Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-14 e-packet AGENDA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIPAL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14,2007 7:00 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Agency business, we proceed as follows: The regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency is held on the second Wednesday of each month at 7:00 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the Board on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Community Room and submit it to the Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents Redevelopment Agency from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances ). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Board action. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR. Chair PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Chair MARK N. ADDIEGO Boardmember JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Boardmember KARYL MATSUMOTO Boardmember RICHARD BA TI AGLIA Investment Officer SYLVIAM. PAYNE Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL Executive Director STEVEN T. MATIAS Counsel PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT IS A V AILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING-IMPAIRED AT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of January 10, 2007 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of February 14, 2007 3. Motion to accept the Fire Station 61 Training Tower Project as complete in accordance with plans and specifications ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 4. Resolution approving the conceptual financial plan for the downtown parking garage to be located on the 300 block of Miller Avenue CLOSED SESSION 5. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.8 real property negotiations related to 306 Spruce Avenue, 415-417 Grand Avenue, 80 Chestnut Avenue, and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission property located on Mission Road (APNs: 093-312-050/060), Agency Negotiator: Assistant Director Van Duyn ADJOURNMENT REGULAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 14,2007 PAGE 2 Redevelopment Agency Staff Report RDAAGENDAITEM#3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 14, 2007 Redevelopment Agency Board Marty VanDuyn, Assistant Executive Director ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE STATION 61 TRAINING TOWER PROJECT RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency Board, by motion, accept the new Fire Station 61 Training Tower project as complete in accordance with the plans and specifications. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Training Tower project was presented to the City Council for their consideration in early 2005 as part of the Fire AdministrationlFire Station 61 Complex master site plan. The Fire Department wanted a modem training tower that would meet current earthquake codes and would allow firefighters to obtain training in appropriate surroundings. On February 8, 2006, staff advertised the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids for the Training Tower project, Project No. PB-06-2, Bid Nos. 2440 through 2443. The notice inviting sealed bids was advertised twice, on February 10 and 16, 2006, in the San Mateo Times and, by publishing the Notice Inviting Sealed Bids oftheproject in the seven (7) county builders' exchanges, ensuring adequate notification to contractors was achieved. Bids for all items were opened on Thursday, March 9, 2006. On March 22,2006, the City Council approved the award of the construction management contract to Pinnacle DB, Inc. of Burlingame, CA, and the various project contracts to the lowest responsive bidders. FUNDING Shown below is the cost breakdown for the project budget: Training Tower Contract Costs Construction Management (Pinnacle DB, InC) Construction Contingency Approved Budget Amendment $1,368,730.00 $ 61,200.00 $ 50,370.00 $ 125,000.00 Total Project Budget $1,605,300.00 Staff Report Subject: ACCEPTANCE OF FIRE STATION 61 TRAINING TOWER BUILDING PROJECT Page 2 of2 This project was included in the City of South San Francisco's 2006 - 2007 Capital hnprovement Program. Redevelopment Agency funds in the amount of$1 ,605,300.00 were budgeted to cover the costs. The actual cost incurred for the project was $1,579,866.00 and the detail is attached. Shown below is a summary ofthe actual cost incurred for the project: Training Tower Construction Cost Construction Management (Pinnacle DB, Inc) Approved Change Orders Approved Other Costs (Products & Services) Staff Time Construction Cost $1,368,808.00 $ 61,200.00 $ 51,037.00 $ 73,821.00 $ 25,000.00 Actual Construction Cost $1,579,866.00 CONCLUSION The project was inspected by City staff and completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. The proj ect has a one-year warranty period, which takes effect upon acceptance by the City Council. Staff will file a Notice of Completion and release the payment performance bonds and retention funds at the end of the thirty-day lien period. BY'~ . Marty VanDuyn Assistant Executive Director ----- APProQ ~ C C, M. Nagel Executive Director RR/dc Attachment: Project Cost Summary (3 pages) JANUARY 8,2007 FIRE STATION 61 TRAINING TOWER PROJECT PROJECT COST SUMMARY ENGINEERING DIVISION CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO of Page 25,434.00 $ Budget Amount .-~--~_._-~ JL1~ElQ5,300.0Q _~~ __ ________.__.____ $ _1,430,00~:9Q. ________ .~.__n 51,037.00 n ___no ___________~___}3,8~1:9Q_ ____._______Jl__. 25,000.00 "!~_&Q15.~~OQ. 00~_ml!~1~.!..8.!3(3:0Q_ Cost Project ----~--_. !~~~roject B~_~.9 Contract Total _._._._.__..~-----,--_..._.._._--- Total CCO .---------------.--- T~~al O!her Prol~~~f()sts =-~r~~ucts and Servic::~s_ Staff Time Costs 1227 Project Cost Summary - All Vendors.xls Project Summary ._-_._-,._----_.~~--,------------ et Total Amount _.---- -_._--~_._----~ Amount Under-Budaet H:\CITY PROJECTS\PB-06-2\Copy of 06 ENGINEERING DIVISION FIRE STATION 61 TRAINING TOWER PROJECT PROJECT COST SUMMARY JANUARY 8, 2007 Project Budget Amount Remarks Building Contract All Purchase Orders $ 1,368,730.00 u Construction Management $ I- 61,200.00 Construction Contingency $ 50,370.00 Electrical Panel Work Approved Budget Amendment $ 30,000.00 Miscellaneous Work $ 70,000.00 Staff Administration $ 25,000.00 - - Total Project Budget $ 1,605,300.00 l- Item No. Contractor Scope of Work Contract Amount 1 Draeger Props System Install Fire Props System $ 240,000.00 2 Nielsen Building System Building Contractor $ 976,504.00 - Andreini Bros Excavation & Earthwork $ 17,950.00 3 -- Hazard Concrete Concrete Foundation $ 89,960.00 4 5 Cocconi Electric Building Electrical System $ 24,394.00 .- 6 Pribuss Engineering Gas & Air Line $ 20,000.00 --- Pinnacle DB, Inc Construction Management $ 61,200.00 7 Contract Total $ 1,430,008.00 . Contract Change Orders Contractor and Staff discussed Supply and Install wiring, conduits, circuit the issue in the field, and 8 Cocconi Electric breakers, testing for the Propane Tank $ 3,863.00 determined to be beyond the Heaters and Control and electrical conduits for scope of the contract, and was the Quad Props given a directive to proceed and complete the work. - Additional wiring and supply of electrical Contractor and Staff discussed conduits, breakers, panel box modifications, the issue in the field, and 9 Cocconi Electric christy boxes to complete additional features $ 3,336.00 determined to be beyond the of the control room area and the remote quad scope of the contract, and was controller. given a directive to proceed and complete the work. Contractor and Staff discussed 10 Cocconi Electric Revise Lighting Fixtures to "Wet" type Fixtures $ 750.00 the issue in the field and was in leiu of Standard Lighting given a directive to proceed and complete the work. --- City Staff issued Field Directive 11 Cocconi Electric Main Distribution Panel Metering and Wiring $ 5,428.00 for the work Ip,o",de DB,'"', Contractor and Staff discussed Remove exisitng curb and slab, excavate and the issue in the field, and 12 install rebar dowel to prepare for the CMU rear $ 1,566.00 determined to be beyond the wall at the propane tanks required by code. scope of the contract, and was I given a directive to proceed and complete the work. Perform additional sawcutting, trenching, Contractor and Staff discussed the issue in the field, and backfill. and installation of black-outs for the determined to be beyond the 13 Pinnacle DB, Inc. installation of the "Quad" props required for the $ 10,570.00 entire length from the propane tank area to the scope of the contract, and was quad area. given a directive to proceed and complete the work. I I Removal of stanton lights including Contractor and Staff discussed foundations, install additional christy boxes the issue in the field, and and grade the utilities for the future EOC to $ 5,185.00 determined to be beyond the 14 I Pinnacle DB, Inc. match exisitng grade, install additional quad air scope of the contract, and was I line to the control room, pipe bends for Metro given a directive to proceed and I PCS, including all equipment and materials. complete the work. I H:\CITY PROJECTS\PB-06-2\06 1227 Project Cost Summary - All Vendors.xls - SHEET 1 Page 1 of 2 ENGINEERING DIVISION FIRE STATION 61 TRAINING TOWER PROJECT PROJECT COST SUMMARY JANUARY 8, 2007 , I Item No. Contractor Scope of Work Contract Amount , Dowel Placement and Inspection Additional 15 Pinnacle DB, Inc. wark for Concrete work in the Training Tower $ 3,162.00 City Staff issued Field Directive area and Provide and Install 8-inch CMU wall for the work at the propane tank area for pipe protection. 16 Extra Excavation to remove soft soil in the $ 2,177.00 City Staff issued Field Directive Andeini Bros. tower area per the Structural Engineer for the work Extra Costs to Cover the Propane Pipe 17 Pribuss Engineering material as required by CBC and as directed $ 15,000.00 by the Building Division Total CCO $ 51,037.00 Other Project Cost - Scope of Work Contract Amount Products and Services 18 Smith Randlett & Foulk Associated Surveying Building Pad Lay-out $ 7,379.00 T and M Work 19 Yadeger & Associates Structural Evaluation $ 7,181.00 T and M Work 20 United Soils Engineers Verification of Soils Test Results $ 1,835.00 T and M Work n_ 21 Lucas Concrete Lightweight Concrete & Other Site Work $ 15,840.00 Staff Negotiated the Extra Concrete Required by Building Division Scope of the Work 22 Handcrafted Metals Shear Foundation Work designed by BCA $ 31,053.00 T and M Work - 23 Authentic Waterproofing, Inc. Epoxy Grout Injection @ Base Plates $ 3,560.00 T and M Work 24 Testing Engineers, Inc. Special Inspection - Epoxy Grout Required by $ 1,530.00 T and M Work Building Division 25 Consolidated Engineers Special Inspector - Welding Systems Required $ 943.00 T and M Work by Building Division Provide and Install 8-inch CMU wall at the Staff Negotiated the Extra 26 DLM Masonry propane tank area for generator protection $ 2,000.00 required by SSFFD. Scope of the Work 27 Miscellaneous Expenses Raffo Bronze, Cresco materials, Granger, $ 2,500.00 Advertisement ~--- Total Other project Costs - Products and Services $ 73,821.00 H:ICITY PROJECTSIPB-06-2106 1227 Project Cost Summary - All Vendors.xls - SHEET 1 Page 2 of 2 ~'t'\l s:1# ~ (0 C"l >< .... l;:. ~ r.) 0 c ~~ '4lIFOF--t< Redevelopment Agency Staff Report RDAAGENDAITEM#4 DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Redevelopment Agency Board FROM: Marty Van Duyn, Assistant Executive Director SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board approve, in concept, the recommended financing plan for a new Downtown parking garage presented in this Staff Report, and authorize Staff to begin engineering and environmental reviews for the project. B ACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: In 2001, the City contracted for an analysis on a new parking structure located within the Downtown Parking District. From that analysis several sites were identified for a potential parking garage. The study concentrated on locating a garage on existing surface parking lot sites in the Downtown area. The number of spaces realized from these sites varied according to lot size and site configuration. Net parking spaces generated from a proposed garage range from 117-287 spaces. The construction cost of the options in 2001 ranged from $4 million to $5 million. No reasonable funding sources were identified at that time, and it was determined that sufficient parking was available to meet Downtown demand. The study did provide a valuable review of potential garage options and the preferred location for a garage was identified for the assembled properties of parking lots, 3, 8, and 10, located on the south side of !v1iller P.~venue, mid-way betv/een fvlaple and Linden P..venues. During the past year, the City Council's Downtown Subcommittee (Councilmembers Addiego and Fernekes) has been meeting regularly with stakeholders in the Downtown, and the need for additional parking has been a frequent topic expressed by business operators. The subcommittee has discussed these concerns with Staff and reported out to the entire Council the interest in constructing a parking garage. In response, Staff contracted an update of the 2001 study, limiting the analysis to the Miller Avenue site with options for some ground floor commercial use and with the site increased by an additional 25' wide adjacent lot (subsequently purchased by the RDA), This study produced three garage options based on the 175' site, yielding up to a maximum of287 spaces in a four (4) story (40') design. This updated analysis projects the current cost (2006 dollars) for the three alternative designs at $7 million to $9 million. One option generated a maximum of 258 spaces. The other two options provided fewer parking spaces, with one option containing 9,200 square feet of ground floor commercial space. Redevelopment Agency Staff Report Downtown Parking Garage February 14,2007 Page 2 of 3 Financial Plan: Attached to this Staff Report is a financial plan for a new parking structure. It contains key assumptions, which, if accurate, would result in an annual subsidy by the Redevelopment Agency of between $93,000 and $278,000. That is to say that if the parking garage would run an annual deficit, as projected, the Redevelopment Agency would have to cover the outstanding cost. A parking garage is a valid Agency expense for the Downtown area, and is considered proper use of Agency dollars. A policy issue for the Board would be whether the need for additional parking downtown is important enough to use Redevelopment dollars to fund the project. The key assumptions in the financial plan are: . If the Board approves this project, the eventual construction costs will be close to what Walker Parking Consultants estimated in a recent report. Those costs were: $7.5 million for a 253 space garage, $8.5 million for a 287 space garage, and $9.0 million for a 258 space garage each with commercial space on the first floor. · Overall parking occupancy currently in the lots and on the streets in the Downtown area is 53%. Staff ran two sets of financial analyses that assumed, with the extra parking capacity, that occupancy would fall to 50% and 40%. If occupancy is less than 40%, the results are more unfavorable. Staff has no way to determine what the extra parking spaces will do to the overall parking demand. · With the increased capacity, the City will sell one surface parking lot for approximately $1.0 million, and use the proceeds to help pay for the new garage. Note that many of the lots were originally purchased with General Fund dollars. The sale of a surface lot would require continued investment by the City in Downtown parking. . Parking meter rates will be raised 25 cents per hour on July 1,2007 and parking permit fees will be raised as well from $30 to $40 on a monthly basis, and from $330 to $440 annually. . The parking garage will require approximately $120,000 annually in new operating budget support in the form of elevator and facility maintenance, utilities, and additional staffing for coin collection. · Funds from the Redevelopment Agency will be loaned to the Parking District to fund design and construction. Staff recommends that funds from the 2006 Redevelopment Bond Sale be loaned to the Parking District, and be paid back over the life of those bonds. Those bonds have a remaining term of 28 years at an average interest rate of 4.8%. The Redevelopment Agency can afford this, however, projects that the Agency wished to fund in later years out of projected total debt capacity might have to be delayed. Redevelopment Agency Staff Report Downtown Parking Garage February 14, 2007 Page 3 of 3 FISCAL IMPACT: Based on the assumptions above, Staff projects that the Redevelopment Agency would have to subsidize the Parking District between $93,000 and $278,000 annually to pay for the new garage. This is a valid Redevelopment expense. With Board approval, Staff will work on initial engineering, soils testing, traffic studies, and environmental review for the new garage. $149,000 exists in the current Capital Improvement Budget for this project. If additional resources are needed to complete the initial studies, Staff will add those funds to the 2007-08 Capital Improvement Budget. CONCLUSION: If the Board wishes to proceed with a new Downtown parking garage, Staff requests direction, and will commence work on initial engineering and environmental work. /1 .!/ , Byi./I..t/4'-'....--'cLo- Marty Van Duyn ~ Assistant Executive Director ~.. l- C: - , APProv~ .. ~ M. Nagel Executive Director Attachment: Financial Plan Miller Avenue Garage -- Projected RDA Subsidies Required Parking District revenues in excess of operating expenses are projected to be less than the projected debt service, so an additional annual subsidy from the RDA will be necessary. Option 1 253 space garage Option 2 258 space garage plus commercial Option 3 287 space garage 50% Occupancy Rate $92,618 $95,425 $122,320 40% Occupancy Rate $241,590 $245,410 $278,177 (Note: Occupancy rate applies to all city meters and lots, as well as proposed garage.) Three Significant Assumptions: Occupancy rate will be around 50%. Existing surface lot to be sold for $1,000,000, to be made available for construction costs. Parking rates will be raised 25 cents per hour, and parking permits will also be increased. D ",.. ~o ::an ~~ z- gO g Z ;0 J:. 0 e, ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ "a o tn m a J I-I =:J r---,- _I L'II I t==l I....J t--- - - tITj f---- -=r - ~ - f-- f---L ~ .... ::::::t: '-= I ~ J _ _ -::J ~ b LAven ~ ~ ~ ]~D~I - Dl h ill r J ,... -l.) ----< -. J b ~ l ~ - =.r F ~~[L~ I:::! L --' - \-.--.j.... JJl '-< --In T m 1 r 1 _ I~ =\ ~F g,-- ~ j:;] r- I J - f---1~F --r >l'~'--' - ~ r= j : '= ~.t g () -.:J i8 '--- -c - it .>_ -,-- --=" ~ j - J -= - ... J '" _ = -r;-" g, f-- v - ~J r- J -="3= r _ _ -~ -rTTr-l1 >-- ] - ~ C-r r J L.J.l.1~ A~n~n --,- ---.J M'P_~ ---' -~ I ....-l_ Q. CD r- _ i ~ i - - iI'==1 ~ O~I~~, 1~ ~ = ~ Ftl =- ---= QJ~ r L - J - - Jlr' tn LA~~ [~r- I~ L- [ r - -Unden ,..-'ij I I I -===1 _ ~ - - b = - I I tH-j" _ t = f- -~ILJ::;:r r--" ~ t:::= - ~l~l' (D ~I;)I 1---1-- ~---1- _~ _, t:= >- _ II ~I--! l 'I i:=o t:::: CYp,... Aven.., FI~ 11--1 r II II I 'inTI '//7\ 'IL..J I I I I I 1 I I Airport ~~llln 100J Boulevard c o ~ ::J ... o ~ ::s -C tu .... ~ -- :::J CC C -- en ... .... -- n ... Option 3 287 space garage $ 8,500,000 $ 2,000,000 6,500,000 650,650 229,838 - $ 880,488 464,531 121,453 585,984 416,823 $ 1,002,807 {$122.320l ($278.177) Miller Avenue Garage Projected Costs and Annual Revenues and Expenses 50% Estimated Usage Rate of all Meter Parking in SSF ("Occupancy Rate") Option 1 Option 2 253 space garage 258 space garage plus commercial Estimated Construction Costs $ 7,500,000 $ 9,000,000 Estimated Available Parking District Funds $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Estimated RDA Loan to District for Construction * 5,500,000 7,000,000 Ongoing Revenue -- Meters and Permits 650,650 650,650 New Garage Parking Revenue 195,413 200,475 New Garage Commercial Rent Revenue - 88,320 Estimated Annual Revenues $ 846,063 $ 939,445 Ongoing Operating Costs -- Salaries and Supplies 464,531 464,531 Added Operating Costs for New Garage 121,453 121,453 Estimated Annual Operating Costs 585,984 585,984 Estimated Annual Debt Service * 352,696 448,886 Estimated Annual Costs $ 938,680 $ 1,034,870 Estimated Income I (Deficit) ($92.618l {$95.425l (Revenues less Operating Costs and Debt Service) Estimated Deficit at 40% Usage Rate {$241.590l {$245.410l RDA Loan to be serviced from Parking District surplus at term and rate matching the 2006 RDA bond issue 28 years remaining, 4.585% Underlying Assumptions For Miller Parking Garage Calculations 60 spaces in each proposed garage plan are set aside for permit users. This set-aside is intended to offset the 50 permit spaces lost at Lots 8 and 10, site of the garage, and the 39 spaces at Lot 6. 10 meter spaces at Lot 8 will also be lost. Lot 6 will be sold for $1,000,000 for housing, with the proceeds to be used to offset construction costs. The garage plan in Option 2 includes 9,200 square feet of commercial space, which will be rented at $1.00/per square foot, with an annual average occupance of 80%. Parking meters and the garage will be active 9 hours daily, 6 days per week, 50 weeks per year. (Many meters are free for 3 weeks at Christmas, but some are not, so a total of 50 weeks is used in calculations.) A 3% COLA/inflation rate is used for increases in staff costs and operating supplies for the Parking District. An additional 10% of current district costs was factored in for the operation of the proposed garage. Based on an estimate by Walker Parking Consultants (WPC) for annual garage maintenance costs (including electricity) of $250 - $350 per space, $75,000 was added. (An average $300 per space times a minimum 250 spaces.) The WPC construction cost estimates are in 2006 dollars. WPC estimated construction cost escalation at 5% per year, and this is not factored in. The WPC estimate includes contingency costs, and some rounding up of almost a half million is also included. Lost revenues from the closure of Lots # 8 arid 10 during construction have not been considered. These lots only include 10 parking meter spaces and 50 permit spaces. Additional earnings from the Parking District in 06-07 have not been considered. More Undesignated Fund Balance could be available for construction, slightly reducing loan requirements. Fund Balance may aiso grow in 07-08, especially if parking rates are increased for that year. Beyond funds available in the Parking District Fund Balance, unspent parking projects, and proceeds from the sale of a parking lot, construction costs will be paid by a loan from the RDA (from the proceeds of the 2006 RDA bond issue). The interest and term will match those of the bond issue. Operating surpluses from the district will be applied to the debt service, although some further subsidy will likely be required. AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REGULAR MEETING MUNICIP AL SERVICE BUILDING COMMUNITY ROOM WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14,2007 7:30 P.M. PEOPLE OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO You are invited to offer your suggestions. In order that you may know our method of conducting Council business, we proceed as follows: The regular meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Services Building, Community Room, 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, California. Public Comment: For those wishing to address the City Council on any Agenda or non-Agendized item, please complete a Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber's and submit it to the City Clerk. Please be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. California law prevents the City Council from taking action on any item not on the Agenda (except in emergency circumstances). Your question or problem may be referred to staff for investigation and/or action where appropriate or the matter may be placed on a future Agenda for more comprehensive action or a report. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. The City Clerk will read successively the items of business appearing on the Agenda. As she completes reading an item, it will be ready for Council action. RICHARD A. GARBARINO, SR Mayor PEDRO GONZALEZ Vice Mayor MARK N. ADDIEGO Councilman JOSEPH A. FERNEKES Councilman KARYLMATSUMOTO Councilwoman RICHARD BATTAGLIA City Treasurer SYLVIA M. PAYNE City Clerk BARRY M. NAGEL City Manager STEVEN T. MATTAS City Attorney PLEASE SILENCE CELL PHONES AND PAGERS HEARING ASSISTANCE EQUIPMENT A V AILABLE FOR USE BY THE HEARING IMPAIRED AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION PRESENTATIONS · Presentation of Flag - Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 4103 South San Francisco AGENDA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENTS ITEMS FROM COUNCIL · Announcements · Committee Reports CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Motion to approve the minutes of January 24, February 3 and 5, 2007 2. Motion to confirm expense claims of February 14,2007 3. Resolution authorizing reimbursement of the $9.6 million State Revolving Fund Loan for Phase II of the Wet Weather Program as required by the State Water Resources Control Board 4. Resolution awarding contract to Delta Bluegrass for the Orange Memorial Park soccer field turf proj ect in the amount of $26,320 5. Resolution authorizing acceptance of funding from the State Department of Education to fund ongoing after school programs in the amount of$209,250 6. Resolution authorizing the acceptance of funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to support a Lifeline Transportation Program at the Community Learning Center in the amount of $54,052 7. Resolution approving and accepting an offer of dedication of the linear park and recreation parcel in connection with the final subdivision map and the executed development agreements pertaining to the parcels from Terrabay Partners, LLC ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS 8. Motion to approve the prohibition of parking on a portion of the west side ofEI Camino Real across from Kaiser Perrnanente Hospital REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 14,2007 PAGE 2 COUNCIL COMMUNITY FORUM CLOSED SESSION 9. Pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(a), conference with legal counsel- existing litigation: Ayala v. City of South San Francisco, and Masaganda v. San Mateo County and City of South San Francisco; pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(c), Initiation of Litigation - One Case ADJOURNMENT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 14,2007 PAGE 3 ~'t\\ S:1N g ~ - ~~\ o n (>- ~l ';:i C") to> 0 ~l!!Q!'~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 14,2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terry White, Director of Public Works \VET WEATHER PROGRAM PHASE II - SRF LOAN REIMBURSEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt a Resolution for Loan Reimbursement of the $9,600,000 State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan for Phase II of the Wet ,I \Veather Program as required by the State Water Resources Control Board. II BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION: The Wet Weather Program was initiated to remediate a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in 1997. In response to this order, the City completed capacity improvements at the Water Quality Control Plant and developed a Master Plan of recommended infrastructure improvements, subsequently referred to as the Wet Weather Program. Phase I of the Wet Weather Program, which included pump stations, force mains and an effluent storage basin ($25 million), is now in operation. Phase II, collection system upgrades, is now in the final stage of design and when constructed will satisfy the final requirements of the CDO. Phase II, which will be bid as two separate contracts, includes the following improvements: WESTAREAIMPRO'~MENTS . Westborough Area Subtrunk Sewer . Portola Avenue Subtrunk Sewer . Victory A ve./South Maple Ave. Subtrunk Sewer . l5t Street Subtrunk Sewer CENTRAL AREA IMPROVEMENTS . Airport Blvd.lCypress A ve./Linden Ave. Trunk Sewer . Hillside Boulevard Subtrunk Sewer Staff Report Subject: Approve Loan Reimbursement Agreement for Phase II of the Wet Weather Program with the State Water Resources Control Board Page 2 FUNDING The City has received low interest loan commitments of$90,000,000 from the State Water Resources Control Board through the State's Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program, for the Treatment Plant upgrades and the entire Wet Weather Program over the past several years. A loan repayment agreement has been executed for each phase of the work and this agreement will constitute t.l-Je last of these agreements. The City's Sewer Fund has been programmed to provide the necessary repayments of the SRF Loan which are spread over twenty years. CONCLUSION The City's commitment to repay the Phase II SRF loan will satisfy the conditions stipulated by the State Water Resources Control Board. APprove~ ,~ . M. Nag \ City Manager "- Attachment: Reimbursement Resolution Reimbursement Resolution Staff Report 16-07 - 2 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE $9.6 MILLION STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN FOR PHASE II OF THE WET WEATHER PROGRAM AS REQUIRED BY THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco (the "City") desires to finance the costs of constructing and/or reconstructing certain public facilities and improvements relating to its water and wastewater system, including certain pipelines and other infrastructure (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the City intends to finance the construction and/or reconstruction of the Project or portions of the Project with moneys ("Project Funds") provided by the State of California, acting by and through the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB); and WHEREAS, the SWRCB may fund the Project Funds with proceeds from the sale of obligations, the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"), and WHEREAS, prior to either the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the SWRCB of the Project Funds, the City desires to incur certain capital expenditures (the "Expenditures") with respect to the Project from available moneys of the City; and WHEREAS, the City has determined that those moneys to be advanced on and after the date hereof to pay the Expenditures are available only for a temporary period and it is necessary to reimburse the City for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby orders and determines as follows: SECTION I. The City hereby states its intention to reimburse Expenditures paid prior to the issuance of the Obligations or the approval by the Board of the Project Funds. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Project Funds is $9,600,000. SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted no later than 60 days after the date on which the City will expend moneys for the portion of the Project costs to be reimbursed with Project Funds. SECTION 4. Each Expenditure by the City will be of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles. SECTION 5. To the best of our knowledge, this City is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the City that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 6. This resolution is adopted as official intent of the City in order to comply with Treasury Regulation S 1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Project costs. SECTION 7. All the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this City so finds, determines and represents. * * * * * I hereby certify that the forgoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of L.~e City of South San FnL.'1cisco at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of February 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Isl Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk AGENDA ITEM # 4 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 14,2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Terry White, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION AWARDING A BID FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SOD FOR THE ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK SOCCER FIELD - PROJECT NO. 51-13232-0733 I I I II I II I RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution, awarding a bid to Delta Bluegrass of Stockton, California, as the lowest responsible bid in the amount of$26,320 for the purchase and installation of sod for the Orange Memorial Park Soccer Field. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION For many years, the soccer field in Orange Memorial Park has not had the optimal levelness or field texture desired by many of the soccer leagues or casual players. The field has continual use other than a brief rest period prior to Day in the Park. Staff has not replaced the field sod during the past fifteen years other than as needed to fill bare spots. Soccer leagues have agreed, and Council approved within the 2006/07 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget No. 51-13232- 0733 to close the field for renovation this winter. Staff has begun the renovation by removing the worn turf and outdated sprinkler heads, bringing in additional top soil, and grading the field. As of February 1, 2007, the Public Works Department received three bids in response to an abbreviated bid process for the purchase and installation of 66,000 square feet of 90/1 0 tall fescue/bluegrass sod mix, which is commonly used in sports fields. The following is a tabulation ofthe bids received: BIDDERS BID AMOUNT Sod Purchase & Installation Delta Bluegrass, Stockton, CA AG Sod Farms, Hollister, CA Pacific Sod, San Juan Baptista, CA $ 26,320 $ 26,995 $ 27,210 Staff Report Subject: Award of Soccer Field Bid Page 2 FUNDING Funding is available in FY 2006-07 CIP Budget Project No. 51-13232-0733 which allocates $75,000 for the Orange Memorial Park Soccer Field and Southwood Ballfield improvements. CONCLUSION Staff recommends the Council accept the bid of Delta Bluegrass, of Stockton, California, as the lowest responsible bidder for the project at a cost of $26,320. B~----' (j,)yk Terrj Whitf ~ Director O~l1C Works APproveQ--v ~ t;~ M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AWARDING A BID TO DELTA BLUEGRASS OF STOCKTON, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF SOD FOR THE ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK SOCCER FIELD - PROJECT NO. 51-13232-0733 WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding a bid to the lowest responsible bidder, Delta Bluegrass of Stockton, California, in the amount of $26,320 for the purchase and installation of sod for the Orange Memorial Park Soccer Field; and WHEREAS, for many years, the soccer field in Orange Memorial Park has not had the optimal levelness or field texture desired by many of the soccer leagues or casual players; and WHEREl~~S, the field has continual use and Staff has not replaced the field sod during the past fifteen years other than as needed to fill bare spots; and WHEREAS, the City Council approved within the 2006/07 Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Budget No. 51-13232-0733 which allocates $75,000 for the Orange Memorial Park Soccer Field and Southwood Ballfield improvements, to close the field for renovation this winter; and WHEREAS, Staff has begun the renovation by removing the worn turf and outdated sprinkler heads, bringing in additional top soil, and grading the field; and WHEREAS, as of February 1,2007, the Public Works Department received three bids in response to an abbreviated bid process for the purchase and installation of 66,000 square feet of 90/10 tall fescue/bluegrass sod mix, which is commonly used in sports fields. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby awards a bid to Delta Bluegrass of Stockton, California, for the purchase and installation of sod for the Orange Memorial Park Soccer Field. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 14th day of February 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: Isl Sylvia M. Payne City Clerk - ~'t1:\ s1N (~ti' ~ n v c ~lIFO"~" Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 5 DATE: February 14, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Sharon Ranals, Director of Recreation and Community Services SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $209,250 IN FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND AMENDING THE 2006/07 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND LIBRARY DEPARTMENT BUDGETS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting grant funding in the amount of $209,250 from the California Department of Education to fund ongoing after school programs at three public schools: Los Cerritos, Martin, and Spruce (Community Learning Center), and amend the 2006/07 Recreation and Community Services and Library Department operating budgets. BACKGROUND: The After School Education and Safety (ASES) Program resulted from Proposition 49, which was approved by the voters in 2002. The purpose is to establish after school education and enrichment programs through partnerships between schools and community agencies to provide literacy, academic enrichment, and safe constructive alternatives for students in kindergarten through ninth grade. The funding parameters permit monies to be used to maintain or expand existing programs (Spruce - Learning Center After School Program) as well as to establish new programs (Los Cerritos and Martin). There are provisions for the state funding to increase ifthe State budget is at least $1.5 billion over the prior year's budget. After school programs funded through ASES require close coordination between the school site principals and program staff to integrate with the school's curriculum. Programs must include an educational and literacy element through tutoring and/or homework assistance, and education enrichment through such activities as art, music, physical education, and general recreation. There is an evaluation and tracking component required to monitor program effectiveness. The South San Francisco Unified School District invited the city to partner with them to apply for funding at four sites: Spruce, Martin, Los Cerritos, and Westborough Middle School. Three of the four Staff Report Subject: Acceptance of$209,250 from the Department of Education February 14,2007 Page 2 sites were approved for funding, with only Westborough not approved; priority was given to "Title 1" schools (50% or more students qualify for free and reduced lunch; Westborough is not a Title 1 school). The California Department of Education notified agencies in late January that they were funded. Programs are required to be up and running in February 2007. The Learning Center program operated by the Library will apply funding to their homework club. Recreation staff have been working closely with the principals at Martin and Los Cerritos to secure classroom spaces for new programs, design a curriculum, arId hire qualified staff. Program administration will be provided by the Childcare Supervisor and Coordinator. It is important to note that this program is not a licensed childcare program as the city provides at Monte Verde, Ponderosa and Spruce. Licensed programs have a ratio of 1: 14 (teachers: children), different staff qualifications, specific licensing criteria, adult sign-in and sign-out, and are fee-based. The ASES programs will have a ratio of 1 :20, a different structure, and are not fee-based. Many details of the grant have yet to be determined by the California Department of Education, but staff is attending regional workshops provided to develop a program that will be in compliarIce. FUNDING: Upon receipt, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget ofthe Recreation and Community Services Department ($135,000) and the Library's operating budget ($74,250). Funds not expended at the end of fiscal year 2006/07, if any, will not be carried over into fiscal year 2007/08. It is anticipated that funding will be renewed on an annual basis as long as the service criteria are met. It should also be noted that this program is designed to be free of cost to participants. A suggested donation will be asked, but participation can not be denied because of an inability to pay. As a result, staff will not budget a set amount of revenue each year. CONCLUSION: After school enrichment programs are essential for our community, and this grant provides academic and enrichment for students not currently receiving it. The District and the city seized this opportunity to expand needed services to additional sites. 5MIt/Y7I0~ Approved by~ '\ By: Sharon Ranals Director of Recreation and Community Services , j Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF $209,250 IN GRANT FUNDING FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND AMENDING THE 2006/07 RECREATION AND COMMUNITY SERVICES AND LIBRARY DEPARTMENT OPERATING BUDGETS WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $209,250 in grant funding from the California Department of Education to fund ongoing after school programs at three public schools: Los Cerritos, Martin and Spruce, and amending the 2006/07 Recreation and Community Services and Library Department operating budgets; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to establish after school education and enrichment programs through partnerships between schools and community agencies to provide literacy, academic enrichment and safe constructive alternatives for students in kindergarten through ninth grade. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby authorizes acceptance of$209,250 in grant funding from the California Department of Education to fund ongoing after school programs and amends the Recreation and Community Services and Library Department 2006/07 operating budgets. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk - ~~1 ~l~~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 6 DATE: February 14,2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Valerie Sommer, Library Director SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,052 FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) TO SUPPORT A LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AT THE COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER AND AMENDING THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution accepting funding in the amount of $54,052 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to support a Lifeline Transportation Program at the Community Learning Center, and amending the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2006/2007. BACKGROUND: The City of South San Francisco has been awarded $54,052 in funding from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) through their competitive call to fund community projects in San Mateo County as part of the Lifeline Transportation Program. For San Mateo County projects, the City/County Association of governments (C/CAG) assisted the MTC by conducting a competitive call for Lifeline projects. The Lifeline Transportation Program was established to assist in funding projects that 1) are intended to result in improved mobility for low income residents, 2) are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process and 3) are proposed to address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community- Based Transportation Plan or otherwise based on a documented assessment of needs. Additional technical details and project sponsor requirements regarding this grant program are included as part of the resolution. The City of South San Francisco (project sponsor), through its Community Learning Center (CLC), will use the funding to develop a curriculum and present workshops to train low-income English and Spanish speaking residents to effectively use public transportation. In addition, the CLC will work closely with SamTrans and other public transportation agencies, local organizations, and community members to develop and promote this project. It will create bilingual (English/Spanish) instructional, outreach, evaluation and publicity materials that will be made available for use throughout the County. Staff Report Subject: Acceptance of $54,052 in grant funding from MTC to support a Lifeline Transportation Program Page 2 FUNDING: The $54,052 in grant funding from the MTC will be used to amend the Library Department's current budget. The City's commitment to provide matching funds in the amount of $25,737 is comprised of "in kind" services by CLC staff. This is a three year grant and funds not expended by the end of fiscal year 2006/2007 will be carried over each year through fiscal year 2009/2010. Receipt of these funds does not commit the city to ongoing funding after the close of the grant cycle. CONCLUSION: Receipt of these funds will enable the Library Department to proceed with developing and offering a series of training sessions that will enable residents to better utilize public transportation. Effective utilization of these resources will enrich the lives of residents who were previously unable to travel to work locations, educational and recreational facilities and public assistance sites due to their lack of knowledge of public transportation. It is recommended that the City Council accept $54,052 in grant funding to support a Lifeline Transportation Program at the Community Learning Center, and amend the Library Department's operating budget for fiscal year 2006/2007. Valerie Sommer Library Director uv arry M. Nagel City Manager .~ By:J~~ Attachments: Resolution Funding Application (Resolution Attachment A) MTC Resolution No. 3726 RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF $54,052 IN FUNDING FROM THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) TO SUPPORT A LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM AT THE COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTER AND AMENDING THE LIDRARY DEPARTMENT'S 2006/2007 OPERATING BUDGET WHEREAS, staff recommends the acceptance of $54,052 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to support a Lifeline Transportation Program at the Community Learning Center; and WHEREAS, the funds will be used to amend this year's operating budget of the Library Department; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has established a Lifeline Transportation Program to assist in funding projects that 1) are intended to result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, 2) are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process and 3) are proposed to address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community-Based Transportation Plan or are otherwise based on a documented assessment of needs; and WHEREAS, MTC has identified a certain amount of funds in the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) and State Transit Assistance (ST A) programs to be made available for eligible projects for a three year interim program; and WHEREAS, MTC adopted principles, pursuant to MTC Resolution No. 3726, Revised, to guide implementation of the Lifeline Transportation Program for the three year period from Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Fiscal Year 2007-08, and has designated the County Congestion Management Agency (or another countywide entity) in each of the nine bay area counties to help with recommending project selections and project administration; and WHEREAS, the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) of San Mateo County has been designated by MTC to assist with the Lifeline Transportation Program in San Mateo County on behalf ofMTC; and WHEREAS, C/CAG conducted a competitive call for projects for the Lifeline Transportation Program in San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco submitted a project in response to the competitive call for projects; and WHEREAS, C/CAG, after review, recommends the City of South San Francisco's proposed project, described more fully on Attachment A to this Resolution, attached to and incorporated herein as though set forth at length, be funded in part under the Lifeline Transportation Program; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco agrees to meet project delivery and obligation deadlines, provide for the required local matching funds, and all other conditions set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3726 Revised; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco certifies that the project and purpose for which funds are being requested is in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et W, and with the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 1500 et wand if relevant the National Environmental Policy Alert (NEP A), 42 USC Section 4-1 et seq. and the applicable regulations thereunder; and WHEREAS, that there is no legal impediment to the City of South San Francisco making the funding request; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the ability of the City of South San Francisco to deliver the proposed project for which funds are being requested; and WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco requests that MTC grant funds available under its Lifeline Transportation Program, in the amounts requested for which the City of South San Francisco is eligible, for the project(s) described in Attachment A of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, staff of the City of South San Francisco shall forward a copy of this Resolution, and such other information as may be required, to MTC, C/CAG, and such other agencies as may be appropriate. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco that the City Council hereby accepts $54,052 from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to support a Lifeline Transportation Program at the Community Learning Center and amends the 2006-2007 Operating Budget, to reflect an increase of $54,052 to the Library Department's budget; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City of South San Francisco request that MTC grant funds available under its Lifeline Transportation Program, in the amounts requested for which the City of South San Francisco is eligible, for the project(s) described in Attachment A of this Resolution; and BE IT RESOLVED staff of the City of South San Francisco shall forward a copy of this Resolution, and such other information as may be required, to MTC, C/CAG, and such other agencies as may be appropriate. * * * * * I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the _day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk Attachment A Lifeline Transportation Program Funding Application A. Project Information Project Sponsor Name of the applicant(s) Contact person Address City of South San Francisco Ana Linder 520 Tamarack Lane Telephone number Fax number South San Francisco, CA 94080 (650) 877-8541 (650) 875-6969 E-mail address [email protected] Other Partner Agencies Agency Contact Person Address Telephone SamTrans Corinne Goodrich l250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 508-6369 Brief Description of Project: The City of South San Francisco through its Community Learning Center plans to develop a curriculum and present workshops to train low-income Spanish and English speaking individuals to effectively use public transportation. In addition, it will work closely with SamTrans and other public transportation agencies, local organizations and community members to develop and promote this project. It will create bilingual (Spanish and English) instructional, outreach, evaluation and publicity materials that can used to serve additional low-income residents throughout the county. Budget Summary $ % of Total Project Bud~et 68% 32% 100% Amount of Lifeline funding requested: Amount of local match proposed: Total project budget: 54,052 25,737 79,789 1 B. Project Narrative (Need & Community Descriptio~ The Metropolitan Transportation Commission has identified the City of South San Francisco as a Community of Concern for Lifeline Transportation Program funds. South San Francisco is located on the west shore of the San Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County, 10 miles south of San Francisco and 30 miles north of Silicon Valley. Like the City's industry, our population is in transition. The City's Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic populations have grown rapidly in recent years. Thirty-two percent of South San Francisco's 60,552 residents are Latino, twenty-nine percent are Asian, thirty-one percent are Caucasian, and about three percent are African American. The remaining five percent are multi-ethnic. HUD distributed data on low, very low, and extremely low-income people and households in South San Francisco. These designations are based on comparing the household income to the local area median income. Below are the income limits for the different income categories used to analyze the data collected in the 2000 Census: Income Limit Income Category $61,700 80% of the median income or below (Low Income) $38,550 50% of the median income or below (Very Low Income) $23,150 30% of the median income or below (Extremely Low Income) According to these income categories and the Census 2000 data: 47 % (28,316) of SSF residents are low income or below (Includes low income, very low income, and extremely low income) 26% (15,352) of SSF residents are very low income or below (Includes extremely low income) 11 % (6,374) SSF residents are extremely low income Certain census tracts have a higher concentration of low, and very low and extremely low income people, while others have lower. The above average concentrations of low, very low, and extremely low income people are in the Old Town/Downtown area, on San Bruno Mountain along 101 (not Terra Ba ), and in the Ma fair Nei hborhood: 6023 . ~:Easto 01, 6019 - Sunshine Gardens, Willow Gardens 6017 - Winston Manor 6024 - Avalon Park, Southwood, Brentwood 43% 43% 23% 21% 9% 10% 2 6018 - Alta Loma, Buri Buri, 41% 21% 7% Serra Highlands 6020 - Hillside and Terra Bay 39% 17% 10% 6026 - Westborough 37% 19% 8% 6025 - Westborough, Avalon Park 32% 15% 5% The block-groups with the highest percentage of low, very low, and extremely low-income people are in the Old TownIDowntown area: Census Block Tract Group % Pop Low Income and below ~$61,700) %..PopVery Low Ins()me .. and. below (~$38,550) % Pop Extremely Low Income (<$23,150) 31% 6022 1 - Blocks between Maple, Airport, Miller, and California 3 - Blocks between California, Linden, and Ai ort 82% 65% 6021 85% 59% 28% The Community Learning Center, a program of the South San Francisco Pubic Library aims to affect change in the Old Town neighborhood. Census 2000 data for this area indicates that 51 % of the residents are Latinos and that 50-60% of the 19,000 residents have low-to-moderate income levels. Old Town "households" often consist of multiple families living in single-family dwellings. Many Old Town adults are working multiple minimum-wage jobs to make ends meet. Old Town families and seniors would benefit from better utilizing the public transportation system available to them. Adults are very limited in where they look for and find work because of their insufficient use of public transportation. Youth are not taking advantage of educational and recreational opportunities because of their own and their parents' lack of knowledge about public transportation. Seniors are isolated because they do not use public transportation to access services. Low literacy skills, lack of English language proficiency and unfamiliarity with how the transportation system works are big obstacles for our community residents. IGoals and Objectivesl Since February of 1999, the Community Learning Center has offered a welcoming, alternative learning environment where adults enhance their English language fluency, native language literacy, computer competency, work-related capacity and parenting skills. The City of South San Francisco's Community Learning Center is requesting funds to offer workshops on effective use of Public Transportation. Goal: South San Francisco residents will use public transportation effectively Objective: Annually, 80 Old Town residents will increase their skill in accessing public transportation 3 ~mplementation Pla~ Proposal: For the Community Learning Center to offer workshops on Taking Public Transportation Location: 520 Tamarack Lane, South San Francisco Target Group: Low-income Spanish and English speakers who don't know how to access public transportation effectively (80 annually) Approach: Offer three 1.5-hour workshops series (once a week for three weeks). Offer a series in Spanish and a series in English two times a year. Activities for children ages 3-12 will be available while parents attend the workshops. Timeline: Project can be implemented immediately after receiving funding Public Transportation Curriculum A series of three 1.5 hour meetings that will present a functional approach to exploring the avenues of public transportation (presented in Spanish and English) First Week 1. Using the Chamber of Commerce map of South San Francisco, participants will find the major landmarks on the map: SF Airport, San Bruno Mountain, shopping centers/locations, schools, post office, City Hall, libraries, parks. 2. Using a computer / Internet, students will research maps and public transportation in SSF 3. Students will identify means other than a map or computer where it is possible to learn more about public transportation 4. Using a Road Detective exercise, participants will identify and list all the public transportation available a. Rail (BART, Caltrain) b. Road (Bus lines: Samtrans) c. Water (upcoming Ferry) d. Air (People Movers / Airlines) 5. Students will map one route in each of the above, highlighting the route beginning with home base and arriving a particular destination. 6. The group will investigate whom to contact for further information Second Week 1. Using the actual schedules from BART, Samtrans, Caltrain, etc., students will choose three locations to visit via the public transportation of their choice. They will apply their new knowledge regarding routes, and analyze schedules to work out the timing. They will compare and contrast which ways are faster, and which are more/less expensive. 2. If possible, students will use computers to map out a virtual route. They will visit public transportation web pages to help with this virtual trip. 3. Using the schedules, students will compare and indicate on a map whether some routes are covered by more than one public transportation service. 4. They will identify and evaluate the various signs that indicate which public transportation is available at a given location, such as the Bus Stop sign, the Train Stop sign, and the BART sign. Are signs available in more than one language? Are drawings/pictures used to indicate the services offered? Is help locally available for questions? Are there numbers to call for assistance? What else do we need to know? 4 Third Week 1. What actual tickets are needed for each public transportation service? Can you board without paying, or can you pay when you board; do you need a pass? Can the ticket be used more than once? Are bills and coins accepted? How does a shuttle work? What penalties can be given if improperly used? 2. Students will take a field trip using one of the public transportation services. They will make a comparison of three public transportation services, and in a graph estimate which cost more /less, which take longer to arrive, and which are more available to go where they want to go. 3. The class will conclude with an evaluation of public transportation benefits and costs, and give recommendations. Key Personnel Collaborative Project Coordinator, Marta Ines Bookbinder, has been a key staff member at the Community Learning Center since December 1998 and will be the project Coordinator. She will develop the curriculum and present the workshops. Fifty percent of her position is grant funded. Ms. Bookbinder was born in EI Salvador. She immigrated to the United States when she was 18 years old. Ms. Bookbinder obtained a Bachelor's degree in International Relations, and a Master's in Counseling Psychology. A four-term President of the Board of Trustees of Jefferson School District in North San Mateo County, she served in elected office for 12 years, holds a California adult teacher credential, has taught US citizenship and English to adults in various school districts, and has organized community boards to empower individuals through participation in the decision-making process. Marta is a presenter at conferences on the topics of leadership, multicultural communication, and education systems. She was a volunteer for 15 years as a lecturer on abuse and assault prevention education for children, families and the schools, serving as a Latina mentor for two years. ICoordination and Program Outreac~ Coordination Ms. Bookbinder will contact representatives of various public transportation agencies to get maps and other information to use in the workshops. She will work closely with Pat Boland, SamTrans Marketing Manager, in the development of instruction, outreach and publicity materials. As is her custom, Ms. Bookbinder will work in partnership with community residents, agencies serving low- income populations and City staff and leaders to develop and implement this project. She will also coordinate outreach efforts (see below). If the Human Service Agency's transit fare subsidy program is funded, there will be an opportunity for coordination between projects. Individuals receiving a subsidy may need training to effectively use public transportation. Trainees could potentially be connected with subsidized transit fares to assist them in sustaining their use of public transit. Ms. Bookbinder will work closely with North Peninsula Neighborhood Services, the local representative for the Human Service Agency proposal. Marketing/Outreach The Community Learning Center actively collaborates with 13 different agencies serving low- income immigrants including Boys and Girls Club in North San Mateo County, North Peninsula Family Alternatives, North Peninsula Neighborhood Services, Prenatal to Three Initiative, Salvation Army, San Mateo County Health Services Agency, South San Francisco Adult Education and Sur 5 San Francisco Unidos. In addition, we work closely with other City Departments, especially the City of South San Francisco's Recreation & Community Services, Police, and Senior Services. We have developed a system of getting input from staff and participants, and promoting programs with these partners. Ms. Bookbinder has frequent communication with agency personnel. She often presents information at the South San Francisco Adult School classes. In addition, she brings flyers to staff at the numerous local agencies. For this project, she will implement her standard outreach strategies. In addition, we will print attractive posters and place ads in appropriate newspapers and newsletters. The outreach staff will distribute materials throughout our community. Additionally, the Community Learning Center has a mailing list of over 3,300 participants to whom we could mail announcements. We also have a cadre of community members who have been active in promoting services at the Community Learning Center. We can count on them to make announcements and distribute flyers at their churches, social gatherings and other situations. All outreach materials and ads will be available in English and Spanish. /program Effectivenes~ During our six and a half years of operation, the Community Learning Center has been able to grow into a stable, well-regarded and valued program. The Center's work has been recognized with prestigious awards, significant funding from diverse sources and media coverage. Most important is the trust, comfort level and inclusion the participants feel. This is mainly due to the great employees (the majority of whom are bilingual and bicultural). The staff is highly qualified and very dedicated. The turnover is extraordinarily low; key members have been employed at the Center for six years. The staff is also involved with the community. In an attempt to assess and meet the needs of the community, the staff has built meaningful partnerships with community members, service providers, the school district, the County, businesses and others. The Community Learning Center has become uniquely positioned to serve the Spanish-speaking community as a result of these significant relationships and the trust they have generated. The large number of Latino community members who participate in the Community Learning Center and who continue to seek services at the Center is proof of our success. We have seen how providing educational opportunities and support to our low-income residents have enabled them to access services and more fully participate in their own communities. Families join PTA groups, use the library, attend special City Council meetings and more. We believe that offering opportunities for low-income residents to increase their navigational skills in public transportation services and providing them support through field trips will enable our community to effectively use more public transportation. For this project, we will track enrollment and units of service, changes in skills and behaviors, and anecdotal data. An evaluation questionnaire will be developed to measure increase in knowledge and use of public transportation services. We will call project participants one or two months after they have completed the workshop series to see how they are using public transportation, find out if they need additional help, and to evaluate how well the program has worked. After these calls, we will have an opportunity to make appropriate revisions to our program. 6 C. Project Budget (Sustainability & Cost Effectiveness) Revenue Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Lifeline Program Funds 20,084 17,684 16,284 54,052 City of South San Francisco 10,874 7,684 7,159 25,717 rOther Source of Fundsl 0 0 0 0 TOTAL REVENUE 30,958 25,368 23,443 79,769 Expenditures Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL Operating Expenses 7,000 7,000 7,000 21,000 Capital Expense 0 0 0 0 Administrative Expenses 2,816 2,306 2,131 7,253 Personnel 21,142 16,062 14,312 51,516 rOther Exoense Cateaorvl 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 30,958 25,368 23,443 79,769 Budget Description Lifeline Transportation Funds Personnel: Coordinator: to a) develop collaborations with appropriate agencies, b) get community input, c) create outreach materials and evaluation tools, d) schedule activities, and e) supervise project staff. Curriculum Develooer: to create training material. Trainer: to lead the workshops. Training Assistants: to assist participants during the workshops. Guest Soeakers: stipends for community members to present in the workshop how they use public transportation successfully. Outreach staff: To djstribute outreach materials. Clerical staff: to a) fax and make copies, b) data entry, c) order suppEes and d) call people to remind them of the workshops. Evaluation follow-uo staff: To follow up with trainees by phone a month or two following training to see how they are using public transportation, find out if they need additional help, and to evaluate how well the program has worked. Matching Funds Personnel: Community Learnin}? Center Mana}?er: to supervise and evaluate project and submit reports. Soecialized Staff. to a) create flyers, b) manage project documents and data collection, c) make phone inquiries and follow up calls and d) supervise clerical staff. Translator: to translate curriculum and outreach materials. Childcare staff: to engage children in activities while their parents are attending workshops. Lifeline Transportation Funds Operation: Suoolieslhosoitalitv: paper, binders, pens, and refreshments. Printin}?: flyer reproduction. Posta}?e: to mail workshop announcements. Publicitv- Advertisement: to print posters and run ads in appropriate publkations. Transoortation: fares for field trips and incentive for project participation. Matching Funds Administrative Cost: 10% of total project expenses to cover the City's a) payroll, purchasing and accounting costs, b) facility expenses such as electricity, phones, equipment maintenance, janitorial services, etc. 7 Line Item Bud et Details Lifeline Year 1- Year 2- Year 3- Trans ortation details Year 1 details Year 2 details Year 3 Coordinator 100 hrs X$40 4,000 80 hrs X40 3,200 50 hrs X40 2,000 Curriculum Develo er 50 hrs X$40 2,000 10 hrs X40 400 5 hrs X40 200 Trainer 36 hrs X$40 1 ,440 36 hrs X40 1,440 36 hrs X40 1 ,440 2-Trainin Assistants 72 hrs X$22 1,584 72 hrs X22 1,584 72 hrs X22 1,584 Guest Speakers 12 sessions 900 12 sessions 900 12 sessions 900 X $75 each X $75 each X $75 each Outreach Staff 30 h rs X$22 660 30 hrs X22 660 30 hrs X22 660 Clerical Su art 60 hrs X$25 1,500 60 hrs X25 1,500 60 hrs X25 1,500 40 hrs X$25 1,000 40 hrs X25 1,000 40 hrs X25 1,000 800 800 800 500 500 500 500 500 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 50 hrs X $52 2,600 50 hrs X 52 2,600 50 hrs X 52 2,600 S ecialized Staff 70 hrs X$35 2,450 50 hrs X35 1,750 40 hrs X35 1 ,400 Translator of curriculum and outreach materials 50 h rs X$50 2,500 10hrsx50 500 10 hrs x 50 500 Childcare for participants during worksho s 24 hrs X$22 528 24 hrs X22 528 24 hrs X22 528 Administrative Cost 1 0% of total ro'ect 2,816 2,306 2,131 $10,894 $7,684 $ 7,159 Sustain ability As one can see in the budget, the cost of the project decreases each year. After year three, once the curriculum is finalized, the outreach and publicity materials are developed, translation is completed, collaborative relationships are established, etc., the cost to sustain this program will be much lower (approximately 50% less). Given this fact, we are confident that we will be able to secure future funding to continue it. The Peninsula Community Foundation as well as the Kimball Foundation have been supporting this type of educational efforts in our community. 8 Cost Effectiveness We will develop materials that can be made available for expansion or replication of the program in the future. We will be developing and testing a curriculum and other resources that could be put to use to serve additional low-income residents of South San Francisco, as well as others throughout the county. 9 Date: W.I.: Referred by: Revised: December 21, 2005 1311 PAC o 1/25/06-C ABSTRACT Resolution No. 3726, Revised This Resolution adopts the program guidelines for MTC's Lifeline Transportation Program. This Resolution supersedes MTC Resolution No. 3699. The following attachment is provided with this Resolution: Attachment A- Lifeline Transportation Program Guidelines This resolution was revised on January 25,2006 to amend Attachment A. Further discussion of this Lifeline Guidelines is contained in the MTC Executive Director's Memorandum to the Programming and Allocations Committee dated December 14,2005 and the Programming & Allocations Committee Summary Sheet dated January 11,2006. Date: W.I.: Referred by: December 21, 2005 1311 PAC RE: Lifeline Transportation Program Guidelines METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT A nON COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. NO. 3726 WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is the regional transportation agency for the San Francisco Bay Area pursuant to Government Code Section 66500 et seq.; and WHEREAS, MTC adopted the Transportation 2030 Plan (MTC Resolution 3681), which seeks up to $216 million in new revenues over the plan's twenty-five year horizon to address mobility needs for residents of low-income communities; and WHEREAS, these new revenues are not readily available; and WHEREAS, alternative sources of funds have been identified as referenced in Attachment A of this Resolution to provide services for a three year interim period of time beginning in Fiscal Year 2005-06; and WHEREAS, MTC has developed program guidelines to be used for the funding and oversight of the Lifeline Transportation Program for projects to be funded for this three year period beginning in Fiscal Year 2005-06 as set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth at length; and WHEREAS, MTC will use the process and criteria set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution to fund a program of projects for the Lifeline Transportation Program for Fiscal Year 2005-06 through Fiscal Year 2007-08; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, that MTC approves the program guidelines to be used in the administration and selection of Lifeline Transportation projects, as set forth in Attachment A of this Resolution; and be it further MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 2 RESOLVED, that the Executive Director shall forward a copy of this Resolution, and such other information as may be required, to such other agencies as may be appropriate; and be it further RESOLVED, that this Resolution supersedes MTC Resolution No. 3699. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION J on Rubin, Chair The above Resolution was entered into by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in Oakland, California on December 21,2005. Date: W.I.: Referred by: Revised: December 21,2005 1311 PAC o 1/25/06-C Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 1 of 5 Lifeline Transportation Program Guideline GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR COUNTY LIFELINE PROGRAMS FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08 Program Goals: The county programs are established to fund projects that result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties, and are expected to carry out the following regional Lifeline Program goals: The Lifeline Program supports community-based transportation projects that: · Are developed through a collaborative and inclusive planning process that includes broad partnerships among a variety of stakeholders such as public agencies, transit operators, community-based organizations and other community stakeholders, and outreach to underrepresented stakeholders. · Address transportation gaps and/or barriers identified through a Community- Based Transportation Plan (CBTP), countywide or regional Welfare-to-Work Transportation Plan, or are otherwise based on a documented assessment of needs within the designated communities of concern. Findings emerging from one or more CBTPs may also be applied to other low-income areas, or otherwise be directed to serve low-income constituencies within the county, as applicable. · Improve a range of transportation choices by adding a variety of new or expanded services including but not limited to: enhanced fixed route transit services, shuttles, children's programs, taxi voucher programs, improved access to autos, capital improvement projects. Transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents of low-income communities may also be considered when funding projects. Program Administration: MTC recommends the Lifeline Program be administered by the Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs)I for a minimum of three years (FY 2005-06 through I Alameda County Congestion Management Agency Contra Costa County Congestion Management Agency San Francisco County Transportation Authority Marin County TAM Napa County Transportation Planning Agency San Mateo City-County Association of Governments Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Sonoma County Transportation Authority Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 2 of 5 FY 2007-08). At a CMA's discretion, and with concurrence by MTC, a countywide entity other than or in addition to the CMA may administer the program. That entity must either be an eligible recipient of respective Lifeline Transportation fund sources, or capable of serving as fiscal agent to administer program funds, and otherwise meet program expectations as described in these program guidelines. In Santa Clara County, the county and the Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) will enter into a joint agreement for administration of the Lifeline Program. MTC requests receipt of written documentation no later than September 30, 2005 from the CMA governing board either agreeing to the terms outlined in the guidelines for administering the program, or identification of stakeholders and partners representing non-transit constituencies such as county social service agencies and community based organizations recommended to administer the program in lieu of the CMA. That countywide entity will likewise submit notification to MTC of its interest and willingness to administer the program consistent with these guidelines, for the Commission's consideration and approval. Absent this documentation, MTC will hold the county's lifeline funding in reserve until such time a local agreement is reached. Prior to completion of the three-year period MTC, in consultation with CMAs or other project administrators and other program stakeholders, will conduct an evaluation to assess program results, and to recommend a long-term strategy for administration of the Lifeline Program. All interim lifeline funds will be available for direct services, and not used to cover costs that may be incurred by the CMAs or other countywide agency in administering this program. Multi-Year Programming: MTC staff recommends that a one-time multi-year programming cycle will be conducted to select eligible lifeline transportation projects. At a county's discretion, however, that county's Lifeline Transportation funds may be reserved for future programming. Competitive Process: For the county programs, funds must not be allocated by formula to sub- areas within the county. Projects must be selected consistent with the findings of a CBTP, countywide regional welfare-to-work plan or other documented assessment of needs within the designated communities of concern. Where plans have not been completed, projects will be selected through an open, competitive process in order to fund those projects that best exemplify the program principles and result in the greatest community benefit. Grant Application: To ensure a streamlined application process for sponsors, a universal application form (or standard format and content for project proposals) will be developed jointly by MTC and CMA staff, but may be modified as appropriate by the CMAs or countywide administering agency for inclusion of county-specific grant requirements. The "call for projects" for the county programs should be coordinated as closely as possible. Program Match: A local match of a minimum of 20% of the total program cost is required; new Lifeline Transportation Program funds may cover a maximum of 80% of the total project cost. Solano Transportation Authority Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 3 of 5 Project sponsors may use other local funding sources (Transportation Development Act, operator controlled State Transit Assistance, local sales tax revenue, etc.) to meet the minimum 20% matching fund requirement. In addition, the required match can include other non-Department of Transportation (DOT) federal funds. Eligible sources of non-DOT federal funds include: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (T ANF), Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) and Social Services Block Grants (SSBG) administered by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Community Development Block grants (CDBG) and HOPE VI grants administered by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Grant funds from private foundations may also be used to meet the match requirement, and in-kind costs associated with oversight of the project may also be considered to meet the match requirement. Evaluation Criteria: Standard evaluation criteria will be jointly developed by MTC and CMA (or other countywide administering agency) staff for use in selecting projects. Additional criteria may be added to the county program but should not replace or supplant the regional criteria. Each county will appoint local representatives representing a range of stakeholders to score and select projects, and each county will assign local priorities for project selection. MTC staff will review the proposed county program criteria to ensure consistency and to facilitate coordination among county programs. Proiect Selection/Draft Program of Proiects: The CMAs (or other countywide administering agency) shall provide an opportunity for outside interests and organizations (e.g., local department of social services, transit agencies and other transportation service providers, local community-based organizations, etc.) to assist in developing and/or to comment on a proposed list of projects to fund. A list of participants in the CBTP processes or other prior lifeline related activities will be provided to the project administrator for their consideration. In funding projects, preference will be given to strategies emerging from the local CBTP process, if completed, or from a countywide regional welfare-to-work or other documented assessment of need within the designated communities of concern Regional lifeline funds should not supplant or replace existing sources of funds. Lifeline funds may be used for either capital or operating purposes. Eligible operating projects, consistent with requirements of funding sources, may include (but are not necessarily limited to) new or enhanced fixed route transit services, restoration of lifeline-related transit services eliminated due to budget shortfalls, shuttles, children's programs, taxi voucher programs, improved access to autos, etc. Inter-county projects may also be funded, if two or more counties wish to jointly plan for and fund such a project. CMA or countywide administering agency will consider the project sponsor's ability to sustain ongoing funding beyond the initial grant funding. Capital projects that do not require ongoing funding are encouraged. Examples of eligible capital projects include (but are not necessarily limited to) purchase of vehicles, provision of bus shelters, benches, lighting, sidewalk improvements or other enhancements to improve transportation access for residents of low-income communities. Transportation needs specific to elderly and disabled residents of low-income communities may also be considered when funding new programs. Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 4 of 5 Funding: Fund sources available for the interim 3-year funding period include CMAQ, JARC and ST A funds, as shown in Table A. Funding amounts will be assigned to each county, based on that county's share of poverty population, consistent with the estimated distribution outlined in Table A. MTC will confirm project/applicant eligibility, and assign appropriate fund source for each project. If CMAQ or JARC funds are used, MTC will program the project into the TIP. If ST A funds are used, MTC will either allocate funds directly to transit agency or other eligible entity, as applicable, or will enter into a funding agreement with the CMA or other countywide administering entity for transfer of the funds to the project sponsor through a funding agreement. Projects funded must meet the eligibility requirements of the respective source of funds. Proiect Delivery: All projects funded under the county programs will be subject to MTC obligation deadlines and project delivery requirements. All projects will be subject to a "use it or lose it" policy. Should there be a balance of non- programmed lifeline funds from a county's fund share after conducting the call for project/project selection process, an equivalent amount of funds would be reserved for the respective county for reprogramming to other Lifeline related investments at a future date. Policy Board Adoption: Projects recommended for funding must be submitted to and approved by the respective governing board. The appropriate governing board shall resolve that approved projects not only exemplify Lifeline Program goals, but that the local project sponsors understand and agree to meeting all project delivery and funding match and obligation deadlines. Proiect Oversight: The CMAs or equivalent countywide agency will be responsible for oversight of projects funded under the county programs and ensuring projects meet MTC obligation deadlines and project delivery requirements. In addition, the CMA or other administering entity will ensure, at a minimum, that projects substantially carry out the scope described in the grant applications. All scope changes must be fully explained and must demonstrate consistency with Lifeline Program goals. CMAs or other program administrators are responsible for programmatic and fiscal oversight of new lifeline projects. As part of the Call for Projects, applicants will be asked to establish project goals, and to identify basic performance indicators to be collected in order to measure the effectiveness of the program projects. At a minimum, performance measures for service-related projects would include: documentation of new "units" of service provided with the funding (e.g. number of trips, service hours, workshops held, car loans provided, etc.), cost per unit of service, and a quantitative summary of service delivery procedures employed for the project. For capital- related projects, project sponsor is responsible to establish milestones and report on the status of project delivery. Program Evaluation: MTC, in consultation with CMAs or other countywide program administrator will conduct a program evaluation to report on the results of the program, and to recommend future funding and programmatic oversight for the $216 million dedicated to the program as part of the Transportation 2030 Plan. The cost to administer the program will be Attachment A MTC Resolution No. 3726 Page 5 of 5 considered as part of the program evaluation to be conducted upon completion of the three-year cycle. Lifeline Transportation Program Estimated Budget FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08 Interim Lifeline Source of Funds Amount Transportation Program Fund Source First and Second Cycle Funds originally programmed to the 4,045,000 CMAQ Funding Regional Express Bus Program (now funded through RM2) FY 2005-06 ST A Regional l) Excess Generations from FY 2004- 5,569,862 Discretionary Program 05; 2) Funds originally slated for TransLink@ (now funded through RM2) FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 Funds set -aside to fund the LIFT 2,000,000 ST A Regional Discretionary program - now shifted to Lifeline Program Transportation initiative. Urbanized-Area JARC funds New JARC funds through SAFETEA- 6,618,094* FY 2005-06- 07-08 LV; MTC designated recipient for urbanized area funding TOTAL $18,232,956 *JARC Funds for FY 2007 and FY 2008 are subject to a new coordinated planning requirement still under development by Ff A. Estimated Fundin~ Tar~et per County FY 2005-06 throu~h FY 2007-08 County % poverty population 3 year L TP fundin~ Tar~et Alameda 27.4% 4,995,831 Contra Costa 12.5% 2,279,120 Marin 2.7% 492,290 Napa 1.7% 309,961 San Francisco 15.1% 2,753,176 San Mateo 7.1% 1,294,540 Santa Clara 21.7% 3,956,550 Solano 5.5% 1,002,812 Sonoma 6.3% 1,148,676 TOTAL 100% $18,232,956 * Based on federal poverty levels reported in 2000 US Census Note: These are estimates intended for planning purposes only. Actual allotment of funds may differ than those indicated above, based on assignment of funding to eligible projects. These estimates do not include an additional $1,346,441 in small and non-urbanized JARC funds available to the region that will be administered by Caltrans. l\tIetropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee January 11,2006 Item Number 3c Resolution No. 3726, Revised Subject: Revised Lifeline Transportation Program Guidelines and Budget. Background: Last month, the Commission adopted MTC Resolution 3726, which incorporates program guidelines for the Lifeline Transportation Program (LTP) for a three-year period. The LTP is intended to result in improved mobility for low-income residents of the Bay Area, and will be overseen at the local (countywide) level. In March, project sponsors will issue a Call for Projects to solicit projects consistent with these guidelines. As indicated in Attachment A of Resolution 3726, funding for the program is comprised of federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) and Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds, and State Transit Assistance (ST A) funds. Originally, the budget reflected a proposed distribution of each source of funds to counties based on that county's overall share of the poverty population. Subsequently, staff has received clarification from the Federal Transit Administration (Ff A) regarding the use of JARC funds that would not support a specific allocation to each county, because projects are expected to be selected through a competitive process to ensure they are consistent with program guidelines. Staff therefore has revised Attachment A to remove fund specific assignments by county, more accurately reflecting the following funding approach: · JARC funds will be "pooled" regionally with other sources of funds. · Applicants for L TP funds will submit requests for funding to their respective county, without specifying the source of funds for any particular project. . Each county will be assigned an overall "target" share of the regionally pooled LTP funds based on that county's share of poverty population. However, this target will not further stipulate specific shares of individual fund types. Within that target, counties, through a process that includes the participation of relevant stakeholders, will select projects through a competitive process that ranks them according to regionally developed criteria. . Once projects are competitively selected at the local level, MTC will match requests to respective fund sources among all nine counties, based on the project's ability to meet the stated criteria as well as fund eligibility, not its geographic location. The Program budget is as follows: MTC Resolution No. 3726, Revised January 11,2005 Page 2 Lifeline Transportation Program Estimated Budget FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08 Interim Lifeline Transportation Program Amount Fund Source CMAQ 4,045,000 FY 2005-06 ST A Regional Discretionary 5,569,862 Program FY 2006-07 and FY 2007-08 ST A Regional 2,000,000 Discretionary Program Urbanized-Area JARC funds 6,618,094* FY 2005-06- 07-08 TOTAL $18,232,956 *JARC Funds for FY 2007 and FY 2008 are subject to a new coordinated planning requirement still under development by Ff A. Estimated Funding Target per County FY 2005-06 through FY 2007-08 County % poverty population 3 year L TP funding Target Alameda 27.4% 4,995,831 Contra Costa 12.5% 2,279,120 Marin 2.7% 492,290 Napa 1.7% 309,961 San Francisco 15.1% 2,753,176 San Mateo 7.1% 1,294,540 Santa Clara 21.7% 3,956,550 Solano 5.5% 1,002,812 Sonoma 6.3% 1,148,676 TOTAL 100% $18,232,956 * Based on federal poverty levels reported in 2000 US Census Recommendation: Attachments: Refer MTC Resolution No. 3726, revised to the Commission for approval. MTC Resolution No. 3726, Revised. ~'t1l s~ ~ ~ . ~\i.\ (0 ("l >- .... ~ ~ v 0 ~l1FO""~ Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 7 DATE: TO: FROM: February 14, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Offers of Dedication of Linear Park and Recreation Parcel from Terrabay Partners, LLC RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing acceptance of a Land Dedication of a Linear Park and Recreation Parcel from Terrabay Partners, LLC, and authorizing the City Manager and the City Attorney to execute the land dedication on behalf of the City. BACKGROUND Terrabay Partners, LLC, a subsidiary of Myers Development Company, the developer ofthe Terrabay properties, is offering to dedicate a linear park and recreation parcel pursuant to the Final Subdivision Map (Volume 12, page 69, recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office on July 2, 1990). The offer of dedication is also pursuant to the Terrabay Development Agreement Regarding the Woods East and West Areas of Phase II - Exhibit F (December 15,1999), and Exhibit H of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement of Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase ill ( January 11, 2001), both approved by the City Council. DISCUSSION The final subdivision map for the Terrabay development identifies the linear park parcels 390 and 398 as "parcels for future dedication to the City of South San Francisco". The Recreation Parcel, identified as Parcel #5 in the 1990 Final Map, is noted for "future development". The Recreation Parcel was historically known as "Commons West" and was planned and zoned for residential use prior to 2000. The Recreation Parcel land use and zoning were changed as a result of the 2000 Final Terrabay Specific Plan approval to recreation and or open space use. The 2006 Final Terrabay Specific Plan amendment retains the 2000 land use and zoning designations. The linear park parcels are developed with irrigation and landscaping. The irrigation and landscaping was installed to the specification of the plans approved by City Council. City Staff approved the improvements as being built to plan for the linear park in May, 2002 (Woods East and West portion). The remaining portion of the linear park was found to be in compliance with the approved plans in December 2004. Staff Report Subject: Terrabay Land Dedication Page 2 The Recreation Parcel is improved with V -ditches, a sedimentation basin, a graded road, a development pad and erosion control. The improvements were complete in 2004. Staff required that the Recreation Parcel not be offered for dedication until the improvements were satisfactorily performed to design through ''wet weather" conditions. Therefore, the Recreation Parcel was not offered for dedication until the autumn/winter of 2006. The City's geologic consultant, Cotton Shires Associates, performed inspections of the Recreation Parcel during the winter storms of2004, 2005 and 2006. Cotton Shires provided the City with documentation that the improvements perform to the specified design criteria. A land restoration program is currently being conducted on the Recreation Parcel. The program, approved by the City, implemented by West Coast Wildlands and funded by Myers Development Company requires removing invasive exotic vegetation on the parcel. The program includes certain performance criteria and is in year four of its effort. Myers will continue the program until the parcel is found to be in compliance with the plan. The City will receive a fee simple interest in both the dedication of linear park and the dedication of recreation parcel. FUNDING None required to accept the dedication. The Homeowners Association is required through the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions to maintain the linear park parcels. Myers Development Company provided the City with $300,000 in seed money for development of the Recreation Parcel (in 2005) in addition to installing the aforementioned improvements. B~ ~eter Spoerl Assistant City Attorney 7 APprovG ,(,0 Barry M. Nagel City Manager Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND ACCEPTING AN OFFER OF DEDICATION OF THE LINEAR PARK AND RECREATION PARCEL IN CONNECTION WITH THE FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FILED JULY 2, 1990 AND THE EXECUTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE PARCELS FROM TERRABAY PARTNERS, LLC WHEREAS, the Exhibit F of the Amendment to the Terrabay Development Agreement Regarding the Woods East and West Areas of Phase II of the Terrabay Project dated December 15, 1999 and Exhibit H of the Restated and Amended Development Agreement of Remaining Parcels of Phase II and Phase III dated January 11, 200 1 (collectively, "Development Agreements") provide for the requirement of the dedication of a linear park and a recreation parcel to the City of South San Francisco ("City"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to such provision of the applicable Development Agreements, Terrabay Partners, LLC ("Developer") is dedicating a certain portion of property to the City for the purposes of a linear park and recreation parcel; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that acceptance of the dedication ofthe linear park and the dedication of the recreation parcel satisfies the requirements of the applicable development agreements and serves an important public purpose; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby adopts the following findings: Section 1. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication of the linear park and recreation parcel, all as set forth in the Staff Report and related documents attached to this resolution as Attachment A and presented to the City Council at this meeting, all of which by this reference, are incorporated herein. In so doing, the Council accepts the dedication of the Property. Section 2. The City Manager, the City Attorney and such other City Staff as necessary are hereby directed to prepare all documents necessary to effectuate the approved linear park and recreation parcel dedication, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any and all agreements, accept property, and dispose of property, necessary to complete the proposed dedication. * * * * * 1 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a meeting held on the _ day of , 2007 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk 2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAlL TO: r- "1 Name Streel Address City & Slale L- J MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO r- "1 Name S treel Address City & Stale L- J SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF LINEAR PARK TERRABA Y PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereby offers to dedicate to the City of South San Francisco a fee simple interest in the following described parcels of real property situate in the County of San Mateo, State of California: LOTS 390, 391 AND 398 AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "TERRABA Y BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 1 & 2 RECORDED IN VOLUME 53 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 82 THROUGH 85, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CITY OF SO. SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA," WHICH MAP WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ON JULY 2, 1990 IN BOOK 121 OF MAPS AT PAGES 65 THROUGH 79 APN: 007-642-010-8 and 007-642-020-7 and 007-642-030-6 Subject to existing easements and agreements of record Dated: December ~, 2006 TERRABA Y PARTNERS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: Myers Terrabay Company, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its Managing Member By: ~~Q--- Ja E. Myers Its Manager 1275192.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO '[)..aMbr....v A On 3'ept~mber~, 2006 before me, L.f]10A VAl..D$Notary Public, personally appeared Jack E. Myers, personally known to me (or preved to me on the ba~i~ of satisfaetcry evidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. ~C~ (1~6 Not Public 1275192.1 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing Offer of Dedication of Linear Park, dated September _' 2006 from Terrabay Partners, LLC to the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City of South San Francisco pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco entitled Resolution No. , and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer or representative, City of South San Francisco Dated: ,2006 By: 1275192.1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: r- "1 Name Street Address City & State L- J MAIL TAX STATEMENTS TO r- "1 Name Street Address City & State L- J SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF RECREATION PARCEL MYERS PRESER V A TION l LLC, a California limited liability company, hereby offers to dedicate to the City of South San Francisco a fee simple interest in the parcels of real property situate in the County of San Mateo, State of California described in Exhibit A attached hereto: Subject to existing easements and agreements of record Dated: December ~, 2006 MYERS PRESERVATION, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Myers Terrabay Company I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, its M naging Member 1275744.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. ) CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO On December ~, 2006 before me, LEnetA AV~ LD~otary Public, personally appeared Jack E, Myers, personally known to me (01 prOved to m~ OIl th~ basis of satisfaetory c'vidence) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal. ~&Jl (1Ja fl))o No PublIc J.- · ~AV'l.& - -, CommIaIon t1 '654163 Notary fI\mIIc . CalIfomIa San FrancIIco COInv _eomm. -"/IIJI 25, an 1275744.1 EXHIBIT A Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of California, described as follows: Lot 392 of that certain map entitled, "TERRABA Y BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCELS 1 & 2 RECORDED IN VOLUME 53 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 82 THROUGH 85, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY, CITY OF SO. SAN FRANCISCO, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA," which map was filed in the office of the Recorder of the County of San Mateo, State of California on July 2, 1990 in Book 121 of Maps at Pages 65 thru 79. 1275744.1 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the foregoing Offer of Dedication of Recreation Parcel, dated December _,2006 from Myers Preservation, LLC to the City of South San Francisco, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City of South San Francisco pursuant to authority conferred by resolution of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco entitled Resolution No. , and the grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer or representative. City of South San Francisco Dated: ,2006 By: 1275744.1 ~'t\\. SM' ~."""'"'.~ o ... 0 ;... u.: ~ (") v ~llFO""'~ C Staff Report AGENDA ITEM # 8 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: February 14, 2007 Honorable Mayor and City Council Marty VanDuyn, Assistant City Manager EL CAMINO REAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS ACROSS FROM KAISER HOSPITAL RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, approve the prohibition of parking on a portion of the west side of EI Camino Real across from Kaiser Permanente Hospital. BACKGROUND/DISCDSSION In October 2006, the City received a request from Kaiser staff to restrict parking on the west side of EI Camino Real in front of the hospital in order to prevent pedestrians from jaywalking toward their facilities (location map attached). State Highway 82, El Camino Real (ECR) is owned by Caltrans. However, the City maintains the shoulder, medians and street lighting. Currently, ECR, between the Alta Lama stairway and the intersection at the Kaiser main entrance, allows for parking on both sides, although it is prohibited from 3 am to 5 am. There are no sidewalks along the west side and often the shoulder becomes muddy due to rain and heavy fog. Pedestrians jaywalk across ECR, which consists of six (6) lanes of traffic and a raised median island, rather than utilize the existing crosswalks at the nearest signalized intersections (ECR at the Kaiser main entrance and BART Drive). City staff met with Kaiser representatives on November 20, 2006, to discuss the current parking limitations, pedestrian safety issues and proposed solutions to prevent jaywalking. In the last year, there has been one reported accident involving a pedestrian jaywalking toward the hospital. It is clear that patients and Kaiser employees use this portion ofECR to avoid entering the on-site parking areas. Kaiser staff provided the City with its current parking capacity of approximately 1000 vehicles, which includes the parking garage and surface lot surrounding the hospital. The demand for parking is great, with approximately 650 employees (in several shifts) and 700 patients, according to Kaiser. However, the demand fluctuates throughout the day with employees traveling between Kaiser in South San Francisco and Daly City. The east and west sides ofECR in front of Kaiser can accommodate up to 300 vehicles total. During discussions with Kaiser, the installation of signage on the raised median island directing pedestrians to the crosswalks at the signalized intersections was suggested. However, Caltrans indicated Staff Report Subject: EL CAMINO REAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS ACROSS FROM KAISER HOSPITAL Page 2 of3 to City staff that this would not be approved because the signage is not standard. Another option discussed was the installation of a barrier, such as a chain link fence on the median island, to physically prohibit pedestrians from jaywalking. This option is costly and would require approval from Caltrans. Therefore, it was not considered further. Staff conducted several parking counts at the Kaiser garage. Available spaces in the garage and vehicles parked in the proposed ECR "no parking" areas were counted. There was adequate space in the garage to accommodate the vehicles along ECR, putting it near full capacity. In an effort to obtain a more accurate result, it was proposed the City conduct a two week test period, during which temporary barricades with "No Parking" signs would be placed on the shoulder portion ofthe west side of ECR, between the Alta Loma staircase and the Kaiser intersection. City staff met with the businesses on the ECR frontage road to explain the proposed parking restriction and received no objections. The test period for "no parking" on the west side of ECR (between the Alta Loma staircase and the Kaiser main intersection) began January 15, 2007 and continues to be in place. Engineering evaluated several study areas for overflow parking and determined there were no adverse impacts to the surrounding area. According to field counts conducted by City staff, vehicles shifted to just south ofthe restricted parking area (west side ofECR between the Kaiser main intersection and Arroyo Drive) and to the east side of ECR, adjacent to the parking garage. During the test period, pedestrians were observed jaywalking to vehicles parked south ofthe temporary no parking area. Staffis currently extending the no parking area on the west side ofECR south toward Arroyo Drive, in order to prevent jaywalking and will observe if the Kaiser facilities can accommodate the overflow vehicles during peak times. The ECR frontage road will be closely monitored for overflow parking. However, this roadway is limited to two hour parking and is unlikely to attract Kaiser employees or patients. In conducting the studies related to parking on the west side of ECR, staff observed traffic congestion within the Kaiser surface parking lot and garage, making it difficult to maneuver in and out of the facility. It is apparent that their facility is close to, if not at, capacity. It is anticipated that Kaiser will grow over the next few years, but parking issues have not been addressed. Kaiser needs to plan for long term issues and prepare for this possibility. Therefore, staff would like Kaiser to prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to help alleviate current and future parking issues. The TDM would likely include several options to reduce traffic generation, such as: shuttle service for employees traveling between the South San Francisco and Daly City locations, carpooling, and increased pubic transit use. These options would eliminate trips between locations and reduce pollution. In addition, the TDM would provide for an increase in public safety for Kaiser staff, patients and visitors, which was the intention of the parking restrictions on ECR initiated by Kaiser. Staff recommends that Kaiser prepare and implement a TDM plan. Engineering and Planning will meet with Kaiser Representatives to assist them with the process and review their program. Staff Report Subject: EL CAMINO REAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS ACROSS FROM KAISER HOSPITAL Page 3 of3 FUNDING The cost to install and purchase the signs shall be charged to general street maintenance. Staff time to assist Kaiser with preparation and implementation of a TDM program shall be charged to the "Miscellaneous Traffic" fund in the 06 - 07 Capital Improvement Program. CONCLUSION Prohibiting parking along a portion ofthe west side ofECR, across from Kaiser, will discourage unsafe pedestrian jay walking and the recommended implementation of a comprehensive TDM program will address short and long term impacts associated with increased activity at these Kaiser facilities. BY:~~ Marty VanDuyn Assistant City Manager Approve ~ '\ I j /' Attachment: Location Map RR/tas/ de