Agenda packet — Foster City City Council, October 21, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

P
roperty Owner’s Signature: Date:

A
uthorized Agent’s Signature: Date:

A
uthorized Agent Contact Information: (ADDRESS)
(PHONE NUMBER)
(E-MAIL)
PROJECT LOCATION:

FOSTER CITY, CA 94404.

PROJECT SCOPE:

PERMIT APPLICATION # : DATE # :

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

238

1 AF

FIDAVIT OF INTENT TO OWNER-OCCUPY
(URBAN LOT SPLIT APPLICATIONS, ONLY)

1. On _______________
[DATE], I (or my authorized agent) submitted an application to the City of Foster City for an urban lot split to subdivide the real property located at _____________________________ [ADDRESS], Foster City, California, which is also identified as San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Number ____________________, and further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference (hereinafter "the Property"), as provided for in Government Code Section 66411.7 and Foster City Municipal Code Chapter 17.79.

2. I certify that I intend to occupy, as my principal residence and for a period of no less than three (3) years from the date of approval of the urban lot split, one of the dwelling units located on the Property.

3. I understand, consent and agree that the Community Development Department of the City of Foster City may take such action as it deems necessary to verify both the accuracy and veracity of this declaration. I further understand, consent and agree that any person or entity contacted by the Community Development Department, or its contractors, employees, agents, grantees, or designees, in the course of such verification, may release such pertinent information to the Community Development Department, or its contractors, employees, agents, grantees, or designees.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this affidavit was executed on the ____ of ____________, 20___, at ______________, California.
__________________________________
Signature
__________________________________
Printed Name
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

239

2 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the veracity, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of ________________
On _________________ [DATE], before me, ____________________________ [NOTARY NAME], Notary Public, personally appeared __________________________ [APPLICANT NAME], who provide to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subjected to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) executed the instrument.

I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

S
ignature _________________________________
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

240

1 AF
FIDAVIT REGARDING SB 9 PARCEL HISTORY AND USES
(ALL SB 9 APPLICATIONS)

1. I
am the owner of the real property located at _______________________ [ADDRESS], Foster City, California, which is also identified as Assessor's Parcel Number _______________________, and further described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference (hereinafter "the Property").

2. On ___________ [DATE], I, or my authorized agent, submitted an application to the City of Foster City for:
□ An urban lot split subdividing the Property as provided for in California Government Code Section 66411.7 and Foster City Municipal Code Chapter

17.79. □ A two-unit development on the Property as provided for in California Government Code Section 65852.21 and Foster City Municipal Code Chapter

17.79. 3. To my knowledge and belief, the Property is not a parcel on which I, or my predecessor(s), have exercised an owner's rights, under Government Code Sections 7060, et seq., to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within the last 15 years from the date of submittal of the application.

4. Additionally, to my knowledge and belief, any housing units proposed to be demolished or altered on the Property pursuant to this application have not been occupied by a tenant at any time within the last three (3) years.

5. Additionally, to my knowledge and belief, if my application includes an urban lot split, the Property is not a parcel that has been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split.

6. Additionally, I certify that, if my application includes an urban lot split, I have not previously subdivided nor acted in concert with any person to previously subdivide a parcel adjacent to the Property using an urban lot split.

7. I understand that all uses on site are limited to residential uses only .

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

241

2 8. I acknowledge that short-term rentals of less than 30 consecutive days is a prohibited use of the subject property and that all rentals must be terms of 30 or more consecutive days.

9. I understand, consent and agree that the Community Development Department of the City of Foster City may take such action as it deems necessary to verify both the accuracy and veracity of this declaration. I further understand, consent and agree that that any person or entity contacted by the Community Development Department, or its contractors, agents, employees, grantees, or designees, in the course of such verification, may release such pertinent information to the Community Development Department, or its contractors, employees, agents, grantees, or designees.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this affidavit was executed on the ____ of ____________, 20___, at ______________, California.

__________________________________
Signature
__________________________________
Printed Name

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

242

3 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the veracity, accuracy, or validity of that document.

I certify, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California, that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.

Signature _________________________________

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

243

610 Foster City Blvd., Foster City CA, 94404 ▪ 650.286.3225 ▪ E-mail us at: [email protected] ▪ Website: www.fostercity.org Counter Hours: 8am – 12pm and 1pm – 4:30pm ▪ Monday – Thursday. Closed Fridays. □ The parcel is located within:
• Single Family Residence District R-1; or
• Single Family Residence/Planned Development District R-1/PD Interactive Zoning Map: https://www.fostercity.org/community/page/arcgis-maps. □ Project includes residential uses only.
□ The parcel is NOT located in any of the specified designated areas except where it may be allowed if certain criteria are met:
a. Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance,
b. Wetlands as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2, c. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, d. A very high fire hazard severity zone,
e. A delineated earthquake fault zone,
f. A 100-year floodplain or a floodway,
g. Lands identified for conservation,
h. Habitat for protected species;
□ The parcel is NOT located on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application. □ The parcel is NOT located within a historic district, included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. □ The project would NOT require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
• Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. • Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. • Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years. □ Proposed rental units will not be used for short-term rentals of less than 30 days. □ Parking. Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that no parking requirements shall be imposed in either of the following:
□ The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor (PRC Section 21155) or a major transit stop (PRC Section 21064.3); or □ There is a car share located within one block of the parcel. □ Each primary unit in the SB 9 Two Unit Development will be served by separate water, sewer and electrical utility connections.
□ Objective Development standards per the underlying zoning district.

SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENT ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT
This Checklist is Not Exhaustive and All SB 9 Projects are Required to Comply with the Foster City Municipal C
ode and State Law
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

244

610 Foster City Blvd., Foster City CA, 94404 ▪ 650.286.3225 ▪ E-mail us at: [email protected] ▪ Website: www.fostercity.org Counter Hours: 8am – 12pm and 1pm – 4:30pm ▪ Monday – Thursday. Closed Fridays. □ A COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM & APPLICABLE FEE (SEE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE) One copy of a signed SB 9 Planning Application Form and Property Owner Authorization Form. Refer to the Master Fee Schedule for the most up-to-date fees.
□ BUILDING PERMIT ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM (SEE LINK)
□ PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
Verification of property ownership in the form of a preliminary title report that is no more than a year old, showing the current owners of the property, the names of record owners of the land , and all existing easements and other reservations, restrictions, or covenants.
□ WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A written description of the proposed project, which may be included on the cover sheet of the plan set. □ LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

An accurate legal description of the property.
□ PLANS
Digital PDF submittal is preferred. If a hard copy submittal is made, provide 3 copies of 11” x 17” and 1 copy of 24” x 36” fully scaled and dimensioned plans.

A. COVER SHEET
□ Project Information, including s ite address, APN, z oning classification, and existing and proposed number of units.
□ Project Summary Table (see attached).
□ Floor Area and Coverage Calculation Diagram (see attached).

B. SITE PLAN (scaled: 1/4" = 1', 1/8" = 1', or 1" = 10') □ N
orth arrow and scale.
□ All dimensioned property lines consistent with the Site Survey, street names and significant easements. (Note:
property line dimensions must match those shown on the County Assessor’s Map for the parcel). □ Location of existing and proposed buildings, additions or structures with dimensions to property lines, and dimensions of proposed structure or addition. (Note that the dimensions should match those shown on the floor plan and elevations.) Shade the areas of additions, including a differentiation between first and second floor additions. Indicate direction of roof slope and eave overhangs □ Location and identification of items of all utilities (PG&E, water, sewer lateral, and sewer cleanout) and any obstructions on sidewalks and curbs, such as fire hydrants, utility meters, utility poles, and streetlights. □ Location of all walks, driveways, vehicle storage areas, stairs, fences, gates, retaining walls and lagoon bulkhead. □ Footprint and overhangs or projections (eaves/bay windows/chimneys/balconies/decks) for all structures located on the site. Include all accessory structures, covered patios, covered porches, carports, outdoor mechanical equipment, and any structures with walls and/or a roof on the property. □ All required garage and uncovered parking stalls.
□ All landscaping on the site plan (or landscape plan, if one is necessary). Locate and identify all existing major SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) TWO-UNIT DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT
This Checklist is Not Exhaustive and All SB 9 Projects are Required to Comply with the Foster City Municipal C
ode and State Law
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

245

trees and shrubs and areas of ground cover, lawn, concrete and wood decking. Identify landscaping proposed be removed and added with the proposal.

C. FLOOR PLAN (scaled: ¼” = 1’)
□ Overall exterior dimensions and individual room dimensions for all levels and stories. □ Location of all doors and windows, including window sizes. □ Label or shade all walls and structures proposed to be demolished. Provide the calculation of the percentage of exterior walls to be demolished or converted. Provide the calculation of the total lineal feet of existing exterior walls and the total lineal feet proposed for demolition. Existing exterior walls that are converted to interior walls shall be counted as walls to be demolished. Doors, including garage doors, entry doors, and sliding glass doors, shall not be included in the percentage calculation of an existing structure’s exterior walls.) D. FLOOR AREA AND COVERAGE CALCULATIONS (SEE ATTACHED)
E. ELEVATIONS (scaled: ¼” = 1’)
□ Separate elevations are labeled north, south, east, and west for the new SB 9 unit(s). □ Height and width of all exterior walls or elevations, including ceiling/plate heights and finished floor. □ Height, configuration, slope, and overhang of roof.
□ All rooftop equipment and roofing materials/color (existing and proposed). □ Type of exterior treatment, materials and colors for siding, windows, trim, detailing, etc. □ Size and location of doors and windows (if not shown on floor plan). (Note that the window and door locations and sizes must match those shown on the floor plan.)
□ Stairs, decks, chimneys, balconies, etc.

F. ROOF PLAN (scaled: ¼” = 1’)
□ Show the roof slope and the direction of the slope.
□ Show roof pitches and dimension overhang depths.
□ Show and shade any areas of an existing roof proposed for demolition. Provide the calculation of the % of the existing roof structure to be demolished.
□ ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT (SEE ATTACHED)
□ RECORDED COVENANT
The applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form prescribed by the Department, which shall run with the land and provide for the following:
□ A limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and □ A requirement that any dwelling units on the property may be rented or leased only for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
□ PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY (IN COLOR)
Provide digital photographs of the project site(s) along with photos of the adjacent properties. □ OUTDOOR WATER EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST
□ MATERIALS AND COLOR SAMPLES (IF REQUESTED BY STAFF)
□ LETTER FROM HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (HOA) (IF APPLICABLE) For properties located within Planned Developments, a letter demonstrating written action by the HOA on the proposal shall be obtained prior to submitting plans to the City.

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

246

610 Foster City Blvd., Foster City CA, 94404 ▪ 650.286.3225 ▪ E-mail us at: [email protected] ▪ Website: www.fostercity.org Counter Hours: 8am – 12pm and 1pm – 4:30pm ▪ Monday – Thursday. Closed Fridays. □ The parcel is located in:
• Single Family Residence District R-1; or
• Single Family Residence/Planned Development District R-1/PD Interactive Zoning Map: https://www.fostercity.org/community/page/arcgis-maps. □ Project includes residential uses only.
□ The parcel is NOT located in any of the specified designated areas except where it may be allowed if certain criteria are met:
a. Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance,
b. Wetlands as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2, c. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5, d. A very high fire hazard severity zone,
e. A delineated earthquake fault zone,
f. A 100-year floodplain or a floodway,
g. Lands identified for conservation,
h. Habitat for protected species;
□ The parcel is NOT located on a parcel on which the owner has withdrawn it from renting or leasing under Section 7060 of the Government Code within 15 years preceding the development application. □ The parcel is NOT located within a historic district, included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district. □ The project would NOT require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
• Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income. • Housing that is subject to rent control through valid local rent control provisions. • Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years. □ Proposed rental units will not be used for short-term rentals of less than 30 days. □ Parking. Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that no parking requirements shall be imposed in either of the following:
□ The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor (PRC Section 21155) or a major transit stop (PRC Section 21064.3); or □ There is a car share located within one block of the parcel. □ Any proposed primary unit will be served by separate water, sewer and electrical utility connections. □ Objective design and zoning standards shall be met except if it would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of two units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.
□ Proposed urban lot split results in two parcels of approximately equal lot area (60/40 split at most), with each new parcel containing at least 1,200 square feet.
□ Each newly-created parcel has access to or adjoins the public right -of-way, sufficient to allow development on the parcel to comply with any property access requirements under the California Fire Code Section 503 and Title 14, California Code Regulations section 1273.00 et seq., when applicable to the parcel. □ The parcel was not established through a prior Urban Lot Split.

SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) URBAN LOT SPLIT ELIGIBILITY CHECKLIST

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT
This Checklist is Not Exhaustive and All SB 9 Projects are Required to Comply with the Foster City Municipal C
ode and State Law
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

247

□ The Urban Lot Split conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seq.), except as otherwise provided.
□ Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an Urban Lot Split. □ The proposed new parcels are intended for exclusively residential use. □ The property owner intends to occupy one of the units constructed as a result of the Urban Lot Split as their primary residence for a minimum of three years.
□ The Urban Lot Split will not result in a structure being split over the two (2) parcels.

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

248

610 Foster City Blvd., Foster City CA, 94404 ▪ 650.286.3225 ▪ E-mail us at: [email protected] ▪ Website: www.fostercity.org Counter Hours: 8am – 12pm and 1pm – 4:30pm ▪ Monday – Thursday. Closed Fridays. □ A COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM & APPLICABLE FEE (SEE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE) One copy of a signed SB 9 Planning Application Form and Property Owner Authorization Form. Refer to the Master Fee Schedule for the most up-to-date fees.
□ URBAN LOT SPLIT QUALIFYING CRITERIA CHECKLIST
□ PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
Verification of property ownership in the form of a preliminary title report that is no more than a year old, showing the current owners of the property, the names of record owners of the land, and all existing easements and other reservations, restrictions, or covenants.
□ WRITTEN PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A written description of the proposed project, which may be included on the cover sheet of the plan set □ SITE SURVEY
A full site boundary survey is required for all subdivisions and is required to be stamped and signed by a Land Surveyor licensed by the State of California
□ Shall illustrate the legal boundaries, dimensions of all property lines, easements, right-of-way, creeks, public utilities and utility poles, location of all existing improvements/structures, setback of existing improvements/structures, tree trunks, tree species (if possible) and accurate depiction of tree canopies/drip line along with spot elevations across the site
□ If located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, the survey must show the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and the elevation of the lowest floor of the proposed structure □ PLANS
Digital PDF submittal is preferred. If a hard copy submittal is made, provide 3 copies of 11” x 17” and 1 copy of 24” x 36” fully scaled and dimensioned plans.
□ Residential Data Information (Cover Sheet)
□ Project Information, including site address, APN, zoning classification, and existing and proposed number of units.
□ Setbacks to existing or proposed dwelling unit(s), if applicable. □ Residential Data Information (Plans)
□ Location of proposed Urban Lot Split.
□ Parcel Map number (if assigned).
□ Date of preparation.
□ North arrow and scale
□ Names, addresses and telephone numbers of: the record owner, subdividers; and the person who prepared the map (registration or license numbers shall be provided). □ Lot lines, approximate dimensions of all lots and their area to the nearest square foot.

SENATE BILL 9 (SB 9) URBAN LOT SPLIT SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST

CITY OF FOSTER CITY

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

PLANNING/CODE ENFORCEMENT
This Checklist is Not Exhaustive and All SB 9 Projects are Required to Comply with the Foster City Municipal C
ode and State Law
DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

249

□ Lot or parcel numbers in consecutive sequence.
□ Location, name, and present improved width(s) of the adjacent street(s) (if applicable). □ Lot, block and parcel numbers of adjacent lots and the name of the owner of record. □ Location, width and outline to scale of all existing and proposed:
o Pedestrian paths; pubic areas; conservation easements; and public utilities easements o Size of storm drains, sanitary sewers, gas and water lines and source of water supply and sewage disposal
o Fire hydrants, power, and telephone or communications lines and other public utilities o Provisions for drainage, flood and erosion control
o Building sites; driveways; fences; retaining walls; swimming pools; including whether they are to remain or be removed, and the distances between buildings and between buildings and proposed or existing property lines and other structures o Centerline, existing ground and finished grade elevations of all streets, including the radii of all curves, sanitary sewer and storm drains
o Typical cross sections of all streets, and when required by the City engineer, detail of curbs, gutters, walks, trails and other improvements drawn to scale and clearly showing all details
o Location, species, and size of all street trees
□ Any proposed conditions, restrictions, and covenants
□ Preliminary soils report and the report of an engineering geologist, provided that the latter may be waived by the City engineer.
□ Approval letter from private utilities or pubic agencies regarding adequacy of utility installations and the rights-of-way or easements.
□ ADDITIONAL AFFIDAVIT (SEE ATTACHED)
□ RECORDED COVENANT
Prior to the approval and recordation of the parcel map, the applicant shall record a restrictive covenant and agreement in the form prescribed by the Department, which shall run with the land and provide:

1. a prohibition against further subdivision of the parcel using the Urban Lot Split procedures,

2. a limitation restricting the property to residential uses only; and

3. a requirement that any dwelling units on the property may be rented or leased only for a period longer than thirty (30) days.
□ PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY (IN COLOR)
Provide digital photographs of the project site(s) along with photos of the adjacent properties □ LETTER FROM HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (HOA) (IF APPLICABLE) For properties located within Planned Developments, a letter demonstrating written action by the HOA on the proposal shall be obtained prior to submitting plans to the City.

DRAFT

7.2 Attachment 3 - SB9 Supporting Documents

250

DATE: October 21, 2024

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City Manager

FROM: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director
Helen Gannon, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT: Community Development
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A 770 SQUARE FEET

ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY

HOME INCLUDING CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITIONAL

DRIVEWAY ON THE SITE AND MODIFYING THE EXISTING

SHARED DRIVEWAY AND OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS
LOCATED AT 106 CHALLENGE COURT IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1
– AR2023-0004

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission approving an Architectural Review Permit (AR2023-004) to construct a 770 square foot (SF) addition to the front and rear of an existing single-story single-family home located at 106 Challenge Court, including construction of an additional driveway on the site and modifying the existing shared driveway with 104 Challenge Court, and other site improvements; take testimony on the project application and conduct the appeal in accordance with the City’s adopted procedures; deliberate, and by Minute Order, provide direction to staff on one of the following options:

1. Deny the Appeal and uphold/approve or modify the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an Architectural Review Permit AR2023-004 by Resolution No. P-19-24 and find that the project is exempt from the California

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

251

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

2. Grant the Appeal and overturn/disapprove or modify the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an Architectural Review Permit AR2023-004 by Resolution No. P-19-24 and find that the project is exempt from the CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).

Based on the Council’s direction, staff will return with an appropriate Resolution for adoption at a future meeting.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 21, 2024, the City received an appeal from Nancy E Harmon and William H Borter, the owners of 104 Challenge Court (“Appellant”), regarding the decision of the Planning Commission approving Architectural Review Permit (AR2023-0004) to construct a total of 770 SF addition to the front and rear elevations of the single-story single-family residence located at 106 Challenge Court, including construction of an additional driveway on the site and modifying the existing shared driveway with 104 Challenge Court, addition of six new skylights, expansion of an existing covered patio in the rear, and finding that the project is exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301.

The Appellant, in their Appeal Memo (Attachment 1), lists two (2) specific items of appeal stating: 1) that eliminating over 80% of the portion of the shared driveway that exists on the property of 106 Challenge Court will cause significant parking, access, and circulation impacts to their property. Referring to the peer review done by Traffic Patterns, they also note that the templates used in the Applicant's traffic study were "incorrectly applied" and do not reflect current best practices; and 2) that the proposed new fence along the property line in the middle of the shared driveway was not shown on the plans and is intended to mislead the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the severity of the potential for harm to them. Additionally, the Appellant lists four (4) bases for the appeal to support the two (2) specific items of appeal noted above.

The Planning Commission deliberated on the proposed project at three (3) public meetings. The Commission continued the item at the first meeting on September 7, 2023, to allow time for Kirti Patel, the homeowner of 106 Challenge Court (“Applicant”), to work with the owners of 104 Challenge Court towards a mutually agreeable project. The Commission then considered the project at the August 15, 2024, meeting and ultimately approved the Project and subsequently approved the resolution approving the project at the September 5, 2024, meeting. Meanwhile, staff received an appeal from the property owners of 104 Challenge Court on August 21, 2024. Staff then scheduled the appeal hearing for the October 21, 2024, City Council Meeting.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

252

The three (3) Planning Commission meetings are described in further detail under the Background section.

BACKGROUND
The project is proposed on an 8,712-SF parcel located at 106 Challenge Court. The site is located on the southeastern side of Challenge Court. The existing one-story house was built in 1964 and features four (4) bedrooms and 1,784 sf of living space. The subject property is surrounded by other one-story single-family residences (Figure 1). Houses in the neighborhood predominantly consist of one-story houses and include a mix of Ranch Style and Eichler homes.

Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Source: Google Maps (August 2023)
Red – Applicant property; Blue – Appellant property
The existing house includes a side-facing garage with an existing front yard setback of 20 feet and a left side yard setback of approximately 7 feet. Both 106 and 104 Challenge Court currently have side-facing garage doors and utilize an 18-foot-wide shared driveway that straddles across both properties (Figure 2).

The property line runs in the middle of the shared driveway and provides vehicular access to both the garages of 104 and 106 Challenge Court. Shared driveways in Neighborhood 1 are rare, but not entirely uncommon. It should be noted that the Final Map for the subject property was recorded in 1963 when the subject lots were still within the unincorporated area of the County and does not show the two (2) lots, 104 and 106 Challenge Court, sharing a common driveway or any recorded easements.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

253

Figure 2: Shared Driveway (Existing)
Source: Google Maps (June 2022)

History of the Architectural Review Permit
On January 24, 2023, staff received an application for an Architectural Review permit from the property owners of 106 Challenge Court. The proposed project includes an addition to an existing house and other site improvements identified in Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC) Sections 17.58.020(A)(1), (2) and (3) and therefore, required an administrative level Architectural Review Permit approval.

On February 16, 2023, an incompleteness letter outlining unfulfilled submittal requirements, including a request for a driveway operation study by a qualified engineer to verify that the driveway, with the proposed modifications, that will continue to serve 104 Challenge Court is adequate and up to standard, was sent to the Applicant.

On May 1, 2023, revised plans and supplemental materials were provided. The response letter noted that the “Driveway Study is in progress and will be submitted once ready.” Subsequently, a Driveway Study prepared by Kimley-Horn was submitted. However, the submitted analysis did not provide a conclusion or statement from the qualified consultant on whether the proposal would be consistent with the 25-foot turning radius for garages where the access does not directly face the street, as required by FCMC Section

17.04.020.

On May 12, 2023, City staff sent a second incompleteness letter sharing comments on the Driveway Study, shared comments from the Engineering Division, and encouraged the Applicant to continue to work with their neighbor.

On June 20, 2023, staff received an updated driveway study by Kimley-Horn. Due to the unique nature of the proposal, staff contracted with another firm, Traffic Patterns, to conduct a peer review of the Driveway Study by Kimley-Horn. On August 24, 2023, Traffic Patterns provided their conclusions and findings to staff. The Applicant and staff noted a

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

254

few issues in the peer review drawings regarding the location of the addition in relation to the side property line. The comments were passed on to Traffic Patterns, and they provided an updated report.

Staff determined the application to be complete when all revised plans and supplemental materials were resubmitted. Staff then scheduled the project for a Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 7, 2023. The complete set of plans is available in Attachment 2.

Due to the unique nature of the project, with the proposed modified shared driveway access, the Community Development Director determined that the project scope required review by the Planning Commission for final action pursuant to FCMC Section

17.58.040.C.2. In addition, staff did not bring forward any recommendation to the Planning Commission as there were no specific or clear development standards or code requirements applicable to shared private driveways.

PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
On September 7, 2023, staff presented the applicant’s proposal to the Planning Commission. The Commission considered the request and all plans and supplemental information, including the Driveway Study (Attachment 4) prepared by Kimley Horn (the consultant) and the peer review prepared by Traffic Patterns (Attachment 5). Kimley Horn and Traffic Patterns were present at the meeting to answer questions. In the staff report, staff noted that pursuant to FCMC Section 17.58.050, the following findings must be made by the deciding body in order to approve or deny the Architectural Review application:

A. That the proposal is consistent with the Foster City general plan and Title 17, Zoning, and Chapter 2.28, Planning, of the Foster City Municipal Code.

B. That the design of the proposal is appropriate to the city, the neighborhood and the lot in which it is proposed.

C. That the design of the proposal is compatible with its environment with respect to use, forms, materials, colors, setbacks, location, height, design, or similar qualities as specified in section 17.58.010.

The Applicant for 106 Challenge Court shared his family’s needs, including separate office spaces to work from home and their desire for a single-story addition, keeping in mind the privacy of their neighbors and the characteristics of an Eichler home. The Applicant noted that they had accommodated all changes in their final design per their neighbor’s requests, and that there is no legal record of a shared driveway. He explained that Kimley-Horn prepared a Driveway Study using the two (2) largest minivans. The Applicant shared driveway layout examples from the surrounding neighborhood at the meeting, including 103 and 105 Challenge Court and 650 Matsonia Drive.

The Planning Commission primarily examined and asked questions regarding the potential impact of the proposed driveway modifications on the neighboring property at 104 Challenge Court due to the proposed 552 SF front addition. Questions were raised

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

255

about on-street parking loss due to the additional driveway and how driveway design would affect vehicle movement for 104 Challenge Court or emergency vehicles.

At the Meeting, Kimley-Horn presented the Driveway Study and demonstrated that a large minivan could access both garage stalls and surface stalls from a reverse entry standpoint in a single movement and that the same could be said for the garage stall and surface stall furthest from the street. Kimley-Horn further noted that the only movement that is challenged is parking in either the surface stall or garage stall that is closest to the street because it would require a 3-point turn. However, Kimley-Horn did conclude that continuing to access the parking stalls would be feasible with the added safety measure of either bollards or planters to protect the proposed addition. The Commissioners asked whether there were any changes in best practices for single-movement entry and exit from driveways and garages. The Kimley-Horn representative stated that 3-point turns are consistent with current engineering standards and noted that the peer reviewer report by Traffic Patterns reflected a difference in opinions.

Traffic Patterns, who peer-reviewed the Kimley-Horn Study on behalf of the city, mentioned that he was unaware of anything in the Bay Area that designs any new construction project where a movement cannot be conducted in a single movement. The peer reviewer believed that there is a significant impact on the homeowners at 104 Challenge Court due to the inability to get in and out of either of their parking spaces in a single movement.

The Applicant and Kimley-Horn emphasized that the Driveway Study was based on a worst-case scenario, utilizing larger cars than would typically be maneuvered in and out of parking stalls. The Commissioners also questioned if widening the driveway of 106 Challenge Court would lessen the impact, to which Kimely-Horn replied that it would not make a difference. The Appellant, at the time, expressed concerns about vehicular circulation and property value, emphasizing the need for a clearer visual representation of the project’s impact.

One of the Commissioners emphasized the importance of objectivity, facts, and data.

Most of the Planning Commission noted that they would not be able to make at least one (1) of the three (3) required findings (noted above) and asked the Applicant if they were willing to modify the project design.

The Applicant explained that many options were considered and discussed with their neighbors prior to the September 7, 2023, meeting and that their design options were limited due to property constraints. The neighbor requested that the Applicant install story poles and mesh so that they can simulate driving maneuvers and assess the feasibility of entering and exiting their garage parking stalls. Although the Applicant agreed to placing temporary barriers (story poles) up, based on the Appellant and Planning Commission’s request, the Applicant ultimately did not fulfill the request.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission continued the item to a date uncertain in order to allow the property owners to continue working towards a mutually agreeable

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

256

project by a vote of 3-1-0-1 (Noes: Venkat; Absent: Bronitsky). Refer to the Meeting Minutes in Attachment 7.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING AUGUST 15, 2024
On July 16, 2024, staff received an email from the Applicant indicating their intent to proceed with a hearing on the proposed project. Subsequently, on July 24, 2024, staff received a letter (Attachment 6) detailing all efforts made with the neighbors at 104 Challenge Court since the September 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting. To staff’s knowledge, both the homeowners of 106 and 104 Challenge Court were unable to find a mutually agreeable design, and the Applicant noted that the project scope remained unchanged since the previous meeting.

At the August 15, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, staff presented the project proposal to the Commission for the second time. In the staff report, it was noted that since the September 7, 2023, meeting, the City Council had adopted Ordinance No. 672, which revised the required findings in FCMC 17.58.050. In order to approve or deny the Architectural Review application, the deciding body must make the following findings:

A. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Foster City general plan and Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code.

B. That the design of the proposal conforms to city’s objective design and development standards and other adopted guidelines.

The Applicant also gave a presentation, in which he emphasized all the efforts which had taken place since the previous meeting to reach some agreement with the property owners at 104 Challenge Court, including offering to pay for the expansion of the driveway at 104 Challenge Court. He stated that no mutual agreement was reached and that not being able to move forward with the project had begun to impact the quality of his family’s life. The Applicant also showed photographs of other residences in Neighborhood 1 that utilize similarly configured driveways and photographs illustrating 104 Challenge Court occupying the 9 feet width portion of their driveway for storage of personal construction materials. These photos were shown to demonstrate that maneuvering in and out is possible with only access to one side of the existing driveway.

The Applicant indicated that there is an ongoing civil lawsuit with the property owners of 104 Challenge Court regarding their claims relating to the driveway, and no decision has been made regarding that case. The City Attorney confirmed that the ongoing civil lawsuit does not prevent the Planning Commission or the City from processing the application.

The Applicant was asked if alternate design options were considered, and he stated that they explored all options, from a larger addition in the rear to expanding further in the front, even adding a second story, but that none of the alternate design options were viable for various reasons. One of the Commissioners recommended an alternative design option that they felt could be feasible, as a suggestion.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

257

27 public comments were received prior to the meeting, and a total of five (5) speakers provided testimony at the public hearing, including the owners of 104 Challenge Court (Appellant). After the conclusion of the public comments, the Commissioners made the following comments during deliberations:

Commissioner Venkat noted that the owner of 104 Challenge Court expressed safety concerns at the first meeting, but at the last meeting, they mentioned buying a recreational vehicle (RV) one day. She asked if there were multiple concerns expressed and whether the reason for rejecting the proposal was due to safety and aging concerns, or if it was related to the purchase of an RV. She emphasized that the project should be approved since it meets the objective standards.

Commissioner Jagtiani stated that the project meets the two (2) required findings, and that the proposal is within the policies and regulations of Foster City. He noted that the applicant has gone above and beyond by offering to pay for 50% of the driveway improvements for their neighbors at 104 Challenge Court. He also appreciated that the Applicant showed the pros and cons of a hammerhead driveway versus a private driveway.

Commissioner Pedro appreciated the public involvement at the meeting. He agreed with his fellow Commissioners and stated that the project meets the City’s criteria and the required findings.

Chair Haddad noted that the proposed addition is oversized for a location in front of the house and driveway and is causing an issue between the two (2) properties. He stated that he cannot approve a project that is not in compliance and is making an existing issue worse. He explained that there are other options and suggested flipping the design.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission approved the project and directed staff to return with an appropriate resolution to approve AR2023-0004 at the next Planning Commission meeting by a vote of 3-1-0-1 (Noes: Haddad; Absent: Bronitsky). Refer to the Meeting Minutes in Attachment 8.

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING SEPTEMBER 5, 2024
Based on the decision made at the August 15, 2024, Planning Commission meeting, staff returned with a Resolution of approval for AR2023-0004. On September 5, 2024, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. P-19-24 by a vote of 2-1-0-2 (Noes:

Haddad; Absent: Bronitsky, Jagtiani).

ANALYSIS
The subject property is located in the R-1 Single-Family Residence zoning district and is subject to the City’s adopted Municipal Codes, Citywide Policies, and Architectural & Solar Guidelines. Staff evaluated the proposed design for compatibility with the

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

258

neighborhood, code requirements, and architecture of the existing house and others in the surrounding neighborhood, as well as with the FCMC zoning requirements.

GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY

General Plan Land Use

The Land Use Map of the General Plan designates the use of the subject site as “Single Family Residential.” The City’s General Plan states that up to 8 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) are allowed in this land use designation.

Staff comments: According to the General Plan, the subject site is designated for Single Family Residential, and the proposed first-story addition and remodel is consistent with the single-family use of the property.

Foster City Municipal Code

Chapter 17.12 (R-1 Single-Family Residence District)

The proposed project must comply with the standards of the R-1 zoning district related to setbacks, height, lot coverage, minimum lot size, minimum floor area, and all other relevant development standards. Table 1 identifies the applicable standards of the R-1 zoning district, including the property’s compliance with development standards as existing and proposed.

Table 1. R-1 District Development Standards
CODE

REQUIREMENTS

EXISTING PROPOSED
Height* Average 25’-0” max. 11’ – 8” No change
Front Yard Setback 20’ Minimum 20’ – 0” No change
Rear Yard Setback 20’ Minimum 44’ – 10” 36’ – 5”
Left Side Yard Setback 5’ Minimum 7’ – 1”
(To
Garage)
No change
Right Side Yard Setback 5’ Minimum 9’ – 11” 6’ – 5”
Lot** Coverage 50% max. 31.5% 40.8%
*Section 17.04.240, Definitions, Height of building, of the Foster City Municipal Code defines building height as the average height of a sloped roof. **Coverage includes the land area covered by all buildings on a lot, including all projections except eaves.

Staff Comments: The proposed project is a 218 SF addition in the rear, a 552 SF addition to the front of the residence, addition of six (6) new skylights, an expansion of the existing covered patio in the rear, and the relocation of the driveway access for 106 Challenge Court. Upon review, staff determined that the proposed addition and remodel

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

259

are consistent with the applicable standards of the R-1 Zoning requirements (as shown in Table 1 above).

Proposed Addition - Architectural and Solar Guidelines

As noted earlier, the applicant is proposing a 218 SF addition in the rear, a 552 SF addition to the front of the residence, and an expansion of the existing covered patio in the rear, addition of six (6) new skylights and interior remodeling.

Staff reviewed the proposed addition for compliance with the requirements of Chapter

17.58 Architectural Control and Supervision of the Municipal Code and the City’s Architectural and Solar Guidelines.

Proposed driveway addition and modifications to existing shared driveway The properties at 106 Challenge Court and 104 Challenge Court currently share an 18- foot-wide driveway to access each of their garages. The proposed 552 SF front addition at 106 Challenge Court extends out to entirely cover the private driveway space in front of 106 Challenge Court’s existing garage as well as a small portion of the 18-foot shared driveway space. Plans for 106 Challenge Court show the existing side facing garage that has access from the shared driveway being modified to a front (street) facing garage with access from a new driveway/curb cut.

The Foster City Municipal Code has the following provisions for garages and driveways:
Section 17.04.230 Definitions, provides the definition of “garage” and states “a turning radius of at least twenty-five feet shall be required for any garage where the access does not directly face the street.”
Section 17.50.030 Garage Entries includes “Residential garage entrances opening on any front or side lot shall be located with the opening a minimum of twenty feet from the lot line unless in a planned development (PD) district and waived pursuant to Chapter 17.36.”
17.62.050 Design standards, Driveways providing access to garages, carports and parking areas serving three or less dwelling units shall be a minimum of ten feet in width for one-way traffic, and twenty feet for two-way traffic.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

260

Existing Site Plan Proposed Site Plan
Figure 3: Existing & Proposed Site Plans
Source: Plans Submitted by Applicant, Sheet A1.1
As noted previously, there are no specific standards or code requirements applicable to shared driveways in the Foster City Municipal Code. Staff required the Applicant to submit a Driveway Study completed by a qualified engineer that verifies that the current shared driveway (after the modifications) that will continue to serve 104 Challenge Court is adequate and up to standard and that the property owners of 104 Challenge Court can continue to access their driveway with the proposed addition.

Driveway Study by Kimley-Horn (Attachment 4)
The Kimley-Horn Driveway Study, prepared on behalf of the Applicant, provided four (4) exhibits illustrating reverse entry and head-in entry into both garage parking stalls at 104 Challenge Court, as well as reverse departure and head-out departure from the parking spaces of 104 Challenge Court. The study demonstrates that 104 Challenge Court can continue to access its driveway with the proposed addition. It should also be noted that the illustration in these exhibits does not accurately reflect the proposed front addition, since the study was completed prior to the Applicant making changes to the project based on the Appellant’s request. The Applicant’s proposed plans illustrate a revision to eliminate the furthest most corner (closest to 104 Challenge Court) of the proposed front addition.

The analysis was completed based on a worst-case scenario, utilizing two (2) large minivans for the study. The turn movements were illustrated based on the assumption that the second minivan was parked on the driveway (surface) stall in front of the 104 Challenge Court garage at all times. In previous conversations with staff and at the September 7, 2023, Planning Commission meeting, Kimley-Horn indicated that a large van could access both garage stalls and surface stalls from a reverse entry standpoint in a single movement and that the same could be said for the garage stall and surface stall furthest from the street. In response to the Commission’s question at the September 7,

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

261

2023, meeting, Kimley-Horn stated that 3-point turns are consistent with current engineering standards.

Peer Review by Traffic Patterns (Attachment 5)
Subsequently, staff had the Kimley-Horn Study, including the Exhibits, peer-reviewed by Traffic Patterns. Traffic Patterns stated that they are unaware of any examples in the Bay Area that designs a new construction project where a movement cannot be conducted in a single movement. They believed that there is a significant impact on the homeowners at 104 Challenge Court due to the inability to get in and out of either of their parking spaces in a single movement.

The peer reviewer stated that during site planning for parking operations, the engineering best practice is for a motorist to achieve entry and exit from a residential property as a single movement without the need for 2- or 3-point turns to reposition a vehicle in or from a rest location. Under the current shared driveway condition configuration for 106 Challenge Court and 104 Challenge Court, access into both private garages and on-site parking for each lot can be accommodated as a single-entry movement and single “back- out” movement as the movements are unimpeded. The peer review study states that the Kimley-Horn memo fails to note impacts to this existing single-access movement condition.

Traffic Patterns also noted that the Kimley-Horn vehicle turning templates are drawn in segments and do not represent continuous vehicle movements. The vehicle overhangs, if shown properly for all movements, would strike existing vegetation at 104 Challenge Court and would potentially impact proposed site improvements at 106 Challenge Court.

The vehicle turning templates can be used to demonstrate parking and circulation, but do not accurately represent the full vehicle movements required for site entry and exit movements.

Staff comments: Refer to the Appeal Section of the Staff Report.

Review by the Public Works Department
The application was also routed to the Public Works Department for review, which indicated that the proposal would require an encroachment permit for the construction of the driveway and recommended bollards for added safety.

Findings Required
As part of the implementation of the Housing Element program H-D-6-a, FCMC Chapter

17.58 was amended on January 16, 2024, via Ordinance No. 674. Based on the code amendments, the required findings applicable to the approval of an Architectural Review were amended. As discussed previously, at the time of the Planning Commission Public Hearing on September 7, 2023, the Planning Commission was unable to make one of the findings under the previous code as it relates to the proposal being appropriate to the neighborhood.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

262

Based on the revised code, at the September 5, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission was able to find:

A. That the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Foster City general plan and Title 17, Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code.

B. That the design of the proposal conforms to city’s objective design and development standards and other adopted guidelines.

The Planning Commission approved the project via Resolution No. P-19-24 by a vote of 2-1-0-2 (Noes: Haddad; Absent: Bronitsky, Jagtiani). The findings were included in the approved Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24 (Attachment 3).

APPEAL
The Appeal (Attachment 1) lists various arguments in disagreement of the project and objects to the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project. Staff has provided a summary of the arguments raised by the Appeal below followed by staff comments:
1) Eliminate well over 80% of the portion of the shared driveway that exists on the property of 106 Challenge Court, thus causing, in the words of the report from Traffic Patterns "significant parking, access, and circulation impacts to 104 Challenge Court." Additionally, Traffic Patterns finds that the templates used in the applicant's study were "incorrectly applied" and do not reflect current best practices. This is further detailed in the full report from Traffic Patterns, which is already on file.

Staff comments: The proposed project plans illustrate that the 18-foot driveway approach width will remain as is, while the area of the driveway directly in front of the 106 Challenge Court garage will be eliminated to accommodate the front addition. The existing side-facing garage at 106 Challenge Court has been modified to a front-facing garage with new driveway access. The proposed addition (front and rear) is entirely contained within the applicant’s property. There are no recorded easements or other legal documents that outline the shared driveway access agreement or the use of the driveway area in front of the garages for both properties. Given that there were no specific standards or code requirements applicable to shared driveways in the Foster City Municipal Code and the fact that there were no legally recorded easements, staff required the applicant to submit a Driveway Study completed by a qualified engineer to confirm that the modified driveway will continue to serve 104 Challenge Court and is up to current engineering standards.

Based on the Applicant’s Kimley-Horn Study, it appears that the property owners of 104 Challenge Court can enter and exit their garage/driveway (in a single- or 3-point turn) as long as their access to the proposed remaining shared driveway remains as is. As noted, the turning movements assume that while one vehicle accesses the driveway to park in the garage or the driveway (surface stall) in front of the garage, the second vehicle is parked in the remaining driveway (surface stall) in front of the garage. Staff thinks that it

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

263

is reasonable to assume that the driveway (surface stalls) in front of the existing garage at 106 Challenge Court can have one or two parked vehicles at all times. In other words, without a legally recorded easement, neither 106 nor 104 Challenge Court can assume that the driveway area (surface stalls) directly in front of their garage is available for unrestricted access by either property owners for turning/maneuverability purposes.

As noted earlier, the Traffic Patterns peer review (Attachment 5) states that “the proposed site improvements (as currently proposed) result in significant parking, access, and circulation impacts to 104 Challenge Ct.” and that “the vehicle turning templates applied to the existing driveway of the neighboring resident (104 Challenge Ct) to the project are incorrectly applied.”

Based on the proposed modifications and maintaining the driveway approach of 18 feet, it appears there may not be maneuverability challenges with single vehicle access and parking; however, there may be maneuverability challenges with two vehicles accessing and parking at the same time. However, staff would like to note that if the driveway area in front of 106 Challenge Court had two large vehicles parked in front of the garage, it would present the same challenges for 104 Challenge Court under the current site conditions.

Staff also consulted another traffic expert, and they noted that there is no engineering standard (single vs. 3-point turn) applicable to single-family driveway access as long as there is no obstruction to sight lines. The subject lots are interior lots (not corner lots or lots on an intersection) in a single-family neighborhood and currently, have no sight obstruction lines when heading in or backing out of the driveway.

However, staff would like to point out that should a fence or other type of barrier be proposed along the entire length of the property line in the future, it would significantly affect the ability of the neighbor to maneuver, access and park their two (2) vehicles at the same time.

While the peer review from Traffic Patterns notes that there will inevitably be a change to the way that the 104 Challenge property is accessed as a result of the project, the Planning Commission determined that the findings required for the Architectural Review Permit pursuant to FCMC 17.58.050(A) and (B) have been met because the project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code requirements and the City’s objective design and development standards and other adopted guidelines.

2) The threatened but so far unshown and ill-defined new fence along the property line in the middle of the shared driveway. We contend that not yet showing the new fence on the plans is calculated to mislead the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the severity of the potential for harm to the owners of 104 Challenge Court.

Staff comments: The proposed project plans considered by the Planning Commission did not illustrate a proposed fence and thus was not reviewed by staff or the Planning

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

264

Commission. However, it shall be noted that fences in the front yard and/or side yard are subject to the fence regulations outlined in FCMC Chapter 17.52, Fences, Hedges and Walls and are subject to height and certain materials requirements.

BASES FOR APPEAL
3) The applicant has served us with a lawsuit regarding both our property rights and that lawsuit has not been decided. To proceed with their project at this time could result in the need to deconstruct the entire portion of the addition that would replace their portion of the shared driveway.

Staff Comments: The civil lawsuit is between the two (2) property owners. The City of Foster City is not involved in the civil lawsuit and has not received any orders from the relevant court to state the City’s consideration of the Architectural Review of the project.

As such, the City is obligated to consider the application and approve or deny the Architectural Review request, based on the City’s adopted General Plan, Municipal Code and other documents.
4) As is shown on countless photographs submitted by the applicant, this shared driveway is currently significantly smaller than other driveways in the neighborhood and if the project and new fence are allowed, 104 will have a completely substandard driveway as a result - far smaller than legally allowed. At it's current 18', it is already nonconforming. The applicant is proposing, after all is said and done, in our being left with merely a 9' wide driveway.

Staff Comments: The Appellant is referring to the photographs submitted by the Applicant as part of their memo at the August 15, 2024, meeting, which were added as an attachment to the packet. The photographs were titled “Single Family homes in neighborhood with curved driveway” (August 15, 2024, attachment).

It shall be noted that the photographs submitted by the project Applicant illustrate that the total distance between the garage eave and side property line at both 103 and 105 Challenge Court is 28 feet each. The photos also illustrate that the total distance between the garage eave and the side property line at 104 Challenge Court is similarly 28 feet.

The document proceeds to provide five (5) other examples of the property line to garage eave measurements of various homes within Neighborhood 1 where the garage door does not face the public right of way. These measurements range from 23 feet to 28 feet in total distance. Please note that these photographs do not illustrate the measurements of the driveway approach.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

265

Figure 4: Space between garage eaves to property lines
Source: Attachment 6 of the August 15, 2024, Planning Commission packet

Pursuant to Section 17.62.050.B.3, driveways providing access to garages shall be a minimum of ten feet in width for one-way traffic, and twenty feet wide for two-way traffic.

The Appellant is stating that the existing driveway (currently at 18 feet) being utilized at 104 and 106 Challenge Court is already existing non-conforming. However, there are no records or evidence to show that this shared driveway was meant to serve two-way traffic i.e., serving as an entry and exit at the same time. See images below for staff rendering of proposed addition. Given that these lots were developed under the County, an 18-foot driveway width for shared driveways (“driveway throat width”) may have been an acceptable standard at the time. There are no specific objective design or development standards or code requirements applicable to shared private driveways.

Figure 5: Existing vs. Proposed Front Elevation Rendering Source: Google Maps/Staff

Additionally, the proposed project considered by the Planning Commission, and illustrated on the plans, show that the private driveway in front of 106 Challenge Court will be occupied by the proposed front addition and the existing shared 18-foot-wide driveway approach along both property lines, up to 20 feet from the front property line (see below), will be maintained.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

266

Figure 6: Proposed Site Plan showing 18’ driveway approach and proposed front addition Source: Plans Submitted by Applicant, Sheet A1.1

The Appellant is stating that the width of the driveway for 104 Challenge would be reduced to 9 feet “when all is said and done”. As noted above, based on the submitted plans for the Project, and a subsequent revision to eliminate the furthest most corner of the proposed front addition, the driveway would maintain the existing width of 18 feet and there was no consideration of the “new fence” referenced in the Appellant letter because the proposed project plans, did not include a fence.

5) The applicant has repeatedly asserted that they have "considered" many other options for their design, but has not been required to provide detail of them or why they would select the one that ensures ongoing harm in the most extreme way. It is apparent from studying the architectural drawings that there are multiple options for allowing the full 770 square foot addition without eliminating the shared portion of the driveway. We have suggested several options including expanding the entire side of the house to the legal limit rather than just the very front and rearmost sections, using more of the rear yard rather than loading so much into the driveway area, putting the new offices above the current structure, and on 8/15, Commissioner Haddad had another excellent idea regarding flipping the current design. This being one of the largest lots in Foster City, there is no doubt of there being options where neither party is harmed and the applicant achieves their full 770 square foot addition.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

267

Staff Comments: Staff reviews entitlement applications, including plans which are submitted directly to the Community Development Department. While staff did have communications with the Applicant regarding alternate design options, in an effort to understand if other options were explored, the submitted plans (Attachment 2) are what was officially submitted by the Applicant. It is also important to note that neither staff nor the Planning Commission can design for a homeowner. Staff and the Commission can only review/comment on the submitted plans. While they can encourage alternate design options, ultimately, it is up to the homeowner to decide their final design. As such, staff reviewed the submitted plans on file for compliance with the City’s adopted Municipal Codes and other policies, to ensure that the proposed addition meets the required setbacks, coverage, and height of the underlying zoning district. 6) On 8/15, the applicant showed a photo of our contractor's truck and a pile of dirt on our side of the shared driveway and stated that the truck was parked like that "every day for nearly a year", implying if they could get in and out of their garage, we should be able to do likewise. The only time a pile of dirt was in that position for a 2-3 day project long after the extended back yard project. I just learned from our contractor that the applicant asked him to move the truck because his wife couldn't get into and out of their garage with it in that position. The garage at 106 Challenge Court does not have the center post restricting access that the garage at 104 Challenge has, which further impacts accessibility. Regardless, one of the owners of 106 Challenge Court needed the full width or the driveway to access the garage compelling the conclusion that it is a shared driveway, intended for the mutual benefit of both properties and thus, a less impactful design of the addition should have been required.

Staff Comments: Multiple photographs were shown at the August 15, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Staff has included these photographs below for reference (Figure 7). The photograph being referenced within the Appeal Memo and shown by the Applicant at the August 15, 2024, meeting illustrated a pile of dirt, a black (four-door) pickup truck, construction materials, and a long piece of plywood within the 9’ driveway space on 104 Challenge Court’s property (Figure 7, left photograph). The property owners of 106 Challenge Court explained that they were unable to use the portion of the driveway on 104 Challenge Court’s property for nearly one year and emphasized that they could still maneuver in and out of their garage at 106 Challenge Court with ease. As such, they believe that the homeowners of 104 Challenge Court will be able to do the same with only access to their side of the driveway.

Note that Staff is unable to verify or confirm the information stated during the meeting or in the Appeal memo. Regarding the center post within the garage space of 104 Challenge Court, staff did not review the floor plan of the neighbor’s garage as part of the proposed addition at 106 Challenge Court.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

268

Figure 7: Photograph shown at the August 15, 2024 Meeting Source: Applicant’s Presentation

STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL
The Planning Commission determined that the findings required for the Architectural Review Permit pursuant to FCMC 17.58.050(A) and (B) have been met because the project complies with the General Plan and Zoning Code requirements and the City’s objective design and development standards and other adopted guidelines. As noted earlier, there are no specific objective design or development standards or code requirements applicable to shared private driveways.

Pursuant to FCMC section 17.58.040(F) and 17.06.150(B)(2), the City Council must review the written findings of the Planning Commission and consider the written and oral argument of the appellant to make a determination on whether the appeal should be upheld or denied. New matter may not be introduced by either party to such an appeal.

California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), includes a list of classes of projects which have been determined not to have a significant effect on the environment, and therefore, are exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The project would be for the relocation of a driveway, installation of six new skylights, expansion of an existing covered patio in the rear, and the expansion of an existing single-family home. The site would continue to be a single-family home and therefore, the proposed project would be exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

FISCAL IMPACT
The appeals are subject to “Actual Cost* Subject to a minimum $500 Deposit at time of filing”. Any staff time spent on the appeal will be paid through the deposit.

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

269

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Smart Planning, Development, and the Local Economy
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Appeal Basis Memo
Attachment 2 – Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023
Attachment 3 – Resolution P-19-24
Attachment 4 – Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)
Attachment 5 – Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns) Attachment 6 – Project Reinitiation Memo
Attachment 7 – September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachment 8 – August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

8.1 8.1 Staff Report

270

TO: Foster City Council and Staff
RE: Appealing the 8/1 5/24 decision of the Foster City Planning Commission regarding agenda item 5. 3 - the proposed 770 square foot addition, driveway relocation, construction of a new/additional driveway and other changes as described by the Planning staff to the 1 -story Eichler at 106 Challenge Court in Foster City.

This appeal is being made by Nancy E Harmon and William H Borter, trustees of the Borter/Harmon Family Trust which is the owner of 104 Challenge Court.

The specific items being appealed is the applicant's plan to 1 ) eliminate well over 80% of the portion of the shared driveway that exists on the property of 106 Challenge Court, thus causing, in the words of the report from Traffic Patterns "significant parking, access, and circulation impacts to 104 Challenge Court." Additionally, Traffic Patterns finds that the templates used in the applicant's study were "incorrectly applied" and do not reflect current best practices. This is further detailed in the full report from Traffic Patterns, which is already on file. 2) The threatened but so far unshown and ill-defined new fence along the property line in the middle of the shared driveway. We contend that not yet showing the new fence on the plans is calculated to mislead the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding the severity of the potential for harm to the owners of 104 Challenge Court.

Also already on file are all written statements from the owners of 104 Challenge Court submitted prior to the Planning Commission meetings of 9/7/2023 and 8/1 5/2024. Additional copies of our comments are attached. Much can also be gleaned from all materials already submitted to the Planning Commission by the applicant; particularly the photographs and drawings showing current home and proposed plans.

There are multiple bases for this appeal:
-The applicant has served us with a lawsuit regarding both our property rights and that lawsuit has not been decided. To proceed with their project at this time could result in the need to deconstruct the entire portion of the addition that would replace their portion of the shared driveway. -As is shown on countless photographs submitted by the applicant, this shared driveway is currently significantly smaller than other driveways in the neighborhood and if the project and new fence are allowed, 104 will have a completely substandard driveway as a result - far smaller than legally allowed. At it's current 18',it is already nonconforming. The applicant is proposing, after all is said and done,in our being left with merely a 9' wide driveway.
-The applicant has repeatedly asserted that they have "considered" many other options for their design, but has not been required to provide detail of them or why they would select the one that ensures ongoing harm in the most extreme way. It is apparent from studying the architectural drawings that there are multiple options for allowing the full 770 square foot addition without eliminating the shared portion of the driveway. We have suggested several options including expanding the entire side of the house to the legal limit rather than just the very front and rearmost sections, using more of the rear yard rather than loading so much into the driveway area, putting the new offices above the current structure, and on 8/15, Commissioner Haddad had another excellent idea regarding flipping the current design. This being one of the largest lots in Foster City, there is no doubt of there being options where neither party is harmed and the applicant achieves their full 770 square foot addition. -On 8/15, the applicant showed a photo of our contractor's truck and a pile of dirt on our side of the shared driveway and stated that the truck was parked like that "every day for nearly a year", implying if

8.1 Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

271

they could get in and out of their garage, we should be able to do likewise. The only time a pile of dirt was in that position was for a 2-3 day project long after the extended back yard project. I just learned from our contractor that the applicant asked him to move the truck because his wife couldn't get into and out oT their garage with it in that position. The garage at 106 Challenge Court does not have the center post restricting access that the garage at 104 Challenge has, which further impacts accessibility. Regardless, one of the owners of 106 Challenge Court needed the full width or the driveway to access the garage compelling the conclusion that it is a shared driveway, intended for the mutual benefit of both properties and thus, a less impactful design of the addition should have been required.

The relief sought is to require the applicant to present a design that meets their size needs without impacting the neighboring property in the way their current does.

As mentioned to Helen Gannon when the appeal forms were picked up on 8/19, we will be out of the country the entire month of September on a trip planned since last year. It is our understanding that this appeal will not take place during our absence and is likely to be on the agenda of the 2nd City Council meeting in October of 2024.

Attachment 1 : Harmon-Borter comments to the Planning Commission for 9/7/23 meeting Attachment 2: Harmon-Borter comments to the Planning Commission for the 8/1 5/24 meeting

8.1 Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

272

NH Comments to FC Planning Commission - September 7, 2023 Meeting Ladies and Gentlemen - First of all we would like to thank the Patels for the changes they have already been willing to make in their expansion plans - moving the commercial office entrance away from the edge of our fence/property line and notching the front corner of the addition. Several items, both primary and peripheral, are still at issue:

1. Hammerhead driveway and parking studies
We also appreciate that the City staff sought a review of the Patels" parking study with the result that Traffic Patterns Company's report states that the original report was not conducted using engineering best practices and would result in a significant negative circulation impact for 104 Challenge. A traffic engineer I consulted privately concurs with the findings of Traffic Patterns Company.

I concur with a suggestion made to me that we request that Story Poles be erected and strung with the extruded plastic netting that will clarify how all added/expanded walls (including the extension of the side gate/wall) and the roof overhang truly affect our accessibility. We request that this be done right away for the benefit of staff, the commissioners and ourselves.

The textbook definition of a hammerhead driveway is one that provides a T-shaped, 3-point turn-around space for emergency and other vehicles. As stated in T. Jack Foster"s book, "The Development of Foster City", a standard lot was adopted as 65' x 95' or 6175 square feet. Our discussions with construction and real estate industry professionals point to using a hammerhead driveway as an effective way to allow a larger residence footprint on a smaller lot since the necessity for safe and effective circulation is shared.

2. Lot size considerations
The lot at 106 Challenge is 8712 square feet, or 2537 square feet or 41% larger than a standard Foster City lot. That being true, how can it possibly be legitimate to eliminate our access to safe entrance and egress to add a mere 551 square feet which is only 6% of the lot size? As a Regional Director in the Construction Information Group at McGraw-Hill for over 15 years, I managed a number of architects who were consultants to the rest of our team. They taught me many things. One of the most important was that there are always multiple solutions to an architectural problem. We contend that, given the right incentive, their architect should be able to provide these 551 square feet in another configuration.

NOTE: I have since tried to locate Ms. Amatuni in 414 or CSI listings and tried to find a website for her so I could determine if she appears to have ever redesigned an Eichler. I can find neither. professional with a full understanding of planned communities in general and Foster City specifically.

3. Uniqueness of Foster City and its Eichers
T. Jack Foster and Joe Eichler got along for many reasons, including their belief in openness and easy accessibility to outdoor spaces. Both men were determined to give Foster City a "Sense of Place", so that no matter what you were viewing, you knew you were in Foster City. T. Jack Foster Sr. was so determined to bring this to reality, he was involved in the design of everything down to the street lights, the curve of the bridges, and the fire hydrant design. Eichler's homes are characterized by large expanses of glass away from the street, post and beam construction and open floorplans.

Almost never were windows facing the street. It finally dawned on me that is why this proposed addition looks so out of place. On a cul-de-sac consisting of all the original Eichler model homes like Challenge Court, I believe there is great value in maintaining these key design criteria. This design, with windows facing the street, no beams out to the street edge of the faqade, and a lack of openness due to eliminating the shared driveway are very out of place and will eliminate the symmetry found among all other houses on Challenge Court. Unfortunately, it will quite obviously "not belong". Maybe this no longer matters to the Commission, I don't know. I am hoping that at least several members still value the

8.1 Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

273

uniqueness of what we enjoy here and wish to maintain it. Once the Story Poles have been erected, I hope that staff and all commissioners will make a site visit to consider these items.

4. Home resale price/value considerations
I asked two very respected and very experienced realtors to review the architectural plans and offer their expert opinions about what the construction of the front 551 square foot addition would mean for us when we sell 104 Challenge.

Emails from Susan Lindstrom and Chris Eckert are attached for your review. There is no way to calculate exactly how much negative effect this would have on reselling our property, but there is carefully considered opinion that that would be the case.

Let's say you're working with a realtor to find a 4/2 Eichler. You are presented two: one with an easily accessible driveway/garage configuration. The next one requires you to drive into an alley snug up against the side of the neighbor's house and make a sharp turn to get to the garage - so no easy accessibility. With all other things being equal, which one do you prefer and on which one will you likely make a far more attractive offer?

5. Easements
I and several others have searched for hammerhead/shared driveway easements being called out - in title searches, with the County reviewing documents before Foster City was incorporated, with the County Appraiser, with the oldest subdivision maps, and more. No one can find ANY easements (driveways, utilities, nothing). We discussed this situation with Todd Foster, who feels that easements for a hammerhead driveway like the one shared between 104 and 106 Challenge Court definitely should have been recorded. So far, it appears that somehow slipped through the cracks during the transition between the county and the newly incorporated city.

At the very least, after living in 104 Challenge Court for over 37 years and using the entire hammerhead driveway to safely enter and exit the property, we are led to believe that, if necessary, a case can be made for an implied easement by existing use, which is legal in the state of California. As you all know, an implied easement by existing use is an easement that grants rights based on the previous use of that land for a specific purpose. For an implied easement to be granted, we understand we only need to be able to prove that we were previously permitted to use the land for that specific purpose.

In Conclusion
Ladies and Gentlemen, we do not wish to keep the Patels from having those extra 551 square feet of space. We just don"t believe it is acceptable or advisable to do so in the manner they are proposing.

8.1 Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

274

TO: Foster City Planning Commission and Planning Staff FROM: Nancy Harmon and William Borter of 4 04 Challenge Court RE: Staff Report and other documents submitted in preparation for 8/1 5/24 0pen Meeting There are two parts to these remarks. I: We believe several inadvertent typos/errors were made in the minutes. We would appreciate them being corrected before the meeting. II: Additional information and comments.
l: Issues with the minutes:

In the Neighbor Notifications section:
-It is stated that we did not return our Neighbor Notification form to staff. That is incorrect. It was dated 1/27 and was delivered to the front desk at the Planning Department, where we were able to ask several procedural questions. We are happy to provide a copy of these materials upon request.

In the BACKGROUND section - paraqraph 2:
-the Kimley-Horn study used a full-sized SUV, not a "large van" which implies a commercial size vehicle. -The Kimley-Horn report absolutely did not demonstrate that both garage stalls and surface stalls could be accessed from a reverse entry in a single movement. As a matter of fact, the Traffic Patterns study clarifies that the Kimley-Horn vehicle turning templates are drawn in segments and do not represent continuous vehicle movements. The recommendations from Traffic Patterns are in fact two fold: 1 ) the 552 sq. ft front addition WILL negatively impact access to the garage and driveway of 104 Challenge and 2) Kimley-Horn incorrectly applied the vehicle turning templates in their report.

BACKGROUND - paraqraph 4:
-Your minutes report that the applicant agreed to placing temporary boundaries (story poles) up as well as increasing the size of the driveway to provide better vehicle maneuverability In every subsequent contact with the Patels and their attorney, they have been unwilling to do this or approve this being done. In fact, in an apparent effort to intimidate, their attorney continues to assert that they wish to build a new fence between the properties but no plans to this effect have been submitted to Foster City.

Under ANALYSIS of the rear elevation:
-Item I says that the 552' addition is in the rear of the plan. It is not. It is in the front and is the portion of the project being contested because it blocks our ability to safely enter and exit our garage. Elsewhere in your minutes, this is described accurately.

In the copies of internal emails between staff:
-Ray Towne states the applicant is "willing to dedicate the driveway access easement". There are no easements anyone has been able to locate to our knowledge. If the City IS aware of same, we would like to be given the details.
1 8.1
Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

275

- Laura Galli states that "the easement the applicant would be acquiring would be negotiated between them and the adjacent property owner." Each time we have brought up the topic of easements, the Patels have insisted that easements are totally unacceptable.
- Ray Towne further wonders if bollards are needed to guard against a different vehicle (like the aforementioned camper) with a larger turning radius potentially causing damage to the structure at 106 Challenge Court. If we can come to terms with the Patels that we will retain access to approximately 5-6 feet over the property line so we can properly access our driveway and garage bays, we are comfortable putting it in writing that we will not attempt to store a camper in our driveway, thus eliminating the possibility of it causing damage.

Again, the story poles would have clarified how few feet would have made us feel like we could approve the project without reservation.
11: And now on to our further/current comments to the Planning Commission and staff:

Amonq the report on Public Comments during the 9/7/23 meetinq, we find two of particular import:
-Commissioner Jagtiani asked if the Patels' consultant would have different conclusions if he were to have prepared the report for residents of 104 Challenge Court. Given that the Patels' consultant chose not to reply, we can only assume the answer would have been "yes". -Commissioner Pedro asked Mr. Rodriguez of Traffic Patterns about the impact on 104 Challenge Court if best practices are not followed. Mr. Rodriguez restated that the impact on 104 Challenge Court would be significant.

Reqarding the true property line:

Early on, before our survey was completed, Mrs. Patel claimed that their survey showed the true property line is 6" closer to our house than the current placement of the fence and implied that the entire fence would have to be moved. Our survey was ordered to check the validity of this claim. Our survey shows that the current fence sits directly on top of the property line, and extends through the center of the driveway out to the street thus negating the earlier intimidation attempt.

Reqardinq story poles:

Our desire for the story poles would clarify exactly where the proposed walls of the 552 sq. ft. addition would lie as well as the length and height of the mysterious new wall threatened but not shown on official plans.

Our thinking was that such story poles would enable us to clarify just HOW untenable this plan would be - or not.

It would give a basis for asking that the Patels consider merely a few feet of adjustment which could easily be achieved by pulling in the driveway side of the expansion and adding those very few feet elsewhere.

In addition, we made it clear to the Patels during our face-to-face meeting after the 9/7/23 PC meeting that we would be happy to approve any effort to put the new offices over the garage or even over the back portion of the house without regard to windows that would overlook any part of our property.

When we requested clarification of the issue of story poles and new fencing from their attorney, we were ignored and served with a lawsuit. A copy of all of this correspondence and of the lawsuit will be submitted upon request.

The only conclusion we have for their refusal to do what your minutes say they agreed to is that the extent of the hardship to us would then be impossible to deny and that the wholly tenable solution of adjusting the width of the addition into the driveway and shifting the placement of that exact amount of space would be shown as a simple alternative, as would putting the new office space atop the existing structure. Even a cursory look at the proposal 2 8.1
Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

276

for that (right) side of the house (Figure3) which abuts our property shows that the same square footage is easily achieved by expanding the whole right side of the house to the 5' setback limit (rather than leaving the large cutout shown midspan), adjusting the wall placement between rooms and adding another couple of feet onto the rear addition. Given how simple a solution this would have been, one could easily conclude that the intent with this design was to inflict as much hardship as possible.

It should be noted that if such adjustments were made so that we could continue to utilize enough of the shared driveway to properly access our garage bays, there would likely be no further need to adjudicate our desire to establish formal easements.

Reqardinq Mr. Patel's latest statement to the Commission and Planninq Staff:
-His 9/14 proposal that purports to remedy the issue actually does nothing of the kind since it does nothing to improve the turning radius into our garage bays, which is, as we reminded their attorney, our ONLY remaining issue. This had been an issue from the beginning and not an additional one as he implies. -Mr. Patel's attempts to make his request for us to eliminate 9' of our front lawn sound like a sincere and legitimate solution are ridiculous on their face even if they do offer to pay a portion. This would do absolutely nothing to increase access to the garage bays. His geometry is off. The 9 additional feet would need to be taken off of their front yard to be of any benefit in this regard. Likewise, his folksy attempts to lecture us about the sales price of 1191 Balclutha versus 644 Matsonia are totally spurious since there is no way to ascertain what else affected the transactions - for example, one home may have been updated while the other had not. His assertion that "this clearly shows that having a hammerhead driveway is a negative thing" is not supported by facts. -Not mentioned by Mr. Patel is the timeline is our attempt to come to some sort of compromise acceptable to both families via mediation, requested by our attorney and held on 3/21/24 atADR Services in San Francisco with the Honorable George Hernandez, retired presiding Judge of the Alameda County Superior Court serving as Mediator. While we came with several suggestions and ideas, the only response was a full-throated NO with no countering suggestions from the Patels. In other words, we do not believe that in this or many other instances, the Patels operate in good faith.
-Now the Patels claim via their attorney that we must approve not only the project as presented to the City, but also approve a new fence - implied to be through the center of the driveway down to the sidewalk BUT will not answer any clarifying questions about its placement or height nor approve the story poles to prove their full intent. We were told that we are to give our approval for the new fence to their attorney, not to the City. Since this wall has not been submitted to the City as part of the project, it feels very much like another attempt at intimidation, much like the spurious survey claim and their attempt to make us give up by fiting a lawsuit. -We would appreciate hearing how the Planning Commission could consider ruling on this proposal as long as a lawsuit against us is in play. Please let us know why that would be appropriate.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in closing, since there are clearly other workable options for the Patels that do not block access to our garage bays nor require us to destroy our front yard and since the Traffic Patterns report clarifies the artifice of the Kimley-Horn report, we ask that the Commission not vote to approve this project until the issue of continued shared use of a portion of both driveways is solved. 3 8.1
Attachment 1 - Appeal Basis Memo

277

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

278

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

279

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

280

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

281

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

282

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

283

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

284

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

285

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

286

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

287

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

288

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

289

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

290

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

291

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

292

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

293

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

294

8.1 Attachment 2 - Project Plans, Received August 15, 2023

295

RESOLUTION NO. P-19-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW REQUEST TO RELOCATE AND CONSTRUCT AN

ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON A SITE WHICH CONTAINS A SHARED DRIVEWAY, ADD

SIX NEW SKYLIGHTS, EXPAND AN EXISTING COVERED PATIO IN THE REAR, AND CONSTRUCT A TOTAL OF 770 SQUARE FOOT (SF) ADDITION TO THE FRONT AND

REAR ELEVATION OF THE SINGLE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 106 CHALLENGE COURT AND FIND THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301(EXISTING FACILITIES). – APN 094-042-230 – AR2023-0004

CITY OF FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

WHEREAS, the property owner filed an application for an Architectural Review, which was deemed complete on August 14, 2023, to relocate and construct an additional driveway on a site that contains a shared driveway, add six new skylights, expand an existing covered patio in the rear, and construct a total of 770 sf addition to the front and rear elevations of the single-story single-family home located at 106 Challenge Court in Neighborhood 1; and

WHEREAS, on August 24, 2023, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to residents within a 5 00’ mailing radius of 106 Challenge Court for consideration of the Architectural Review request at the Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 2023, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted for consideration of the Architectural Review request at the Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 2023; and

WHEREAS, on September 7, 2023, the Planning Commission opened and held the Public Hearing, considered the request , and voted to continue the matter to a date uncertain to allow the applicant and the property owners at 104 Challenge an opportunity to discuss the project; and

WHEREAS, on July 29, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to residents within a 500’ mailing radius of 106 Challenge Court for consideration of the Architectural Review request at the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2024; and

WHEREAS, on July 25, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing was duly posted for consideration of the Architectural Review request at the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2024, and on said date, the Public Hearing was opened, held, and closed; and

WHEREAS, on August 15, 2024, a public hearing was held to consider the project at which time it considered all oral and documentary evidence presented and incorporated all testimony and documents into the record by reference and voted (3-1-0- 1, Noes:

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

296

Haddad; Absent: Bronitsky) to approve the request for an Architectural Review permit (AR2023-0004.) and gave direction to staff to return to the Planning Commission with a resolution setting forth the basis for approval of the project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City finds that t he above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution, and in making its findings, the Planning Commission relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all correspondence, staff reports, and other related materials from the August 15, 2024 public hearing and ratifies the approval and adopts this resolution providing the findings for the determination.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Planning Commission finds as follows:

1. That the project is categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Section 15301 (Class 1) Existing Facilities; and

2. Pursuant to Foster City Municipal Code S ection 17.58.050(A) the proposal is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Foster City General Plan and Title 17 ,
Zoning, of the Foster City Municipal Code because:
i. The Land Use Map of the General Plan designates the use of the subject site as “Single Family Residential.” The subject site is designated for Single Family Residential, and the proposed first-story addition and remodel will not change the use of the property; and
ii. The proposed first-floor front and rear additions are consistent with the standards of the R -1 zoning district related to setbacks, height, lot coverage, minimum lot size, minimum floor area, and all other relevant development standards. There are no specific development standards or code requirements applicable to shared private driveways; and

3. Pursuant to Foster City Municipal Code S ection 17.58.050(B) the design of the proposal conforms to the city’s objective design and development standards and other adopted guidelines because:
i. T he proposed exterior siding will match the material and color of the existing home; all new windows will match in terms of style, color, material, and use of grids/no grids; the proposed roof pitch, color, and material will continue to match that of the existing residence; and t he new skylights will have a flat low -profile design with clear glazing and will not extend more than 10” above the roof surface, consistent with the City’s adopted objective design and development standards and other guidelines.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves AR2023- 0004, subject to the conditions in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein.

This Resolution together with Exhibit A shall constitute the “Notice of Decision” pursuant to Foster City Municipal Code Section 17.78.040(D).

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

297

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on September 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Pedro and Venkat

NOES, COMMISSIONERS: Chair Haddad

ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky and Jagtiani

NICOLAS HADDAD, CHAIR

ATTEST:

SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

298

Resolution No. P-19-24
AR2023-0004

EXHIBIT A
(Conditions attached to Resolution approving addition and remodel approved by the Planning Commission on September 5, 2024)

1. Prior to the commencement of work, a building permit shall be obtained from the Building Inspection Division. Four (4) sets or an electronic copy of final construction drawings shall be submitted with the building permit application.

2. The Conditions of Approval of this Notice of Decision issued by the City shall be included on the complete set of plans within any subsequent permits. The applicant shall include written responses demonstrating compliance with each condition of approval at the time of building permit submittal.

3. All construction work shall conform to the plans and elevations, received and dated by the Foster City Planning/Code Enforcement Division on August 15, 202 3, prepared by Natalia Amatuni Residential Design on file with the Community Development Department, except as modified in subsequent conditions of approval included in this Exhibit A. Approval of the subject Plans is predicated upon the accuracy of the information provided on all of the Plans demonstrating proposed and existing conditions, including but not limited to information describing setbacks; heights; dimensions; colors; materials; roof pitches; and, fenestration. If during the construction process it is determined that information on the approved Plans is inaccurate, or if the improvement under construction is not consistent with the approved Plans, the construction work may be stopped until the matter is resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

4. All materials and colors shall be as approved. Once constructed or installed, all improvements shall be maintained in accordance with the approved plans. Any major changes which affect the exterior character of the work shall be resubmitted for approval. The construction or placement of unapproved features or unapproved changes to buildings or structures will result in the issuance of a “Stop Work Order” by the City, the need to revise plans and obtain City approval for all changes prior to recommencing work, and the possibility of penalty fees being assessed for unauthorized work. Minor modifications to the approved plans may be approved by the Community Development Director.

5. All vents, gutters, downspouts, flashings, etc. shall be painted to match the color of adjacent surfaces. No electrical conduits or similar piping shall be allowed on the exterior of the building unless approved prior to installation by the Community Development Director.

6. At the time of Building Permit submittal, a demolition plan shall be included that clearly shows the walls to be retained and the walls to be removed.

7. All architectural elements such as soffits, screens, etc., not shown or detailed on the plans shall be finished in material and color in harmony with the exterior of the building.

8. Smoke detectors shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Inspection Division in any approved room addition.

9. Plans submitted for building permit shall include all mechanical equipment and utilities, including AC unit (if any), water heater, electrical and gas meters. Note that all utilities

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

299

Resolution No. P-19-24
AR2023-0004

shall be architecturally screened from view. They shall be located behind and below the fence and shall be painted to match the adjacent building color.

10. Standard residential security requirements as established by Chapter 15.28 of the Foster City Municipal Code shall be provided.

11. Prior to any final building inspection approval, any imposed conditions and all improvements shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and to the satisfaction of the City.

12. Prior to any demolition or disassembly of any portion of the existing structure or site, a detailed plan, in the form of either a letter or on the City’s Demolition Information Form, describing all aspects of such work (how and when it will be conducted; special related equipment required, how materials will be removed from the site, how public safety will be ensured throughout this process, etc.) shall be submitted to the Chief Building Official. Such work shall not begin until the Chief Building Official approves the plan by affixing his/her signature and the date of approval to it. The Chief Building Official may require that plans be amended until he/she determines that they satisfactorily meet all City health, safety and general welfare concerns.

13. A copy of the approved plan shall be given to the applicant or their designee and shall at all times be kept on the job site along with approved project plans.

14. Any damage to public (City) infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, utilities, etc.) caused by construction (including use of heavy equipment) associated with the building permit, shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Bui lding Division prior to final sign-off on the building permit.

15. The placement of materials disposal or trash bins within public rights-of-way, including on public streets and on public sidewalks, shall not be allowed until such time as an Encroachment Permit has been issued by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department.

16. In order to assure public safety and minimize the unattractive short term aspects of construction on the neighborhood, prior to issuance of a building permit, building plans shall include site control information which, at a minimum: 1) Provides that a 6 ( six) foot tall chain-link fence (no portion of which contains barbed wire) with a dark green (or other color approved by the Community Development Director) vinyl or canvas liner placed on the exterior of the fence shall be placed around any yard or any portion of a yard which the Chief Building Official shall identify as requiring such.

17. All required construction fencing shall be in place prior to the commencement of any work on site, shall remain in place for such time as required by the Chief Building Official and shall be removed prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit. The gate to the fence shall be locked at all times that the fenced area is left unattended by either the owner or resident, the contractor or subcontractors. All construction materials and equipment, including temporary or portable equipment, such as generators, stor age containers or facilities, shall be stored within the interior of the fenced area when construction activities are not occurring. If placed anywhere on site, portable toilets shall be placed within the interior of the fenced area at all times.

18. Building materials, construction equipment and tools, or other items related to the construction or demolition work to be performed shall be stored behind and below

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

300

Resolution No. P-19-24
AR2023-0004

19. required fencing/screening unless special approval to place or store the materials or items is granted by the Community Development Director.

20. The Building Permit Plans shall note the roof material and color to be 1) as shown on the plans herein approved, or 2) if in a R-1 District, a roof material and color consistent with the list maintained by the Community Development Department for “Reroofing Materials and Colors Approved for Use in R -1 Districts,” or 3) if in a PD, Planned Development District, a material and color consistent with the approved prototype for the development. The same material and color shall be used on all structures higher than the fence line unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director.

21. The applicant shall submit a Waste Management Plan in accordance with Chapter

15.44 of the Foster City Municipal Code.

22. Within sixty (60) days following the completion of the demolition phase of a covered project, and again within sixty (60) days following the completion of the construction phase of a covered project, the contractor shall submit documentation to the Building Inspection Division that demonstrates compliance with Chapter 15.44 of the Foster City Municipal Code. Documentation includes submission of a completed Final Compliance Report with corresponding recycling, salvage, and disposal receipts/tickets from the facilities, to demonstrate where the debris was recycled, salvaged, or disposed.

23. Once a building permit is issued, it is the permit holder’s responsibility to ensure that the project receives a final inspection before the building permit expires. Failure to receive and/or pass a final inspection will result in the expiration of the building permit which will require additional fees to reactivate.

24. Fire sprinklers are required for any project that includes remodeling 50% or more of an existing house and/or adding 50% or more to the existing floor area. Flow calculations and plans for the fire sprinkler system shall be prepared by a qualified Fire Spr inkler System contractor or a licensed design professional and shall be submitted concurrently with construction plans for City review and approval. If tapping into the city’s water main is required for a dedicated fire service, an encroachment permit is required.

25. A design-level geotechnical investigation, in compliance with the California Building Code, California Residential Code, and Foster City amendments, shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted with the construction documents to the City Building Inspection Division for review and approval for any new house, new second story, or addition as determined by the Chief Building Official. The report shall determine the proposed project’s geotechnical conditions and address appropriate building techniques and potential seismic hazards. All recommendations, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the design-level geotechnical investigation shall be incorporated into the construction plans.

26. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays. All construction-related activities including but not limited to noise, vibration, dust etc. shall be in accordance with Chapter 17.68, General Performance Standards, of Title 17, of the Foster City Municipal Code. Any request for modification to

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

301

Resolution No. P-19-24
AR2023-0004

the construction hours shall be submitted to the CDD Director for prior review and approval.

27. All windows on a given elevation shall match in terms of material, color, style, trim, and use of grids (no grids).

28. All new skylights shall be a low- profile flat design that does not extend more than 10” above the roof.

29. The skylight frame and flashing shall be painted to match the adjacent surface.

30. Bollards shall be provided adjacent to the front yard addition.

31. All vents, flues, flashing, etc. shall be painted to match the adjacent surface.

32. All areas of the proposed addition shall be finished, painted, and treated in a manner to form a seamless transition between the existing and adjacent building surfaces.

33. Any damage to the wall surface and/or window/door trim shall be repaired and painted in kind, to achieve a seamless transition from the repaired to the existing trim and/or wall surface.

34. Exterior materials and colors shall be consistent, or equivalent, with the table below:

APPROVED COLORS AND MATERIALS
Siding Board & Batten Siding - Beige
Trim Wood - Brown
Roof Polyurethane Foam Roof SPF - White

35. Once an Architectural Review Permit approval has been issued, it is the permittee’s responsibility to ensure that the project receives a final inspection before the Architectural Review Permit approval becomes null and void (two years from the date of approval). Failure to receive and/or pass a final inspection will result in the expiration of the Architectural Review Permit approval which will require additional fees to reactivate.

36. Indemnity Provision. If any Legal Challenge against the Project approvals is submitted to the City or the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) or filed in a court of law, Applicant will, to the greatest extent authorized by law, defend (with counsel approved by City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld), indemnify, and hold harmless the City/EMID, its officials, employees, volunteers and agents from and against any and all loss, liability, expenses, claims, costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), suits and damages of every kind nature, and description, directly or indirectly arising from any third party legal challenge to the Project.

37. This original Notice of Decision must be acknowledged by the property owner on a form prepared by and returned to the Planning/Code Enforcement Division.

Note that this Permit is not valid until the Planning/Code Enforcement Division has received the acknowledgment of the Notice of Decision, or if appealed, until a determination is made on the appeal.

Bold: Indicates Site Specific Condition

8.1 Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Resolution P-19-24

302

D
©
NORTH
EXHIBIT1 OF 1
106 CHALLENGE COURTDRIVEWAY GEOMETRY EXHIBIT05-31-2023
15'-10 1/4"

CURVE FOR

RADIUS SHOWN

STARTING AT

BEGINNING OF

CURVE FOR

DRIVEWAY
RADIUS = 25.00'

RADIUS FOR

CURVE TO

EASTERN GARAGE

SPOT ALIGNED

WITH EXISTING

DRIVEWAY,

COMPLIANT WITH

CITY STANDARD

DISTANCE FROM

ADDITION TO

EASTERN GARAGE

STALL DOES NOT

ADVERSELY

IMPACT STATUS

OF COMPLIANCE

FOR EITHER
GARAGE STALL.

ACCESS TO

WESTERN GARAGE

SPOT DOES NOT

COMPLY WITH CITY
STANDARD FOR 25

FT RADIUS FOR

APPROACHES

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

303

REVERSE ENTRY TO WESTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR INTO GARAGE

REVERSE ENTRY TO EASTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR INTO GARAGE 106 CHALLENGE COURTDRIVEWAY STUDY05-31-2023
EXHIBIT1 OF 4

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

304

HEAD-IN ENTRY TO WESTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR INTO GARAGE HEAD-IN ENTRY TO EASTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR INTO GARAGEEXHIBIT2 OF 4 106 CHALLENGE COURTDRIVEWAY STUDY05-31-2023

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

305

NORTH

REVERSE DEPARTURE FROM EASTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR FROM GARAGE

REVERSE DEPARTURE FROM WESTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR FROM GARAGE ©
EXHIBIT3 OF 4
106 CHALLENGE COURTDRIVEWAY STUDY05-31-2023

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

306

HEAD-OUT DEPARTURE FROM WESTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR FROM GARAGE HEAD-OUT DEPARTURE FROM EASTERN PARKING SPOT ON DRIVEWAY OR FROM GARAGEEXHIBIT4 OF 4 106 CHALLENGE COURTDRIVEWAY STUDY05-31-2023

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

307

To: Permit Center
From: Natalia Amatuni
Prepared by: Bernal Ryan
(Study and letter below)
Address: 106 Challenge Ct., Foster City

Dear Planning Department,

See attached driveway study. A few things to note:

1. See 106 Challenge Court Driveway Study prepared by Kimley Horn. The study demonstrates that 104 Challenge Court can continue to access their driveway with the proposed addition. A portion of the driveway will remain for continued use by 104 Challenge Court.

2. The existing portion of the driveway to remain will continue to be maintained as it has been historically, with each homeowner maintain the portion of the driveway that is on their property.

3. This is for a large vehicle. It’s a standard template used for these types of applications, but want to note that most cars are smaller and more maneuverable. The vehicle studied is 19’ long, so about the length of a Chevy Suburban. The neighbors had a Lexus RX, which is closer to 16’ in length.

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

308

To: Permit Center 6.20.2023 From: Natalia Amatuni
Prepared by: Bernal Ryan
(Study and letter below)
Address: 106 Challenge Ct., Foster City

Dear Planning Department,

Please see attached driveway study and notes below.

Driveway:

1. The vehicles are able to access both garages and informal parking on driveway fronting the garage. Updated vehicle turning studies are included.

2. RVs would not have been able to parking on the driveway given they wouldn’t fit outside of the shared parking area, and there isn’t need for access to side or rear of yard given there isn’t sufficient space for vehicle storage. The turning studies are based on having two Toyota Siennas (2023) which are both large vehicles. While it is unlikely one residence would have two of these vehicles, it was meant to be conservative for analysis purposes.

• Engineering:

1. Actual turning radius shown based on vehicle templates created in Autoturn software.

2. Roof projection is 10 feet 6 inches clear from grade. Typical passenger vehicles are typically less than 6 feet 4 inches in height, and most are much shorter.

3. Bollards to be considered, as well as other physical deterrents such as curbs, and planter boxes. To be coordinated with final design.

4. There is no current easement. Homeowner endeavors to obtain formal approval from neighbor and will provide documentation to extent practical.

8.1 Attachment 4 - Driveway Study (Kimley Horn)

309

Traffic Patterns  169 Front Street, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94566  (408) 916-8141  www.trafficpatterns.net August 24, 2023

Helen Gannon
City of Foster City
Planning / Code Enforcement and Building Division
610 Foster City Blvd
Foster City, CA 94404

Subject: Peer Review of 106 Challenge Court Parking Access Plan

Recommendations: 1) Traffic Patterns finds that addition of the proposed 552 SF addition at 106 Challenge Ct will negatively impact access to the garage and driveway parking facilities of 104 Challenge Ct.

2) Traffic Patterns recommends finds that the vehicle turning templates applied to the existing driveway of the neighboring resident (104 Challenge Ct) to the project are incorrectly applied.

Introduction:

Traffic Patterns serves as an on-call traffic engineering firm to the City of Foster City. The City requested a peer review of the site plans for proposed residential addition at 106 Challenge Ct. The project includes the reconfiguration of the garage structure to 106 Challenge Ct so that garage access is provided through its own new driveway from Challenge Ct. The garage modifications are intended to accommodate a new 552 SF bedroom addition to 106 Challenge Ct.

The Traffic Patterns peer-review focused on evaluation of the project site plans (dated received by the City on 8-15-2023) and vehicle turning templates and memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn for the applicant.

Background:

Challenge Ct is located east of Foster City with access from Balclutha Dr and Pilgrim Dr via Harvester Dr. 106 Challenge Ct is accessed via a shared driveway with 104 Challenge Ct, see Figure 1 – 104/106 Challenge Ct Google Satellite Image.

Shared driveways for two or more homes is not uncommon but does require close coordination between residents so that site access on one property does not impede access to the other residences for either parking or emergency access. City staff notes that the project neighbor at 104 Challenge Ct is not planning and prefers no modifications to their site as part of the 106 Challenge Ct application.

8.1 Attachment 5 - Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns)

310

To: Helen Gannon, City of Foster City
Subject: Peer Review of 106 Challenge Court Parking Access Plan Date: 8-24-2023
Page:

Traffic Patterns  169 Front Street, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94566  (408) 916-8141  www.trafficpatterns.net 2 Figure 1
106 Challenge Ct – Google Satellite Image

Notes: - Blue lines represent street curb face and driveways - Red Dash lines represents approximate outline of project site, 106 Challenge Ct - Orange lines proposed new driveway for 106 Challenge Ct - Black Dash represents property lines

Figure 1 above shows the existing street configuration of Challenge Ct. There are approximately nine homes on the street. The only two homes that currently share a driveway are the application driveway (106 Challenge Ct) and their neighbor at 104 Challenge Ct.

The applicants proposed new driveway is shown in Figure 1 along with the approximate footprint of the applications proposed addition which lies just under 6-FT from the property line.

8.1 Attachment 5 - Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns)

311

To: Helen Gannon, City of Foster City
Subject: Peer Review of 106 Challenge Court Parking Access Plan Date: 8-24- 2023
Page:

Traffic Patterns  169 Front Street, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94566  (408) 916-8141  www.trafficpatterns.net 3 Analysis:

Single Access Parking Movement
During site planning for parking operations, the engineering best practice is for a motorist to achieve entry and exit from a residential property as a single movement without the need for 2- or 3-point turns to reposition a vehicle in or from a rest location. Under the current shared driveway condition configuration for both the project application (106 Challenge Ct) and their neighbor (104 Challenge Ct), access into both private garages and on-site parking for each lot can be accommodated as a single-entry movement and single “back-out” movement as the movements are unimpeded.

The 106 Challenge Ct proposed site improvement relocates the sites existing on-site parking access from the shared driveway to a private driveway also located on Challenge Ct, approximately 30-FT north of the shared driveway; this reconfiguration includes relocation of the 106 Challenge Ct garage door to face Challenge Ct. The proposed site reconfiguration is intended to accommodate a new 551 SF addition to the home.

While the proposed site improvements do improve parking and access circulation to 106 Challenge Ct, the resulting improvements do result in an impediment to the ability of the neighbor at 104 Challenge Ct enter and exit the site in a continuous movement. This impediment is noted in the applicants own project submittal drawings prepared by Kimley-Horn. The Kimley-Horn email memo fails to note impacts to the existing single-access movement condition.

The applicant did modify their site plans by providing a “notch” in the proposed addition in an attempt to lessen the impact to the 104 Challenge Ct neighbor. Even with the notch the resulting access and circulation impact to 104 Challenge Ct is still impacted. Traffic Patterns identifies this a significant impact to the 104 Challenge Ct neighbor that may result in property damage to the proposed 106 Challenge Ct over time. This finding is also noted due to the change in consistency with existing best practices to single-movement entry and exit from a private property to an impeded access condition.

Vehicle Turning Templates
The section above notes the impacts to the existing single-access movement that is intended through both the original site design and achieve engineering best practices design for residential development.

Traffic Patterns notes that the Kimley-Horn vehicle turning templates are draws in segments and do not represent continuous vehicle movements. Instead, multiple vehicle start and stop positions are shown and patched together to demonstrate an intended movement. In the drawings the “vehicle overhang” is not properly shown. The vehicle overhangs if shown for all movements would show the vehicles striking existing vegetation at 104 Challenge Ct and potentially impact proposed site improvements at 106 Challenge Ct.

The vehicle turning templates can be used to demonstrate parking and circulation but do not accurately represent the full vehicle movements required for site entry and exit movements.

8.1 Attachment 5 - Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns)

312

To: Helen Gannon, City of Foster City
Subject: Peer Review of 106 Challenge Court Parking Access Plan Date: 8-24-2023
Page:

Traffic Patterns  169 Front Street, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94566  (408) 916-8141  www.trafficpatterns.net 4 Other Site Observations
The proposed site improvements to 106 Challenge Ct include construction of a new driveway and garage access via Challenge Ct. The proposed location of the new driveway does impact existing roof drainage and Comcast utility cable service to 106 Challenge Ct.

Figure 2 shows a Google Streetview image of 106 Challenge Ct. A roof drain to 106 Challenge Ct appears to have been added after construction of the structure, the new driveway would result in the loss of the roof drainage. No site plan improvements were noted to correct the roof drain impact nor the Comcast above-ground utility box.

The existing tree on 106 Challenge Ct appears to be impacted and would likely result in tree remove due to impacts to the root system of the tree along with driveway proximity.

Figure 2
Google Streetview Image – 106 Challenge Ct Proposed Driveway Location

Roof Drain
Comcast Above-Ground Utility Box

8.1 Attachment 5 - Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns)

313

To: Helen Gannon, City of Foster City
Subject: Peer Review of 106 Challenge Court Parking Access Plan Date: 8-24- 2023
Page:

Traffic Patterns  169 Front Street, Suite 203 Danville, CA 94566  (408) 916-8141  www.trafficpatterns.net 5 Conclusions and Findings
This peer-review does not provide recommendations to approve or not approve the proposed site improvements to 106 Challenge Ct. The peer review is intended only to help advise policy decisions regarding impacts to the parking, access, and circulation that result from the project, specifically to the applicant neighbor at 104 Challenge Ct. Traffic Patterns finds that the proposed site improvements (as currently proposed) result in significant parking, access, and circulation impacts to 104 Challenge Ct.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jaime Rodriguez at (408) 916-8141.

Jaime O. Rodriguez
Founding Principal
Traffic Patterns

8.1 Attachment 5 - Driveway Study Peer Review (Traffic Patterns)

314

DearCommissionersandPlanningstaff,
FollowingtherecommendationfromthePlanningCommissionCommitteeattheSeptember7th, 2023hearing,wemadeanotherefforttoobtainourneighborMs.Harmon'sconsentforour remodelingproject.Pleaseseetheattachedproposalforacompletelyseparatedrivewayfor Ms.Harmon,whichwediscussedwithheronSeptember14th,2023.Unfortunately,shedidnot acceptthisproposal.ThisarrangementwouldhavemadeourChallengeCourtcul-de-sac symmetricwiththedrivewaysat104and106,similartothoseat103and105,whereeach homeownerhascompleteownershipoftheirownland.

PriortotheSeptember7thhearing,weengagedinmultiplediscussionswithMs.Harmon regardingourremodelingproject.ThesemeetingswerebetweenJan21st2023andSept7th 2023:

1.Firsttime,wemettoexplainthedetailsoftheremodelingproject.

2.Inasubsequentmeeting,weprovidedanoutlineinourpropertyindicatingwherethe additionwouldbelocated.

3.AfterMs.Harmonconsultedwiththeplanningteam,sherequestedfivemodificationsto thedesigninordertogiveherconsent.Weagreedtoallfivechanges,butshelater withdrewtogiveherconsent.

4.Finally,weapproachedheragainafterthehearingtoattemptfurtherresolutionas mentionedabove.

Wesubmittedtheprojecttoremodelourhouseinaccordancewithourpropertylinesetbacks andcityguidelines.Asimmigrantsinthiscountry,wemadesurewecomplywithallthecity codesfortheprojectofremodeling/additiontoourproperty.

DuringthehearingonSeptember7th,2023,ourneighborsubmittedadocumentclaimingan "impliedeasement,"aconceptwewerepreviouslyunfamiliarwith.Sincethen,wehave consultedmultiplerealestateattorneystobetterunderstandourrights.Basedontheiradvice,it isclearthatourneighborcannotvalidlyclaimanimpliedeasementonourproperty.

WerequestthatourapplicationbeapprovedbecausewemetalloftheCity’srequirements.We lookforwardtoyourdecision.

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

315

Kirti Patel <[email protected]>
Follow up on our proposal
Kirti Patel <[email protected]> Sat, Sep 23, 2023 at 5:20 PM To: bborter <[email protected]>
Hi Bill,
Hope you both are doing great.

It’s been over a week (Sep-14th) since we met and discussed the proposal of having a separate driveway for yourself.

The proposal was to solve both the access and property value concerns you have raised.

This meant reducing the front grass area of your front lawn to accommodate expanding an additional 9 ft of the driveway area in your property.

I provided the printout last time, and the same document is attached in this email for reference. This document has just the bullet points that we discussed in detail verbally, so I am providing the explanation in email.

As you mentioned in the planning commission hearing, you are planning to buy an RV in the near future and would like to park in the driveway. It will be easily possible to park the RV and both your cars in the new proposed separate driveway solving parking concern. In our cul-de-sac, 105 challenge ct have a separate driveway without sharing with the neighbor, check their driveway usage. They are able to park a 2-4 people RV with a couple of cars next to them. Your new driveway will allow you to park similarly.
103 challenge ct and 105 challenge ct have been using their individual driveways for almost 60 years. In our cul-de-sac everyone has their own driveway except us (104 and 106).

As cars are getting bigger every decade, similarly the house needs are also expanding. These houses were built almost 60 years back, now there are new living standards and needs for families. Having a separate driveway for both properties 104 Challenge Ct and 106 Challenge ct has multiple beneﬁts vs continuing to have common hammerhead driveway.

Once we have separate driveway and 106 challenge ct adds 550 sq ft in the front, it will increase your property value with the potential for the new home buyer of 104 to build similarly.

Just check this house (1191 Balclutha Dr) in our neighborhood that was sold last month. In today's market with a 7% interest rate, this house where the driveway space is limited went for over $221,000 over asking price at $1,143/sq.ft price. Imagine if the buyer had the option to add 550sqft in the front plus can park 2 cars in the driveway in a cul-de-sac area, what prices it can fetch vs the house (644 Matsonia Dr) your real estate agent mentioned in the comments which was sold for $60,000 below asking price with $1,011/sq.ft price earlier this year with 6% interest rate having a hammerhead driveway.

Similarly 650 Matsonia Dr was sold for $315,000 over asking price at $1,079/sq.ft price in 2018 (5 years back) much higher than the price with hammerhead driveway house in terms of per sq ft price.

This clearly shows that having a hammerhead driveway is a negative thing for today's home buyers. All single family home owners want their own private driveway which is more desirable.

I agree you have been living in this house/city for 37 years but as you see in everyday life, things are evolving around us and we should adapt to those changes as well. Notice the city and overall peninsula/bay area and beyond, you will see construction everywhere. There is a need for more housing and a bigger house. Let your neighbor fulﬁll their family needs with the beneﬁts that it brings to you if you have a separate driveway.

As in the proposal we have mentioned of covering the 50% cost of your new driveway, but if cost is the factor for moving ahead with this proposal, please let us know.

As a good neighbor for the last 12 years, I am thinking of a positive future for both of our houses. I want you to look at the proposal holistically and hope you would like to go with the new proposal given all the beneﬁts it brings.

Thanks and have a great weekend
Kirti

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

316

104 Challenge ct - new driveway proposal.pdf
35K

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

317

2mainconcernswithcurrentadditionto106challengect:

1.Drivewayimpacttogoinandcomeout

2.Propertyvaluegoingdown
PROPOSAL:

Haveaseparatedrivewayfor104challengect.

BENEFITS:

1.Makeuseofthespaceavailableinfronttodoadditionwhichcanbeusedinbetterway

2.Thiswillfetchtopsellingprice

3.Sellingpoint:Nextdoorhousehasadded550sqftinthefront
a.Buildcost:$500-600/sqft
b.Sellcost:$1200/sqft2timesbuildcost

4.Canpark4carstotal
a.Goodwhenguestswillcome….Moretandemparkingspace.

5.Inourneighborhoodveryfewhouseshavetheoptiontodoadditioninfrontaswehave the20ftsetbackandalotofcommonspaceinbetweenourproperties.

6.Like105challengect(morethan900sqftdriveway)

7.Brandnewdrivewayasagoodsellingpointwhichisgoodforanother25-30years

8.Willbeabletoparkrecreationvehicle
CONS-IFWEDON’TBUILDANEWDRIVEWAY:

1.Easementisnegativeforbothpropertiesasbuyerswouldnotliketobuyahousewhich haslegalbindingwithneighbors…itcanalwaysrunintoconflicts/problemswiththe newneighbor…
a.Newownersofapropertycanbringtroubletoneighbors

2.Easementwillreducebothpropertiesvalue

3.Bothpropertiescan’tusethatportionofland,whichweown.

COSTSPLIT:

Wecanpay50%ofthecosttobuildyournewconcretedriveway.Itwillroughlycost around$25,000tobuildanewdrivewayincludingthepublicworksforthenewapproach.

Thiswillgiveyouabrandnewdrivewaywiththebenefitswediscussedearlier.

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

318

Single Family homes in neighborhood
with curved driveway

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

319

103 and 105 challenge ct view of
using their driveway and garage

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

320

103 and 105 Challenge ct - Space between garage eave to the property line - 28 ft <-28 ft ->
<- 28 ft ->

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

321

104 Challenge ct - Space between garage eave to the property line - 28 ft <-28 ft ->

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

322

Single Family homes in neighborhood with curved driveway Address Lot size Property line to garage eaves distance 650 Matsonia Dr 5,606 sqft25 ft
103 Challenge Ct 5,967 sqft28 ft
105 Challenge Ct 8,407 sqft28 ft
106 Goldhunter Ct 6,490 sqft23 ft
114 Goldhunter Ct 6,621 sqft25 ft
636 Harvester Dr 6,185 sqft26 ft
1191 Balclutha Dr 5,795 sqft23 ft
104 Challenge ct 8,058 sqft28 ft

8.1 Attachment 6 - Project Reinitiation Memo

323

PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

REGULAR MEETING OF THE FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

M I N U T
E S
SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. by Chair Jagtiani
This meeting was held as a hybrid meeting.

2. ROLL CALL

Present:

Commissioners Haddad, Pedro, Venkat, and Chair Jagtiani

Absent:

Commissioners Bronitsky
Staff Present: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director; Helen Gannon, Associate Planner; and Denise Bazzano, Assistant City Attorney

3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

1. None

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. MINUTES OF AUGUST 17, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
ACTION:

Motion by Commissioner Pedro, seconded by Commissioner Haddad to approve the Minutes of August 17, 2023 Regular Meeting, passed 4-0-0-1 (Absent:

Bronitsky)

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

1. None

6. NEW PUBLIC HEARING

1. CONSIDER APPLICATION FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT TO RELO CATE

AND CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON A SITE WHICH CONTAINS A

SHARED DRIVEWAY, ADD SIX NEW SKYLIGHTS, EXPAND AN EXISTING COVERED PATIO IN THE REAR, AND CONSTRUCT A TOTAL OF 770 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION

TO THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION OF THE SINGLE-STORY SINGLE-FAMI LY HOME LOCATED AT 106 CHALLENGE COURT IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 – AR2023-0004 Planning Commission and Public Comments:
 Kirti Patel, the applicant for 106 Challenge Court, shared his family’s needs, including separate office spaces to work from home and proposin g single-story addition,
keeping in mind privacy of the neighbors and characteristics of an Eichler home.

The applicant noted that they have accommodated changes i n their final DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

324

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
design per neighbor’s requests and there is no record of a shar ed driveway. A driveway study was prepared by Kimley-Horn using the two larges t minivans. He then shared examples from the surrounding neighborhood, including 103 and 104 Challenge Court, 650 Matsonia Drive.
 Mr. Bernal from Kimley Horn explained the driveway study is in cluded as an attachment to the staff report and shared his recommendations.  Commissioner Venkat asked if there were other rebuttals from a ny other neighbors besides 104 Challenge, to which staff replied that no other nei ghbors provided comments.
 Commissioner Haddad asked if there are any city requirements f or on-street parking as the proposed driveway will result in loss of a parki ng space, to which staff replied that we do not have the requirements.
 Commissioner Pedro asked if the movement for 104 Challenge Cou rt would be impacted, to which Mr. Bernal replied yes. Then the Commissione r asked about the best practice regarding single turn that Traffic Patterns i ncluded in the peer review. Mr. Bernal replied that in the current built environment, it is not uncommon for a garage to require a three-point turn movement.
 Chair Jagtiani asked if, in the future, the homeowner for 104 Challenge Court decides to sell the house, they would need to include a disclos ure or recommendation regarding the reverse entry for a single movemen t entry. Mr.

Bernal replied that he is not aware of such a requirement and t hat it would only apply if there was a second car parked already. Chair Jagtiani then asked if there would be any impact to emergency vehicles. Mr. Bernal noted tha t he was not aware of ambulances using driveways or requirements related to it. Lastly, Chair Jagtiani asked if the consultant would have a different conclus ion to the report if he were to prepare it for the neighbor’s property at 104 Challenge Court.  Commissioner Pedro asked Mr. Rodriguez from Traffic Patterns a bout the impact on 104 Challenge Court if the best practices mentioned in the peer review are not followed. Mr. Rodriguez replied that he is not aware of any new construction that does not require a single movement and the review was done keeping in mind how would it impact the 104 Challenge Court as it operates today and believes there is a significant impact.
 Commissioner Haddad questioned whether widening of the drivewa y for 104 Challenge Court could resolve the issue of entering the garage. Mr. Rodriguez suggested that this specific scenario hasn't been analyzed, so it's unclear whether it would definitively solve the issue.
 Commissioner Haddad requested the applicant to consider explor ing this option.

The applicant expressed willingness to investigate widening the entrance as a potential solution. However, the Assistant City Attorney noted that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the proposed project.
 Commissioner Venkat questioned the designer regarding the desi gn choices, particularly the use of larger windows facing the street in an Eichler-style home, and whether there are any examples of similar Eichlers that have opened the front for additional windows and light. The designer responded by mentioning that they are not prepared to discuss other houses but notes that historically, Eichler homes have had more backyard-oriented glazing. However, she emphasize d that the purpose of the rooms being added, which are meant to be offices, played a role in DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

325

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
the design decisions. The designer also mentioned that the neighbor's preference led to the relocation of the office entrance.
 Commissioner Pedro asked if widening the driveway of 106 Chall enge Court would lessen the impact on 104 Challenge Court. Mr. Bernal answered t hat it would not make a difference.
 Commissioner Venkat questioned one of the written public comme nts regarding the depreciation of the property value for 104 Challenge Court.  Nancy Harmon, a resident of 104 Challenge Court for over 37 ye ars, shared that she has had the benefit of being able to pull-in and back out o f both sides of the driveway and is happy that Traffic Patterns was called in for a n opinion and concurred that this development would result in significant neg ative circulation.

She mentioned the absence of consideration for recreational veh icles, which retirees like her may purchase and asked for consideration of t he same. She referred to previously submitted comments from a realtor and Ch ris Eckert. She noted appreciation for the changes that the applicants made as per their request including the location of a door and a notch to the building to give them more room.

She requested that story poles be erected to visualize the impact of the proposed changes on the area's accessibility. She then requested to put story poles with mesh and drawing a line with chalk was not sufficient. The applicant also proposed to extend the neighbor’s driveway.
 Bill Borter is concerned about the lack of clarity regarding h ow the proposed house will impact the area. He mentioned a desire for visual representations, like netting seen in other Bay Area projects, to better understand the chang es. Mr. Borter described his parking habits and how the proposed changes would affect them.

He expressed concerns about the need to back out onto the street or driveway. He acknowledged the concessions made by the applicant but emphasiz ed the importance of understanding the impact on his property's value, noting that there is already a negative impact.
 The majority of the Planning Commission noted that they would not be able to make at least one (1) of the findings out of three (3) and asked the applicant if they were willing to change the project design.
 The applicant noted that they had considered a lot of options, including building in the rear as they use their backyard a lot and adding a second s tory because of privacy concerns. The option to build in the front was to lever age the use of our property for work from home situation. Based on this, the appli cant came up with a minimum viable area to fit two (2) bedrooms and a bathroom. T he applicant did work with their neighbors and there is enough space. The applicant then provided comments on the peer review by Traffic Patterns. The applicant said that the project was submitted in January and a lot of work has gone int o it. The driveway study was done using large cars.
 Chair Jagtiani asked if the applicant was willing to show the configuration and how it would impact the neighbor. The applicant agreed to show the boundary of the configuration and let the neighbors use it for a few days.  Commissioner Venkat noted that nine months is already a long t ime and concessions have been made. It does not send a good message to other homeowners who wish to make changes to their property.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

326

PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Pedro to continue item to a date uncertain, seconded by Commissioner Haddad, passed 3-1-0-1 (Noes: Venkat; Absent: Bronitsky)

7. OLD BUSINESS

1. None

8. NEW BUSINESS

1. None

9. STUDY SESSION

1. TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING

COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS PROPOSED SITE AND ARCHITECTURA L PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED ±190,000 SQUARE FOOT, FIVE-STORY, RESEAR CH AND DEVELOPMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 331 LAKESIDE DRIVE IN THE SOUTH CAMPUS OF THE GILEAD SCIENCES INTEGRATED CAMPUS MASTER P LAN – UP2023-0079
Planning Commission Comments:
 Commissioner Pedro requested to explore in more detail the spe cific LEED requirements
that are being fulfilled and discuss California's landscaping practices and
how they contribute positively to the environment through reduced water usage and r
elated aspects.
o Gilead landscape representative explained that the building's goal is to be prepared for a net-zero carbon future, achieved by transitionin g to an all- electric system and replacing traditional gas boilers with electric heat pum ps.

This move reduces carbon emissions immediately and even more so over time.

Currently, the building benefits from a lower-carbon PG&E grid as it uses electricity, which aligns with PG&E's commitment to reaching net zero between 2035 and 2040.
o
By adopting this all-electric system now, as the PG&E grid becomes greener, the building will eventually reach net-zero carbon emissions. T his approach ensures that all the energy required for the laboratory building can be sourced from the California grid and this technology.
o In addition to the energy aspect, Gilead is dedicated to sustainability goals, aiming
for a 50% reduction in water use compared to the baseline, which i s part of their
ongoing design brief for the project.
o In relation to the landscaping aspect, the emphasis is on plan t materials, particularly those native to California. The selection of plant mat erials predominantly
leans towards California natives, as indicated by the yellow dots on a slide. This choice aligns with the California coastal prai rie and co astal scrub palett
e found in the Bay Area and the site's historical ecosystem. o The use of these native plants aims to support the local habitat e cology naturally.

Drip irrigation will be employed, and most of the ch osen plants a re drought-tole
rant, with a few exceptions, such as those used in bioretention DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

327

PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
basins for stormwater treatment. Overall, the landscaping plan focuses on sustainability and achieving a distinctly native appearance. o Gilead representative also mentioned a project in Burlingame Point with similar plant
materials, emphasizing how this approach fosters native wildlife, such as butterflies and insects, and enhances the connection with natur e, which is expected to inspire scientific endeavors and provide a restorative environment for workers.
 Commissioner Venkat inquired about the availability of any pub lic spaces and amenities that could be enjoyed by members of the community. o Gilead design representative responded that the Vintage Park C ommunity Associatio
n access and corridors around the project will be pre served, and there will be visual improvements for those walking through the campus.  Chair Jagtiani inquired if there would be more people working in the new building compared to the one being replaced and if this change might affect traffic to and from the city.
o Kohar Kojayan, a representative from Gilead, stated that there will be a net
increase
of around 200 employees on campus due to the expansion , which is consistent with what was studied in the EIR. The total number o f employees and traffic impacts remain within the approved limits from the CEQA document.

Additionally, they have a Transportation Demand Management (TDM ) plan in place, which is regularly monitored and shows compliance with a llotted campus limits for employees and traffic.

The Commission had no further comments and did not recommend any modifications to the proposed building.

10. COMMU

NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REPORT

1. Director Mangalam discussed that staff is solicitating feedback on a Draft Ordinance for Objective
Design and Development Standards from the community. She menti oned sending
emails and conducting tabling events to gather input but expressed a need for more
feedback. She requested the Commissioners' assistance in spreading the word about
the Draft Ordinance. Director Mangalam mentioned plans for a future Study Session to
discuss any feedback received and potential amendments to ot her Chapters in the Municipal Code.

11. STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

1. Commissioner Venkat expressed gratitude to the staff and the applicant, as well as the neighbors and individuals who provided public comments. She men tioned a recent homicide in San Mateo County related to domestic violence, invo lving a woman na med Grace Marie Kelly. She emphasized the ongoing issue of domestic violence and abuse and shared the hotline number for CORA, an organization that assists individuals affected by domestic violence in San Mateo County, which is 800-300-1080.

2. Commissioner Pedro commended a successful meeting and offere d special recognition to project planner Helen for her extensive efforts on item 6.1. He expressed appreciation for the cooperation of the group of Commissioners and acknowled ged the valu able contributions each member makes to the public process. He echoed the sentiment that public feedback and comments are refreshing and instrumental in the decision-making DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

328

PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
process, encouraging continued participation from the public. H e thanked the public for their involvement in the meeting.

3. Chair Jagtiani expressed gratitude to staff and specifically acknowledged Helen for her hard work on the project. He committed to spreading the word ab out ODDS, mentioned his efforts on social media and his intention to personally rea ch out to others to ensure they engage with it.

12. ADJOU
RNMENT
Adjourned at 7.48 pm on October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

329

PLANNI
NG COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planni ng Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on October 5, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES, COMMISSIONERS: Haddad, Pedro, and Chair Jagtiani
NOES, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS: Bronitsky
ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: Venkat
___________________

RAVI JAGTIANI, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________

SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY
DocuSign Envelope ID: 3A10FE2C-FA4A-47DB-BEB3-7799E27459C7

8.1 Attachment 7 - September 7, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

330

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2024

REGULAR MEETING AND STUDY SESSION OF THE FOSTER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Council Chambers – 620 Foster City Boulevard – Foster City

M I N U T E S
August 15, 2024

1. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:00 p.m. by Chair Haddad

2. ROLL CALL

Present: Commissioners Jagtiani, Pedro, Venkat and Chair Haddad

Absent: Commissioner Bronitsky
Staff Present: Sofia Mangalam, Community Development Director; Monica Ly, Planning Manager; Helen Gannon, Senior Planner; Denise
Bazzano, Assistant City Attorney

3. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC

1. None

4.CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Regular Meeting Minutes of August 1, 2024
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Jagtiani, seconded by Commissioner Pedro, to approve the Minutes of August 1, 2024, passed 4-0-0-1 (Absent: Bronitsky)

5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING

1. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF THE RELOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN

ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ON A SITE WHICH CONTAINS A SHARED DRIVEWAY,

ADDITION OF SIX NEW SKYLIGHTS, EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING COVERED PATIO IN THE REAR, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A TOTAL OF 770 SQUARE FEET TO

THE FRONT AND REAR ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 106 CHALLENGE COURT IN NEIGHBORHOOD 1; AND FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (EXISTING FACILITIES) – APN 094-042-230

THE MEETING PURPOSE IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT (AR2023-0004). THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7, 2023.

ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Jagtiani, seconded by Commissioner Venkat, to direct the staff to return with an appropriate resolution to approve AR2023-0004 at the next Planning Commission Meeting, passed 3-1-0-1. (Noes: Haddad, Absent: Bronitsky)

8.1 Attachment 8 - August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

331

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2024

6. NEW PUBLIC HEARING

1. None

7. OLD BUSINESS

1. None

8. NEW BUSINESS

1. None

9. STUDY SESSION:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS STUDY SESSION IS TO PROVIDE THE PLANNING

COMMISSION AND THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND PROVIDE INPUT ON THE SENATE BILL (SB) 9 REQUIREMENTS
Planning Commissioners had the following comments:

Commissioner Jagtiani asked if the City has received any SB 9 applications.

Community Development Director Mangalam confirmed that there have been no applications.

Commissioner Jagtiani asked if there’s already an existing building, how easy would it be for somebody to use SB 9 to build an additional building on the same lot with the minimum 40 percent lot size and no more than 25 percent exterior wall requirements.

Community Development Director Mangalam stated that it is hard to determine when we have not received an application, however, small lot sizes could make it challenging.

Commissioner Jagtiani asked if ADUs can be built without the 40 percent lot size requirements.

Community Development Director Mangalam clarified that SB 9 has two separate development applications, one where you build an SB 9 unit, which is similar to ADUs, and the other is the lot split. She also mentioned that the main issue is that there has to be proof that there hasn’t been any tenant for the last three years.

Commissioner Jagtiani expressed that with the lot size being small and having to leave 25% of the walls, he feels that somebody will not be able to use SB 9 to build two units.

Community Development Director Mangalam explained that the side and rear setbacks are similar to ADUs and the size is 800 square feet for an ADU and 800 square feet for an SB 9 unit.

Commissioner Jagtiani questioned that if there is an ADU law in place that does not have to follow the 40 and 25 percent requirements, why would someone use SB 9.

8.1 Attachment 8 - August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

332

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2024
City Attorney Bazzano added that an owner that is taking advantage of the urban lot split is required to sign an affidavit which states that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years.

Commissioner Jagtiani asked if the owner-occupancy requirement for an ADU has been removed.

Community Development Director Mangalam and City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that it has been removed for ADU’s.

Commissioner Jagtiani feels that Foster City may not see any SB 9 Applications especially if ADUs are available on small lots.

Commissioner Venkat sent questions ahead of the meeting but will be going over them for public record. Her first question was what if a property is already zoned for two units The staff responded that SB 9 only applies to single-family residential zones, which includes property having primary homes in ADUs. If it is zoned for two units, it is not a single-family and SB 9 will not apply.

Commissioner Venkat asked staff if a mobile or manufactured prefab home could be used for any of the buildings.

The staff confirmed that prefab homes can be used.

Commissioner Venkat asked if there are any restrictions on the shape of the lots in a lot- split.

The staff responded that there are no restrictions regarding shape. There are other considerations, such as a split lot with SB 9 cannot be split multiple times, lot split on adjacent parcels by the same individual or another party acting on their behalf is prohibited, minimum lot size after splitting is 1,200 square feet and cannot be greater than 60/40 split, and local agencies can impose development standards.

Commissioner Pedro inquired if occupancy restrictions are dictated by the State. If so, is there anything at the local level that can be done?
Community Development Director Mangalam confirmed that it is in the State law.

Commissioner Pedro prefers to allow SB 9 units up to 1,200 square feet, which is similar to ADU sizes, rather than the SB 9 units up to 800 square feet.

Community Development Director Mangalam clarified that staff recommends that the regular ground coverage requirements apply.

Commissioner Venkat inquired if it is possible to offer more flexibility in regard to the 60/40 lot split and if there was a way to add another layer to the ordinance.

City Attorney Bazzano confirmed that the minimums are prescribed by the State law and could not deviate below that.

8.1 Attachment 8 - August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

333

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2024
Commissioner Haddad asked if a lot is subdivided into two parcels and you are building 2 units on each, how does the property tax apply?
City Attorney Bazzano stated that if the original owner subdivides the lots into 2, but retains ownership of both, the owner will pay property tax for both. The property tax is only changed when one of the lots is sold to a new owner.

10. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR REPORT

1. None

11. STATEMENTS AND REQUESTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

1. Commissioner Venkat thanked the staff for a productive meeting. She gave a shout-out to the food distribution that happens two Fridays a month. There will be one tomorrow and if anybody has food insecurities or wants to help, it is from 8:00 to 10:00 at the Community Center located next to the Library. She mentioned that Summer Days is also kicking off tomorrow through the weekend.

2. Commissioner Jagtiani thanked staff for the report and answering questions beforehand.

He mentioned that Summer Days will be Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

3. Commissioner Pedro mentioned that he is looking forward to Summer Days and is enjoying what Foster City has to offer.

4. Chair Haddad thanked City staff for their efforts and reports.

12. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourned at 8:31 p.m. to a Regular Meeting, September 5, 2024, Council Chambers, 620 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, California.

8.1 Attachment 8 - August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

334

PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2024
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City at a Regular Meeting thereof held on September 5, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES, COMMISSIONERS:

NOES, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSTAIN, COMMISSIONERS:

ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS:
___________________________

NICOLAS HADDAD, CHAIR
ATTEST:
____________________________

SOFIA MANGALAM, SECRETARY

8.1 Attachment 8 - August 15, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

335

4 5
0 DATE: October 21, 2024

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager

FROM: Waqas Hassan, Assistant Finance Director
DEPARTMENT: Finance
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX-EXEMPT IRC SECTION 115
IRREVOCABLE TRUST; SELECTING THE PUBLIC AGENCY

RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) AS THE TRUST
ADMINISTRATOR; APPROVING "GROWTH" INVESTMENT
STRATEGY; APPROVING THE FUNDING OF $286,294 AND THE
APPROPRIATION IN ACCOUNT NO. 508-0460-999-4155

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/Board of Directors adopt the attached resolutions to do the following:

1. Establish a tax-exempt IRC Section 115 Irrevocable Trust;

2. Select Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) as the Trust administrator;

3. Authorize the City/District Manager (or successor/designee) to:
(a) approve the agreement with PARS,
(b) be the City’s/District’s Plan Administrator, and
(c) execute all necessary documents to establish the IRC Section 115 Irrevocable Trust,

4. Approve the "Growth" investment strategy;

5. Approve the Initial Funding of $286,294; and

6. Approve the Appropriation in Account No. 508-0460-999-4155 for $286,294

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

336

4 5
0 During the FY 2024-25 budget preparation process, the Council1 expressed interest in establishing and funding the IRC Section 115 irrevocable trusts for its Longevity and Public Employees Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA) and Other Post- Employment Benefits (OPEB) plans and directed staff to bring forth plans and providers for the City Council’s consideration. As of June 30, 2024, unfunded actuarial liability for the Longevity plan is $3,059,419 and for PEMHCA retiree health benefits plan is $8,980,061. Staff, after contacting a few agencies providing trust services, have determined that establishing a trust, through its investment returns, will result in lowering the unfunded liabilities of these benefits plans.

However, liability for the City’s Longevity benefits plan, which is governed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) statement No. 73 (GASB 73), is not eligible to be funded through a Section 115 Trust since Section 115 Trust is not structured to address non-qualified pension liabilities. Therefore, the City would not be able to use the Section 115 Trust for the City’s longevity liability.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The City has internal services funds for both its Longevity Recognition Benefits and its PEMHCA Benefits Plans. The Fund Balances in each of these funds represent funds set aside for post-employment liability. The current practice is to assess estimated pay-as- go annual benefit charges to applicable departments. To fund each plan’s benefits, the City Council had previously established Internal Service Funds and authorized initial transfers from the General Fund, Enterprise Funds, and other Internal Service Funds to the Longevity Recognition Benefits and PEMHCA Benefits Internal Service Funds. Currently, internal service charges are assessed to the applicable departments “receiving” Longevity and/or PEMHCA benefits. Fiscal year 2024-25 total Longevity and PEMHCA assessment charges are $222,720 and 257,760, respectively.

From an accounting perspective, even if the City Council were to commit the fund balance in the Longevity and PEMHCA internal services funds to address the City’s OPEB liability, the fund balance would not be factored into the calculation of the net OPEB liability, as the City would maintain control over the funds. To have eligible funds included in the calculation of the net OPEB liability, the City must remit funds to an irrevocable IRC Section 115 Trust, such as the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT), administered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), or through the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) etc.

Based on an analysis performed by the City’s actuarial firm, Precision Actuarial Inc., the projected Unfunded Accrued Actuarial Liability (UAAL) for the fiscal year that ended on June 30, 2024 was $3,059,419 for the Longevity benefits plan and $8,980,061 for the PEMHCA retiree health benefits plan. The UAAL is the difference between assets (of which City has none since there are currently no funds placed in an irrevocable trust) and the actuarial accrued liability (AAL). As of June 30, 2024, the fund balance of Longevity Benefits Internal Service Fund (Fund 507) is approximately $2.8 million and 1 All references to the City Council or City shall include the Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors and the District.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

337

4 5
0 approximately $6.6 million for the PEMHCA fund (Fund 508). However, as stated above, these fund balances are not considered towards the calculations of unfunded liability since these are not placed in an irrevocable trust.

Staff contacted different trust administrators who reviewed the City’s GASB 73 Longevity Recognition Plan valuation and have determined that the PARS Section 115 Trust is not structured to address non-qualified pension liabilities. Therefore, the City would not be able to use the PARS Section 115 Trust for the City’s longevity liability. Considering this, City will continue its current practice to address the Longevity benefits plan through the annual budget process.

Section 115 Trust:

Establishing a Section 115 Trust is generally considered beneficial for unfunded liabilities whether from Pension or OPEB plans governed by GASB Statements 68 and 75, respectively. A Section 115 Trust is a tax-exempt investment vehicle authorized by the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) used to prefund essential government expenses (e.g., retiree medical, and pension plan benefits). In order to remain tax-exempt, assets held in a Trust are designated as irrevocable, meaning they must be used to fund their designated use, i.e., pension for pension and OPEB for OPEB. Additionally, monies held in such trusts can be invested per Government Code 53216 (pension) and 53260 (OPEB) which allow investments to be more diversified; whereas City’s investments policy is governed by the California Government Code Sections 53601.1, 53602, 53635, and 53646 which are more restrictive in nature. Furthermore, setting aside funds in a Section 115 Trust can potentially earn a higher rate of return than if funds were invested by the City on its own.

Establishing a Section 115 Trust is best practice recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). Some of the other benefits that a Section 115 Trust program can provide are summarized below.
•Greater expected rate of return, which helps lower liabilities •Contributions into Trust are considered assets when performing the unfunded liability calculations which helps lowering the benefits plans liability •GFOA recommends prefunding OPEB liabilities and considers it a best practice •Credit rating companies look more favorable to agencies who adopt irrevocable trust and prefund Pension/OPEB obligations
•Assets are accessible for expenses (Pension for Pension and OPEB for OPEB) at any time
•Prefunding OPEB obligations has no downside other than the market fluctuations.

Prefunding OPEB obligations means setting aside funds to cover future health care and other benefits for retired employees
Selection of Plan Administrator:

Since there is no cost associated with establishing a Section 115 Trust, ongoing administrative expenses are minimal and given the limited number of administrators

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

338

4 5
0 which could provide qualified and appropriate service, staff believes that the issuance of a Request for Proposal would be inefficient and that the City staff can achieve the same outcome to obtain services for the lowest cost commensurate with quality, by directly contacting three (3) top-tier well-known firms who perform as Section 115 Trust administrators. The three firms contacted were:
•CalPERS
•PARS
•PFM Asset Management LLC (PFM)
CalPERS and PARS responded to our request; however, PFM did not show interest for two reasons: 1) they work as PARS investments advisors and 2) they are only interested in managing trusts worth more than $50 million.

Below is a summary comparison of the Trust structure between CalPERS and PARS.

CalPERS PARS
Trust Structure 2 separate trusts (Pension
and OPEB)
One Combined trust
Trust Administration
Fees (all inclusive) 8.5 basis points or 0.085%
(1 basis point = .01%)
For Target Index-Based Strategies –
32 basis points or 0.32%
For Managed Tactical Strategies –
60 basis points or 0.60%
Investment Choices 3 Strategies 4 Target Index-Based Strategies and 5 Managed Tactical Strategies
Investment Returns
(as of 6/30/24)
Strategy 1
5-year 6.23%
“Growth” Strategy
5-year 8.32%
Who controls the
investment selection CalPERS Board PARS, and US Bank (trustee w/ PFMAM as its sub-advisor)1
Experience OPEB management for 17
years
40 years in administering retirement
plans
Participants & Assets’
worth
602 employer participants
Approx. 22.3B in assets
500+ participants
Approx. $8.3B in assets
1 – Public Agency Retirement Services (“PARS”) serves as the trust administrator. U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) serves as the discretionary trustee to the Trusts. In its capacity as discretionary trustee, U.S. Bank delegates the investment management of the Trusts to PFM Asset Management LLC (“PFMAM”) through a sub-advisory agreement. PFMAM is an investment adviser registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and an indirect subsidiary of U.S.

Bank.

While PARS trust administration fees are higher than CalPERS (32 vs. 8.5 basis points), it’s crucial to focus on the most relevant metric — Net Performance (Gross Performance minus fees). As noted above, PARS outweighs the rate of return offered by CalPERS by far, making it more attractive to have the plan assets grow at a much faster pace.

Investment Strategy:

CalPERS offers three investment strategies, whereas PARS offers four Target Index- Based Strategies and five Managed Tactical Strategies. See below for more details.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

339

4 5
0 CalPERS:

CERBT
Strategy 1
CERBT
Strategy 2
CERBT
Strategy 3
Equity % 49% 34% 23%
PARS:

PARS offers two strategies with different options available within each of them. These are listed in the tables below.

Target Index-Based Strategies
Growth Balanced Conservative Fixed Income
Equity % 75% 60% 40% 0%
Managed Tactical Strategies
Capital
Appreciation Balanced Moderate Moderately
Conservative Conservative
Equity % 65-85% 50-70% 40-60% 20-40% 5-20%
With the recommendation of PARS being the Trust administrator, staff also recommends Target Index-Based “Growth” investment strategy. The following rationales were considered for choosing this strategy:
•With sufficient fund balance available in PEMHCA Fund 508 (~$6.6 million), the City may not need to withdraw funds in the shorter term to pay plan benefits and can withstand the potential volatility.
•Since this will be the first time establishing and contributing to the Section 115 Trust, there is a need for the plan assets to grow so plan benefits can be paid out of the Trust at the end of the funding strategy (i.e. strategies with amortization periods of 5, 10 or 15 years, as displayed in the table below in the “Funding Strategy” section).

Funding Strategy:

City’s actuary, Precision Actuarial Inc., prepared different plan funding scenarios.

These strategies were prepared based on the following assumptions:
•Total contributions of $4.5 million which represent approximately 50% of current OPEB liability of $8,980,061.
•Plan benefits will continue to be paid with the City’s funds from outside the Section 115 Trust.
•Strategy I is based on CERBT Aggressive portfolio, assuming an investment rate of return of 6.25%.

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

340

4 5
0 •Strategy II is based on CERBT Moderate portfolio, assuming an investment rate of return of 5.84%.
•Contributions after the amortization periods are expected to be negative, meaning that if the City continues to pay benefits outside of the Section 115 Trust fund, the Trust fund will be overfunded (assuming positive fund returns) and the City should begin to pay at least some of the benefits from the trust funds.

Staff recommends 10-years funding Strategy I, which aligns with the PARS “Growth” investment strategy noted above.

California Environmental Quality Act
The approval of the Section 115 Trust is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et. seq.), including without limitation, Public Resources Code section 21065 and California Code of Regulations 15378 as this is not a “project” that may cause a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
With the approval of the recommended actions, the first contribution of $286,924 will be made using the reserves in PEMHCA Fund 508, which are at $6.6 million as of June 30, 2024. An appropriation of $286,924 will be needed in Account No. 508-0460-999- 4155. Future contributions will be appropriated through the regular budget process.

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Innovation and Sustainability
Staff Empowerment and Operational Excellence
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – City Resolution
Attachment 2 – EMID Resolution

9.1 9.1 Staff Report

341

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITYAPPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX-EXEMPT IRC SECTION 115 IRREVOCABLE TRUST;

SELECTING THE PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) AS THE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER (OR SUCCESSOR/DESIGNEE) TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH PARS, TO BE THE CITY’S PLAN

ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE IRC SECTION 115 IRREVOCABLE TRUST; APPROVING "GROWTH" INVESTMENT STRATEGY; APPROVING THE INITIAL FUNDING OF $286,294; AND APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION IN ACCOUNT 508-0460-999-4155 FOR $286,294

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, PARS has made available the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust (the “Trust”) for the purpose of prefunding pension obligations and/or other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligations; and
WHEREAS, the City is eligible to participate in the Trust, a tax-exempt trust performing an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Regulations issued there under, and is a tax- exempt trust under the relevant statutory provisions of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City’s adoption and operation of the Trust has no effect on any current or former employee’s entitlement to post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of post-employment benefit entitlement, if any, are governed by contracts separate from and independent of the Trust; and WHEREAS, the City’s funding of the Trust does not, and is not intended to, create any new vested right to any benefit nor strengthen any existing vested right; and WHEREAS, the City reserves the right to make contributions, if any, to the Trust.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby:

1. Authorize participation in and adopts the PARS Public Agencies Post- Employment Benefits Trust effective as of October 21, 2024 and hereby establishes a tax-exempt IRC Section 115 irrevocable Trust;

2. Select PARS as the Trust administrator and authorizes the City Manager to approve the agreement with PARS, with minor revisions that may be approved by the City Attorney, to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the agreement and maintain the Trust on behalf of the City, in forms approved by the City Attorney and to maintain compliance of any relevant

9.1 Attachment 1 - CITY Resolution

342

2 7
0 0
regulation(s) issued or as may be issued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the City’s Trust;

3. Appoints the City Manager, or his/her successor or his/her designee as the City’s Plan Administrator for the Trust;

4. Approve the "Growth" investment strategy;

5. Approve the Initial Funding of $286,294; and

6. Approve the appropriation in Account No. 508-0460-999-4155 for $286,294.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on the 21st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_________________________________

PATRICK SULLIVAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

9.1 Attachment 1 - CITY Resolution

343

RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTAPPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAX-EXEMPT IRC SECTION 115 IRREVOCABLE TRUST; SELECTING THE PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) AS THE TRUST ADMINISTRATOR; AUTHORIZING

THE DISTRICT MANAGER (OR SUCCESSOR/DESIGNEE) TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH PARS, TO BE THE DISTRICT’S PLAN ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE IRC SECTION 115 IRREVOCABLE TRUST; APPROVING "GROWTH" INVESTMENT STRATEGY; APPROVING THE INITIAL FUNDING OF $286,294; AND APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION IN ACCOUNT 508-0460-999-4155 FOR $286,294

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, PARS has made available the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust (the “Trust”) for the purpose of prefunding pension obligations and/or other post-employment benefits OPEB obligations; and
WHEREAS, the District is eligible to participate in the Trust, a tax-exempt trust performing an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Regulations issued there under, and is a tax- exempt trust under the relevant statutory provisions of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the District’s adoption and operation of the Trust has no effect on any current or former employee’s entitlement to post-employment benefits; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of post-employment benefit entitlement, if any, are governed by contracts separate from and independent of the Trust; and WHEREAS, the District’s funding of the Trust does not, and is not intended to, create any new vested right to any benefit nor strengthen any existing vested right; and WHEREAS, the District reserves the right to make contributions, if any, to the Trust.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does hereby:

1. Authorize participation in and adopts the PARS Public Agencies Post Employment Benefits Trust effective as of October 21, 2024 and establishes a tax-exempt IRC Section 115 irrevocable Trust;

2. Select PARS as the Trust administrator and authorizes the District Manager to approve the agreement with PARS, with minor revisions that may be approved by the District Legal Counsel, to execute any other necessary documents to

9.1 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution

344

2 7
0 2
effectuate the terms of the agreement and maintain the Trust on behalf of the District, in forms approved by the District Legal Counsel and to maintain compliance of any relevant regulation(s) issued or as may be issued; therefore, authorizing him/her to take whatever additional actions are required to administer the District’s Trust;

3. Appoint the District Manager, or his/her successor or his/her designee as the District’s Plan Administrator for the Trust;

4. Approve the "Growth" investment strategy;

5. Approve the Initial Funding of $286,294; and

6. Approve the appropriation in Account No. 508-0460-999-4155 for $286,294.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 21st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________________

PATRICK SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

9.1 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution

345

2 8
9 DATE: October 21, 2024

TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, City/District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant City/District Manager

FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Public Works Director/City/District Engineer Zaheed Danish, Public Works Maintenance Manager
DEPARTMENT: Public Works
SUBJECT: ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL

PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY

RESPONSE SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council/District Board adopt resolutions authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services; authorizing the City/District Manager to execute Master Service Agreements for on-call services with qualified contractors; and finding the action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(B)(3), 15301 (Class 1-Existing Facilities), 15302 (Class 2-Replacement or Reconstruction) and 15269 (B) (Emergency Repair).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City/District’s infrastructure is now over fifty (50) years old and, although it is well maintained, is requiring increasing age-related maintenance and repair. City/District staff conduct regular and routine maintenance and repair of these systems in order to ensure that they remain in excellent condition on a daily basis, but there are occasionally needs for

9.2 9.2 Staff Report

346

2 8
9 outside expert contractors to perform routine, urgent or emergency work that cannot be performed by City/District staff.

Issuing an RFP for local contractors who are licensed to perform maintenance and repair of the City/District’s water, wastewater and stormwater systems, and roadways on an on- call basis, and authorizing the City/District Manager to enter into on-call agreements with contractors who are deemed by staff to be qualified through the RFP process, will establish contractual relationships between the City/District and qualified contractors so that they can respond quickly and efficiently when urgent/emergency work is necessary.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The City/District manages and maintains essential facilities such as water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure systems. The City/District’s infrastructure is now over fifty (50) years old and, although it is well maintained, is requiring increasing age-related maintenance and repair. City/District staff conduct regular and routine maintenance and repair of these systems in order to ensure that they remain in excellent condition on a daily basis, but there are occasionally needs for outside expert contractors to perform routine, urgent or emergency work that cannot be performed by City/District staff. One such example of urgent/emergency service was work performed due to the unanticipated failure of a portion of the City/District’s 24-inch water transmission main that occurred in April 2024.

Further, an example of routine work for which contractual services may be needed for expertise and staff support is with the scheduled installation of large water meters which require a whole crew to install or replacement of air release valves which requires a system wide shut down.

Staff recommends issuing an RFP for contractors who are licensed to perform maintenance and repair on the City/District’s water, wastewater and stormwater systems, and roadways on an on-call basis. The RFP process ensures that contractors are solicited through an open and competitive process. The RFP process is used to identify contractors with the necessary background, qualifications and experience to provide services as well as making certain the cost for services is competitive.

The intent of this RFP is to establish a pool of qualified contractors to provide maintenance and repairs to the City/District’s essential infrastructure through a Master Service Agreement. This may also include services like debris management, building restoration, or delivery of goods and supplies during an emergency. When there is an urgent or emergency situation that requires the expertise and/or staffing of an outside contractor, staff will identify the qualified contractor and secure their services through a Task Order for each separate project. Executing these Master Service Agreements in advance of the need for a specific scope of work will establish the contractual relationships between the City/District and qualified contractors, including contract terms and insurance requirements, so that the City/District staff are better positioned to reach out to contractors who can respond quickly and efficiently when work is necessary.

Any public works projects over the City/District Manager, or their designee’s signing authority, are subject to the informal bidding procedures identified in Foster City Municipal Code (FCMC) Section 3.04.190 or the formal bidding procedures in FCMC 3.04.200 and

9.2 9.2 Staff Report

347

2 8
9 the City’s Purchasing Policy, depending on the estimated cost of the project. If a local emergency is declared under the provisions of FCMC Chapter 2.40 pertaining to emergency organization and functions, the City Council pursuant to a four-fifths vote, may repair or replace a public facility, take any directly related and immediate action required by that emergency, and procure the necessary equipment, services, and supplies for those purposes, without giving notice for bids to let contracts.

Approving the attached resolution will authorize the City/District Manager to enter into on- call Master Service Agreements with contractors who are deemed by staff to be qualified through the RFP process. Once the Master Service Agreement is executed, the City/District Manager or their designee can approve individual Task Orders for various on-call work that may be needed by the City/District up to the City/District Manager, or their designee’s signing authority, which is currently $60,000, but may be increased to $75,000 as of January 1, 2025 and additionally through the contract term, as allowed under the state Public Contracts Code and authorized by City Council at a future meeting.

CEQA
The issuance of an RFP for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) under the common sense exemption as it can be seen with certainty that the approval of the RFP for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services will not have a significant effect on the environment. Any maintenance or repair done through the Master Service Agreement would also be exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(Class 1-Existing Facilities) or 15302 (Class 2-Replacement or Reconstruction) or 15269 (b) (Emergency Repair) as the repair services will involve repair of existing infrastructure located on the same site and for the same purpose.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant cost associated with issuing the RFP. Each Task Order issued under the agreements will be less than the City/District Manager, or their designee’s signing authority, which is currently $60,000, but may be increased to $75,000 as of January 1, 2025, and additionally through the contract term as allowed under the state Public Contracts Code and authorized by City Council, unless that work is done under a declaration of emergency. Funding will be available for the work within the adopted Public Works Department budget.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – City Resolution
Attachment 2 – EMID Resolution
Attachment 3 – Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

9.2 9.2 Staff Report

348

2 6
7 4
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY

AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL

PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS; AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3), 15301 (CLASS 1-EXISTING FACILITIES), 15302 (CLASS 2-(REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION) AND 15269(B)(EMERGENCY

REPAIR)

CITY OF FOSTER CITY
WHEREAS, the City’s infrastructure is over fifty (50) years old and, although it is well maintained, is requiring increasing age-related maintenance and repair; and WHEREAS, there are periodic needs for outside expert contractors to perform routine, urgent or emergency work that cannot be performed by City staff; and WHEREAS, issuing an RFP for local contractors who are licensed to perform maintenance and repair of the City’s water, wastewater, stormwater systems and roadways on an on-call basis will establish contractual relationships between the City and qualified contractors so that they can respond quickly and efficiently when work is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the intent of this RFP is to establish a pool of qualified contractors to provide maintenance and repairs to the City’s essential infrastructure through a Master Service Agreement. When there is an urgent or emergency situation that requires the expertise and staffing of an outside contractor, City staff will identify the qualified contractor and secure their services through a Task Order for each separate project under the City Manager’s signing authority; and
WHEREAS, Task Orders for work in an amount currently less than $60,000, which limit may be increased to $75,000 as of January 1, 2025, and additionally over the term of the agreements as allowed under the state Public Contracts Code and authorized by City Council, can be authorized by the City Manager or their designee per the City’s Purchasing Policy and Foster City Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, any public works projects over the City Manager’s signing authority shall be subject to the informal bidding procedures identified in Foster City Municipal Code section 3.04.190 or the formal bidding procedures in 3.04.200, depending on the estimated cost of the project.

9.2 Attachment 1 - City Resolution

349

2 6
7 4
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does herby:

1. Find the issuance of an RFP for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) under the common sense exemption as it can be seen with certainty that the approval of the RFP for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services will not have a significant effect on the environment. Any maintenance or repair done through the Master Service Agreement/Task Order would also be exempt from review under CEQA Guidelines section 15301(Class 1-Existing Facilities) or 15302 (Class 2- (Replacement or Reconstruction) or 15269 (b) (Emergency Repair) as the repair services will involve repair of existing infrastructure located on the same site and for the same purpose;

2. Approve the issuance of a Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services in a form substantially similar to the one attached to the Staff Report for this agenda item; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute Master Service Agreement(s) with qualified contractors based upon Staff’s evaluation of submitted proposals. The Master Service Agreement(s) shall be in a form attached to the Request for Proposal, with minor amendments that may be made by the City Manager and City Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the regular meeting held on October 21, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________

PATRICK SULLIVAN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, CITY CLERK

9.2 Attachment 1 - City Resolution

350

2 6
7 5
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR

PROPOSAL FOR ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND
URGENT/EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE DISTRICT MANAGER TO EXECUTE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS; AND FINDING THE

ACTION EXEMPT FROM REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15061(B)(3), 15301 (CLASS 1-EXISTING FACILITIES), 15302 (CLASS 2-REPLACEMENT OR RECONSTRUCTION) AND 15269(B) (EMERGENCY REPAIR)

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the District’s infrastructure is over fifty (50) years old and, although it is well maintained, is requiring increasing age-related maintenance and repair; and WHEREAS, there are periodic needs for outside expert contractors to perform routine, urgent or emergency work that cannot be performed by District staff; and WHEREAS, issuing an RFP for local contractors who are licensed to perform maintenance and repair of the District’s water, wastewater, stormwater systems and roadways on an on-call basis will establish contractual relationships between the District and qualified contractors so that they can respond quickly and efficiently when work is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the intent of this RFP is to establish a pool of qualified contractors to provide maintenance and repairs to the District’s essential infrastructure through a Master Service Agreement. When there is an urgent or emergency situation that requires the expertise and staffing of an outside contractor, District staff will identify the qualified contractor and secure their services through a Task Order for each separate project under the District Manager’s signing authority; and
WHEREAS, Task Orders for work in an amount currently less than $60,000, which limit may be increased to $75,000 as of January 1, 2025, and additionally over the term of the agreements as allowed under the state Public Contracts Code and authorized by Board of Directors, can be authorized by the District Manager or their designee per the City’s Purchasing Policy and Foster City Municipal Code; WHEREAS, any public works projects over the District Manager’s signing authority shall be subject to the informal bidding procedures identified in Foster City Municipal Code section 3.04.190 or the formal bidding procedures in 3.04.200, depending on the estimated cost of the project.

9.2 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution

351

2 6
7 5
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does herby:

3. Authorize the District Manager to execute Master Service Agreement(s) with qualified contractors based upon Staff’s evaluation of submitted proposals. The Master Service Agreement(s) shall be in a form attached to the Request for Proposal, with minor amendments that may be made by the District Manager and District Attorney.

PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on October 21, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________________

PATRICK SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:
______________________________________

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

9.2 Attachment 2 - EMID Resolution

352

2 6
7 6
City of Foster City / Estero Municipal Improvement District Public Works Department
100 Lincoln Centre Drive
Foster City, CA 94404

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES RFP ISSUED: October 23, 2024
QUESTIONS DUE: November 13, 2024
PROPOSALS DUE: November 21, 2024, by 4 PM
City Hall, 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA
Dear Contractor,
You are invited to submit a proposal to provide On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services for the City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District. The City/District will select qualified contractors to create a list of contractors for on-call public works maintenance and urgent/emergency response services.

When required by the City/District, the services will include furnishing all materials, labor, and equipment required for completion of facility or infrastructure repairs, including but not limited to CITY/DISTRICT Water, Wastewater, Buildings, Streets and/or Stormwater systems, and other facilities on an on-call basis as outlined in specific Task Orders.

Interested contractors are encouraged to submit a proposal covering all or specific components of the services detailed in the Scope of Work included as Exhibit B to the attached Master Services Agreement for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services (“Master Agreement”).

CONTRACT
The initial contract period shall be from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2027. The contract may be renewed in one-year (12 month) increments up to two (2) additional years, by mutual consent of contractor and City/District.

The successful proposer(s) will be required to enter into and abide by the terms of the attached Master Agreement, including its insurance requirements. Under the Master Agreement, the City/District will issue Task Orders to City/District selected on-call contractors to provide services

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

353

2 6
7 6
on a “Time and Materials” basis, where the services are expected to not exceed the City/District Manager’s signing authority which is currently $60,000 for regular maintenance and urgent services, but which may be increased to $75,000 after January 1, 2025 and additionally over the term of the agreements, as allowed under the Public Contracts Code and authorized by City Council. For emergency services, the task order may exceed the above limits if deemed an emergency per Foster City Municipal Code section 3.04.280. If contract sum under any Task Order exceeds (or is expected to exceed) $25,000, Contractor shall provide a construction labor and material payment bond, in accordance with Civil Code Section 9550 and may be required to provide a construction performance bond. Proposals must include all contract requirements within the proposed price.

PROPOSALS
Each proposer must submit five (5) fully completed copies of the BID PROPOSAL FORM in a sealed envelope. Proposers may, at their option, include five (5) copies of up to one (1) additional page with supplemental information.

Proposals will be evaluated based on cost and other information outlined in the Request for Proposal. The proposers’ qualifications and references may be verified through interviews with the proposers and/or reference checks. From these processes, the City/District may select one or more contractors with whom to negotiate final contract terms. The contractor must be ready to execute the attached Master Agreement within ten (10) days of award of the contract.

REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The City/District reserves the right to seek clarification or additional information from any contractor throughout the solicitation process. Failure of a proposer to demonstrate that the claims made in a proposal are accurate may be sufficient cause for deeming a proposal non- responsive.

Questions regarding this RFP are due no later than November 13, 2024, and may be directed to Zaheed Danish, Public Works Maintenance Manager, at 650-286-8140 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Zaheed Danish
Public Works Maintenance Manager

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

354

2 6
7 6

CITY OF FOSTER CITY / ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

PROPOSER RESPONSE FORM

ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY RESPONSE SERVICES The Proposal Form consists of 6 parts:
•CITY OF FOSTER CITY / ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PROPOSAL FORM
•AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AND WAIVER •CERTIFICATE OF INSURABILITY
•CONTRACT REVIEW STATEMENT
•NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

355

2 6
7 6
PROJECT: CONTRACT PERIOD:

CITY OF FOSTER CITY / ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND

URGENT/EMERGENCY SERVICES
January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2027, with
City/District option to extend through December
31, 2029
SECTION 1: Contact Information

1. COMPANY NAME

2. CONTRACTOR

LICENSE NUMBER

3. FEDERAL TAX ID NUMBER

4. YEARS IN BUSINESS

5. BILLING ADDRESS 6. CITY 7. STATE/ZIP

8. TELEPHONE 9. FAX 10. EMAIL

11. CONTACT PERSON 12. TITLE
SECTION 2: Addenda
I acknowledge receipt of the following addenda:

Addenda Number Date
SECTION 3: Qualifications
List all Contractor Licenses, Certifications, Experience, Qualifications, Reputation, Service Capabilities and Quality Related to the Contract Scope of Work.

SECTION 4: Conflict of Interest
☐By checking this box, the proposer confirms that this engagement will not result in a conflict of interest for the organization or any of its team members.

SECTION 5: References
Include at least three (3) organizations which can be used as references for performance of similar services. Where possible, include references from public sector agencies.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

356

2 6
7 6
Reference 1:

AGENCY/COMPANY NAME

CONTACT NAME CONTACT PHONE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

Reference 2:

AGENCY/COMPANY NAME

CONTACT NAME CONTACT PHONE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

Reference 3:

AGENCY/COMPANY NAME

CONTACT NAME CONTACT PHONE

DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

357

2 6
7 6
SECTION 6: Proposal Cost
Proposed Hourly Rates for On-Call Services
Under the Master Agreement, the City/District will issue Task Orders to City/District selected on-call contractors to provide services for urgent or emergency events on a “Time and Materials” basis, where the services are expected to not exceed the City/District Manager’s signing authority which is currently $60,000 for regular maintenance and urgent services, but which may be increased to $75,000 after January 1, 2025 and additionally over the term of the agreements as allowed under the Public Contracts Code and authorized by City Council. For emergency services, the task order may exceed the above limits if deemed an emergency per Foster City Municipal Code section 3.04.280. If contract sum under any Task Order exceeds (or is expected to exceed) $25,000, Contractor shall provide a construction labor and material payment bond, in accordance with Civil Code Section 9550 and may be required to provide a construction performance bond.

No work shall be performed under the Master Agreement except to the extent the Contractor receives a Task Order from the City/District Authorized Representative. If services are needed by the City/District, the City/District will request proposals from on-call contractors for each Task Order when services are needed. Contractor would then respond with a scope and cost proposal in a reasonably prompt manner, no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after City/District’s request. Such proposal shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maximum compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses payable therefor, the time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services.

Trades for which your company is licensed and proposing to provide service under this Master Agreement:
_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Enter personnel type and labor rates for any personnel who may be deployed to complete the tasks listed in the Scope of Work. Additional sheets may be added as needed to complete this section.

Enter Personnel Type Enter Personnel Type Enter Personnel Type Enter Personnel Type Standard Rate $ $ $ $
Weekday Overtime Rate $ $ $ $
Weekend Overtime Rate $ $ $ $
Holiday Rate $ $ $ $
Other (Specify) $ $ $ $
Other (Specify) $ $ $ $

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

358

2 6
7 6
Contractor shall provide documentation of all materials costs. Mark-up on the cost of materials utilized under this agreement shall not exceed: ______% (to be filled by proposer) SECTION 7: Submittal guidelines
Submit five (5) hard copies of this proposal form and optional additional one-page supplemental information sheet in a sealed envelope no later than by 4 PM on Thursday, November 21, 2024, to:

Zaheed Danish, Public Works Maintenance Manager
City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District 610 Foster City Boulevard
Foster City, CA 94404
Late proposals will not be considered.

In accordance with the Request for Proposals, the undersigned declares that the services offered are in accordance with all requirements of the CITY/DISTRICT detailed therein. Further, the undersigned declares that he/she is authorized to enter into agreement on behalf of the above named business and it is hereby understood that the above proposal reflects the cost of all services outlined in the Scope of Services.

SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME DATE

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

359

2 6
7 6

AUTHORIZATION FOR RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AND WAIVER

I, _______________________, the undersigned, on behalf of ______________________ (the company), do hereby consent and authorize all those companies and government entities listed in my Proposer Response Form and any other government entity for whom this company has performed professional services, to disclose and release to the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, or their representatives, information, records and opinions concerning this company’s performance. The purpose of this disclosure is to provide references to the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District. ___________________________ hereby waives any claim it may have against the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District or any company or entity providing information to the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District by reason of any information being disclosed or opinions provided regarding the actions or performance of this company.

This authorization for disclosure of information is effective for one year.

This consent or copy of this authorization shall be as valid and effective as the original.

Dated: __________________________________

By: ____________________________________

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

360

2 6
7 6

CERTIFICATE OF INSURABILITY

I hereby certify that as a Proposer to City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District for a contractor services contract, I am fully aware of Insurance Requirements contained in the Contract and by the submission of this Proposal, I hereby assure the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District that I am able to produce the insurance coverage required should I be selected to be awarded the contract.

Should I be awarded the Master Services Agreement for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services by the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, and then become unable to produce the insurance coverage specified within ten (10) working days, I am fully aware and understand that I may not be considered for further projects by the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District.

______________________________________
Signature of Applicant

______________________________________
Date

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

361

2 6
7 6

CONTRACT REVIEW STATEMENT
As a Proposer to City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services , I hereby certify that I have reviewed the Master Services Agreement for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Response Services (“Master Agreement”) and have listed any objections to the Master Agreement terms below. The response shall clearly identify if the attached contract is acceptable in all respects including warranty, insurance, and document ownership and retention requirements. If the contract is not acceptable, the response shall identify the unacceptable clauses and shall provide suggested alternate language. General or vague statements or invitations to discuss further are not adequate answers.

I am aware that any objections to the Master Agreement will be considered and included in the City/District’s evaluation of my firm’s qualifications. I am also aware, if I fail to list any objections to the City/District’s Master Agreement, I will not be allowed to raise any objections later if selected as one of the on-call contractors.

__________________________________________
Signature of Proposer
_________________________________________
Date
Specific Objections:
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

362

2 6
7 6

NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION
(PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 7106)
I, ____________________ declare under penalty of perjury that I am _______________________ (sole owner, partner, president, etc.) of ________________________________(company name), the party making the foregoing proposal; that the proposal is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any undisclosed person, partnership, company, association, organization, or corporation; that the bid is genuine and not collusive or sham; that the proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other proposer to put in a false or sham proposal, and has not directly or indirectly colluded, conspired, connived, or agreed with any proposer or anyone else to put in a sham proposal, or that anyone shall refrain from submitting a proposal; that the proposer has not in any manner, directly or indirectly, sought by agreement, communication, or conference with anyone to fix the proposed prices of the proposer or any other proposer, or to fix any overhead, profit, or cost element of the proposal prices, or of that of any other proposer, or to secure any advantage against the public body awarding the contract or anyone interested in the proposed contract; that all statements contained in the proposal are true; and, further, that the proposer has not, directly or indirectly, submitted his or her proposal or paid, and will not pay, any fee to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization, bid depository, or to any member or agent thereof to effectuate a collusive or sham proposal.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and this was executed on the date show below at _______________________________________, (City, State)

Dated: ____________________________
NAME OF PROPOSER: ____________________________________
Signature: ___________________________________________

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

363

2 6
7 6

MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR

ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY

RESPONSE SERVICES
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 1 st day of January, 2025 by and between the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District hereinafter called "CITY/DISTRICT" and [______________________] hereinafter called "CONTRACTOR."

RECITALS
This Agreement is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

WHEREAS, CITY/DISTRICT desires to retain CONTRACTOR to provide on-call repair and maintenance and urgent/emergency response services for CITY/DISTRICT infrastructure;
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that, as a need arises for CONTRACTOR to provide services, CITY/DISTRICT will issue Task Orders to CONTRACTOR (in a form substantially similar to that set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference which more particularly describes the scope of services to be performed); WHEREAS, in reliance upon CONTRACTOR's documentation of its qualifications, the CITY/DISTRICT finds that CONTRACTOR has demonstrated the requisite qualifications, experience, training, and expertise to perform the requested services.

WHEREAS, that CONTRACTOR is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform and has agreed to provide such services;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, terms and conditions hereinafter contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. Services. The services to be performed by CONTRACTOR under this Agreement shall include those services set forth in each Task Order and Exhibit “B,” Scope of Services, which is, by this reference, incorporated herein and made a part hereof as though it were fully set forth herein.

Performance of the work specified in said Exhibit B and each Task Order is hereby made an obligation of CONTRACTOR under this Agreement, subject to any changes that may be made subsequently hereto upon the mutual written agreement of the said parties.

Where in conflict, the terms of this Agreement supersede and prevail over any terms set forth in Exhibit B and in each Task Order.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

364

2 6
7 6

1. Term; Termination.
(a) The term of this Agreement shall commence upon the date hereinabove written and shall expire upon completion of performance of services hereunder by CONTRACTOR. Initial contract period shall be from January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2027. The contract may be renewed subsequently in one-year increments as follows: The second contract period will be from January 1, 2028, through December 31, 2028. The third contract period will be from January 1, 2029, through December 31, 2029.

Renewal shall be by mutual consent of CONTRACTOR AND
CITY/DISTRICT as approved by the City Council/District Board.

CONTRACTOR shall not commence Services or work until a Notice to Proceed is issued by CITY/DISTRICT.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of (a) above, CITY/DISTRICT may with or without cause, direct CONTRACTOR to suspend, delay or interrupt Services, in whole or in part, for such periods of time as CITY/DISTRICT may determine in its sole discretion.

(c) CITY/DISTRICT may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for default, should CONTRACTOR commit a material breach of this Agreement, or part thereof, and not cure such breach within ten (10) calendar days of the date of CITY/DISTRICT’s written notice to CONTRACTOR demanding such cure, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be liable to CITY/DISTRICT for all loss, cost, expense, damage and liability resulting from such breach and termination.
(d) CITY/DISTRICT may terminate performance of the Services under this Agreement in whole, or from time to time in part, for convenience, whenever CITY/DISTRICT determines that such termination is in CITY/DISTRICT’s best interests, in which case CONTRACTOR shall be entitled to recover its costs expended up to the termination date plus reasonable profit thereon to the termination date as this Agreement would otherwise provide, but may recover no other cost, damage or expense. CONTRACTOR shall continue its work throughout the course of any dispute, and CONTRACTOR’s failure to continue work during a dispute shall be a material breach of this Agreement.

2. Compensation; Expenses; Payment. CITY/DISTRICT shall compensate CONTRACTOR for all services performed by CONTRACTOR hereunder in an amount based upon CONTRACTOR’s hourly rates during the time of the performance of said services. A copy of CONTRACTOR’s hourly rates for which services hereunder shall be performed are set forth in CONTRACTOR’s fee schedule marked Exhibit “C” hereof, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

365

2 6
7 6
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the combined total of compensation and reimbursement of costs payable hereunder shall not exceed the total amount identified in the Task Order issued to CONTRACTOR by the City/District under this Agreement. The Contractor shall only be paid for services performed under this Agreement to the extent authorized by written Task Order. No overhead or other expenses can be recovered for interim periods when the Contractor’s services are not utilized by the City/District.

Invoices for amounts in excess of each Task Order shall not be paid unless the performance of services and/or reimbursement of costs and expenses in excess of said amounts have been approved in advance of performing such services or incurring such costs and expenses by CITY/DISTRICT’s Manager (for contracts less than $60,000 or the signatory approval levels in the adopted Purchasing Policy at the time the task order is signed) or CITY/DISTRICT Board (for contracts higher than the signatory approval levels in the adopted Purchasing Policy at the time the task order is signed) evidenced by motion duly made and carried and a written contract amendment having been executed.

Compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses hereunder shall be payable upon completion of the work under each Task Order by CONTRACTOR to CITY/DISTRICT, which billing shall include an itemized statement, briefly describing by task and labor category or cost/expense items billed. Final payment will be made when all Services required under this Agreement have been completed to the reasonable satisfaction of CITY/DISTRICT including, without limitation, CONTRACTOR's transmittal of all deliverables to CITY/DISTRICT required by EXHIBIT B and each Task Order.

CITY/DISTRICT shall not incur any charges under this Agreement, nor shall any payments become due to CONTRACTOR for any payment period on the Project, until CITY/DISTRICT receives all deliverables required under Exhibit B and each Task Order, SCOPE OF WORK AND SCHEDULE, for the payment period (if any) and reasonably accepts such deliverables as meeting the requirements of this Agreement. In cases where CONTRACTOR has partially completed one or more deliverables due during a payment period, and if CONTRACTOR demonstrates diligent progress thereon, then CITY/DISTRICT may make a partial progress payment based upon percentage completion of the partially completed deliverables and diligent progress but taking into account any adverse impacts upon CITY/DISTRICT. CITY/DISTRICT shall not be liable for, and CONTRACTOR shall not be entitled to, any payment for Services performed before this Agreement's execution.

CITY/DISTRICT will not withhold any Federal or State income taxes or Social Security tax from any payments made by CITY/DISTRICT to

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

366

2 6
7 6
CONTRACTOR under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

Payment of all taxes and other assessments on such sums is the sole responsibility of CONTRACTOR. CITY/DISTRICT has no responsibility or liability for payment of CONTRACTOR’s taxes or assessments.

CONTRACTOR shall pay prevailing wages to its employees on any agreement in excess of $1,000.00. Copies of the general prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification, or type of worker needed to execute the Agreement, as determined by the Director of the State of California Department of Industrial Relations, are on file at the County’s Capital Projects Office and may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations website
[http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/DPreWageDetermination.htm].

CONTRACTOR shall comply with the 8-hours per day/40 hours per week/overtime/working hours restrictions for all employees, pursuant to the California Labor Code. CONTRACTOR and all subconsultants shall keep and maintain accurate employee payroll records for Work performed under the Agreement. The payroll records shall be certified and submitted as required by law, including Labor Code Sections 1771.4 (if applicable) and 1776, including to the Labor Commissioner no less frequently than monthly.

CONTRACTOR shall comply fully with Labor Code Section 1777.5 in the hiring of apprentices for work relating to the Agreement. If the Agreement exceeds $2,000 and is funded with federal funds, then CONTRACTOR shall pay federal Davis Bacon wages and comply with applicable federal requirements.

4. Performance Bond. If contract sum under any Task Order exceeds (or is expected to exceed) $25,000, Contractor shall provide a construction labor and material payment bond, in accordance with Civil Code Section 9550 and in form attached hereto as Exhibit F – Construction Labor and Materials Payment Bond, and may be required, in City’s sole discretion to provide a construction performance bond in form attached hereto as Exhibit G – Construction Performance Bond. Contractor may not substitute cash in lieu of the required bond(s).

5. Performance of Services. No work shall be performed under this Agreement except to the extent the CONTRACTOR receives a Task Order from the CITY/DISTRICT’s Authorized Representative. The CITY/DISTRICT will request proposals from the CONTRACTOR for each Task Order when services are needed. CONTRACTOR shall respond with a scope and cost proposal in a reasonably prompt manner, no later than fifteen (15) calendar days after CITY/DISTRICT’s request. Such proposal shall include a description of the services to be performed thereunder, the maximum compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses payable therefor, the time of performance thereof, and such other matters as the parties deem appropriate for the accomplishment of such services. Upon the approval of

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

367

2 6
7 6
the terms of the proposal by CITY/DISTRICT’s Manager (for contracts less than $60,000 or the signatory approval levels in the adopted Purchasing Policy at the time the task order is signed) or CITY/DISTRICT Board (for contracts higher than the signatory approval levels in the adopted Purchasing Policy at the time the task order is signed) by motion duly made and carried, the CITY/DISTRICT's Authorized Representative shall issue a Task Order against this agreement. CONTRACTOR shall commence performance and shall complete all required services no later than the dates set forth in accordance with the approved Task Order. Except to the extent modified by written amendment, all other terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed incorporated in each such Task Order.

6. Records and Audit. CONTRACTOR shall keep and maintain accurate records of all time expended and costs and expenses incurred relating to services to be performed by CONTRACTOR hereunder. Said records shall be available to CITY/DISTRICT for review and copying during regular business hours at CONTRACTOR’s place of business or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.

CONTRACTOR shall prepare and maintain all writings, documents and records prepared or compiled in connection with the performance of this Agreement for a minimum of four (4) years from the termination or completion of this Agreement. This includes any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photo static, photographing and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing, any form of communication or representation including letters, words, pictures, sounds or symbols or any combination thereof.

Any authorized representative of CITY/DISTRICT shall have access to any writings as defined above for the purposes of making audit, evaluation, examination, excerpts and transcripts during the period such records are to be maintained by CONTRACTOR. Further, CITY/DISTRICT has the right at all reasonable times to audit, inspect or otherwise evaluate the services and work performed or being performed under this Agreement.

7. Authorization. This Agreement becomes effective when endorsed by both parties in the space provided below.

8. Reliance on Professional Skill of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR represents that it has the necessary professional skills to perform the services required and the CITY/DISTRICT shall rely on such skills of the CONTRACTOR to do and perform the work. In performing services hereunder CONTRACTOR shall adhere to the standards generally prevailing for the performance of expert consulting services similar to those to be performed by CONTRACTOR hereunder.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

368

2 6
7 6
CONTRACTOR represents that it has reviewed Exhibit B and that in its professional judgment the Services to be performed under this Agreement can be performed for a fee within the maximum amount set forth in the Compensation Schedule established in Exhibit B.

CONTRACTOR represents that it possesses all necessary training, licenses, certificates, and permits required by the federal, state, CITY/DISTRICT or municipal governments to perform the Services. Such licenses, certificates and permits must be valid at the time CONTRACTOR enters into this Agreement and must be maintained during the term of this Agreement in full force and effect. Licenses, certificates and permits may include but are not limited to driver’s licenses, professional licenses or certificates and business licenses. Such licenses, certificates and permits will be procured and maintained in force by CONTRACTOR at no expense to CITY/DISTRICT.

CONTRACTOR represents that its performance of the Services will conform to the standards of practice of a professional having experience and expertise in performing professional services of like nature and complexity of the Services working on similar, successfully completed projects.

The granting of any progress payment by CITY/DISTRICT, or the receipt thereof by CONTRACTOR, or any inspection, review, approval or oral statement by any representative of CITY/DISTRICT or any other governmental entity, shall in no way waive or limit the obligations in this Paragraph 7 or lessen the liability of CONTRACTOR for unsatisfactory Services, including but not limited to cases where the defective or below standard Services may not have been apparent or detected at the time of such payment, inspection, review or approval.

9. Documents. All documents, plans, drawings, renderings, and other papers, or copies thereof, as finally rendered, prepared by CONTRACTOR pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall, upon preparation and delivery to CITY/DISTRICT, become the property of CITY/DISTRICT.

10. Relationship of Parties. It is understood that the relationship of CONTRACTOR to the CITY/DISTRICT is that of an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of CONTRACTOR are its agents or employees and not agents or employees of the CITY/DISTRICT.

11. Schedule. CONTRACTOR shall adhere to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B; provided, that CITY/DISTRICT shall grant reasonable extensions of time for the performance of such services occasioned by governmental reviews of CONTRACTOR’s work product or other unavoidable delays; provided, further, that such unavoidable delay shall not include strikes, lockouts, work

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

369

2 6
7 6
stoppages, or other labor disturbances conducted by, or on behalf of, CONTRACTOR’s officers or employees.

CONTRACTOR acknowledges the importance to CITY/DISTRICT of CITY/DISTRICT’s Project schedule and agrees to put forth its best professional efforts to perform its services under this Agreement in a manner consistent with that schedule.

12. Indemnity.
(a) To the fullest extent allowed by law (including without limitation California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City of Foster City and Estero Municipal Improvement District, its officers, directors, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers (collectively, “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, suits, expenses, liability, cause of action, loss, cost, damage, injury (including, without limitation, economic harm, injury to or death of any person, including an employee of CONTRACTOR or its Subconsultants), of every kind, nature, and description, at law or equity, (including without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection therewith and costs of investigation) (collectively “Liabilities”), that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to any negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONTRACTOR, any Subconsultant, anyone directly or indirectly employed or retained by them, or anyone that they control. CONTRACTOR’s obligations to indemnify, defend, hold harmless the Indemnitees shall not apply to the extent that such Liabilities are caused in whole or in part by the sole negligence, active negligence, or willful misconduct of such Indemnitee but shall apply to all other Liabilities.

If CONTRACTOR is a “design professional,” as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(c), CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnitees harmless against Liability only to the extent such Liability arises out of, pertains to, or relates to CONTRACTOR’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. In such an event, the cost to defend charged to CONTRACTOR shall not exceed CONTRACTOR’s
proportionate percentage of fault.
(b) Intellectual Property Indemnification. CONTRACTOR represents that professional services provided by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement does not infringe on any other copyrighted work or intellectual property owned by others. CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY/DISTRICT from all Liabilities, that may at any time arise for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, service mark or any other proprietary right of any person or

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

370

2 6
7 6
persons in arising from or relating to CONTRACTOR’s services provided to CITY/DISTRICT under this Agreement.
(c) CITY/DISTRICT shall include a provision in the construction contract with the general contractor on the Project requiring the general contractor to indemnify CONTRACTOR for damages resulting from the negligence of the general contractor and its subcontractors. CITY/DISTRICT shall also include a provision in the construction contract with the general contractor on the Project requiring the general contractor to name CONTRACTOR as an additional insured on its Comprehensive General Liability insurance coverage. If CONTRACTOR has the opportunity to review the construction contract prior to bidding, CITY/DISTRICT shall have no responsibility for the inadvertent omission of such provisions.
(d) CONTRACTOR shall place in its agreements with Subconsultants and cause its Subconsultants to agree to the indemnification and insurance provisions in this Agreement in favor of CITY/DISTRICT and the Indemnitees in the exact form and substance as those contained in this Agreement.
(e) CITY/DISTRICT acknowledges that the discovery, presence, handling or removal of asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or other hazardous substances which may presently exist at the any Project site is outside of CONTRACTOR’s responsibilities and is not included in the scope of Services CONTRACTOR is to perform nor included in CONTRACTOR’s insurance. CITY/DISTRICT shall hire hazardous materials consultant if the Project requires the testing or remediation of hazardous substances. CONTRACTOR shall not be responsible or be involved in any way with the discovery, presence, handling or removal of such materials. CONTRACTOR shall, however, be responsible for the coordination of CONTRACTOR’s services and work with the work of CITY/DISTRICT’s hazardous materials consultants.
(f) Duty to Cooperate. CONTRACTOR shall notify CITY/DISTRICT immediately in writing of any claim or damage related to activities or services performed under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall cooperate with CITY/DISTRICT in the investigation and disposition of all Liabilities arising out of the activities or services under this Agreement. Without limiting the foregoing, CONTRACTOR shall take all steps necessary to assist CITY/DISTRICT in the defense of any and all Liabilities brought by a contractor hired to construct the Project regarding any errors, flaws, and/or omissions in the plans or specifications of the Project. Any additional services or work under this paragraph shall be compensated as Additional Services.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

371

2 6
7 6

13. Insurance. Prior to execution of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall furnish to CITY/DISTRICT Certificates of Insurance showing satisfactory proof that it maintains the insurance required by this Contract as set forth in EXHIBIT D, Insurance, which are attached and made a part of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain all required insurance throughout the term of this Agreement and as otherwise provided in EXHIBIT D. In the event CONTRACTOR fails to maintain any required insurance, and notwithstanding Paragraph 3 above, CITY/DISTRICT may (but is not obligated to) purchase such insurance and deduct or retain premium amounts from any sums due CONTRACTOR under this Agreement (or CONTRACTOR shall promptly reimburse CITY/DISTRICT for such expense).

CONTRACTOR shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five (5) years following completion of this project or service. In the event CONTRACTOR fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the CITY/DISTRICT at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by CONTRACTOR.

14. WORKERS' COMPENSATION. CONTRACTOR certifies that he is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and CONTRACTOR certifies that he will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this agreement.

15. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The CONTRACTOR will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONTRACTOR will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and the employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following:
employment, advancement, demotion, transfer, recruitment, or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONTRACTOR shall at all times be in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Americans With Disabilities Act (Public Law 101-336) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The CONTRACTOR agrees to post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment any notices provided by the CITY/DISTRICT setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

372

2 6
7 6

16. Notice. All notices required by this Agreement shall be given to the CITY/DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR in writing, by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:

CITY: City of Foster City
100 Lincoln Centre Drive
Foster City, CA 94404-2299
Attention: Zaheed Danish
CONTRACTOR: [______________________]
[______________________]
[______________________]

17. Assignment. This is an agreement for the personal services of CONTRACTOR. CITY/DISTRICT has relied upon the skills, knowledge, experience and training of CONTRACTOR and the CONTRACTOR’s firm, associates and employees as an inducement to enter into this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR shall not assign or subcontract this Agreement without CITY/DISTRICT’s express written consent. Further, CONTRACTOR shall not assign any monies due or to become due under this Agreement without CITY/DISTRICT’s prior written consent.

18. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written agreement signed by both parties.

19. Validity. The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any other provision of this Agreement.

20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been executed in the County of San Mateo, California. The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California, excluding its conflict of laws rules. Any suit or action initiated by either party shall be brought in the County of San Mateo, California unless the parties agree otherwise in a written amendment to this Agreement. In the event of litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the unsuccessful party will pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation of the successful party.

21. Mediation. Should any dispute arise out of this Agreement, the parties shall meet in mediation and attempt to reach a resolution with the assistance of a mutually acceptable mediator. Neither party shall be permitted to file legal action without first meeting in mediation and making a good faith attempt to reach a mediated resolution. The costs of the mediator, if any, shall be paid equally by the parties. If a mediated settlement is reached neither party

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

373

2 6
7 6
shall be deemed the prevailing party for purposes of the settlement and each party shall bear its own legal costs.

22. Conflict of Interest. CONTRACTOR may serve other clients, but none who are active within the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District or who conduct business that would place CONTRACTOR in a "conflict of interest" as that term is defined in State law.

23. Liability of CITY/DISTRICT. Except as provided in Exhibit B, Services to be Provided by CONTRACTOR and Exhibit D, Insurance, CITY/DISTRICT's obligations under this Agreement shall be limited to the payment of the compensation provided for in Paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of this Agreement, Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, in no event shall CITY/DISTRICT be liable, regardless of whether any claim is based on contract, tort or otherwise, for any special, consequential, indirect or incidental damages, lost profits or revenue, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the Services, or the Project.

CITY/DISTRICT shall not be responsible for any damage to persons or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by CONTRACTOR, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished, rented or loaned to CONTRACTOR by CITY/DISTRICT. The acceptance or use of such equipment by CONTRACTOR or any of its employees shall be construed to mean that CONTRACTOR accepts full responsibility for and shall exonerate, indemnify, defend and save harmless CITY/DISTRICT from and against any and all claims for any damage or injury of any type, including attorneys' fees, arising from the use, misuse or failure of such equipment, whether such damage be to the CONTRACTOR, its employees, CITY/DISTRICT employees or third parties, or to property belonging to any of the above.

Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any right or remedy, whether in equity or at law, which CITY/DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR may have under this Agreement or any applicable law. All rights and remedies of CITY/DISTRICT or CONTRACTOR, whether under this Agreement or other applicable law, shall be cumulative.

24. Confidentiality. Any information, whether proprietary or not, made known to or discovered by CONTRACTOR during the performance of or in connection with this Agreement for CITY/DISTRICT, will be kept confidential and not be disclosed to any other person. CONTRACTOR will immediately notify CITY/DISTRICT in writing if it is requested to disclose any information made known to or discovered by during the performance of or in connection with this Agreement.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

374

2 6
7 6
These conflict of interest, confidentiality and future service provisions and limitations shall remain fully effective indefinitely after termination of services and work to CITY/DISTRICT hereunder.

25. Waiver of Default. Waiver of any default by either party to this Agreement shall not be deemed to be waiver of any subsequent default. Waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach and shall not be construed to be a modification of the terms of this Agreement unless this Agreement is modified as provided below.

26. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including Exhibits A, B, C, D and E, F and G comprises the entire Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf.

CITY OF FOSTER CITY/ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Dated: _________________________________ Stefan Chatwin, City Manager
ATTEST:

Dated: ________________________________ Priscilla Schaus, City Clerk/District Secretary

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Dated:

Benjamin Stock,
City Attorney/District Legal Counsel

CONTRACTOR
Dated:
[______________________]

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

375

2 6
7 6

EXHIBIT A

SAMPLE TASK ORDER
TASK ORDER NO. [INSERT TASK No.]

TO ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY

RESPONSE SERVICES MASTER AGREEMENT
This Task Order No. _______ ("Task Order") is made and entered into by and between the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (“City/District”) and [______________________] ("Contractor") as of ________________, 202_.

RECITAL
A. City and Contractor entered into an agreement entitled Master Services Agreement For On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services ("Agreement"), by which the Contractor agreed to perform services in accordance with Task Orders issued by the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. This Task Order hereby incorporates by reference all items and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

2. SCOPE OF TASK ORDER. Contractor shall perform the services described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement.

3. PAYMENT. For services performed by Contractor in accordance with this Task Order, City will compensate Contractor in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, in an amount not to exceed $_______________(including all hourly billings as well as reimbursable costs.

4. BOND REQUIREMENTS. [ADD IF PAYMENT AMOUNT OVER $25,000]

5. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Task Order represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Task Order on behalf of the respective legal entities of the Contractor and the City.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Contractor do hereby agree to the full performance of the terms set forth herein.

City of Foster City Contractor
_____________________________ _________________________ By:___________________________ By: [______________________] Title: City Manager Title: [_____________________]
Date: _________________________ Date: _____________________ Tax ID No.: ______________

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

376

2 6
7 6

EXHIBIT B

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED, PAYMENTS, PROJECTS, AND SCHEDULE,

ON-CALL PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE AND URGENT/EMERGENCY

RESPONSE SERVICES

SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED
This is an Exhibit attached to and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated January 1, 2025, by and between [______________________], hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, hereinafter referred to as "CITY/DISTRICT" providing for professional services.

1.Description of the Project:

1.1 Furnish all tools, labor, equipment and materials necessary to perform repairs and maintenance on the CITY/DISTRICT Water, Wastewater, Building, Streets and/or Stormwater systems, and other facilities on an on-call basis as outlined in specific Task Orders.

2.Services:

2.1 Scope of work shall include mobilization of labor, equipment and materials to perform maintenance and emergency and/or on-call urgent repair work as directed by City/District staff on water lines, wastewater lines, pumps, engines, valves, lift stations or other infrastructure elements, debris removal and disposal of soils, clearing, grading and earthwork, disaster mitigation and recovery, or other tasks as agreed upon by CITY/DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR.

2.2 Scope of work may include dewatering plan, SWPPP plan, traffic control plan, permits, fees and third-party testing, FEMA reimbursement expertise and administrative support as mutually agreed by CITY/DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR.

3.PAYMENTS

3.1 Unless issued under an emergency declaration, the maximum payment to CONTRACTOR under this Agreement for any single task order shall be limited to amounts not to exceed the City/District Manager, or their designee’s signing authority, which is currently $60,000, but may be increased per the Public Contracts Code over the term of the agreement. The dollar limit of Task Orders issued under an emergency declaration shall be at the discretion of the City Manager, under his procurement authority as outlined in Municipal Code Section 2.40.070.

3.2 CITY/DISTRICT shall pay monthly, based on the value of the work performed in each month upon presentation of an invoice by CONTRACTOR.

END OF EXHIBIT B

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

377

EXHIBIT C

FEE SCHEDULE

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

378

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE FORMS
CONTRACTOR shall provide, in addition to the Certificates of Insurance, original Endorsement affecting the coverages specified herein on the attached form. No substitute form will be accepted.

This is an Exhibit to, and made a part of and incorporated by reference to the Agreement dated January 1, 2025, by and between [______________________], hereinafter referred to as "Contractor”, and City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, hereinafter referred to as "City/District", providing for professional services.

1.Contractor's Duty to Show Proof of Insurance. Contractor, in order to protect City/District and its Council members, officials, agents, officers, and employees against all claims and liability for death, injury, loss and damage as a result of Contractor's acts, errors, or omissions in connection with the performance of Contractor's obligations, as required in this Agreement, shall secure and maintain insurance as described below. Contractor shall not perform any work under this Agreement until Contractor has obtained all insurance required under this section and the required certificates of insurance and all required endorsements have been filed with the City/District's authorized insurance representative, insurance Tracking Services Inc. (ITS). Receipt of evidence of insurance that does not comply with all applicable insurance requirements shall not constitute a waiver of the insurance requirements set forth herein. The required documents must be signed by the authorized representative of the insurance company shown on the certificate. Upon request, Contractor shall supply proof that such person is an authorized representative thereof and is authorized to bind the named underwriter(s) and their company to the coverage, limits and termination provisions shown thereon, Contractor shall promptly deliver to ITS a certificate of insurance, and all required endorsements, with respect to each renewal policy, as necessary to demonstrate the maintenance of the required insurance coverage for the term specified herein. Such certificates and endorsements shall be delivered to ITS prior to the expiration date of any policy and bear a notation evidencing payment of the premium thereof if so requested. Contractor shall immediately pay any deductibles and self-insured retentions under all required insurance policies upon the submission of any claim by Contractor or City/District as an additional insured.

1.1Insurance Requirements
☒ Commercial General Liability Insurance
Commercial General Liability Insurance including, but not limited to, Contractual Liability Insurance (specifically concerning the indemnity provisions of this Agreement with the City/District), Products-Completed Operations Hazard, liability for slander, false arrest and invasion of privacy arising out of professional services rendered hereunder, Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death), and Property Damage for liability arising out of Contractor's performance of services under this Agreement.

The Commercial General Liability insurance shall contain no exclusions or limitation for independent contractors working on the behalf of the named insured. Contractor shall maintain the Products-Completed Operations Hazard coverage for the longest period allowed by law following termination of this Agreement. The amount of said insurance coverage required by this Agreement shall be the policy limits, which shall

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

379

be at least five million dollars ($5,000,000) each occurrence and five million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate.
*Please note, the City/District will require a separate additional insured endorsement for the Commercial General Liability policy, listing the “City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council/Board members, officials, agents, officers, volunteers and employees”.
☒ Business Automobile Liability Insurance
Automobile Liability Insurance against claims of Personal Injury (including bodily injury and death) and Property Damage covering any vehicle and/or all owned, leased, hired and non-owned vehicles used in the performance of Services pursuant to this Agreement with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall be at least two million dollars ($2,000,000) each occurrence.
☒ Workers' Compensation Insurance
Contractor shall submit written proof that Contractor is insured against liability for workers' compensation in accordance with the provisions of section 3700 of the California Labor Code. Contractor shall require any Subconsultants to provide workers' compensation for all of the Subconsultants' employees, unless the Subconsultants' employees are covered by the insurance afforded by Contractor. If any class of employees engaged in work or services performed under this Agreement is not covered by California Labor Code section 3700, Contractor shall provide and/or require each Subconsultant to provide adequate insurance for the coverage of employees not otherwise covered. Contractor shall also maintain employer's liability insurance with limits of one million dollars ($1,000,000) for bodily injury or disease. □ Professional Liability Insurance
Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance, for liability arising out of, or in connection with, all negligent acts, errors or omissions in connection with services to be provided under this Agreement, with no exclusion for claims of one insured against another insured, with coverage equal to the policy limits, which shall not be less than two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence and four million dollars ($4,000,000) aggregate.

1.2Self-Insured Retention
Any self-insured retentions in excess of $100,000 must be declared on the Certificate of insurance or other documentation provided to City/District and must be approved by the City/District Risk Manager.

1.3Claims-Made Basis Coverage
If any of the insurance coverages required under this Agreement is written on a claims- made basis, Contractor, at Contractor's option, shall either (i) maintain said coverage for at least five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement with coverage extending back to the effective date of this Agreement; (ii) purchase an extended reporting period of

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

380

not less than five (5) years following the termination of this Agreement; or (iii) acquire a full prior acts provision on any renewal or replacement policy.

2.City/District as Additional Insured
On Contractor's Commercial General Liability and Automobile policies, the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District, its Council members, officers, directors, agents, employees, and volunteers, shall be named as additional insured's, but only with respect to liability arising out of the activities of the named insured. Any endorsement shall be provided using one of the following three options: (i) on ISO form CG 20 10 1 1 85; or (ii) on ISO form CG 20 37 10 01 plus either ISO form CG 20 10 10 01 or CG 20 33 10 01; or (iii) on such other forms which provide coverage at least equal to or better than form CG 20 10 1 1 85.

3.Insurance terms and conditions:

3.1Cancellation of Insurance
The above stated insurance coverages required to be maintained by consultant shall be maintained until the completion of all of Contractor's obligations under this Agreement except as otherwise indicated herein. Each insurance policy supplied by consultant shall not be suspended, voided, cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits except after ten (10) days written notice by Contractor in the case of non-payment of premiums, or thirty (30) days written notice in all other cases. This notice requirement does not waive the insurance requirements stated herein. Contractor shall immediately obtain replacement coverage for any insurance policy that is terminated, canceled, non-renewed, or whose policy limits have been exhausted or upon insolvency of the insurer that issued the policy.

3.2All insurance shall be issued by a company or companies admitted to do business in California and listed in the current "Best's Key Rating Guide" publication with a minimum rating of A-; VII Any exception to these requirements must be approved by the City/District Risk Manager.

3.3If Contractor is, or becomes during the term of this Agreement, self-insured or a member of a self-insurance pool, Contractor shall provide coverage equivalent to the insurance coverages and endorsements required above. The City/District will not accept such coverage unless the City/District determines, in its sole discretion and by written acceptance, that the coverage proposed to be provided by Contractor is equivalent to the above-required coverages.

3.4For any claims related to the Agreement, the Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13 as respects the City/District, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City/District, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

3.5Insurance coverages in the minimum amounts set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve Contractor for any liability, whether within, outside, or in excess of such coverage, and regardless of solvency or insolvency of the insurer that issues the

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

381

coverage; nor shall it preclude the City/District from taking such other actions as are available to it under any other provision of this Agreement or otherwise in law.

3.6Failure by Contractor to maintain all such insurance in effect at all times required by this Agreement shall be a material breach of this Agreement by Contractor.

City/District, at its sole option, may terminate this Agreement and obtain damages from Contractor resulting from said breach. Alternatively, City/District may purchase such required insurance coverage, and without further notice to Contractor, City/District shall deduct from sums due to Contractor any premiums and associated costs advanced or paid by City/District for such insurance. If the balance of monies obligated to Contractor pursuant to this Agreement are insufficient to reimburse City/District for the premiums and any associated costs, Contractor agrees to reimburse City/District for the premiums and pay for all costs associated with the purchase of said insurance. Any failure by City/District to take this alternative action shall not relieve Contractor of its obligation to obtain and maintain the insurance coverages required by this Agreement.

3.7Should any of the required insurance (other than errors and omissions insurance) be provided under a form of coverage that includes a general annual aggregate limit or provides that claims investigation or legal defenses costs be included in such general aggregate limit, such general annual aggregate limit shall be double the occurrence or claims limit specified above.

3.8City/District may (but is under no obligation to) secure project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance, or administer an owner-controlled insurance program ("OCIP"), in which case Contractor and its subconsultants shall communicate this fact to their insurance carriers and request that the risk of this project be excluded from their practice policies. Contractor's fees under this Agreement (and the fee of its subconsultants under subconsultant agreements) shall be reduced by the amount of insurance premiums that may be avoided by consultant and its subconsultants by virtue of the City/District's obtaining the project-specific insurance, wrap-up insurance or administering an OCIP, and the exclusion of this project from coverage of Contractor's and subconsultants policies. Construction Manager and its subconsultants shall afford City/District access to their books and records and cooperate with City/District in verifying the amount of savings realized.

ATTACHED

1. Insurance Coverage Form

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

382

EXHIBIT D
This INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM modifies, or documents insurance provided under the following:

Named Insured: Effective Work Date(s):

Description of Work/Locations/Vehicles:

ADDITIONAL INSURED: City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District (CITY) 610 Foster City Boulevard, Foster City, CA 94404
Attention: _________________________________
Contract Administrator
Endorsement and Certificates of Insurance Required
The Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees and volunteers are included as insureds with regard to damages and defense of claims arising from: (Check all that apply)
Insurer Policy
No.

General Liability: (a) activities performed by or on behalf of the Named Insured, (b) products and completed operations of the Named Insured, (c) premises owned, leased occupied or used by the Named Insured, and/or (d) permits issued for operations performed by the Named Insured. {Note:

MEETS OR EXCEEDS ISO Form # CG 20 10 11 85}
Auto Liability: the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Named Insured, regardless of whether liability is attributable to the Named Insured or a combination of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or volunteers.

Other:

Certificates of Insurance Required (no endorsement needed) (Check all that apply) Insurer Policy No.

Workers Compensation: work performed by employees of the Named Insured while those employees are engaged in work under the simultaneous directions and control of the Named Insured and the Additional Insured.

Professional Liability:

PRIMARY/NON-CONTRIBUTORY: This insurance is primary and is not additional to or contributing with any other insurance carried by or for the benefit of Additional Insureds.

SEVERABILITY OF INTEREST: The insurance afforded by this policy applies separately to each insured who is seeking coverage or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought, except with respect to the insurer’s limit of liability.

PROVISIONS REGARDING THE INSURED'S DUTIES AFTER ACCIDENT OR LOSS: Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insured, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, or volunteers.

CANCELLATION NOTICE. The insurance afforded by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice (ten (10) days if canceled due to non-payment) by regular mail return receipt requested has been given to the Additional Insured. Such notice shall be addressed as shown above.

WAIVER OF SUBROGATION: The insurer(s) named above agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the CITY, its elected or appointed officers, officials, agents, volunteers, and employees for losses paid under the terms of this policy which arise from work performed by the Named Insured for the CITY.

Nothing herein contained shall vary, alter or extend any provision or condition of the Policy other than as above stated.

SIGNATURE OF INSURER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE INSURER I, ______________________________________________________________(print/type name), warrant that I have authority to bind the above-named insurance company and by my signature hereon do so bind this company.

SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (original signature required) ORGANIZATION: TITLE:

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

383

ADDRESS:

TELEPHONE: ( ) DATE ISSUED:

END OF EXHIBIT D

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

384

33 EXHIBIT E
COVID-19 AMENDMENT/ATTACHMENT
This COVID-19 Amendment/Attachment amends the Agreement between the City of Foster City/Estero Municipal Improvement District hereinafter called "CITY/DISTRICT” and [______________________] (“Contractor”) dated January 1, 2025.

1. Definitions
A. The 2019 novel coronavirus and the disease it causes are collectively referred to herein as “COVID-19”.

B. A “COVID-19 Condition” is something attributable to COVID-19 not caused by the Contractor (which for purposes herein includes all subconsultants) and beyond its reasonable control including but not limited to COVID-19 Proclamations and supply chain disruptions due to COVID-19, and other circumstances concerning COVID-19 not caused by the Contractor and which are beyond its reasonable control.

C. A “COVID-19 Proclamation” includes but is not limited to orders, directives and guidance concerning COVID-19 that have been issued, and which may be issued from time to time, by public agencies or regulatory bodies, the CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, including without limitation the Cal/OSHA COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards. Contractor acknowledges that those orders, directives and guidance may require the Project to shut down or otherwise increase the Contractor’s cost or time of performance by calling for things such as social distancing and the use of personal protective equipment. In the event of conflicting COVID-19 Proclamations, the Contractor shall follow the most applicable, restrictive and newest COVID-19 Proclamations.

D. An “Unknown COVID-19 Condition” is a COVID-19 Condition the Contractor did not know about, and reasonably should not have known about, as of the date the Contractor submitted its proposal. The requirements contained in COVID-19 Proclamations issued before submission of a proposal are not Unknown COVID- 19 Conditions, and the Contractor will be deemed to have knowledge of those requirements.

E. An “Unknown COVID-19 Cost” is a cost that: (i) is solely attributable to an Unknown COVID-19 Condition; (ii) is reasonable under the circumstances; (iii) is not the result of the Contractor’s failure to comply with the contract documents or a COVID-19 Proclamation; and (iv) is not the result of a subconsultants failure to comply with a COVID-19 Proclamation in connection with the performance of the Services.

2. COVID-19 Conditions and Proposal. Contractor is expected to know and is deemed to have known about COVID-19 Conditions when it submits its proposal, and COVID-19 Conditions must be accounted for in the Contractor’s price and schedule. In order to be entitled to any relief from a COVID-19 Condition, the Contractor must demonstrate that the issue, cost or delay is due to an Unknown COVID-19 Condition.

3. Compliance with COVID-19 Proclamations.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

385

34 A. Contractor shall comply with COVID-19 Proclamations in the performance of the Services, irrespective of when the COVID-19 Proclamations are issued, and as they pertains to performance of the Services. The cost of such compliance is non-compensable, except as otherwise expressly stated herein.

B. Contractor is responsible to ensure that its subconsultants and suppliers comply with COVID-19 Proclamations at all times in connection with the performance of their Services.

4. Delay. The Contractor is entitled to a reasonable time extension for an Unknown COVID-19 Condition. Such time extension is non-compensable.

5. City/District Directed Suspension. The City/District may suspend Services due to COVID-19 health concerns, even though the Contractor may be allowed to proceed with the Services based on COVID-19 Proclamations. The City/District may suspend the Services for its convenience. The Contractor is entitled to a time extension for a City/District Directed Suspension, and the contract amount will be equitably adjusted if and to the extent Contractor incurs increased costs that are Unknown COVID-19 Costs.

6. Compensation for COVID-19 Costs. City/District will reimburse the Contractor for costs attributable to COVID-19, and which are not included in the schedule of values, only if the cost is an Unknown COVID-19 Cost.

7. Safe Work Practices. Contractor shall implement safe work practices recommended by CDC or OSHA or Cal/OSHA, which may include, inter alia, screening all employees, subconsultants, or others (“worker(s)”) at all locations where Services are performed for signs and symptoms of COVID-19; adopting staggered work schedules, e.g., providing alternating workdays or extra shifts, to reduce the total number of employees on a site at any given time and to ensure physical distancing; identifying choke points where workers are forced to stand together, such as hallways and elevators, ingress and egress points, break areas, and buses, and implement policies to maintain social distancing; coordinating deliveries in line with the employer's minimal contact and cleaning protocols; and instituting a rigorous housekeeping program to reduce dust levels at all exterior locations. Contractor remains fully responsible for following and complying with changes to recommended safe work practices from time to time.

8. Monitoring and Reporting. City/District may require the Contractor to actively monitor the health of its workers through temperature checks and questionnaires of major COVID-19 symptoms, including but not limited to cough, fever above 100.4 degrees Fahrenheit and shortness of breath. Contractor shall immediately report to City/District any outbreaks of COVID-19 among its workers. The Contractor shall not knowingly allow any worker who has tested positive with COVID-19 to enter a City/District building. In the event of an outbreak or an exposure to COVID-19, the City/District may impose appropriate mitigation strategies which may be in consultation with the public health officer.

9. Conflicts. In the event of an inconsistency between this COVID-19 Amendment and the Agreement, this Addendum shall control.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

386

35 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City/District and Contractor have executed this Covid-19 Amendment as of the date set forth above.

CONTRACTOR: CITY/DISTRICT:
________________________ ____________________________
Signature Signature
________________________ ______________________________ , President Stefan Chatwin, City Manager

END OF EXHIBIT E

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

387

36 EXHIBIT F

CONSTRUCTION LABOR AND MATERIAL PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1.THAT WHEREAS, the City of Foster City, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California/Estero Municipal Improvement District (Owner) has awarded to (Name of Contractor) _________________ as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the ___________ day of ______________, 20 ____ (Agreement), titled THE ______________________ PROJECT located at __________________________ in the amount of $_____________________________ (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:
(Describe Agreement Work)
.

2.AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons as provided by law;

3.NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and ______________________________ as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM ($_________________), for which payment well and truly to be made we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

4.THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, or its subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, or amounts due under the State of California Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Agreement, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the State of California Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of Principal and subcontractors pursuant to California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 13020 with respect to such work and labor, that Surety will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the sum specified in this bond, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees, otherwise the above obligation shall become and be null and void.

5.This bond shall inure to the benefit of any of the persons named in California Civil Code Section 9100, as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.

The intent of this bond is to comply with the California Mechanic’s Lien Law.

6.Surety, for value received, hereby expressly agrees that no extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder, shall in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and it does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, modification, alteration, or addition to the undertakings, covenants, terms, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement, or to the work to be performed thereunder.

7.Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, material suppliers, and other persons in connection with Agreement; and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the other.

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

388

37 8.Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this __________ day of ____________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)
Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF EXHIBIT F

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

389

38 EXHIBIT
G

CONSTRUCTION PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS:

1.THAT WHEREAS, City of Foster City, a general law city and municipal corporation of the State of California/Estero Municipal Improvement District

2.(Owner) has awarded to (Name of Contractor)____________________________ as Principal a Construction Services Agreement, dated the ___________ day of ___________, 20___ (Agreement), titled THE ___________________________ PROJECT in the amount of $______________ (Contract Sum), which Agreement is by this reference made a part hereof, for the work described as follows:
(Describe Agreement Work)

3.AND WHEREAS, Principal is required to furnish a bond in connection with the Agreement, guaranteeing the faithful performance thereof;

4.NOW, THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal and _________________________ as Surety are held and firmly bound unto Owner in the sum of 100% OF THE CONTRACT SUM to be paid to Owner or its successors and assigns; for which payment, well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents.

5.THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if Principal, or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns approved by Owner, shall promptly and faithfully perform the covenants, conditions, and agreements of the Agreement during the original term and any extensions thereof as may be granted by Owner, with or without notice to Surety, and during the period of any guarantees or warranties required under the Agreement, and shall also promptly and faithfully perform all the covenants, conditions, and agreements of any alteration of the Agreement made as therein provided, notice of which alterations to Surety being hereby waived, on Principal’s part to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify, defend, protect, and hold harmless Owner as stipulated in the Agreement, then this obligation shall become and be null and void; otherwise it shall be and remain in full force and effect.

6.No extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition to the Agreement, or of the work required thereunder, shall release or exonerate Surety on this bond or in any way affect the obligation of this bond; and Surety does hereby waive notice of any such extension of time, change, alteration, modification, or addition.

7.Whenever Principal shall be and declared by Owner in default under the Agreement, Surety shall promptly remedy the default, or shall promptly:

7.01Undertake through its agents or independent contractors, reasonably acceptable to Owner, to complete the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, indemnities, and the payment of liquidated damages; or

7.02Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Agreement in accordance with its terms and conditions, and, upon determination by Owner of the lowest responsible bidder, reasonably acceptable to Owner, arrange for a contract between such bidder and Owner and make available as work progresses (even though there should be a default or a succession of defaults under the contract or contracts of completion arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of the Contract Sum, and to pay and perform all obligations of Principal under the Agreement including, without limitation, all obligations with respect to warranties, guarantees, and the payment of liquidated

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

390

39 damages; but, in any event, Surety’s total obligations hereunder shall not exceed the amount set forth in the third paragraph hereof. The term “balance of the Contract Sum,” as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by Owner to the Principal under the Agreement and any amendments thereto, less the amount Owner paid to Principal.

8.Surety’s obligations hereunder are independent of the obligations of any other surety for the performance of the Agreement, and suit may be brought against Surety and such other sureties, jointly and severally, or against any one or more of them, or against less than all of them without impairing Owner’s rights against the others. Surety may not use Contractor to complete the Agreement absent Owner’s written consent.

9.No right of action shall accrue on this bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than Owner or its successors or assigns.

10.Surety may join in any proceedings brought under the Agreement and shall be bound by any judgment.

11.Correspondence or claims relating to this bond shall be sent to Surety at the address set forth below.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands this _________ day of ________________, 20___.

CONTRACTOR AS PRINCIPAL SURETY
Company: (Corp. Seal) Company: (Corp. Seal)
Signature Signature
Name Name
Title Title
Street Address Street Address
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code

END OF EXHIBIT G

9.2 Attachment 3 - Request for Proposal for On-Call Public Works Maintenance and Urgent/Emergency Services and Master Services Agreement

391

DATE: October 21, 2024

TO: President and Members of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) Board of Directors
VIA: Stefan Chatwin, District Manager
Marlene Subhashini, Assistant District Manager

FROM: Andrew Brozyna, Director of Public Works
Laura Galli, Engineering Manager
Francine Magno, Senior Civil Engineer
Claire McWilliams, Assistant Engineer
DEPARTMENT: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERING SERVICES – WATER MAIN CONDITION
ASSESSMENT PROJECT (CIP 405-723)

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District (EMID) adopt the attached resolution authorizing the issuance of the attached Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional engineering services for the Water Main Condition Assessment Project (CIP 405-723), authorizing the initiation of the consultant selection process for the RFP, and finding that the project is exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CIP 405-723 is part of a long-term, continued effort to provide quality facilities and infrastructure through periodic monitoring of the District’s water transmission main and distribution system, supporting its overall condition and functionality. In 2005, the District completed a Water Main Condition Assessment to assess condition of the District’s 24-inch water transmission main. At the time, the results of the assessment showed no appreciable internal or external corrosion of the main. In 2020, the District completed a 20-year Water System Master Plan in which it was recommended that the

9.3 9.3 Staff Report

392

District perform a follow up assessment of the water transmission main within 5 years of the plan’s adoption.

The attached RFP provides for professional engineering services to make recommendations for various testing methods, perform investigations, document results, and provide recommended repairs and improvements. The attached resolution authorizes staff to issue the RFP and initiate the consultant selection process. Staff anticipates the award of an agreement will be considered for approval by the EMID Board in December 2024.

Funding in the amount of $250,000 is available in the approved budget for the project.

BACKGROUND
The District’s 24-inch cement mortar lined and coated steel water transmission main was constructed in 1962 and is the District’s sole means of water transmission. It connects to the water supply provided by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) turnout on Crystal Springs Road in San Mateo and runs for four miles through the City of San Mateo before reaching Foster City. A condition assessment of the transmission main and other steel mains that comprise the backbone of the District’s water system was performed by Corrpro Companies, Inc. in 2005. Various inspections, which included internal and external surveys, were performed on representative samples of the District’s steel mains. At the time, the District’s water transmission main was determined to be in very good condition. In the 2020 Water Distribution System Master Plan, it was recommended that the water transmission main be re-assessed within the next 5 years. The City’s 5-year CIP program included funding to address a follow-up assessment in FY25-26.

On April 7, 2024, the District’s water main experienced a break along E. Third Avenue, north of Foster City Boulevard near Anchor Road. Emergency work was performed to fix the break, and it was repaired within 48 hours. This event highlighted the vulnerability of the water system in the event of major break resulting in an extended emergency. Due to the criticality of this water main, staff reprioritized this project by moving it up by one year in the CIP program, from FY25-26 to FY24-25.

ANALYSIS
The District is seeking proposals from qualified firms to provide professional engineering services to perform inspection services and assess the condition of its water transmission main. The selected firms will be required to have completed similar projects and possess relevant experience. Staff will review the submitted proposals per a qualification-based selection process.

The attached RFP describes the scope of services in detail that will be requested. The scope of services consists of two phases, with consideration for additional work:

9.3 9.3 Staff Report

393

1. The first phase includes an investigation of the April 2024 water main break, identification of other potential vulnerabilities that may be prone to future failure on the transmission main, and the development of a report that evaluates and recommends testing methods based on current available technologies that will be most effective to assess the current condition of the rest of the District’s water transmission main.

2. In the second phase, the consultant will perform the recommended testing methods from Phase 1 and the prepare a technical memorandum summarizing the findings, outlining improvement recommendations and prioritizing improvement projects with rough order of magnitude cost estimates for future CIP budgeting purposes.

The selection process will consider the consultant team’s relevant experience with preparing construction documents to address water main condition assessment findings.

Depending on the extent, urgency, and type of improvements recommended, staff may recommend engaging the consultant for the preparation of plans, specifications and construction cost estimates for the repair of urgent areas of concern. At that time, a proposal for those services will be requested and an Amendment issued based on the level of effort. Other recommended repairs as a result of the water main condition assessment will become future projects to be added to the District’s capital improvement program.

With the District Board’s approval of the attached resolution, staff will issue the RFP and initiate the consultant selection process. The proposal submittal deadline is November 20, 2024. Following evaluation of the proposals, staff will negotiate a reasonable fee amount with the selected consultant. It is anticipated that a consultant award of agreement will be brought to the EMID Board for consideration in December 2024.

CEQA
Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) – Existing Facilities

FISCAL IMPACT
There are no costs associated with the issuance of the RFP.

CIP 405-723 is funded by the Water Enterprise Fund and Water Connection Fees Fund. Adequate funding in the amount of $250,000 is available in the current approved budget to perform these services. Recommended repairs result from the water main condition assessment will become future projects to be added to the District’s CIP program and funded separately.

9.3 9.3 Staff Report

394

CITY COUNCIL VISION, MISSION, AND VALUE/PRIORITY AREA
Infrastructure and Facilities
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – EMID Resolution
Attachment 2 – Request for Proposals (RFP)

9.3 9.3 Staff Report

395

2 6
8 3
RESOLUTION NO.____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ESTERO MUNICIPAL

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR

PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE WATER MAIN CONDITION ASSESSMENT PROJECT (CIP 405-723), AUTHORIZING

THE INITIATION OF THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS FOR THE RFP, AND

FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, EMID is seeking proposals from qualified consultants to provide professional engineering services for the Water Main Condition Assessment Project (CIP 405-723); and
WHEREAS, an RFP has been prepared for CIP 405-723; and
WHEREAS, CIP 405-723 consists of testing, reporting, and planning related to the District’s 24-inch water main to guide future improvements and repairs; and WHEREAS, funding in the amount of $250,000 has been approved in the FY 2024/2025 budget for CIP 405-723; and
WHEREAS, there is adequate funding available in the approved budget for CIP 405-723 to fund the water main condition assessment work; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt under CEQA Sections 15301 – Existing Facilities pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, with Board of Directors approval, staff will issue the RFP and initiate the consultant selection process.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District does hereby:

1. Approve the attached RFP for professional engineering services for the Water Main Condition Assessment Project (CIP 405-723); and

2. Authorize the issuance of the Request for Proposal; and

3. Authorize the initiation of the consultant selection process.

9.3 Attachment 1 - EMID Resolution

396

2 6
8 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED as a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Estero Municipal Improvement District at the regular meeting held on the 21 st day of October 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

PATRICK SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT
ATTEST:

PRISCILLA SCHAUS, DISTRICT SECRETARY

9.3 Attachment 1 - EMID Resolution

397

ESTERO MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR

WATER MAIN CONDITION ASSESSMENT
(CIP 405-723)
PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL DEADLINE:

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2024, at 4:00PM
RETURN PROPOSAL TO:

Estero Municipal Improvement District
Public Works Department
Attn: Claire McWilliams
Assistant Engineer
(650) 912-6553
610 Foster City Blvd.

Foster City, CA 94404

9.3 Attachment 2 - Request for Proposals (RFP)

398

INDEX

SECTION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
III. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
IV. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
V. CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS
VI. CONFIDENTIALITY
VII. SCOPE OF SERVICES
VIII. STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND INSURANCE

REQUIREMENTS

ATTACHMENTS
A. DRAFT SCOPE OF SERVICES
B. STANDARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND SAMPLE

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

9.3 Attachment 2 - Request for Proposals (RFP)

399

Water Main Condition Assessment
CIP 405-723
Request for Proposal

Page 1 of 11 ends

Foster City City CouncilOctober 21, 2024

Foster City City Council
October 21, 2024