« back to Public Meetings

Bayshore Sanitary District


Regular Meeting of  February 25, 2016 @ 7:00PM

Opening of Meeting: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M.

Roll Call:

Present: Gallagher, Quinteros, Rizzi, Swanbeck, Tonna
Absent: None
Also: District Counsel Quint, Maintenance Director Landi, District Engineer Yeager Clerk Landi

Oral and Written Communications: (Concerning matters not on the Agenda; no action will be taken nor will extended discussion be permitted.)

(1) Communications from members of the public

(2) Communications from members of the District Board and Staff
The Clerk advised the Board that we received a letter from CSDA calling for nominees for the next election. No one on the Board is interested nor do we have a candidate to nominate.

(3) Acknowledgment of recent correspondence to the District

Consent Agenda: (Any member of the Board or the public can request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. If there are no objections all items are voted upon by one motion.)

(4) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2016
(5) Payment authorization for bills and compensation
(6) Accept January 31, 2016 report on District’s current financial status
(7) Accept January, 2016 checking account reconciliation

A motion was made by Director Quinteros seconded by Director Swanbeck and passed approving consent items 4-7.

Board Reports – consideration of matters relating to:

(8) President Gallagher
LAFCo: There was no meeting.
CSDA – Local Chapter: We have received no notification about a quarterly meeting.
(c) Redevelopment Oversight Board: There is nothing to report at this time.

(9) Daly City: The Planning Commission issued a report with regard to the 114 lot subdivision near Saddleback. Director Swanbeck provided the Engineer with the report for his information. Also, David Beaumont, CKS Environmental, made a presentation similar to the one he made for the Board in January.
Director Rizzi reported that the City may have denied the request from Enterprise Rent-a-Car to have an entrance and exit on Geneva as well as their request to remove fuel from cars.

(10) Brisbane: No report.


Staff Reports:

(11) Maintenance Director – consideration of matters relating to:
(a) Monthly report on District operations and maintenance: The District's system is operating fine. Mr. Landi met with South San Francisco personnel to tour the collection system. He anticipates they may submit a proposal by the end of March.

(12) District Engineer – consideration of matters relating to:
(a) January meter reading data: The total flow in January was 12,547,880 gallons which was higher than December which was 10,713,000 gallons. We had 7¾" of rain in January. January, 2015 flow was 8,173,000 gallons, considerably less than this January.

(b) SFPUC water quality sampling: A letter was sent to the SFPUC on February 2 advising that the District does not accept the November results because they are not representative. They were previously notified in October, 2015 that the dry weather sampling hadn't been completed properly. The Engineer wanted to go on record as not accepting the data. In a January, 2016 letter Engineer Yeager advised the SFPUC that we would accept the December, 2015-January, 2016 data for wet weather but would not accept the earlier dry weather data. They will have to sample in May and June this year to acquire dry weather data. The Engineer also suggested to Crispin Hollings that it may be time to consider agreeing on some parameters and thereby eliminate sampling for a few years. Mr. Hollings response was that they will do more dry weather collecting and he seems to be in agreement that testing can be stopped if the SFPUC and the District can agree on some parameters.

(c) Questions from customers: Most of this month's inquiries were from PG&E with regard to televising the District sewer system looking for gas lines that may have been bored through sewer lines. In response to a question from Director Tonna, Mr. Yeager said the District has no set policy regarding allowing others to enter District manholes. If PG&E should decide to proceed with this study, the Engineer and Counsel will develop a protocol.
PG&E is going to be doing some additional work at the Martin Service Center and may need to apply for another construction discharge permit.

(d) Development of GIS map: The elevation problems have been resolved. The consultant had to redo some surveying. The Engineer obtained Daly City storm drain maps that will help to confirm elevations. He is confident we have proper elevations and now all that is needed is to add data to the map. The contract with Murgreen Environmental has expired and the Engineer would like to extend it to June 30, 2016 at no additional cost. A motion was made by Director Swanbeck to extend the contract to June 30, 2016. The motion was seconded by Director Quinteros and passed by voice vote.

(e) 88 Accacia Street: This is a significant remodel and addition which requires that the existing lateral be televised to determine if it is structurally sound for continued use. However, the cleanout is filled with concrete preventing the inspection. The owner has been notified of the condition and instructed to either clear or replace the cleanout. There has been no response from the property owner. This project will be monitored.

(f) SFPUC connection fee/capacity charge: In response to questions from the Maintenance Director regarding the change in methodology by the SFPUC, Counsels Quint and Bakker have reviewed all pertinent documents and exhibits and have offered their opinion on the relevant language. Counsel Quint reviewed the pertinent sections. Legal Counsels' conclusion is that the way the contract is set up the SFPUC does have the ability to adjust rates as long as it is acceptable by law.
The Engineer clarified that originally the calculation was based on building usage and square footage. It has now been changed based on the size of the water meter; something unfamiliar to him. That change was passed by a resolution and affects the entire City, not just the District. The charge to the District is reduced by 30% which is equal to collection system piping less than 36" in diameter.
Mr. Landi pointed out that original capacity charge was $2,700 and the new methodology has increased that sum to $4,700; a substantial increase in just 3 years. He quoted language from Section 7.03 of the agreement which refers to mutual cooperation. Not being advised of a public hearing for such a significant change does not suggest there is mutual cooperation. President Gallagher suggested that we question the SFPUC with regard to the $2,000 increase over a relatively short period of time. After further discussion there was agreement that Counsel will send a letter to the SFPUC asking if they really intended to raise the fee that much, express our concern about the increase, mention the language with regard to mutual cooperation and request to be provided with notice and be included in discussion of any future proposed increase. It was agreed that we also request notice by direct mailing. The contract as written may need to have some attachments to reflect changes made since inception.

(g) Coordination with Daly City: The Engineer and Maintenance Director have had meetings with Daly City re development projects in the District. Out of that meeting a flyer has been developed that Daly City Building & Planning can provide to applicants whose properties are within District boundaries. This flyer explains the permit requirements and fees for the District as well as the capacity fee levied by the SFPUC. If the Board approves the language in the flyer copies will be provided to Daly City for distribution. The Engineer will do some wordsmithing and reissue the letter for the President's signature.

(h) Ordinance #102: The Clerk and Engineer have discussed how to handle permitting and also recognize the increase in staff time caused by collecting fees for the SFPUC. Permit fees were last increased in 2006. The Engineer developed Ordinance #102 which amends and removes some language and establishes fees for Class 1, 2, 3 and 4 permits. Class 1 includes inspection(s) and an application fee. Class 2 fee is for issuing a permit; engineering, legal, etc. is covered by a separate deposit. This Ordinance deletes items handled administratively and establishes fees for different classes of permits and also clarifies what the fee covers. A motion was made by Director Swanbeck to adopt Ordinance No. 102, An Ordinance Amending Sections 500 and 601 of The Bayshore Sanitary District Code Regarding Permits Required for Wastewater Discharge and Sewer Connection Charges, as amended changing Class 1 and 2 fee from $250 to $300 and the reinspection fee from $125 to $175. The amended motion was seconded by Director Rizzi and passed by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Gallagher, Quinteros, Rizzi, Swanbeck
Noes: Tonna
Absent: None

Accacia subdivision: President Gallagher recused herself from the discussion. The Maintenance Director and Engineer have had two meetings with the developers and Daly City--one on January 30 and the second today. These developers haven't done projects like this before and have difficulty following procedures. They submitted utility plans (C) for the Engineer's review. He reviewed the plan, sent his comments to Daly City and changes were made to Plan C drawings. Daly City is concerned about the water line being too close to the sewer laterals. The developer provided a sketch showing the water line going over the laterals. They have submitted another set of utility plans signed by a different engineer and labeled "U". During the meeting today it was learned that one set of plans was developed by a surveyor. The developer must now redo the drawings on the "U" sheets and resubmit. It appears that this is a project that has no room for error and will require more oversight than anticipated.
President Gallagher resumed chairing the meeting.

(13) District Counsel – consideration of matters relating to:
(a) San Francisco capacity/connection fee methodology, actual vs. Contract language: Discussed under 12(f).

(14) District Clerk – consideration of matters relating to:
(a) Update on First National Bank signatory requirements: The bank requires a letter of request from the District with two signatures. And then the Clerk and one Director with signatory authority must go to the bank to execute the signature card(s). President Gallagher suggested that we also provide the bank with a copy of the January Minutes which document the Board's decision.

Old Business:


New Business:

(15) Reports on other matters: no action will be taken

The President and the Clerk met with the San Mateo County Grand Jury on February 23. They provided information and answered questions; however, the nature of the inquiry cannot be discussed.


A motion was made by Director Swanbeck, seconded by Director Rizzi and passed to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 P.M. The next Regular Meeting is March 24, 2016 at 7:00 P.M.

« back to Public Meetings