Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1971.12.03170 t Burlingame, California December 13, 1971 CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame City Council, from its regular meeting of December 6, 1971, was called to order on the above date at 8:30 p.m., Mayor Irving S. Nrstrup presiding. A1I members of the Council vrere present. BURLINGAME AVENUE PROJECT Mayor Amstrup announced that the purpose of the meeting was two-fold:(1) To hear a report from the City Attorney whether the individual property owners shall be responsible for the costs of special con- struction where sub-surface improvements are involved in the sidewalk work; and (2) To resolve the matter of plans, either by approving or rejecting the architect's latest drawings. The City Attorney, responding to the Chair, reported he was satisfied after research that the $7r000.00, which the architect estimated would be necessary for correcting elevator shafts, would be an appropriate expenditure from the assessment fund and that, conversely, all of the cost,r oE a great portion of it, would not be a proper charge to the property owner. Council,man Mart,in asked if the same would be true of basements. The City Attorney stated that the case upon which he based his oPinion was identical, with the exception of funding, to this city's project-- The City of Berkeley attempted to have a property owner correct his basemenl by moving the waII back to the property line at a cost of S151000.00; Berkeley lost in the lower court and lost on appeal-- the property owner was not compelled to pay. A discussion then arose in connection with the bid form, initiated by Councilman Martin's comnent that the bid sheet calling for unit prices could have the effect of penalizing the Dist,rict; a unitprice bid, which is acceptable for engineering contracts, may be too involved for some general contractors to process, with a resultant decrease in the number of bidders and elimination of competition. The City Engineer stated that the form of bid sheet lras PrePared as the resutt of his recommendation to the architect; he explained that if gas tax funds are to be used in the projectf he would prefer to- knoi the precise cost of the gas tax items, which woul.d be difficult to determine in a lunp sum bid. The City Engineer pointed out that two bid schedules have been pre- pared--schedule A to include Etreet widening, Schedule B excludes the widening. He stated that, from the onset, it was proposed to recon- struct iurbs and gutters, whether or not the street was widened; the cost of removing and replacing curbs and gutters was estim&ted at $191000.00; the cost, of street widening, including new curbs and gutters and relocat,ion of utilities was estimated at $40r000.00. ue reported that, it has been determined that the actual difference in coit between widening and not widening is approximately $3500.00-- street widening will reduce the amount of sidewalk work considerably and the cost oi the sidewalk is a major portion of the total project. Councilman Martin questioned why new curbs and gutters !{ere considered essential. Ronald Perner, project architect, explained that the curbs vary in height, Iow in lome places and high in others; for safety reasons, the cur6s should be of a-uniform height; furthermore, placement of the planters will require modification of the curbs and, from the stand- L7 I point of aesthetics, new sidewalks would demand ne!, curbs and gutters. The City Engineer commented that the merchants specifically requested new curbs and gutters . A motion introduced by Mayor Anstrup and seconded by Councilman Man-gini, authorizing widening of the street right-of-$ray one foot on each side, yras declared carried on the following roLl call:AIES: COUNCILMEN: Amstrup-Crosby-Johnson-Mangini NOES: COUNCILMEN: Martin ABSENT COUNCIIJITIEN: None Mayor Amstrup asked for Council's decision on the plans. A motion lntroduced by Councilman Crosby, seconded by Councilman John- son and carried unanimously approved the plans prepared by Ronald Perner, Architect, designated "Burlingame Avenue From El Camino Real, to California Drive - Schedule A" received in the officeof the City Enqineer on December 3, 1971. the city Attorney's recommendation that Council consider authorizingthe invitation to bid initiated a lengthy period of discussion. The City Engineer referred to connents at prior meetinqs wherein December 23, l9?L, was suggested as the date for bid opening; he noted that December 15 would be the first date that "Notice to Contractors" could be published and that, in his opinion, one week hras not sufficient for the contractors to prepare their bids. He suggested that the bids be opened some time after the first of the year for poEsible consideration at the Council meeting mid-January. He stated that if bids were opened on December 23 and the contract awarded at the following Council meeting, it was questionable that the contractor could make any appreciable progress in construction because of weather conditions that normally prevail during the month of, January. Councilman Johnson Etated that when the matter of bid opening was discussed at the study meeting, the three Councilmen rrho werepresent were told that time was of the essence and it was for that reason that the December 23 date rras presented to Council for approval . Mr. Mausser explained it waa assuned that council would take an action at its December 5 meeting in connection with bid opening;that was not done, a week has elapsed, consequently, the timetable must be altered. Mr. Mausser stated that the merchants are hopeful the work willstart either by the 24th or 3lst of January. Councilman Martin explained that during the holiday season itis difficult to obtain strong competitive bidding; he recomrnended,if the bids are not opened on December 23, the bid process be delayed until January, with award scheduled for the second Council meeting that month. A motion j.ntroduced by Counci Iman crosby authorizing bid opening on January LL, L972, as reconmended by the City Engineer, and consideration of bj.ds at the Council meeting of January L7, L972, was seconded by Councilman Johnson and unanimously carried. REPORTS Councilman Johnson stated she has received a few complaints con-cerning vandalism of christmas decorationsi !1r. Graham Xislingbury has contacted the Chief of Police who will launch a campaigndirected tordard controlling the problem. Councilman Johnson reported that the Office of the City clerk recej.ved a call from Mr. Andrew Rocca expressing appreciation for t72 Council's action in adjourning its meeting of December 5, 1971, in respect to the memory of his late daughter. NORTH COUN?Y DETENTION FACILITY Mayor Amstrup acknowledged receipt of a letter dated Decenber 6r197I, from William A. Borba, Mayor, City of South san Francisco, enclosing a propoEed resolution to be presented at the December L7, L97L meeting of the san Mateo County Council of Mayors urging eonstruction of detention facilities in North San Mateo County. MILLBRAE LEADER REPRESENTATIVE Mayor Amstrup presented Mrs. Myrna Frances PeIs, who will observe the city counciL meetings for the Millbrae Leader. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Res ctfully s tted ,pe erbert K 1city clerk Approved: Irv ngs Amstrup, Ma te