also requested residential parking permits. Vice Chair Warden stated that he visited the site and suggested that the lot between Capuchino and Paloma be made into a free long-term lot for merchants. Comm. McIver suggested formation of a subcommittee to look at the situation more closely. He noted that Lots P and Q were empty when he was at the site. Chair Cohen suggested contacting the BID regarding lot parking limit changes before the Commission makes a recommendation to Council. Mr. Chou stated that staff will coordinate a meeting with interested Paloma Avenue residents and BID representatives. Vice Chair Warden volunteered to represent the Commission. The City of Burlingame Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 This will be a Discussion item next month. 4.2.6 Evaluation of sight-visibility at the intersection of Palm Drive and California Drive Mr. Chou stated that there is a problem with sight visibility at the corner due to buildings on California Drive abutting the sidewalk, and some street trees block the view. Staff recommended installing a red zone for two parking spaces at the northwest corner which would allow more visibility.Comm.Condon stated that a street light also obstructs the view,and suggested combining the pole structure with the yellow warning light pole for Fire Station 36 in the future. He also suggested posting a "No Left Turn" sign. Chair Cohen suggested height limit signs. Sgt. Cutler stated that when driving south on California Drive,drivers cannot see a stopped vehicle at Palm until nearly at the intersection. From the floor,Mr. Ward provided pictures of this intersection and stated it is a dangerous corner. This will be an Action item next month. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. 5.1 Request for passenger loading zone at 322 Lorton Avenue Mr. Chou stated that this is a request from the owner of Ecco Restaurant to off-load customers.This will be a Discussion item next month. 5.2 Request for parking height restriction at the intersection of Oak Grove/Neuchatel Road and at Palm Drive/Neuchatel Road Mr. Chou stated that the residents are having a problem with visibility at this intersection and request height limit signs. From the floor,Mr. Ward stated that if"No Left Turn" signs are posted at Palm Drive(see Item 4.2.6), more traffic will use Neuchatel to turn left at Oak Grove where there is a visibility problem.He requested extending the existing red zone. This will be a Discussion item next month. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. 6.1 Mr. Chou submitted a letter from a Burlingame Avenue resident regarding Parking Lot H. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. 7.1 From Staff to Commission 7.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.1.1.1 US 101 Auxiliary Lane/Soundwall Project The City of Burlingame Page 5 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, May 13, 2004 Mr. Chou stated that there had been a public meeting on April 22"d with Caltrans and the Transportation Authority to discuss extension of the existing soundwall along Rollins Road from its current location northerly toward Cadillac Way, as well as the installation of an auxiliary lane on US 101 through Burlingame. He explained that story poles were installed simulating the various heights of a soundwall, from Toyon to Cadillac Way. Mr. Chou explained that this was to provide Rollins Road businesses with an idea of how the soundwall might affect them. A public hearing is scheduled for the June 7`'Council meeting. 7.1.1.2 Relocation of bus stop at 827 California Drive Mr. Chou stated that SamTrans has agreed to provide a bus stop at its current location between 827 and 841 California Drive without any red curbing. This will mean that three new parking spaces will be provided on this block. 7.1.1.3 Parking meter poles along California Drive Mr. Chou stated that the parking meter heads were removed at the request of the automobile vendors. Vice Chair Warden suggested that the City receive revenue from the vendors for this request. Comm. McIver stated that the poles are dangerous and would like the meter heads returned. Mr. Chou will check with the City Engineer as to removal of the poles or replacement of the meter heads. 7.1.1.4 Left-turn restrictions on Broadway at Chula Vista Mr. Chou stated that a traffic turning-movement study was conducted at the intersection. This was done between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on a typical weekday. He said that about one-third of westbound cars on Broadway turned left onto Chula Vista (36 cars). Mr. Chou stated that staff does not recommend installing a"No Left Turn" sign since this might cause drivers to continue farther into Broadway in order to use the next available left-turn opening. Mr. Chou added that the City applied for, and received, funding to perform a citywide signal retiming program with a target implementation date at the end of 2004. He said that this program would provide better traffic flow through the Broadway/California intersection, and might relieve some of the problems at Chula Vista. 7.2 From Commission to Staff 7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Chair Cohen suggested that the Commission establish a policy on residential parking permits, including the costs of the program and which residential areas would qualify for the program. Comms. Condon and McIver and Sgt. Cutler will serve on the subcommittee. 7.2.2 Comments and Communication Chair Cohen reminded the commissioners to provide input for commission FAQ's. 7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, June 10, 2004 meeting-None. The City of Burlingame Page 6 TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes-Unapproved Thursday,May 13,2004 7.3 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame Chair Cohen stated that the first meeting is scheduled for May 20th at 5:30 p.m. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS.- None. 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 4.2.1 to Discussion 4.2.5 to Discussion 4.2.6 to Action 5.1 to Discussion 5.2 to Discussion 6.1 to Discussion 10.ADJOURNMENT. 9:30 p.m. The City o/Burlingame Page 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 24, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the May 24, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica (arrived at 7:30 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg, Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. 111. MINUTES The minutes of the May 10, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were amended to correct the spelling of C. Brownrigg's name on page I and approved. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 344 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF COVERED PARKING SPACES TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (ELIZABETH YOST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRICIA HAGEY, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report. Chair Osterling asked and noted that all commissioners had made a site visit. Commissioners asked: staff should check the numbers in the staff report summary table to be sure that they are consistent with the verbal description; is the width of the new garage 16 feet or 1 I feet; seem to be hardships related to the dimension and size of the property with this site, item should be placed on the consent calendar. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the next available consent calendar when the information required is completed. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent) This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RANDY GRANGE, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 Commissioners asked: in the special permit application the applicant notes that there are similar structures on a number of nearby lots,can applicant provide pictures of these structures; can the plate be reduced to 9 feet so that it is within the code;project has a lot of conditional use and special permits,why not reduce the width,reduce the plate height,reduce the square footage and make the conditional use and special permits go away. Chair Osterling directed this item to the next available action calendar when the requested information has been completed and checked by staff. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. 3. 1409 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE (JOSE DOS RAMOS, PRUDENTIAL REALTY, APPLICANT; KEVIN CULLINANE ET AL PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the May 24, 2004, staff report. Commissioners asked no questions. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 4A. 2505 HAYWARD DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIKE AND SHARON CALAHAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 4B. 415 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-1/R-3 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ADD A COLUMBARIUM TO AN EXISTING CHURCH(ST.PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C. Keele noted that he would abstain from action on 2505 Hayward because he lives within 500 feet of the project. There were no requests to remove either item. Commissioners noted that while on site visits they had spoken to the owners at 2504 Hayward Drive which is across the street from 2505 Hayward and the owners did not feel that the proposed project would affect their view. C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 2505 Hayward Drive and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Keele abstaining, Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent) The voice vote on the motion to approve 415 El Camino Real passed 5-0-2(Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 2 City of Burlifigame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 1504 ALTURAS DRIVE,LOT 2,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(DEREK CHUNG,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL JUNG, ABR ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER(CONTINUED FROM MAY 10, 2004 MEETING) Reference staff report May 24,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting the driveway slope had been increased to 15 feet, the plate heights for first and second floor reduced to 9 feet, and the retaining wall on side property line reduced in height by about 2 feet, she reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that an email was received from Mike Stallings, 1512 Alturas Drive,noting that he was in support of the proposed project. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Jung, architect, 4075 Papazian Way, Fremont, was available to answer questions. Commission asked the architect to verify that stone veneer and vines will be used on both sides of the retaining wall; architect confirmed that stone veneer will be installed and vines planted on both sides of the retaining wall, and also will be placed on the front and back of all retaining walls, notes are provided on the architectural drawings. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Bojues noted that the applicant had made the changes suggested by the Planning Commission and moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 12,2004,sheets A1.0 through A5.0,topo,C-1 and L1.0,site plan,floor plans,roof plan,building elevations,grading and drainage plan,and landscape plan; showing a 15%slope driveway with 9'plate heights on both the first and second floors and driveway retaining walls at 9'6"and 8'maximum;2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3)that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's,Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's and the City Engineer's November 17, 2004 memos shall be met and the conditions of the City Arborist's December 11, 2004 memo shall be met along with the approved arborist's report date stamped January 6, 2004; 4) that 43"Coastal Live Oak and the 47" Coastal Redwood located on Lot#2 shall not be removed and the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures, prior to any grading or demolition on the site. The tree protection measures, as defined in the applicant's arborist report by the Green Jeannie(date stamped January 6,2004)which has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, shall be maintained on site until after the final inspection and the City Arborist authorizes their removal; the contractor shall call for the City Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a grading permit shall be issued,and that the property owner shall maintain the trees after construction as directed by the certified arborist's report;failure to continually provide the tree protection and implementation of any of those requirements in the arborist's report shall result in the property owner paying for an independent inspection of the site by an arborist selected by the City; 5)that a certified arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, and that a certified arborist shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and �— requirements of the conditions of approval are being met;inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a certified arborist shall be given written authority by the S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection,conservation and maintenance of trees on the site,and the City Arborist —� may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site;6)that prior to demolition or construction the 43"Coastal Live Oak located on right side of Lot#2 shall be trimmed,raising the fringe only six feet over the existing roof line,this shall be done under the direct supervision of a certified arborist at a time during the project determined by the City Arborist; 7)that prior to demolition or construction 6"of mulch shall be placed 10' around the trunk of the 43"Coastal Live Oak located on the right side of Lot#2,but shall not be placed directly against the trunk; 8)that prior to demolition of the rear deck temporary barrier fencing shall be placed at 8' on the southwest side of the 43"Coastal Live Oak,and 28'on the northeast side of the trunk;9)that after the demolition of the rear deck,but prior to the construction of the new homes,protective barrier fencing shall be placed as close to the drip line of the 43"Coast Live Oak as possible and shall remain in place throughout the construction of both houses on Lot#1 and Lot#2; 10)that prior to demolition or construction the 47"Coastal Redwood located on the left side of Lot#2 shall be pruned over the existing roof line to the existing gutter line so that tree limbs growing over the roof clear 6' over the roof, 11)that prior to demolition or construction the ivy around the trunk of the 47"Coastal Redwood located on the left side of Lot#2 shall be cut away; 12)that prior to demolition or construction protective barrier fencing shall be placed 5' from the trunk of the 47" Coastal Redwood on the south side and 15' from the trunk on the east and west side,there is already fencing on the north side in the form of a neighboring boundary fence, all protective fencing shall remain in place until the completion of construction; 13)that all trenching within the drip line of the 47"Coastal Redwood and the 43"Coastal Live Oak,shall be performed by hand labor under the supervisions of a certified arborist, should roots of a 4"diameter or larger encountered during hand digging under the drip line,work shall stop immediately and the certified arborist shall evaluate further digging and consult with the City Arborist prior to resuming work; 14) that the protective barrier fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high, and shall be made of pig wire, snow fence,or cyclone fence,with steel stakes or pipes as posts;there shall be no storage of materials or equipment, unnecessary trenching, grading or compaction within the protective barrier fencing; encroachment into these areas is forbidden; 15) Tree Maintenance: The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the 43" Coastal Live Oak and the 47" Coastal Redwood, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the January 6,2004 Green Jeannie report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; 16)that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 17)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 18)that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 20)that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 21) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 22)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed --� professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 23) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 24) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 25) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff;26)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;and 27)that the retaining walls on both sides of the site shall be clad with stone veneer and vines shall be planted with irrigation along the front and back sides of the retaining walls so that they would grow to cover the retaining walls. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Commission suggested that condition#27 be added to include stone veneer and requiring vines to be planted on the front and back sides of the retaining walls. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. C. Vistica arrived at 7:30 p.m. 6. 2725 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DENISE BALESTRIERI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN(continued from May 10, 2004 meeting) Reference staff report May 24,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the condition of approval regarding the pruning height along the neighbors'fence will show on the title report? CA Anderson noted that the resolution is recorded with the property,but cannot confirm that the title company would pick up the pruning restrictions and conditions of approval. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Denise Balestrieri,414 Costa Rica Drive,San Mateo,and James Chu, designer, represented the project and were available to answer questions, noted that the project was continued because of concerns brought up by the neighbor at 2731 Summit Drive regarding potential view blockage, installed additional story poles towards the front of the house to allow this neighbor to view the proposed project, spoke to the neighbor after the story poles were installed and he indicated that the new house would not have an impact on his views, the neighbor requested that the landscaping to be planted along his property be kept down so that it would not impact his views. Greg Cosko, 6 Hillview Court,noted that he was confused on the proposed landscaping near his property and asked for clarification;Commission noted that the conditions of approval which require that the planting along his property line be trimmed so that it does not exceed the top of the fence and the elimination of the taller growing pittosporum trees addresses his concerns. There were no further comments and the public �..- hearing was closed. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 C.Keighran noted that she spoke with the adjacent neighbor at 2731 Summit Drive and confirmed that the proposed new house would not have an impact on views from the adjacent properties after the story poles -� were installed, and moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)tha:k the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 15, 2004, sheets A.1 through A.6, L1.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, with the exception of the chimneys in the living room and master bedroom which shall not be installed as part of the project;and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;2)that the three Pittosporum Undulatum trees shown along the southeast property line on the Landscape Plan dated stamped April 15,2004, shall be eliminated from the landscape plan and that no trees or shrubs shall be planted along this property line whose natural growth tendencies would cause them to grow taller than the property line fence or a maximum of seven feet;vines on the fence whose height can be maintained by property owners on both sides are an acceptable alternative; 3) that shrubs planted along the fence on the southeast property line between the subject property and the property at 6 Hillview Court shall be maintained by the property owner so that its height does not exceed the top of the fence or a maximum of seven feet as measured from adjacent grade on the 2725 Summit Drive side of the fence;4)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first floor or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 5)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 6)that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as windov locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 9) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type, etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 10)that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; l l)that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, Chief Building Official's, and Recycling Specialist's March 22, 2004, memos shall be met; 12)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 13)that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices"as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 14)that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 15)that the project shall be subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan shall be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application;and 16)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:42 p.m. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 7. 1036 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JOHN F. BRITTON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RONALD A. PERNER, ARCHITECT) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report May 24,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that this property was recently purchased by the owner and asked if he would have been aware that the property was nonconforming in FAR at time of purchase? CA Anderson noted that it is unlikely that it was disclosed as nonconforming in FAR. CA also noted that in regards to granting the variance,the Commission should take into consideration that the existing house is being preserved,which was a concern when the property was sold; also pointed out that the existing carport extends over the rear property line into the public utility easement and that the carport would be removed with the project. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. John Britton, applicant and property owner,noted that he was concerned with condition #2 which voids the floor area ratio variance if the house is ever demolished, destroyed or damaged,would like the option to rebuild the existing house if it is demolished or destroyed, asked the Commission to reconsider this condition. CA noted that the Commission can revise the condition so that it allows essentially a replica of the existing house to be built, Commission may not want to see a different large house built. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that the nonconforming floor area ratio was created earlier with the removal of one of the lots, that the existing house is being preserved by the owner which was an important community concern expressed at the time the lots were separated, that there are extraordinary circumstances on this property which do not apply to properties in the general area, and moved to approve the application,by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 29,2004, sheets A.1,E.l and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and date stamped May 17, 2004, sheet A.2, with the garage door pattern as shown on the North Elevation, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2)that if the detached garage or single family dwelling on this site is ever expanded,the floor area ratio variance shall become void and a new application shall be submitted for Planning Commission review;if the detached garage and/or single family dwelling is ever demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster,the property owner shall be allowed to rebuild the existing detached garage and/or single family dwelling at the same location,with the same footprint,floor area,setbacks,height,finished floor and plate heights, and exterior materials as the existing house and garage; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and the Recycling Specialist's April 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 5)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: fortunate to have a property owner willing to renovate the existing house and not tear it down,house needs additional garage space and it is being provided,thanked the owner for his efforts to save and renovate the existing house, it's an asset to the community. CA noted suggested that the Commission consider revising condition#2 to allow a replica of the existing house to be built if the existing �— house is demolished or destroyed. The maker of the motion and second agreed. CA noted that a variance would be required for a new or revised configuration of the house. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24,2004 Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. —� 8. 39 HUMBOLDT ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW TWO-STORY DETACHED GARAGE WITH RECREATION ROOM (ROBERT BROWN,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JOHN SCHLENKE, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 25,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.Five conditions were suggested for consideration. In her presentation she suggested an amendment to condition 2 that the accessory structure shall never be used as a second dwelling unit or sleeping quarters and shall not include a kitchen or cooking element.CP also noted that the design reviewer had noted that he worked with the applicant on the design of the accessory structure but that the number of exceptions in the case of the particular lot was a policy matter. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Robert Brown,39 Humboldt Road,represented the project. He noted that he would answer questions on the revised plans. Commissioners asked the house has distinctive windows, did you consider replicating any of these on the garage to make it seem more a part of the same property. Applicant noted would be willing to put in divided lights to match the house and that the curved- frame window on the porch by the front door could be installed on the second floor at the front of the garage. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion:concerned about the precedent created by the two story nature with new recreation room second floor and the number of exceptions to the code for this project; CA noted that should the --� property be demolished (house and garage or just garage) the application could be conditioned that the conditional use permits and special permits for the addition would be voided. Architect done a nice job harmonizing the garage structure with the house,but the larger issue is the number of exceptions and setting a precedent with that number and a second floor; am OK with the two story recreation room and garage, reasonable use of space,not crowd the neighborhood,corner lot so hard to have rear yard/patio and garage. CA noted that it is not easy for a situation like this to blend with design review so commission has review, do not have a policy at present for no two story garages, these approvals will only be voided should the house and garage or garage be demolished in the future if a condition is added to that effect. C.Bojues moved to approve based on the fact that the house is located on a corner,there is sufficient space between the houses on the block so that it will have no impact on the neighborhood,while concerned about the precedent with the number of exceptions,think addressed by a condition that use permits will be voided if the garage or the house and garage are ever demolished in the future and that there be no kitchen or cooking element in the garage,by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 5,2004, site plan, floor plans, and building elevations; 2)that the accessory structure shall only be used as a one-car garage with a recreation room with a half bath above, with a maximum enclosed square footage of 570 SF and a maximum height of 18% shall never be used as a second dwelling unit; shall never be used as sleeping quarters or include a kitchen or cooking element;and the waste connection shall be limited to the minimum required for a toilet and the garage structure shall not include any additional utility services without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3)that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist,City Engineer and Chief Building Official's January 12, 2004 memos shall be met; 4)that the project shall comply wid. the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;6)that the curved-framed true divided light window on the house facing Humboldt shall be reproduced on the front of the second floor of the garage and that all the windows in the new garage shall be true divided light windows to match the pattern of the windows on the house; and 7) that the conditional use permits granted for the construction of a two story garage shall be automatically voided should the garage structure or house and garage structure ever be demolished by intent, natural disaster or catastrophe. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: would the maker and second agree to an amendment to the conditions of approval to require that the curved-framed true divided light window on the house facing Humboldt shall be reproduced on the front of the second floor of the garage and that all the windows in the new garage shall be true divided light windows to match the pattern of the windows on the house. The maker of the motion and second agreed to amend the conditions. This house has a unique location and situation on the lot, particularly since it was remodeled to be one story,was concerned about the two story garage,works because the plate line was reduced on the garage which makes it work better with the house. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the conditional use permits with amended conditions for a two story garage. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. 9. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR PRIVATE SCHOOL USE AT AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE (ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) 80 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report May 24,2004,,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the city had received any traffic complaints regarding this use. Staff responded no. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Michael Mount, Erudite (Hope) Technology Group administrator, John Tolerver, 356 Grove, principal, represented the project. He noted that they had been using a flexible start and end time schedule with the public school and it was working well,would like that to be incorporated into the conditions. Staff of Hope meets students at the Franklin drop off area,disabled students are dropped off using the disabled parking space in the Hope parking lot; would also like the flexibility to have a maximum limit of people on site for this use instead of having them defined by class size or position because of minor variations in sign ups from year to year, also Franklin may need portable next year so Hope would have to adjust its operation accordingly; during the summer expect the present situation with their use of the portable to continue, would prefer not to have to come back to commission again so soon. Commission asked about the maximum number and how the people on site divided out by children and adults. Applicant noted they are comfortable with a maximum of 77 people on site at any one time,these divide out 21 adults and 56 children;generally these are special students and class size is limited to a maximum of 12, many are smaller based on enrollment. Commission also asked about parking; applicant noted that staff park in their 5 spaces on site and on Trousdale or just around the corner on Quesada, some use public transit and some commute together, staff have never had a problem finding `— parking. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 C.Vistica noted that given the history,the school is well run and meeting a need for the community,see no problem with conditional use amendment to increase the number of people and to define the maximum people on site for this use to 21 adults and 56 children and also to modify condition 4 to allow for flexible arrival and departure times as negotiated with the Principal of Franklin School, so move approval by resolution with the following amended conditions: 1)that the Hope Technology School shall be limited to the 5,212 SF shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 8, 2004, sheets A-2, A-3, A-6 and A-7; including 4,252 SF of permanent building space and 960 SF of portable classroom space;2)that the drop off and pick up schedule for Hope Technology Group shall be negotiated by the Hope Technology Group principal in conjunction with Franklin Elementary School principal,so that there is no overlap between the drop off and pick up for both of the schools; 3) that the total number of persons on site at any time, including school staff, students, and volunteers, shall be limited to 77 persons; 4)that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed upon complaint or should any of the following occur:an increase in the space used,more than 56 students and more than 21 adults on site at one time or any other operating feature change, except arrival and departure times and class duration; and 5) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 220 CLARENDON ROAD,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARGARET FARNEY, PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. He noted a letter from the neighbor at 224 Clarendon requesting that the windows in the master bathroom facing her property be removed for privacy. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project. He noted that this is a typical stucco Spanish house with tile roof at the front and flat roof with parapet at rear,with the addition at the rear they tried to add some of the same character that exists at the front of the house now; showed the plans to the neighbor, suggest that the bathroom window be opaque glass and hinged on the left for the maximum privacy for the next door neighbor,the window over the tub would also need to be opaque. Commissioner asked if the divided lights on the doors from the master bedroom to the outside were intended to match the pattern shown on the rest of the house, architect noted that the divided light pattern would be the same throughout. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar, it is a nice design; the resubmittal should include a uniform divided light pattern on all the windows and a solution to the bathroom window which would address the neighbor's concern for privacy. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes May 24, 2004 Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to bring this item back on the consent calendar when the two concerns had been addressed and reviewed by staff. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Brownrigg absent)voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 17, 2004 CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 17,2004,noting for the Commission the reasons that the City Council did not introduce the proposed ordinance for re-emerging legal lots. She also noted the revised City Council calendar for the summer and how this might affect major projects being reviewed at this time. Report on Traffic and Public Safety Impacts 6 Months After Approval of the Business at 1230 Broadway, Starbucks Coffee. CP Monroe reviewed briefly with the commission the findings of the"six months after"traffic and safety study for the new Starbucks on Broadway. The study showed no real impacts in terms of parking demand or traffic operation. Safety issues were much less significant than for the Starbucks on Burlingame Avenue. No merchants in the Broadway area had complained. - Review Subcommittee assignments and seating. Commission reviewed the subcommittee assignments for 2003-04 and determined to leave them the same for 2004-05 although the tasks of the subcommittees would change some. The subcommittees for the Bayfront and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plans would shift to addressing zoning implementation;the subcommittee for Neighborhood Consistency would address review of the design guidelines to encourage greater variety in design and creek side lot regulations. C. Brownrigg would continue to serve on the joint Traffic Safety and Parking/Planning Commission subcommittee to develop a bicycle plan for the city. Subcommittee assignments for 2004-05 are as follows: Bayfront Zoning: Bojues, Keele, Keighran; Bicycle Plan: Brownrigg; Housing Element Implementation: Auran, Keele, Osterling; Neighborhood Consistency: Bojues, Keighran, Osterling (alternate Brownrigg); North Burlingame/Rollins Road Zoning: Boju6s, Brownrigg, Vistica. The Neighborhood Consistency subcommittee agreed to meet in June with the design reviewers to get the work on design review started. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Chris Keele, Secretary S:\MINUTES\05.24.04.unapproved.doc 11 tjl 05-13 -04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1 FOR: APRIL, 2004 >> Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year . . YTD. . YTD. . Change 8 Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 2 1 1 100 . 00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 1 1 0 0 . 00 Robbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 1 2 3 4 -1 -25 . 00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 2 1 2 -1 -50 . 00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 3 3 3 0 0 . 00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 4 1 6 4 2 50 . 00 Assault - Hands, Fists, Feet 1 0 3 1 2 200 . 00 Assault - Other (Simple) 16 14 73 47 26 55 . 32 Burglary - Forcible Entry 10 4 23 23 0 0 . 00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 8 5 34 14 20 142 . 86 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Shoplifting 3 4 10 8 2 25 . 00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 24 39 105 74 31 41 . 89 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 9 7 21 21 0 0 . 00 Larceny Bicycles 2 2 5 10 -5 -50 . 00 Larceny From Building 1 4 7 7 0 0 . 00 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 2 8 8 0 0 . 00 Larceny All Other 21 25 92 60 32 53 . 33 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 10 7 44 25 19 76 . 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 0 1 -1 -100 . 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 1 0 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 110 122 442 314 110 122 442 314 05-13-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2004 �f Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change 8 Change All Other Offenses 42 36 155 130 25 19.23 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 1 3 3 8 -5 -62.50 Child Neglect/prot custody 1 1 6 6 0 0.00 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Death Investigation 7 4 14 10 4 40.00 Disorderly Conduct 2 4 5 13 -8 -61.54 Driver's License violations 1 1 2 1 1 100.00 Driving Under the Influence 9 6 33 14 19 135.71 Drug Abuse Violations 4 0 19 5 14 280.00 Drug/Sex Registrants 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Drunkeness 1 3 19 16 3 18.75 Embezzlement 2 1 7 4 3 75.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 1 10 15 20 -5 -25.00 Found Property 4 6 36 24 12 50.00 Fraud 4 4 10 13 -3 -23.08 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 1 0 15 11 4 36.36 Hit and Run Accidents 5 4 25 9 16 177.78 Impersonation 0 0 0 0 0 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 2 0 2 �! Intimidating a Witness 1 0 1 0 1 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 2 0 2 Liquor Laws 1 1 3 5 -2 -40.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 1 1 12 4 8 200.00 Mental Health Cases 7 10 32 34 -2 -5.88 Missing Person 2 3 16 7 9 128.57 Missing Property 7 6 35 22 13 59.09 Municipal Code Violations 5 2 24 7 17 242.86 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1 05-13-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Offenses Against Children 0 1 1 4 -3 -75.00 Other Assaults 16 14 73 47 26 55.32 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Other Police Service 8 4 29 14 15 107.14 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 1 0 1 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 0 0 2 0 2 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 1 0 1 Sex Offenses against Children 1 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Suspended License 8 1 23 8 15 187.50 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Restraining Orders 3 4 14 12 2 16.67 Terrorist Threats 1 5 8 8 0 0.00 Towed Vehicle 26 28 112 120 -8 -6.67 Trespassing 3 1 5 6 -1 -16.67 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 12 19 61 63 -2 -3.17 Vehicle Code Violations 1 8 9 20 -11 -55.00 Violation of Court Order 2 2 5 7 -2 -28.57 Warrants - Felony 0 1 7 4 3 75.00 Warrants - Misd 6 2 22 11 it 100.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 3 1 7 3 4 133.33 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 199 201 881 708 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 199 201 881 708 05-13-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: APRIL, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 3696 3,418 15,423 14,224 Moving Citations 228 140 1,310 761 ------- ------ ------- ------- 3924 3,558 16,733 14,985 --- ------ ------- ------- 3924 3,558 16,733 14,985 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity . . . . generated on 05/ 13/ 2004 at 02 : 03 : 43 PM Reported On : All Officers Report Range : 04 / 01 /2004 to 04 / 30/ 2004 Data Type Reported on : PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: cnt Valid cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 398 13. 95 6 15. 00 98 . 51 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 471 16.50 4 10. 00 99.16 GARRETT 501 735 25.75 12 30. 00 98.39 HARRISON 506 1250 43. 80 18 45. 00 98. 58 Total 2854 40 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY MAY, 2004 F.Y. 2003 F.Y. 2002 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF Permit type # Valuation # Valuation % # Valuation # Valuation % New Single Family 1 $300,000 4 $1,295,000 76.8- 14 $5,675,822 20 $7,669,535 26.0- New Multi-Family 1 $2,323,600 0 $0 .0 2 $4,123,600 1 $850,000 385.1 New Commercial 0 $0 0 $0 .0 3 $5,775,000 1 $1,100,000 425.0 Alterations-Res 35 $1,133,250 40 $1,548,353 26.8- 310 $14,512,607 299 $12,365,275 17.4 Alterations-NonRes 11 $890,107 6 $232,709 282.5 79 $8,822,657 79 $10,733,990 17.8- Demolition 10 $33,001 9 $0 .0 75 $178,301 79 $131,475 35.6 Swimming Pool 2 $64,480 1 $19,000 239.4 5 $144,480 5 $113,475 27.3 Sign Permits 2 $5,000 1 $350 328.6 27 $106,739 29 $190,801 44.1- Fences 0 $0 0 $0 .0 2 $9,500 4 $13,700 30.7- Reroofing 18 $185,810 34 $399,900 53.5- 279 $3,270,017 260 $3,132,428 4.4 Repairs 4 $11,000 3 $86,500 87.3- 41 $411,950 31 $493,660 16.6- Window Repl 10 $69,060 5 $19,471 254.7 90 $839,267 69 $528,258 58.9 Miscellaneous 2 $17,000 2 $4,762 257.0 28 $388,001 56 $547,259 29.1- TOTALS...... 96 $5,032,308 105 $3,606,045 39.6 955 $44,257,941 933 $37,869,856 16.9 6/01/04 7:34:41 101" Airborne Division (Air Assault) & Fort Campbell Fort Campbell, Kentucky 42223 May 7, 2004 Dear Ms. Musso: On behalf of all of the Screaming Eagles of the 1015` Airborne Division (Air Assault), I want to thank you and the entire community of Burlingame for your great support of our troopers through the "America Supporting Americans" program. Your patriotic commitment to Bravo Company, 15` Battalion, 327`' Infantry Regiment strengthens our Soldiers as they endeavor to maintain our great way of life. Your efforts reflect j the great bond between Americans and our Soldiers. aAgain, thank you very much for your kind and generous support of the great Soldiers of Bravo Company, 1' Battalion, 3271' Infantry Regiment. Sincerely, 0, ! G• ^-� David H.. Petraeus Major General, U.S. Army Commanding Ms. Ann Musso City Clerk, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 com ca st® Comcast Communications Inc. 12647 Alcosta Blvd,Suite 200,P.O.Box 5147 San Ramon,CA 94583 Tel:925.973.7000 RECEIVED Fax 925.973.7015 May 24, 2004 www.comcast.com Jesus Nava MAY 2 8 2004 Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame CITY C!_ER 'SOF ICE 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURLINGAN111E Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Jesus Nava: In an effort to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community we are sending you this letter--as a courtesy. Effective Friday, May 28, 2004 Tech TV, currently broadcasting on channel 294 will "black out" their programming and will no longer be available. Customers will be notified of the change via a message on their Digital Control Terminal. If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289- 6794. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area