Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2016.09.19Monday, September 19, 2016 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final City Council 7:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Approval of the Closed Session Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers b. Closed Session Community Forum Members of the Public May Address the Council on any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL --ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: One Case Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non -agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. Mayor's Cup Silicon Valley Turkey Trot b. Business Landscape Award City or Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 911512016 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 19, 2016 C. California Law Enforcement Challenge Award d. Carolan Avenue Complete Streets Project Attachments: Presentation 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion. Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar. a. Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes September 6 2016 Attachments: Meeting Minutes b. Adoption of an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi Family Residential (R-3) and Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Burlingame General Plan to Designate Property from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential Making Findings Relative to the California Environmental Qualit IL Act (CEQA) and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Related to a General Plan Amendment Rezoning and all Land Use Applications Related to a Proposed Condominium Development and Approval of a Condominium Permit a Fence Exception a Tentative Condominium Map. and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a Lot Combination for a Proposed Eleven (11) Unit Residential Condominium Development to be Located at 1509 EI Camino Real Attachments: Staff Report Resolution - CEQA Resolution - General Plan Amendment Ordinance - Rezoning Resolution - Proiect Entitlements C. Adoption of an Ordinance Restricting Construction Hours Attachments: Staff Report Proposed Ordinance City of Burlingame Page 2 Prnnrea on un wmi City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 19, 2016 d. Adoption of a Resolution Amending the _ Term of a Previously Approved Professional Services Agreement with MIG for Preparation of a General Plan Update Updated Zoning Ordinance, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Executed Agreement for Professional Services with MIG Draft Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services with MIG e. Rejection of All Bids and Authorization for Staff to Re -Bid the Tree Pruning and Stum Removal Contract for FY 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 - City Project #84800 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Bid Sheet f. Informational Report on Retiree Health Insurance for Medicare -Eligible Retirees Attachments: Staff Report 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Protests b. Introduction of an Ordinance Regulating Garbage Container Removal in Commercial Areas Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Informational Report on Measure R, "An Ordinance to Enact Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction and Repeal Prior Restrictions on the Regulation of Sale or Rental Price of Real Estate" Attachments: Staff Report Consolidated List of Questions Management Partners Report City Staff Memo 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 911512016 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final September 19, 2016 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Meeting Minutes: Traffic Safety and Parking Commission - August 11, 2016 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at (650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting - Monday, October 3, 2016 VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG - GO TO "CITY COUNCIL VIDEOS" Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office counter at City Hall at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 911512016 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Carol, August 29, 2016 Please make whatever adjustment necessary on the fee as I am enclosing a copy of my lease showing that I only rent 800 sq ft. As I had mentioned before, my business in this space is failing, just as the previous ones did at this location. I am fulfilling my lease obligation but will be vacating the space upon its expiration. Any additional fees such as this one, places an increased burden on my finances. Your improvement organization has done nothing to bring clients through the door, however I am being forced to participate in its expense. Your fees should have been disclosed upon filing for my business license and/or by the landlord upon renting the space. Again, please make the adjustment and send an updated invoice to reflect the correct square footage. Thank you! Sincerely, a` 6� Dane Dishman The Pretty Kitty, Inc. �� ciTr c R � BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 August 19, 2016 THE PRETTY KITTY 2510 SAINT ROSE PKWY HENDERSON, NV 89074 Dear Burlingame Avenue Area Business Owner The Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District will be coming before the City Council soon to request levy of the assessments on downtown businesses for the 2016-17 fiscal year beginning October 1, 2016. The basis of the assessments remains the same as in previous years. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on September 19, 2016 concerning the DBID assessments for 2016-17. You may attend, present comment and may also present written protests against the proposal. If the written protests total more than 50% of the proposed assessments, the proposed assessments will not be adopted. The amount of each assessment is based upon the zoning of the business location as specified in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.54.040, (which street, what floor [ground or abovelbelow ground] and, if ground floor, what square footage). The proposed assessment for your business is computed as follows: Zone: 2 Square Footage: 1000 Proposed Assessment: $220 The Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District would like your input and assistance. Please visit the group's website www.burlingamedowntown.org. You are also welcomed to attend the DBID monthly meetings which take place the second Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall, Conference Room A. If you have any questions regarding the details of this proposal or about your proposed assessment or square footage (if listed), please contact Ms. Laurie Hilt at burlingamebid@gmail.com for more information. Sincerely, Carol Augustine Finance Director www.btirlingame.org 650.558.7222 (office) caugustine@burlingame.org COMMERCIAL LEASE AND DEPOSIT RECEIPT AGENCY RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMATION. The falloriing agency mlagonshiP is herelry confirmed for this tmnwsilom old auparaedea any prior agency alx:lian(if po)egency rpial sensors. rutin NONC-"J: LISTINGAGEN7 �1. _ Is the agent of (clack ons): [f Ilio LBaeoroxclu6lValy; ar r�bothtlialAsweandgm Loc¢oc LEASING AGENT: ,._{ —(if Bar His servo as Ilse U611119 Agent) Is Ilia agent of (dmd<ane): [j the Lessao exalusuefy; or does Lesser axcfustrefy; or ❑both 1ho.L04800 and the Lesa¢n Mote: This eanArnaf/aU DOLS MOTtake tho place area, AGP_MCYDISCLOSUREIbna wjdch mnylm required bylaw. fl _., ). .. evidenced BOB hereinafter learma to as LESSEE, the awn of dopers), iOt L t1EWVc1f eAm1A04LmdglTOdxlIPNiCY Rant forme radiad rem Cact�0.1t)l yfB' O.kwY g)<k.'NVFG $ $ Security deposit (flat applicRWD toward last month's mint).._... '$ , OOFJ $ $ Other $ $ - $ TOTAL............................................. $—s— In $ In tie" ant this Leesele not accepted bylpe laasolwtmN-'3 days, thotolol tleposllleral VAN ba refuntled. / LesOOe offers to tease from Loesorrha pmmi;es rlespibpd aer'il%ii/('7Y`'%�'7 Rage— / lL}gfk_C. ea fatpamtalap) ('the Pmmisee)caBislilg ofaAPrgximetely % i _square tee, whN311selppmxOnalply ',5 ofth tel rental ago" rootage of the emire pnopeny, upmt the irgawNg terms and aontlNonssee. Ew 6!l'k'' ) 1.TERM. The two will commons an (dole --`1[,Ir-t- and and bn(date) 2. RENT. The bete Brad will be$_._pMmonth payable on the f day of earn month. After the first 12 manors (harem will be adpmlee as elrows: ogeave upon I1re11rst day of the'month immeapidyfollmying the "Oregon of 12 months from dale of'egnmenneMmtof the lam(, am upon the expiration of each J2 months tlmmetk����))n amumenca will, Granges In rho U.S. Coleumor Price Index fa' El Ali Urban COMOmOm (1852.64 -10D), or [4jogger bldax) :�'7.(a ('Cpr). The base rent will be incensed to an amount equal to themonthly rem, muil�tlied by n reaction, ilia numerator of which Is the CPI for the Second caloolar month Immediately pm eding be ndjuslmBrd dale, and the dpnaminalor of Which IS the CPI fir iia second calendar month preceding tlm canmencpppatSpite Lee 4emrypmYded ho}vpvon n the monthly mntwlll not be low than lholinamodialely Imeading ilia adjUMmonl. I Ay' �4�t'R:f"lN, `,:r9 V 4 CJ0)� rat mals will bo paid to Lose for hlyr r au hodudbgenl, at the follmdnfl Bdtlmss 3` CrL`/Yal7 ✓d. _ Lr( N-�mBlundr olherplaaw a6 maybe daNg0ated by Lessorfir pItlmemlillm. Inlheevent ranks nal m Netl by IAaspr Within days agardue date. Lenses agrees to IT Iatearar t, of $ 7 f0, Ck pam Interest al %porannum on thedeTetquentamoant. Leasee fudheragmes to pay Sir_ ('y1 for¢aah dishonored bank aleck. Tim late cmfn, Period is not agmce period, and Lesnmm emitted to make Ronnie demandiorany, when rent If not paid en due. a. NET LEASE PROVISIONS. If checked [RANO INITIALED arLovv EY LESSEE, me following ProN¢IOns an, Included in this Lease: LOSsee agrees 10 pay, in add oro to me base monthly rental set forth in Item 2, Lessee's proportionate Share Of tits LeeaOra OpamRfg expaaees, Including utility and 60MM costa. IllaumnCO, real Property tons. and o0rflmm area malnlalBrinB. LOOPSB S sham la bread on the ratio of Ilia square footage oflhe Pferal m, to the (amt square footage of ilia rental space Orme ee0m pmpe)ty of whltfi the Pramisos em a pad. Lessee's m0ndily sham of anidwrPenaaa at tire Ove nenXm80t Of the to" is $,___,__, (fn11fn5 losses( J )agoras to the foragolap additional renmlpromaionu. The illumines are to be lead for the operation of lk? - L ___.1_,. --- ..._... ......... .... _.. _,..,._...,,, ,.�,o„wn;,wr Bunten unywaere upon ma pmmsea, of any nuisance or act which may disturbUmquiet enjoyment or anylenant in The building. S. USES PROHIBITED. Lessee will not use pay partial of the pmmisea'for purposes Often Nan those specified. No use wig be mode or permitted to he made Upon We premises, nor We done, which Will elcmaae the existing is of insurance upnn the propady, or coUee cancellation of insurance polities covering Ne pmpenly. Lessee will not conduct or permit any sate by'Room an the promises. 0. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Losses will sat assign this Lwow or sublet any potion of the premises wilhaul pdorwdtan cement Of Ills IOSeor, which will not be unreasonably wlulhoid. Any such aselgnrnentror sablaling without consent Will be void and, at Om option of the Le III t le Nis Laura. I.oeeso (_�r has road this page. CAUBON: The copydaht laws ollho UgIW states fodOd the onoulhodcad mpro0asnon mintu tom) by Bay swam, incuorne acnnninp maam inbuh ad foams. Pp,)1014 1'01IM107d(0S•2010) COPYRIm1T ITYPROFESSIONALPU11.I31103, NOVAT0. CAmtl PROFE55)ONNL PUBLISHING CAROLAN AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Burlingame City Council Project Update September 19, 2016 a> — �_ � aasti�� o�Y a T T s ,• ..♦••• KimlerMorn PROJECT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND • December 2010 to May 2012 • December 2014 BPAC discussion of potential project, 1st public outreach meeting with reports to Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) • March 2015 2nd public outreach meeting • November & December 2012 Potential project concepts discussed • April 2015 & June 2016 at TSPC TSPC update meeting for public • December 2012 • September 2016 City submitted OBAG application Council project update • June 2013 MTC awarded project funding Kimley*Horn 9/15/2016 1 SOURCES OF PUBLIC COMMENTS • Direct one-on-one meetings/correspondence with citizens and community members • Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) • Traffic Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) • Project public outreach meetings W "4 r Kimley » Horn KEY DESIGN CRITERIA • Create a safe "road diet" and "complete streets" project • Do not increase roadway traffic congestion on Carolan Avenue • Create a dedicated bicycle facility such as Class II bike lanes • Create safe bicycle transition and access points along the bicycle facility • Lower traffic speeds • Improve crosswalks at intersections by creating bulb -outs at intersections for pedestrian safety • Improve pedestrian safety at Morrell Avenue crosswalk with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and improved sidewalk lighting at the crosswalk • Improve visual aesthetics of Carolan Avenue • Improve roadway surface through pavement resurfacing Kimley»Horn 9/15/2016 Pi OF WORK -TO -DATE Based on public feedback and preliminary design discussions with Burlingame BPAC, multiple alternatives analyzed the design team arrived at a Preferred Design. • Preferred Design contains: * Travel lane reductions from 4 to 2 a Design considerations for multiple lanes at each end a Bulb -outs on the side streets a A bicycle facility with green striping for enhanced visibility a One or more mid -block crossings • Extended southbound right -turn pocket at Oak Grove Ave a Added southbound left -turn pocket at Oak Grove Ave FOR DESIGN SELECTION r Kimley»Horr� Provide "Complete Streets" improvements by offering safer bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle usage. • Achieve those improvements by arriving at a preferred design through carefully balancing all design -element demands, such as: a Biking safety a Pedestrian safety Motorist safety Aesthetic preferences a Engineering design standards and practices • Accepted traffic operations standards a Superior functionality for all transportation modes QD Kimley»Horn 9/15/2016 3 EXISTING CONFIGURATION • 4 -lane roadway configuration • No dedicated bike lanes (shared lanes with cars) • 8' parking lane • 12'-14'vehicletravel lanes • Obsolete in -pavement flashing lights for Morrell crosswalk • Roadway pavement failure PROJECT CONFIGURATION • 2 -lane roadway configuration w/center left -turn lane • New dedicated bike lanes • 3' striped bike safety buffer zone against moving traffic • 9' parking lane to reduce "dooring" incidents • 11'vehicle travel lanes • New pedestrian sidewalk safety lighting at Morrell • New ADA curb ramps at all intersections Kimley �» Horn • New RRFB crosswalk lights at Morrell crossing • Landscaped bulb -outs at corners/intersections • New bicycle detector loops at Broadway signal • Completely resurfaced street (brand new street) Kimley» Horn 9/15/2016 C! DESIGN LAYOUT Broadway to Cadillac Way 271 SI�EWAII( qy�� RIGMTIRN IFNE B111E lgq\HIgNE ILfTNPN IANE VEL IANE BIIQ On �a.o �Lo.RHs k,,.R �� # Kimley»Horn DESIGN LAYOUT Larkspur Drive to Morrell Avenue o' �, --- L — SIOEWNIt RNyy� IANE E11RS3 ,R.�vEL V1iE LµE iPAVEL IIWE ]PEER RIFNE } —71-- —!—}3.R ,,.o ,00H ,,.o11].oE,�R.R — Kimleyl»Horn 9/15/2016 5 NORTHPARH j o APTS 2 \ V � m T Y I 271 SI�EWAII( qy�� RIGMTIRN IFNE B111E lgq\HIgNE ILfTNPN IANE VEL IANE BIIQ On �a.o �Lo.RHs k,,.R �� # Kimley»Horn DESIGN LAYOUT Larkspur Drive to Morrell Avenue o' �, --- L — SIOEWNIt RNyy� IANE E11RS3 ,R.�vEL V1iE LµE iPAVEL IIWE ]PEER RIFNE } —71-- —!—}3.R ,,.o ,00H ,,.o11].oE,�R.R — Kimleyl»Horn 9/15/2016 5 Park Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue DESIGN LAYOUT 'a - Kimley»Horn DESIGN LAYOUT Park Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue Continued II _ 9CENNH �NLQ� ®0� 3.0 R 1WNH.lp,E hHI� AN�B.IME QR60lN" 9 Kimley »Horn 9/15/2016 0 PROJECT SCHEDULE October 2016 • Submit plans and specification package to Caltrans for review and authorization for construction funds (E-76) December 2016 • Receive Caltrans E-76 authorization and prepare project bid package January 2017 • Advertise project for construction bids March 2017 • Begin construction QT. i Kimley »Horn 9/15/2016 7 Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 �a6 CITY G� BURLINGAME BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes -AMENDED Regular Meeting on September 6, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Sandy Comaroto. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke about the 3 minute time limits on public comments at City Council meetings and asked if the Council would consider expanding the time as it is not prevented under the Brown Act. 1 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Burlingame resident Eileen Kim invited the community to attend the Citizens' Environmental Council meeting on September 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in the Library's Lane Room to garner new sustainability ideas. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 15.2016 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council's approval of City Council Meeting Minutes August 15, 2016. b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of opening up the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 1, 2016 "BAY DAY" Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 87-2016. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A $70.000 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE GRANT Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 88-2016. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 15-01), LOT COMBINATION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS NO. 97-044852 AND 97-044853 — PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 SUBDIVISION AT 601 ANSEL ROAD Director of Public Works Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 89-2016. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (HMP) Fire Chief Kammeyer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 90-2016. 2 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT; A FENCE EXCEPTION; A TENATIVE CONDOMIMUM MAP; AND A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION FOR A PROPOSED ELEVEN (11) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1509 EL CAMINO REAL The Council's disclosure concerning contact with this project happened throughout the item. However, for purposes of simplification it is all being stated now. Councilmember Beach acknowledged that she lived within 1000 feet of the development but that she has no property or economic interest in the development. She also stated that she had received a phone call from a constituent, visited the lot and watched the Planning Commission meeting on this topic. Councilmember Colson stated that she hadn't met with anyone on this matter but had walked the property. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he visited the lot and discussed the property with the neighbors years ago. Mayor Keighran stated that she received emails about the property and had watched the Planning Commission meetings concerning the property. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he had met periodically with neighbors and was a Planning Commissioner in 2007 when the project first came before the Commission. CDD Meeker presented the staff report concerning the proposed ordinance to rezone property from two- family residential (R-2) to multi -family residential (R-3) and consideration of a general plan amendment to designate property from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. He gave a brief background of the issue, explaining that this proposal is the result of a project on El Camino Real. The project consists of two adjacent lots. The primary lot is at 1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 and makes up 77% of the project site. The second lot is the adjacent lot, zoned R-2, makes up 23% of the project site and consists of a creek and an unkempt piece of property. He stated that the developer owns both lots and proposes to build a new three-story, 11 unit residential condominium, including 1 affordable unit, set back on both lots. Accordingly, for the developer's project to move forward, the creek lot would need to first be rezoned from R-2 to R-3 and then annexed with the primary lot. Mr. Meeker reviewed the developer's meetings with neighbors and the resulting changes the developer made to the proposed project. He stated that the developer's proposal called for the removal of 1 protected sized cedar tree. However, it would be replaced with 10 24 -inch box trees and 48 supplemental trees. As well, per the neighbors' request, the developer was building a 10 foot tall fence along the rear property. Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot, featuring the creek, was a viable piece of property for future development if it was not combined with the R-3 lot. CDD Meeker responded in the negative. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot was rezoned and combined with 1509 El Camino Real would the homeowners association for the development be responsible for taking care of the creek. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the lots were not combined would the owner of the creek lot be responsible for its maintenance and would the City be able to require the owner to maintain the creek. DPW Murtuza stated that the creek was the jurisdiction of Fish and Games. Accordingly, the City did not have the authority to require maintenance of the creek. Mayor Keighran asked if the preliminary title is correct in showing that both the R-3 and R-2 lots are owned by 1509 El Camino LLC. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked about the R-2 lot being landlocked and if the City had previously dealt with any similar situations. CDD Meeker replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City/other jurisdictions encouraged eliminating lots of this nature. Mr. Meeker stated that when a lot is landlocked, like the creek lot, it is a good idea to combine it with another lot so that it has utility and doesn't become abandoned. Mayor Keighran asked if the lots are not combined what could be built on the primary lot (R-3). CDD Meeker stated that conceivably a mid -20 unit complex could be built on 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Browmigg asked if it is possible when combining lots to restrict the height of the building to the R-2 requirements. CDD Meeker stated that you cannot require the property to follow the restrictions of the R-2 zone it is rezoned an R-3. Mayor Keighran asked how tall a development can be in an R-3 zone. CDD Meeker stated that with a CUP, a development can have a maximum height of 55 feet. He stated that this project's highest point is the tower at 44.5 feet. Mayor Keighran asked if when heading south on El Camino Real, if the other apartment buildings are subject to the 55 foot height limit. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to introduce the measure; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mr. Pat Fellows representing the development spoke about the project. He explained that for the past 2-3 years he met several times with the neighbors to address their concerns. As a result of those meetings, he has reduced the height of the building, worked on the front fapade and agreed to build the ten foot tall fence in the rear. He expressed his frustrations with the process. He stated that after these meetings he would then go the Planning Commission meetings and the neighbors would voice new issues they had with the development. He also explained the history of the two lots and why they were originally divided. Burlingame resident Samantha MacPhail discussed her concerns with the project: protecting the creek, loss of privacy, increased traffic and parking problems, and issues with the sewer system. Mayor Keighran asked if it is determined that an upgrade needs to be done to the sewer lines who is responsible for the upgrade. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer. Councilmember Brownrigg asked Ms. MacPhail if the residents considered going to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to request inclusion in the residential parking permit program to alleviate parking issues. Ms. MacPhail stated that they had gone to the TS&P Commission about this issue and that the Commission had not responded to their concern. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked Ms. MacPhail if currently, the residents had an issue with long term parking on their street. She replied in the affirmative. Burlingame resident Ann Wallach stated that the TS&P Commission informed them that there was resistance to the neighborhood being included in the residential parking permit program because of the cost. As well, Ms. Wallach discussed the issues her property suffered as a result of the creek not being maintained including the need to constantly repair the bank and use sandbags to protect her property from flooding. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht spoke about traffic and parking concerns that already existed in this neighborhood and how they would be heightened by the proposed development. Councilmember Brownrigg assured the neighbors that Council would do whatever it could to make sure Balboa could avail itself of a residential parking permit program — which would substantially reduce or eliminate nonresident overnight parking —provided that the appropriate majority of residents were in accord. Councilmember Beach asked about the traffic analysis that was conducted for the proposed development. In particular she asked about the metrics that were used to determine the amount of trips that the development would generate. CDD Meeker stated that Mark Spencer, a principal from W -Trans, the company responsible for the traffic analysis, was here and could answer these questions. Mr. Spencer stated that he used industry standard rates that are based on 100s of surveys. He stated that because these units are owned versus rentals, they generate fewer trips. He explained that owned units tends to remove situations like roommates and instead are more easily equated to single family homes. Accordingly he stated that he would expect the project to generate fewer trips than the current I 1 -unit rental apartment that is on the property. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Burlingame resident Patricia Gray stated that she was against the demolition of the apartment building that is currently on the site because of the community's growing need for affordable housing. Burlingame residents Yan Ma and Don Mitchell spoke against merging the two lots. Councilmember Beach asked how many parking spaces were included in the proposed development. CDD Meeker said there would be 28, 2 more than required. Burlingame resident Pat Giomi stated her concerns about the deed for the creek lot. Mr. Fellows was invited back up to speak. He discussed the developer's intent to fix and maintain the creek. He expressed sympathy for those affected by the creek but stated that the developer had not wished to move forward with permits from Fish and Game to work on the creek prior to obtaining approval from the City on the proposed development. Mayor Keighran asked for clarification on how many trees would be added to the site. CDD Meeker stated that there would be 10 24 -inch box trees, and 48 tree ferns along the south and west property lines. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the bocce ball court that was originally a part of the proposed development. Mr. Fellows explained that the neighbors were concerned about the noise that the court would generate so as a result it was removed from the proposal. Mayor Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Colson discussed that the critical issue before the Council was whether to rezone the creek lot to an R-3 lot and then combine the creek lot and 1509 El Camino Real. She stated she would prefer combining the lots because she felt that the homeowners association would maintain the creek, as it was in their best interests to keep it safe. She stated that she was concerned that if the lots weren't combined, the creek would continue to be an issue for the neighbors and that the lot would remain abandoned. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson. He also addressed the neighbors' concerns including: sewer lines, traffic, parking and privacy. He stated that the developer had worked with the neighbors to rectify their concerns. Therefore, he felt that the lot should be rezoned from an R-2 to an R-3 and combined with 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Beach discussed the need to stay focused on findings and facts instead of opinions and emotions. She stated that the findings of the traffic study and the several meetings at the Planning Commission show that the developer met the requirements to move forward with the project. She then addressed each concern stating that the developer was answering these concerns and also attempting to blend in with the community by planting trees and ensuring that the creek is maintained. She ended by stating that if this project didn't move forward another project that is larger could meet all the standards set by the City and build at 1509 El Camino Real. Accordingly, she felt that the City should rezone the creek lot and combine it with 1509 El Camino Real. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the height of the building. He stated that only the tower reaches 44.5 feet but that a majority of the roof line is at 35 feet. He explained that this is the common height of a second floor in the area. He noted that the developer could build a four story building completely within Burlingame codes on the single lot and that in his view this would lead to a much greater breach of privacy and intrusion on the neighbors. In short, by combining the lots and allowing the developer to create a wider, shorter structure would lead to a much better and more compatible building for the neighborhood. Mayor Keighran discussed the 28 parking spots and stated that she didn't believe there would be an increased parking problem because of the 11 units. She also discussed the school impact comparing it to a previous development unit where only a few additional students were added to the elementary school. Mayor Keighran asked that staff include language in the agreement concerning the care and maintenance of the trees that were planted on the property. She asked that the trees be checked on a yearly basis by an arborist to make sure they were healthy. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran stated that the Council was in agreement and with no further discussion thanked the community for voicing their concerns. She stated that the matter would be on the September 19, 2016 agenda for consideration of adoption of the ordinance to rezone the lot from R-2 to R-3. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION HOURS City Attorney Kane presented the staff report introducing a proposed ordinance that would restrict construction hours in the City. She stated that the proposed amendments to the City's construction hours were the result of Council's concerns about the resurgence of construction in the City. She stated that based on Council's direction she drafted an ordinance that amended the ordinance in two sections: (1) weekday construction would begin at 8 a.m, instead of 7 a.m. and (2) construction would not be allowed on Sundays and holidays. Holidays would be defined as those included in Section 13.04.100 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Councilmember Beach discussed her concern about the affordable housing development the City was working towards and whether or not there would be exceptions to the City construction hours. CDD Meeker stated that under the ordinance, individuals, especially those with larger projects, were able to apply for exceptions. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame residents Pat Giorni and Russ Cohen voiced their support for the amendments. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mayor Keighran closed the public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg recommended that the item come back for adoption. Councilmember Colson asked when the ordinance would take effect. City Attorney Kane stated that if the ordinance is adopted at the next meeting it would take effect 30 days thereafter. Councilmember Beach advocated for patience and communication among neighbors, particularly for do-it- yourself homeowners. She cautioned that eliminating construction hours on Sundays and holidays would not eliminate all noise (for example power washing or constructing furniture) but is pleased this ordinance will eliminate commercial construction on those days. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) TO UPGRADE THE AGING POTABLE WATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WATER RATES DPW Murtuza presented the staff report asking City Council for direction on options for funding the CIP to upgrade the aging Potable Water System infrastructure and associated water rates, and provide direction to staff. He gave a brief background stating that the City's potable water system is 70 to 100 years old and needs to be upgraded in order to provide a reliable and high-quality drinking water supply to the community. He explained that currently, the City invests $2.5 million a year for CIP funding to improve the water system. However, he explained that there is still an $88 million backlog of CIP work. DPW Murtuza explained that at the study session on August 15`h, Council discussed increasing the water rates in order to better fund the CIP. At the study session, Council asked staff to look into what the rates would be if they increased funding from $2.5 million to somewhere under the original CIP funding level of $4.5 million. Council wanted to ensure that staff had the resources to keep up with the projects that the additional funding would allow. Mr. Murtuza discussed a phase in option of $3.5 million in CIP funding over 5 five years. This would look like this: Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Phase in funding of $3.5 $2.5M $2.75M $3.OM $3.OM $3.5M million Water rate increase with phase in 9.0% 7.5% 7.5% 4.0% 4.0% funding of $3.5 million Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mr. Murtuza discussed under Councilmember Browmigg's suggestion a new graph to compare monthly water utility expenses per capita. In this graph he compared Millbrae, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Belmont. He discussed the fact that Burlingame invests the most in CIP funding. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mr. Murtuza for this analysis. He stated that he believed the key element of the graph was that it shows that the City of Burlingame is running their system efficiently and although they are spending more it is because they are investing more. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the water cost. He explained that he had thought when the City buys water from SFPUC that the water's cost is passed through to the citizens. However, he stated that it seemed there was a markup on the price of the water when it reached the citizens. DPW Murtuza stated that what they are charging the customer is what it costs to buy the water, transport the water, store the water and keep the water. Mayor Keighran explained that the Council's decision today is whether or not they want to maintain the $2.5 million in CIP funding or phase in funding of $3.5 million in CIP. Councilmember Beach stated that although she'd prefer to see the infrastructure CIP investment maximized, she felt $3.5 million was a reasonable compromise and that it was a good investment. Councilmember Brownrigg made an argument for the City to be more aggressive. He discussed the increasing amount of clean water requirements, the age of the pipes and sea level rising. He stated that while it is never fun to raise rates, it is important that the City take this opportunity to investment more in a viable water infrastructure. He stated that the City should not drop water rates increases in 2019/20 from 7.5% to 4% and instead should remain at 7.5%. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated his support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Councilmember Beach asked if staff felt that $3.5 million was the right number or should it be increased to $4.5 million. DPW Murtuza stated that it is a Council policy decision. Councilmember Colson asked if staff was capable of splitting the bills instead of billing sewer and water together. DPW Murtuza stated that staff was looking into this and monthly billing. Councilmember Colson asked if the City charges rates and is not able to spend all the money collected could the City bank the funds for future use. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran and Councilmember Colson stated their support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mayor Keighran asked if staff could include the new graph and the monthly sewer and water survey in the City's monthly billing statements. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Beach asked about City Council acknowledging veterans in the community on Veterans Day. 19-1 a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2016, LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES JUNE 21, 2016 b. AUGUST, 2016 PERMIT ACTIVITY 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 10 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 BURLINGAME 0 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on September 6, 2016 CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Sandy Comaroto. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. PUBLIC COMMENTS Burlingame resident Pat Giorni spoke about the 3 minute time limits on public comments at City Council meetings and asked if the Council would consider expanding the time as it is not prevented under the Brown Act. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Burlingame resident Eileen Kim invited the community to attend the Citizens' Environmental Council meeting on September 17, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in the Library's Lane Room to garner new sustainability ideas. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2016 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council's approval of City Council Meeting Minutes August 15, 2016. b. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of opening up the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO PROCLAIM OCTOBER 1, 2016 "BAY DAY" Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 87-2016. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A $70,000 CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY, ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016/17 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE GRANT Police Chief Wollman requested Council adopt Resolution Number 88-2016. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PARCEL MAP (PM 15-01), LOT COMBINATION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTS NO. 97-044852 AND 97-044853 — PORTIONS OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 SUBDIVISION AT 601 ANSEL ROAD Director of Public Works Murluza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 89-2016. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (HMP) Fire Chief Kammeyer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 90-2016. 2 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATE PROPERTY FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM- HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA); A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT; A FENCE EXCEPTION; A TENATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP: AND A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION FOR A PROPOSED ELEVEN (11) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 1509 EL CAMINO REAL The Council's disclosure concerning contact with this project happened throughout the item. However, for purposes of simplification it is all being stated now. Councilmember Beach acknowledged that she lived within 1000 feet of the development but that she has no property or economic interest in the development. She also stated that she had received a phone call from a constituent and had visited the lot. Councilmember Colson stated that she hadn't met with anyone on this matter but had walked the property. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he visited the lot and discussed the property with the neighbors years ago. Mayor Keighran stated that she received emails about the property and had watched the Planning Commission meetings concerning the property. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he had met periodically with neighbors and was a Planning Commissioner in 2007 when the project first came before the Commission. CDD Meeker presented the staff report concerning the proposed ordinance to rezone property from two- family residential (R-2) to multi -family residential (R-3) and consideration of a general plan amendment to designate property from medium density residential to medium-high density residential. He gave a brief background of the issue, explaining that this proposal is the result of a project on El Camino Real. The project consists of two adjacent lots. The primary lot is at 1509 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 and makes up 77% of the project site. The second lot is the adjacent lot, zoned R-2, makes up 23% of the project site and consists of a creek and an unkempt piece of property. He stated that the developer owns both lots and proposes to build a new three-story, 11 unit residential condominium, including 1 affordable unit, set back on both lots. Accordingly, for the developer's project to move forward, the creek lot would need to first be rezoned from R-2 to R-3 and then annexed with the primary lot. Mr. Meeker reviewed the developer's meetings with neighbors and the resulting changes the developer made to the proposed project. He stated that the developer's proposal called for the removal of 1 protected sized cedar tree. However, it would be replaced with 10 24 -inch box trees and 48 supplemental trees. As well, per the neighbors' request, the developer was building a 10 foot tall fence along the rear property. Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot, featuring the creek, was a viable piece of property for future development if it was not combined with the R-3 lot. CDD Meeker responded in the negative. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Colson asked if the R-2 lot was rezoned and combined with 1509 El Camino Real would the homeowners association for the development be responsible for taking care of the creek. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if the lots were not combined would the owner of the creek lot be responsible for its maintenance and would the City be able to require the owner to maintain the creek. DPW Murtuza stated that the creek was the jurisdiction of Fish and Games. Accordingly, the City did not have the authority to require maintenance of the creek. Mayor Keighran asked if the preliminary title is correct in showing that both the R-3 and R-2 lots are owned by 1509 El Camino LLC. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked about the R-2 lot being landlocked and if the City had previously dealt with any similar situations. CDD Meeker replied in the negative. Councilmember Beach asked if the City/other jurisdictions encouraged eliminating lots of this nature. Mr. Meeker stated that when a lot is landlocked, like the creek lot, it is a good idea to combine it with another lot so that it has utility and doesn't become abandoned. Mayor Keighran asked if the lots are not combined what could be built on the primary lot (R-3). CDD Meeker stated that conceivably a mid -20 unit complex could be built on 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if it is possible when combining lots to restrict the height of the building to the R-2 requirements. CDD Meeker stated that you cannot require the property to follow the restrictions of the R-2 zone it is rezoned an R-3. Mayor Keighran asked how tall a development can be in an R-3 zone. CDD Meeker stated that with a CUP, a development can have a maximum height of 55 feet. He stated that this project's highest point is the tower at 44.5 feet. Mayor Keighran asked if when heading south on El Camino Real, if the other apartment buildings are subject to the 55 foot height limit. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the ordinance. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to introduce the measure; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mr. Pat Fellows representing the development spoke about the project. He explained that for the past 2-3 years he met several times with the neighbors to address their concerns. As a result of those meetings, he has reduced the height of the building, worked on the front fagade and agreed to build the ten foot tall fence in the rear. He expressed his frustrations with the process. He stated that after these meetings he would then go the Planning Commission meetings and the neighbors would voice new issues they had with the development. He also explained the history of the two lots and why they were originally divided. Burlingame resident Samantha MacPhail discussed her concerns with the project: protecting the creek, loss of privacy, increased traffic and parking problems, and issues with the sewer system. Mayor Keighran asked if it is determined that an upgrade needs to be done to the sewer lines who is responsible for the upgrade. DPW Murtuza stated that it would be the responsibility of the developer. Councilmember Brownrigg asked Ms. MacPhail if the residents considered going to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission to request inclusion in the residential parking permit program to alleviate parking issues. Ms. MacPhail stated that they had gone to the TS&P Commission about this issue and that the Commission had not responded to their concern. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked Ms. MacPhail if currently, the residents had an issue with long term parking on their street. She replied in the affirmative. Burlingame resident Ann Wallach stated that the TS&P Commission informed them that there was resistance to the neighborhood being included in the residential parking permit program because of the cost. As well, Ms. Wallach discussed the issues her property suffered as a result of the creek not being maintained including the need to constantly repair the bank and use sandbags to protect her property from flooding. Burlingame resident Mark Haberecht spoke about traffic and parking concerns that already existed in this neighborhood and how they would be heightened by the proposed development. Councilmember Beach asked about the traffic analysis that was conducted for the proposed development. In particular she asked about the metrics that were used to determine the amount of trips that the development would generate. CDD Meeker stated that Mark Spencer, a principal from W -Trans, the company responsible for the traffic analysis, was here and could answer these questions. Mr. Spencer stated that he used industry standard rates that are based on 100s of surveys. He stated that because these units are owned versus rentals, they generate fewer trips. He explained that owned units tends to remove situations like roommates and instead are more easily equated to single family homes. Accordingly he stated that he would expect the project to generate fewer trips than the current 11 -unit rental apartment that is on the property. Burlingame resident Patricia Gray stated that she was against the demolition of the apartment building that is currently on the site because of the community's growing need for affordable housing. Burlingame residents Yan Ma and Don Mitchell spoke against merging the two lots. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Beach asked how many parking spaces were included in the proposed development. CDD Meeker said there would be 28, 2 more than required. Burlingame resident Pat Giomi stated her concerns about the deed for the creek lot Mr. Fellows was invited back up to speak. He discussed the developer's intent to fix and maintain the creek. He expressed sympathy for those affected by the creek but stated that the developer had not wished to move forward with permits from Fish and Game to work on the creek prior to obtaining approval from the City on the proposed development. Mayor Keighran asked for clarification on how many trees would be added to the site. CDD Meeker stated that there would be 10 24 -inch box trees, and 48 tree ferns along the south and west property lines. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the bocce ball court that was originally a part of the proposed development. Mr. Fellows explained that the neighbors were concerned about the noise that the court would generate so as a result it was removed from the proposal. Mayor Keighran closed public comment. Councilmember Colson discussed that the critical issue before the Council was whether to rezone the creek lot to an R-3 lot and then combine the creek lot and 1509 El Camino Real. She stated she would prefer combining the lots because she felt that the homeowners association would maintain the creek, as it was in their best interests to keep it safe. She stated that she was concerned that if the lots weren't combined, the creek would continue to be an issue for the neighbors and that the lot would remain abandoned. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson. He also addressed the neighbors' concerns including: sewer lines, traffic, parking and privacy. He stated that the developer had worked with the neighbors to rectify their concerns. Therefore, he felt that the lot should be rezoned from an R-2 to an R-3 and combined with 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Beach discussed the need to stay focused on findings and facts instead of opinions and emotions. She stated that the findings of the traffic study and the several meetings at the Planning Commission show that the developer met the requirements to move forward with the project. She then addressed each concern stating that the developer was answering these concerns and also attempting to blend in with the community by planting trees and ensuring that the creek is maintained. She ended by stating that if this project didn't move forward another project that is larger could meet all the standards set by the City and build at 1509 El Camino Real. Accordingly, she felt that the City should rezone the creek lot and combine it with 1509 El Camino Real. Councilmember Browmigg discussed the height of the building. He stated that only the tower reaches 44.5 feet but that a majority of the roof line is at 35 feet. He explained that this is the common height of a second floor in the area. He urged the neighbors to consider how much larger the building could be on just 1509 El Camino Real that would meet all the requirements and standards in the zoning code. 6 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Mayor Keighran discussed the 28 parking spots and stated that she didn't believe there would be an increased parking problem because of the 11 units. She also discussed the school impact comparing it to a previous development unit where only a few additional students were added to the elementary school. Mayor Keighran asked that staff include language in the agreement concerning the care and maintenance of the trees that were planted on the property. She asked that the trees be checked on a yearly basis by an arborist to make sure they were healthy. CDD Meeker replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran stated that the Council was in agreement and with no further discussion thanked the community for voicing their concerns. She stated that the matter would be on the September 19, 2016 agenda for consideration of adoption of the ordinance to rezone the lot from R-2 to R-3. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING CONSTRUCTION HOURS City Attorney Kane presented the staff report introducing a proposed ordinance that would restrict construction hours in the City. She stated that the proposed amendments to the City's construction hours were the result of Council's concerns about the resurgence of construction in the City. She stated that based on Council's direction she drafted an ordinance that amended the ordinance in two sections: (1) weekday construction would begin at 8 a.m. instead of 7 a.m. and (2) construction would not be allowed on Sundays and holidays. Holidays would be defined as those included in Section 13.04. 100 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Councilmember Beach discussed her concern about the affordable housing development the City was working towards and whether or not there would be exceptions to the City construction hours. CDD Meeker stated that under the ordinance, individuals, especially those with larger projects, were able to apply for exceptions. Mayor Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the Ordinance. Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. Burlingame residents Pat Giomi and Russ Cohen voiced their support for the amendments Mayor Keighran closed the public comment. Councilmember Brownrigg recommended that the item come back for adoption. Councilmember Colson asked when the ordinance would take effect. City Attorney Kane stated that if the ordinance is adopted at the next meeting it would take effect 30 days thereafter. 7 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Beach discussed the idea that by eliminating construction hours on Sundays and holidays it would not eliminate "construction" noise (for example power washing or constructing furniture). Accordingly, she wanted the community to understand what the ordinance would prevent. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION REGARDING FUNDING FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) TO UPGRADE THE AGING POTABLE WATER SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSOCIATED WATER RATES DPW Murtuza presented the staff report asking City Council for direction on options for funding the CIP to upgrade the aging Potable Water System infrastructure and associated water rates, and provide direction to staff. He gave a brief background stating that the City's potable water system is 70 to 100 years old and needs to be upgraded in order to provide a reliable and high-quality drinking water supply to the community. He explained that currently, the City invests $2.5 million a year for CIP funding to improve the water system. However, he explained that there is still an $88 million backlog of CIP work. DPW Murtuza explained that at the study session on August 15th, Council discussed increasing the water rates in order to better fund the CIP. At the study session, Council asked staff to look into what the rates would be if they increased funding from $2.5 million to somewhere under the original CIP funding level of $4.5 million. Council wanted to ensure that staff had the resources to keep up with the projects that the additional funding would allow. Mr. Murtuza discussed a phase in option of $3.5 million in CIP funding over 5 five years. This would look like this: Mr. Murtuza discussed under Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion a new graph to compare monthly water utility expenses per capita. In this graph he compared Millbrae, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Belmont. He discussed the fact that Burlingame invests the most in CIP funding. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Phase in funding of $3.5 $2.5M $2.75M $3.OM $3.OM $3.5M million Water rate increase with phase in 9.0% 7.5% 7.5% 4.0% 4.0% funding of $3.5 million Mr. Murtuza discussed under Councilmember Brownrigg's suggestion a new graph to compare monthly water utility expenses per capita. In this graph he compared Millbrae, Burlingame, Menlo Park and Belmont. He discussed the fact that Burlingame invests the most in CIP funding. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mr. Murtuza for this analysis. He stated that he believed the key element of the graph was that it shows that the City of Burlingame is running their system efficiently and although they are spending more it is because they are investing more. Mayor Keighran opened up the item for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg asked about the water cost. He explained that he had thought when the City buys water from SFPUC that the water's cost is passed through to the citizens. However, he stated that it seemed there was a markup on the price of the water when it reached the citizens. DPW Murtuza stated that what they are charging the customer is what it costs to buy the water, transport the water, store the water and keep the water. Mayor Keighran explained that the Council's decision today is whether or not they want to maintain the $2.5 million in CIP funding or phase in funding of $3.5 million in CIP. Councilmember Beach stated that she felt this was a reasonable compromise and that it was a good investment. Councilmember Brownrigg made an argument for the City to be more aggressive. He discussed the increasing amount of clean water requirements, the age of the pipes and sea level rising. He stated that while it is never fun to raise rates, it is important that the City take this opportunity to investment more in a viable water infrastructure. He stated that the City should not drop water rates increases in 2019/20 from 7.5% to 4% and instead should remain at 7.5%. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated his support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Councilmember Beach asked if staff felt that $3.5 million was the right number or should it be increased to $4.5 million. DPW Murtuza stated that it is a Council policy decision. Councilmember Colson asked if staff was capable of splitting the bills instead of billing sewer and water together. DPW Murtuza stated that staff was looking into this and monthly billing. Councilmember Colson asked if the City charges rates and is not able to spend all the money collected could the City bank the funds for future use. Finance Director Augustine replied in the affirmative. Mayor Keighran and Councilmember Colson stated their support for the phase in funding of $3.5 million. Mayor Keighran asked if staff could include the new graph and the monthly sewer and water survey in the City's monthly billing statements. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 9/19/16 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember Beach asked about City Council acknowledging veterans in the community on Veterans Day. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2016, LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES JUNE 21, 2016 b. AUGUST, 2016 PERMIT ACTIVITY 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 10 Burlingame City Council September 6, 2016 Unapproved Minutes 9 g�R`E STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: Sb MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Rezoning Property from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi -Family Residential (R-3) and Adoption of Resolutions Amending the Burlingame General Plan to Designate Property from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential; Making Findings Relative to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Related to a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and all Land Use Applications Related to a Proposed Condominium Development; and Approval of a Condominium Permit; a Fence Exception; a Tentative Condominium Map; and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a Lot Combination for a Proposed Eleven (11) Unit Residential Condominium Development to be Located at 1509 EI Camino Real RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt the following Resolution: "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Finding That Approval of a Request for a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Condominium Permit, Fence Exception, Tentative Condominium Map, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for an 11 -Unit Residential Condominium Located at 1509 EI Camino Real Will Not Have a Significant Effect on the Environment as Defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pursuant to the Findings Stated and Mitigation Measures Outlined in Mitigated Negative Declaration ND -585-P". 2. Adopt the following Resolution: "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending the City's General Plan Land Use Map to Designate a Portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Lying Southeasterly of the Center Line of the Creek, Ray Park Subdivision from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential". 3. Adopt the following Ordinance: "Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Amending the City's Zoning Map by Rezoning a Portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Lying Southeasterly of the Center Line of the Creek, Ray Park Subdivision, from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi -Family Residential (R-3)". 1 1,509 EI Camino Real — 11 -Unit Residential Condominium September 19, 2016 4. Adopt the following Resolution: `Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving Applications for a Condominium Permit, a Fence Exception, a Tentative Condominium Map, and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Combination, for a New 11 -Unit Residential Condominium Development on Property Located At 1509 EI Camino Real (Assessor Parcel Nos: 026-011-010 And 025-228-130)". BACKGROUND The proposed ordinance to rezone a portion of the property at 1509 EI Camino Real was introduced by the City Council at its regular meeting of September 6, 2016. Further, the City Council conducted a public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance as well as all applications related to a proposed 11 -unit residential condominium development to be constructed at 1509 EI Camino Real (applications listed below). There were no changes to the proposed ordinance at introduction; therefore, the Council directed staff to bring the ordinance back for adoption on September 19, 2016. At the same time, resolutions memorializing all other aspects of the application package for the project at 1509 EI Camino Real are presented to the Council for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT None Exhibits: • Resolution - CEQA • Resolution — General Plan Amendment • Ordinance - Rezoning • Resolution - Project Entitlements 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, FENCE EXCEPTION, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR AN 11 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 1509 EL CAMINO REAL WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS DEFINED IN THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), PURSUANT THE FINDINGS STATED AND MITIGATION MEASURES OUTLINED IN MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND -585-P THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by the City Council, pursuant to Mitigated Negative Declaration ND -585-P it is hereby found that that the project set forth above will have a less than significant impact upon the environment following application of all mitigation measures outlined in said environmental review document, therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration ND -585-P, is hereby approved. Section 2. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP TO DESIGNATE A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK, RAY PARK SUBDIVISION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. The change is consistent with the policies of the General Plan and in particular the Land Use Element of the General Plan in that the project includes a change in land use designation for the portion of the property which is not developable and contains a creek (Assessor's Parcel 025-228-130) from the Medium Density Residential to the Medium - High Density Residential land use designation, which will bring the entire site into one general plan designation; Section 2. The change in land use designation will not alter the land use patterns in the area; Section 3. The City of Burlingame General Plan indicates that areas designated as Medium High Density Residential typically contain 21 to 50 units per acre and that Medium High Density land use designations along EI Camino Real provide a transition between higher intensity uses and adjoining lower intensity use and that the proposed 11 units would represent approximately 24.6 units per acre, falling at the lower end of the density range for properties designated Medium -High Density Residential; and Section 4. Following a duly noticed public hearing on September 6, 2016, the City Council considered the Planning Commission's July 25, 2016 recommendation in support of amending the City's General Plan Land Use Map to designate a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, lying southeasterly of the center line of the creek, Ray Park Subdivision from Medium Density Residential to Medium -High Density Residential. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT the City's General Plan Land Use Map shall be amended as stated in Section 4 of this resolution. Ann Keighran, Mayor 1 RESOLUTION NO. I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING MAP BY REZONING A PORTION OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE CREEK, RAY PARK SUBDIVISION, FROM TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-3) The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby ordains as follows: Division 1. Factual Background WHEREAS, on June 10, 2011, 1509 EI Camino LLC filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division requesting approval of a multi -family residential condominium development (15 units initially proposed; reduced to 11 units), which included rezoning a portion of the project site from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi -Family Residential (R-3); and WHEREAS, the rezoning is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance in that the project includes rezoning of a portion of the property which is not developable and contains a creek (Assessor's Parcel 025-228-130) from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi -Family Residential (R-3), which will bring the entire site into one zoning designation and would be consistent with the proposed Medium High Density Residential general plan designation; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame Zoning code indicates that multi -family residential uses are a permitted use within the Multi -Family Residential (R-3) zone and that the proposed project conforms to all development regulations for the Multi -Family Residential (R-3) zone; and WHEREAS, after considering all written and oral testimony presented at the July 25, 2016 public hearing regarding the proposed amendment, the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0- 1 to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an ordinance amending the City's zoning map as described herein: and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of September 6, 2016 the Burlingame City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the City's zoning map and following conclusion of the public hearing and consideration of all written and oral testimony provided during the hearing, introduced an ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading, amending the City's zoning map as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Division 2. The Burlingame zoning map is hereby amended as follows: ORDINANCE NO. Change the zoning of a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, lying southeasterly of the center line of the creek, Ray Park Subdivision, from Two -Family Residential (R-2) to Multi -Family Residential (R-3). Division 3. This ordinance, or a summary as applicable, shall be published as required by law and shall become effective 30 -days thereafter. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`" day of September, 2016, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19th day of September, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING APPLICATIONS FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, A FENCE EXCEPTION, A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP, AND A TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION, FOR A NEW 11 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1509 EL CAMINO REAL (ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS: 026-011-010 AND 025-228-130) RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, on June 10, 2011, 1509 EI Camino LLC filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department — Planning Division requesting approval of the following requests: • A Condominium Permit for construction of a new three-story, 11 -unit residential condominium building; • A Fence Exception to permit a 10 foot tall fence (8 feet solid plus 2 feet of lattice) along the rear property line; and • Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map to merge two parcels; and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2012 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (environmental scoping session) to review a 15 -unit residential condominium project and to identify subjects to be analyzed in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). At that time direction was provided to the applicant for revisions to the project design and comments were received from the Commission and public regarding issues to be addressed in the project IS/MND; and WHEREAS, an IS/MND was prepared to analyze project impacts; said IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment commencing on January 23, 2013 and concluding on February 21, 2013. During the circulation period, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on January 28, 2013 that provided the opportunity for the Commission and interest members of the public to provide commentary on the analysis contained within the project IS/MND; and WHEREAS, because there were significant concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and public at the January 28, 2013 Planning Commission meeting, the applicants requested that the application be placed on hold so that they could meet with neighbors and revise the project to address the concerns expressed by the neighbors and Planning Commission; and 1 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on March 23, 2015 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (study session) to review a revised 10 -unit residential condominium project. At that time direction was provided to the applicant for revisions to the project design; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2015 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (environmental scoping session) to review the 10 -unit residential condominium project and to identify subjects to be analyzed in the project IS/MND. At that time comments were received from the Commission and public regarding issues to be addressed in the project IS/MND; and WHEREAS, a Revised Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Revised IS/MND) was prepared to analyze project impacts for the 10 -unit residential condominium project; said Revised IS/MND was circulated for public review and comment commencing on October 9, 2015 and concluding on November 9, 2015. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on December 14, 2015 at which time it considered recommending approval of the Revised IS/MND and approval of all project entitlements. At that time further clarification was received from the Commission and public regarding issues addressed in the project IS/MND and direction was provided to the applicant for revisions to the project; and WHEREAS, since the December 14, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the number of residential units was increased to 11 units in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commission that there is no net loss of units as specified in the City's Housing Element. A Supplemental Memorandum was prepared to analyze project impacts for the 11 -unit residential condominium project, which concluded that 1) the proposed changes are not significant enough to result in additional significant environmental impacts beyond those disclosed in the previous IS/MND and that 2) the revised 11 -unit project would not result in any significant additional environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2016 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing and voted 6-0-0-1 to recommend approval of the applicant's requests for a Condominium Permit, a Fence Exception, a Tentative Condominium Map, and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider all project entitlements, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and oral testimony presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, as a result of the oral and written testimony presented at the September 6, 2016 public hearing, as well as the analysis in the staff report, the City Council hereby makes the following findings relative to each aspect of the project application: 2 RESOLUTION NO. Condominium Permit Findings: • The proposed condominium project represents sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and will not negatively impact public health, safety and general welfare in that the 11 -unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along EI Camino Real. The project features ample landscaping with water -conserving features and design, provides safe pedestrian access along the street frontage, and provides a variety of dwelling types suitable to a range of households; • The project will not create an adverse impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that the proposed development represents a one-to-one replacement of dwelling units on the property. Additionally, the mitigations designed into the project as outlined in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration will ensure that there will be no significant impacts following mitigation; and • The project is in conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides residential units consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. Fence Exception Findings: • That there are exceptional circumstances, in that the fence height is a request put forward by an adjacent property owner after engagement with the applicant and would be located adjacent to a 10'-0 wide right-of-way at the rear of the property; • That there is no public hazard, in that the wall will be required to obtain a Building Permit and will be evaluated for structural integrity accordingly. The proposed fence will not impede or otherwise negatively impact circulations systems in the area; • That neighboring properties will not be materially damaged, in that the wall will be located 10'-0" away from the property line of adjacent properties to the rear and will utilize a pier and grade beam foundation to minimize disruption to adjoining properties during construction; and • That the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner, in that the regulations would not otherwise permit construction of the privacy wall of such height between the two adjacent land uses of significantly differing intensity. The wall is intended to protect the privacy of the adjacent single-family residences lying west of the project site. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map Findings: • The proposed tentative condominium map and tentative and final parcel map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, are consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act; and the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development in that it provides residential use in an area identified as suitable for such use in the Burlingame General Plan Housing Element; that the project provides ample vehicular and pedestrian circulation to serve the project, and is consistent with required development standards 3 RESOLUTION NO. including setbacks, lot coverage and building height. Further, the proposed development is consistent with the existing development pattern for properties fronting on EI Camino Real. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that the applications for a Condominium Permit, a Fence Exception, a Tentative Condominium Map, and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map are hereby granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 17, 2016, sheets A0.1, A1.0, A2.1 through A2.3, A5.1 through A5.3, and L-1 through L-5, and date stamped January 28, 2015, sheets A0.2, A1.1 through A1.3, A3.1 through A4.3, BMP1, MM, C-0, C-2, and C-3; 2. that the project shall include one affordable unit for a 10 -year term; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the sale, rent or lease of the affordable unit at least 120 days before the final inspection; 3. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; that documentation with exhibits that show detailed project construction plans including work on the driveway and sidewalk, shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review and approval of an encroachment permit; 4. that the applicant shall coordinate with the California Department of Transportation and City of Burlingame Parks Division regarding the planting of at least one new Accolade Elm tree either within the Caltrans right-of-way along EI Camino Real or near the front property line on the subject property; 5. that if the backflow preventer and fire riser is relocated to another location on the subject property, the applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Division to determine if an additional tree, of a size and species determined to be appropriate to provide screening, can be planted in its place; 6. that all existing trees to remain, as shown on the plans date stamped May 17, 2016 and January 28, 2015, shall not be removed or damaged, and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared which documents how each tree on the site should be protected during construction; this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued; 0 RESOLUTION NO. 7. that for a period of five years beginning upon the final inspection of the project, the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared annually, to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist, which provides an evaluation of all existing and new trees planted; this report shall include the following: • Perform a limited visual assessment. • Document any structural or obvious defects, symptoms of disease or pests, and identify any root decay. • Recommend mitigation option for future maintenance. 8. that if any existing or new tree on the site dies within five years of the final inspection of the project, it shall be replaced with a new, 36 -inch box tree with a species determined to be appropriate by the City Arborist; new trees shall be replaced in the same location unless it is determined by the City Arborist that the location should be adjusted based on the site conditions; 9. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove the existing 17.3 -inch diameter Deodar Cedar tree on the subject property; 10. that that the applicant shall submit a detailed foundation report for approval by the Building Division and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier foundation prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Division prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 11. that a certified arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier foundation and digging for removal or installation of any utilities; 12. that the 10' tall fence along the rear property line shall be built after demolition of the existing structures on the site and prior to construction of the new development, as shown on the plans date stamped May 17, 2016; 13. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 14. that the maximum elevation to the top of the entry tower and the mansard roof shall not exceed elevation 69.75' and 60.75', respectively, as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along EI Camino Real (25.25') for a maximum height of 44'-6" to the top of the entry tower and 35'-6" to the top of the mansard roof; the garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 26.15'; and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing :� RESOLUTION NO. proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 15, that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 16. that the conditions of the Building Division's February 5, 2015, December 5, 2014 and September 5, 2104 memos; the Parks Division's January 27, 2015 and August 29, 2014 memos; the Fire Division's January 22, 2015 and August 29, 2014 memos; the Engineering Division's September 12, 2014, November 17, 2011 and July 8, 2011 memos; the Stormwater Division's January 21, 2015 and August 27, 2014 memos shall be met; 17. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right- of-way shall be prohibited; 18. that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on four guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans, these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 19. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the four guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 20. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 21. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 22. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 2 RESOLUTION NO. 23. that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 24. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 25. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 2& that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 27. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 28. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; ,rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; cove ring/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 29. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 30. that this project shall comply with the state -mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 31. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 32. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 7 RESOLUTION NO. 33. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 34. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works — Engineering Division a sanitary sewer analysis that assesses the impact of this project to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by the existing sewer line. If the analysis results in a determination that the existing sewer line requires upgrading, the applicant shall perform the necessary upgrades as determined by the Engineering Division; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 35. Prior to submittal of plans to the Building Division, the project sponsor shall ensure that building construction plans show exterior lighting and window treatments on the condominium building that are designed to minimize glare and light spillover to adjacent properties. The City shall ensure that final design plans include downward directed light fixtures that are low -mounted to reduce light trespass onto adjacent properties. The final design plans shall also include glazing window treatments to minimize the intensity of daylight glare produced by the condominium building. Air Qualify 36. During construction activities, the following air pollution control measures shall be implemented: a. Exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. C. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks shall be paved as soon as possible. e. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 0 RESOLUTION NO. f. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator. g. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Biological Resources 37. To reduce construction related impacts to special -status bat species, a bat survey shall be conducted between March 1 to July 31 by a qualified wildlife biologist within the year of proposed construction start and prior to ground disturbance. If no bat roosts are detected, then no further action is required. If a colony of bats is found roosting on-site, then the following mitigation will be implemented to reduce the potential disturbance: a. If a female or maternity colony of bats are found on the project site, a wildlife biologist through coordination with CDFW shall determine what physical and timed buffer zones shall be employed to ensure the continued success of the colony. Such buffer zones may include a construction -free barrier of 200 feet from the roost and/or the timing of the construction activities outside of the maternity roost season (after July 31 and before March 1). 38. To protect the long-term habitat of Mills Creek, the Applicant shall ensure that the creek is not obstructed and human intrusion into the riparian area is minimized. In compliance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, the Applicant shall enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to conducting any construction activities within the creek corridor (defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) as the top of bank plus the outer edge of the dripline of riparian vegetation) which will identify conditions the Applicant will implement. Conditions shall include but not be limited to the implementation of bank stabilization measures, and/or restoration and revegetation of the stream corridor habitat that has been damaged by project construction. 39. The Applicant shall obtain a Section 404 Clean Water Act Nationwide Permit from the USACE for impacts to wetlands and waters of the U.S. and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section to prevent discharge of pollutants to surface waters during construction. This shall include complying with the State's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Applicant shall also obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. For permanent removal of jurisdictional perennial creek, the Applicant shall require either replacement of affected acreage at a 1:1 ratio (one acre must be created for every acre lost) or payment of in - 0 RESOLUTION NO. lieu fees. For the temporary removal of jurisdictional perennial creek, the City shall restore the area to pre -construction conditions. This may require revegetation of the area using native vegetation appropriate for drainages. 40. The applicant shall take the following steps to avoid direct losses of nests, eggs, and nestlings and indirect impacts to avian breeding success: a. During the breeding season (Generally February 1 through August 31) a qualified biologist shall survey the project site and large trees within 500 feet and line of sight for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 14 days prior to any demolition, construction, or vegetation removal. b. If demolition or construction activities occur only during the non -breeding season between August 31 and February 1, no surveys will be required. C. Results of positive surveys will be forwarded to CDFW (as appropriate) and avoidance measures will be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. These may include construction buffer areas (up to several hundred feet in the case of raptors) or seasonal avoidance. Cultural Resources 41. In the event that buried archaeological resources are discovered during construction, ground -disturbing operations shall stop within 100 feet of the find and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted to determine whether the resource requires further evaluation. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The archaeologist shall make recommendations concerning appropriate measures that will be implemented to protect the resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Archeological resources could consist of, but are not limited to, stone, wood, or shell artifacts, structural remains, privies, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project area should be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and evaluated for significance in terms of CEQA criteria. 42. In the event a fossil is discovered during construction for the project, excavations within 50 feet of the find shall be temporarily halted or delayed until the discovery is examined by a qualified paleontologist, in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. If the find is determined to be significant and if avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall design and carry out a data recovery plan consistent with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. 10 RESOLUTION NO. 43. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5; Health and Safety Code § 7050.5; Public Resources Code § 5097.94 and § 5097.98 must be followed. If during the course of project development there is accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken: 1. There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the "most likely descendant" (MLD) of the deceased Native American. The MLD may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work within 48 hours, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. 2. Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project site in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: a. The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission. b. The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation. C. The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Geology/Soils 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project's plans shall reflect foundations that extend deep enough to penetrate more stable soils. The project applicant shall follow the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation, by implementing a pier and grade beam foundation system. Herein, the piers shall penetrate a minimum of 12 feet beneath lowest adjacent grade; have a minimum diameter of 16 inches; be nominally reinforced vertically with a minimum of four No. 4 bars; and be spaced no closer than 4 diameters (center to center). In addition, the actual depth, diameter, reinforcement, and spacing of the piers shall be determined by the structural engineer based upon the design criteria: 11 RESOLUTION NO. a. A friction value of 500 per square foot (psf) may be assumed to act on that portion of the pier within below 2 feet. Lateral support may be assumed to be developed along the length of the pier below 2 feet, using a passive pressure of 350 per cubic foot (pco Equivalent Fluid Weight (EFW). Passive resistance may be assumed to act over 1.5 projected pier diameters. Above 2 feet, no frictional or lateral support may be assumed. These design values may be increased 1/3 for transient loads (i.e., seismic and wind). b. The bases of the piers' holes should be clean and firm prior to setting steel and pouring concrete. If more than 6 inches of slough exists at the base of the pier holes after drilling, then the slough should be removed. If less than 6 inches of slough exists, the slough may be tamped to a stiff condition. Piers should not remain open for more than a few days prior to casting concrete. In the event of rain, shallow groundwater, or caving conditions, it may be necessary to pour piers immediately. C. Because of the presence of groundwater and locally sandy soils, the contractor should be prepared to address pier -hole caving. This may include drill and pour techniques, slurry drilling, or casting the holes. Accumulations of water in the hole is likely to cause side wall collapse and make cleaning the hole difficult. Therefore, holes should not remain open for significant amounts of time. d. All perimeter piers and piers under load-bearing walls should be connected by concrete grade beams. Perimeter grade beams should penetrate at a minimum of 6 inches below crawlspace grade (unless a perimeter footing drain is installed to intercept water attempting to enter around the perimeter). Interior grade beams do not need to penetrate below grade. All other isolated floor supports must also be pier supported to resist expansive soil uplift, however they do not need to be connected by grade beams. e. In order to reduce any expansive soil uplift forces on the base of the grade beams, the beams either should have a uniform 3 -inch void between their base and the soil, or should be constructed with a knife edge and triangular shaped void in a rectangular trench. The void can be created by the use of prefabricated cardboard material (e.g., K -void, Sure -void, Carton -void), half a sonotube faced concave down, or other methods devised by the contractor and approved by the geotechnical engineer. The use of Styrofoam is not acceptable for creating the void. f. All improvements connected directly to any pier supported structure, also need to be supported by piers. This includes, but is not limited to: porches, decks, entry stoops and columns, etc. If the designer does not wish to pier support these items, then care must be taken to structurally isolate them (with expansion joints, etc.) from the pier supported structure. 12 RESOLUTION NO. Hydrology/Water Quality 45. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for all construction activities at the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include the following: a. A construction schedule that restricts use of heavy equipment for excavation and grading activities to periods where no rain is forecasted during the wet season (October 1 thru April 30) to reduce erosion associated intense rainfall and surface runoff. The construction schedule shall indicate a timeline for earthmoving activities and stabilization of disturbed soils; b. Soil stabilization techniques such as covering stockpiles, hydroseeding, or short- term biodegradable erosion control blankets; C. Silt fences, compost berms, wattles or some kind of sediment control measures at downstream storm drain inlets; d. Good site management practices to address proper management of construction materials and activities such as but not limited to cement, petroleum products, hazardous materials, litter/rubbish, and soil stockpile; and e. The post -construction inspection of all drainage facilities and clearing of drainage structures of debris and sediment. 46. The project applicant, before project approval, shall prepare the appropriate documents consistent with San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) and NPDES Provisions C.3 and C.6 requirements for post -construction treatment and control of stormwater runoff from the site. Post -construction treatment measures must be designed, installed and hydraulically sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. Furthermore, the project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post -construction stormwater treatment measure in perpetuity. A maintenance agreement or other maintenance assurance must be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. Noise 47. All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drive train, and other components. 48. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of sensitive receptors. 13 RESOLUTION NO. 49. Pursuant to the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, the Applicant shall limit construction activities to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Sundays and holidays between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 gth day of September, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8c a MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Mazarin Vakharia, Asst. City Attorney Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Restricting Construction Hours RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend Section 18.07.110 of the Municipal Code to change permitted construction hours. To do so, the Council should: 1. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND The existing provisions in Section 18.07.110 of the Municipal Code allow construction on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.; on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.; and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. After consideration of staff's presentation and materials and public testimony, the Council indicated support for delaying construction hours one hour on weekday mornings and for eliminating construction hours on Sundays and holidays. The Council directed staff to draft an ordinance with these changes. A proposed ordinance implementing Council direction was presented at its September 6, 2016 meeting. After conducting a public hearing on the ordinance and considering the policy options before it, the Council directed that the ordinance be brought back for adoption. DISCUSSION The intensification of construction work on single family homes has increased the number of noise complaints. In addition to changing the hours of construction as discussed above, the proposed ordinance adds language to the code to clarify that construction hour regulations only apply to work that requires a permit. Hence small projects that may legally be done without a permit would not be subject to the construction hours regulations. 1 Construction Hour Ordinance Adoption FISCAL IMPACT September 19, 2016 Minimal. Staff time will be required for education, outreach, and enforcement activities related to the proposed ordinance. Staff time spent on enforcing these provisions will be redirected from other activities, with no net cost to the City's budget. Exhibit: • Ordinance 2 each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its fmal passage. ANN KEIGHRAN, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2016 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8d MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558-7255 Subject Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with MIG for Preparation of an Update of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance RECOMMENDATION The City Council is asked to adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with MIG to extend the term of the Agreement for preparation of an update of the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and environmental review document. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is in the midst of the update of its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, in a combined effort known as "Envision Burlingame." MIG was selected through a competitive process to provide consulting services for the project, and the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with MIG on January 5, 2015. The combined update of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is expected to take approximately three years to complete, and currently the project is proceeding on schedule and within budget. DISCUSSION The City has entered into an Agreement for Professional Services with MIG to perform the consulting services required for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update, as well as preparation of the required environmental review document, in an amount not to exceed $1,320,281.00. Of the total budget, $491,770 is funded from a Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities Grant, and the remainder is from the General Fund. No changes are proposed to the project budget. The term of the Agreement for Professional Services states a termination of June 30, 2016. This timeline was an oversight, in this case reflecting a timeline for a more typical planning project such as a project -level environmental review. Given that the combined duration of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update has been anticipated to take approximately three years, the agreement should have provided a term better suited to the unique nature and duration of the project. 1 ,,Amendment to Professional Services Agreement— MIG September 19, 2016 Attached is the draft Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services with MIG to extend the term to perform the planning and environmental review services required for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update to June 30, 2018. The budget is not proposed to change, but because the cost of the original agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval of the amendment is required. Additionally, the resolution ratifies the payment of any balances due to MIG between June 30, 2016 and the date of the City Council's action to approve the amendment. No other changes to the agreement are proposed. The proposed resolution (Exhibit 1) allows work on the project to continue in the interim until the amendment is fully executed. FISCAL IMPACT The General Plan update is being funded through the Strategic Growth Council Sustainable Communities Grant approved on June 3, 2014, and through the General Fund. Exhibits: • Resolution • Executed Agreement for Professional Services with MIG • Draft Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services with MIG 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MIG TO PREPARE THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has embarked on an update to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to provide a comprehensive plan for the community; and WHEREAS, the City has selected MIG to prepare the update of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance based on its experience preparing similar documents in the Bay Area region, its experience with zoning ordinance updates, its comprehensive community participation and outreach plan, and the expertise of the team assembled for preparation of the update; and WHEREAS, an agreement incorporating the Work Program, Cost Estimate and Project Schedule prepared by MIG in the amount of $1,320,281.00, which was found to be adequate to complete the update of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, was executed by the City Manager per direction of the City Council on February 18, 2015; and WHEREAS, the term of the agreement shall be extended to terminate on June 30, 2018 in order to accommodate the duration of time needed to complete the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance updates; and WHEREAS, because the agreement authorized work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Professional Services Agreement with MIG to prepare the update to the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a term to be extended to June 30, 2018, as stated in the Contract Amendment Request 1 2. Payment for services provided by MIG and invoiced after June 30, 2016 and before the date of adoption of this resolution is hereby authorized. 3. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. Ann Keighran, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 19th day of September, 2016, and as adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND MIG TO PREPARE THE UPDATE OF THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE THIS AGREEMENT is by and between MIG ("Consultant") and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide the Services set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $1,320,281, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts ("Maximum Compensation"). Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant's signature. 3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on June 30, 2016 unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of endorsements and certificates of insurance to City. 6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Agreement for Professional Services Between the City of Burlingame and MIG for preparation of an Update to the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro -rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant's cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City's request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant's control or possession immediately upon termination. 9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter Agreement for Professional Services Between the City of Budingame and MIG for preparation of an Update to the General Plan and Zoning Code Update arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier ("Courier"), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine's acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. Agreement for Professional Services Between the City of Burlingame and MIG for preparation of an Update to the General Plan and Zoning Code Update 15, Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms "shall', "will', "must" and "agree" are mandatory. The term "may" is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision, of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such parry is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 By:�9v � h� Lisa Goldman City Manager TMA- a I �<� I I Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk CONSULTANT MIG 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 9471 Title " VCfoSrid-e� Date: ti/iiv/v5 Federal Employer ID Number: ! 9618 Agreement for Professional Services Between the City of Burlingame and MIG for preparation of an Update to the General Plan and Zoning Code Update Approved as to form: ZLZ�� Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions 5 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND MIG TO PREPARE THE UPDATE TO THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 is by and between MIG ("Consultant"), engaged in providing planning and environmental review services for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update, and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California ("City"), amends the Agreement between the parties executed by the City Manager per direction of the City Council February 18, 2015, hereinafter called the "Agreement". RECITALS WHEREAS, the City has determined that additional time is required to complete the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update and has requested that the Consultant continue to perform services per the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Consultant may continue work and expenditure on the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update under the terms of the Agreement between the expiration of the Agreement and the execution of the Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: The Consultant shall provide the services requested by the City as outlined in the attached Contract Amendment Request No 1 to the Agreement for Professional Services dated September 19, 2016. 2. The term of the Agreement shall be extended to June 30, 2018. 3. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Amendment No. 1 to Agreement for Professional Services between MIG and the City of Burlingame IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 M Lisa Goldman City Manager Date: Attest: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk N CONSULTANT MIG 800 Hearst Avenue Berkeley, CA 94710 By: _ Name Title Date: Federal Employer ID Number: STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8e a MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director — (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist — (650) 558-7333 Subject: Rejection of All Bids and Authorization for Staff to Re -Bid the Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract for FY 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 — City Proiect #84800 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council reject all bids for the tree pruning and stump removal contract for FY 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018 and authorize staff to re -advertise the project to obtain new bids. BACKGROUND Tree pruning and stump removal funds were included in the Parks Division operating budget for FY 2016-2017, and staff recently bid the work for FY 2016-2017 and FY 2017-2018. The FY 2016-17 work will include the pruning of 26 large eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive, 55 eucalyptus trees on EI Camino Real between Dufferin Avenue and Murchison Drive, approximately 700 sycamore trees, and other various large tree removals and unforeseen trimming. The contract also includes up to $40,000 for the Public Works Department and Water Division for unforeseen trimming at City -owned Public Works facilities and pump stations. The contract for FY 2017-2018 will include the pruning of 58 eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue, 100 eucalyptus trees on Skyline Boulevard, approximately 800 sycamores, up to $40,000 for trimming for the Public Works Department and Water Division, and various other large tree removals and unforeseen trimming. DISCUSSION The project was first advertised for bids on August 18, 2016. The City received three bids, which were opened on September 6, 2016, in the amounts of $1,125,010, $1,643,100, and $2,262,700. The cost estimate for this scope of work was $800,000. During the review of the contract proposals, staff discovered that the project specifications and scope -of -work exceeded the available funds budgeted for FY 2016-2017. Therefore, it is prudent to reject all bids and re -advertise the project with a revised scope -of -work that will more closely align work with available funds. 1 Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract FISCAL IMPACT September 19, 2016 Funds in the amount of $355,000 have been allocated in the FY 16-17 operating budget. The action requested here will not have a direct fiscal impact on the City. Exhibits: • Resolution • Bid Summary RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR THE TREE PRUNING AND STUMP REMOVAL CONTRACT FOR FY 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 CITY PROJECT NO. 84800 WHEREAS, On July 18, 2016, the Parks and Recreation Department issued a Public Notice Inviting Sealed Bid Proposals for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal 2016-2017 and 2017- 2018 — City Project #84800; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2016, all bid proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, a total of four bid proposals were received, with base bids ranging from $1,125,010.00 to $2,262,700; and WHEREAS, in reviewing the bid documents, it was discovered that the bids for the project specifications and scope -of -work exceeded the available funds budgeted for FY 2016-2017; and WHEREAS, the project scope needs to be revised to better reflect the available funds for the FY 2016-2017 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, for all bids received for Project No. 84800 are hereby rejected; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. All bonds and security received in connection with the bids received shall be returned to the bidders. 2. The Director of Parks and Recreation is hereby authorized to modify the plans and specifications for said project and re -advertise it to seek bid proposals. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1g'" day of September, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Bid Summary 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 9/6/16 - Bid opening at City Hall 10:00am Timberline West Coast Arborists Bay Area Tree Specialists 2016-2017 Section 1 225,00.00 75,110.00 27,860.00 Section 16 47,600.00 129,500.00 Section 2 49,500.00 795,000.00 54,725.00 477,000.00 110,000.00 20,000.00 Section 3 18,000.00 Section 19 9,800.00 20,000.00 11,000.00 Section 20 Section 4 8,900.00 30,000.00 3,500.00 23,500.00 10,000.00 51,000.00 Section 5 19,900.00 618,335.00 4,500.00 Total Bid 10,200.00 1,125,010.00 Section 6 5,500.00 4,500.00 5,000.00 Section 7 na na na Section 8 477,000.00 188,415.00 286,200.00 Section 9 250,000.00 98,750.00 150,000.00 Section 10 19,400.00 14,925.00 25,500.00 Section 11 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 12 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 13 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 #14 Stump Removal 23,500.00 29,700.00 51,000.00 Sub Total 1,166,700.00 506,675.00 776,500.00 2017-2018 Section 15 58,500.00 75,110.00 98,600.00 Section 16 149,00.00 129,500.00 170,000.00 Section 17 795,000.00 314,025.00 477,000.00 Section 18 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 19 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 20 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 #21 Stump Removal 23,500.00 29,700.00 51,000.00 Sub Total 1,096,000.00 618,335.00 866,600.00 Total Bid 2,262,700.00 1,125,010.00 1,643,100.00 aSTAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8f MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Leslie Loomis, Human Resources Director—(650) 558-7209 Subject: Informational Report on Retiree Health Insurance for Medicare -Eligible Retirees RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council receive a report on retiree health insurance for Medicare - eligible retirees. No action is required. BACKGROUND The 2017 CalPERS open enrollment period began on September 12 and will end on October 7, 2016. This is the only time during the year that employees and retirees are eligible to change health plans for the following calendar year. The retiree medical benefit provided in the Memoranda of Understanding with all City bargaining units except the Teamsters is tied to the Blue Shield HMO rate for the Retiree Only and the Retiree Plus One (dependent) for employees hired before March 31, 2008 and who retire after January 1, 2015. CalPERS no longer contracts with Blue Shield to provide a Medicare health plan. In order to establish the amount the City will contribute for Medicare -eligible retirees who were hired before March 31, 2008 and retire after January 1, 2015, the City needs to enter into side letter agreements with the affected bargaining units. The City is proposing to replace Blue Shield with United Healthcare and, if CalPERS contracts with Blue Shield in the future, the City will return to using the applicable Blue Shield Medicare rates to determine the maximum it will pay for retirees on Medicare. DISCUSSION The City's bargaining team is meeting to discuss this issue with the affected bargaining units and will return to the City Council with side letter agreements after agreement is reached. Given the timing of open enrollment, and the fact that Medicare -eligible retirees have been calling the Human Resources Department to inquire about their benefits, staff thought it prudent to bring this informational item to the City Council. Staff will also share this staff report with any Medicare - eligible retirees who contact the City to inquire about their health benefits. 1 Retiree Health Insurance for Medicare -Eligible Retirees FISCAL IMPACT September 16, 2016 The fiscal impact of this CalPERS/Blue Shield change is unknown. However, CalPERS intended that United Healthcare replace Blue Shield in its health plan offerings, so the impact is likely minimal. 2 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: a MEETING DATE: To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 9a September 19, 2016 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2016-17 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District (BID) assessments; 2. Close the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the City; and, 3. If protests do not represent 50% of the majority of the assessments, adopt the resolution approving and levying the 2016-17 assessments. BACKGROUND The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2016-17 Downtown Burlingame Avenue BID assessments on August 15, 2016 and established September 19, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. If there is a protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the assessments, then the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had received two protests (out of 436 businesses); protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. FISCAL IMPACT Approximately $90,000 in assessments is collected annually from businesses within the district; all of these funds are forwarded to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame has in the past covered the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Exhibits: • Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2016-17 Assessments for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District • Letters (2) of Protest RESOLUTION NO.: 2016 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND LEVYING THE 2016-17 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON THE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopted ordinance 1735 in 2004, establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) for the purpose of promoting the Downtown Burlingame Avenue business area; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing on the District Assessments for the year 2006- 2007, the Council determined that a majority protest had been made and no further assessment was levied; and WHEREAS, in July of 2010, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to re-establish the DBID and to impose a new assessment formula; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2010, after a public hearing at which it received public comment and written protests, the City Council determined that a majority protest had not been made and adopted the ordinance re-establishing the DBID; and WHEREAS, the DBID has operated successfully during the past six years as evidenced by the DBID's annual reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent to levy the 2016-17 assessments on businesses within the District and copies of said resolution and notice of public hearing were mailed to all businesses within the District; and WHEREAS, the DBID has provided important services in enhancing the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area, its businesses and properties in the past year; and WHEREAS, the basis of assessment on the businesses within the District will remain the same as the prior year; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts stated herein and in the staff report are true and correct. 2. The City Council determines and finds that there is no majority protest within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code sections 36523, 36524, 36525, and 36542. 3. The City Council approves the method and formula of assessment for the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District. 4. The City Council approves and levies the 2016-17 assessments on the businesses within the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as delineated in assessment list attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is by this reference incorporated herein. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from the assessment. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 190 day of September, 2016, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk a t W SSOSSOSSS0SOSSOS SSOSSS 00 S O O O O SO O O O S O OS ON O O O O O O vl O vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 O 0 V O O O vl v 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vi O O O lNn O n N N w O N O N w mw O N O O O m N V N V N 0 O.i N a n w V1 N N N R O 1/1 1R tR V! Vl Vi Vl N N N VI N N V! � h 1? N N tR VF H VF 'V1 VT VY V1 V1 V� 1A 1/1 N V? V1 'V} V} tR N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S O O O O O o O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0$ Oro 0 w 0 00 0 00 0� 00 0 0 0 0 0$ g o 00 0 0 0 o N 00 m 0 Ow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S N S S 0 0 0 S N 0 N 0 0 0 0 O O 0 N 0 N S N N S S O N N 0 0 0 0 S S N 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Om O Om W OOn Obi O m n mVO rl O O O 0N m 0O O O O nV 0 . mm Vl Ol 0 l IQ O O1 d' l0 m m M n '1 rl '-I N N t!1 e -I N N rri rtl lD tO vl N .-1 rl N O m m m O N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0< 0 0 o a o 0 0 o m m o 0 0 0 0 ao 0 0 0 c v a m mm m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m o m m m m m m m z z m m m m m m m m m uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu°ww Quuu°uuuuuuuuuuVUVLd Li Li La u ui ui Lj La Lj w w w _ LLT w• w ui U - D D w w w w _ _ _ _ La 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 p 2 2 i z 2 2 2 C a 2 2 2 2 2 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z a a a a a a a a W a a a a a a a a a u U' U' 0 O U' O U' U' 0 O 0 U' V' U' V' U' V' U' u V' wO m 0 U' > > t7 U' U' M Q V' V' U' U' z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z I z z z z Cy p z z z z z z z z z c m m m m m z m m m m m m m m c m m u m m m a m m m m m m m m m re ¢ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U m m m M m m m m Q Q m m m m m m m m m m 0 o ttm m m ❑ Q 3 Jm Wa Z aa aw Y m Y Qma 0_ zm UXa A m - ¢ aR a Q a °° aa > a a> ao ❑ aQa ozz z Wm z p z wm? z z O p❑OO0 0 z zz z 0w m3m 5 O ° O 0p m O S 7 2 W O u o m 0mm o m o0o mh o o =m O o S V a o N a m -i m .i m N .y a .y ti •+ .� m .i m m .+ m .+ .� .+ .� '+ rI m m W o. a .+ � N m m ti .+ ti z Y a� J a u m ❑ w O O ❑ z -U' z u _ n ¢ J u 0 m l7 O2 u z p w z 0 z Z0 vl Z U u w u ❑ zzQ w a c m ❑ m N Q g w m O U K w O u Q 2 u F a C O 0 vai vm~i m i 2 W a j m OW G z= o 0 1u-' W z 0 u Q rW' 3° °m a w z '^ 0 6¢°❑¢ w z z 0° u aV' z O 0 a m a w Z Z m mw x u a a a z z w W w x z '.' p w a r m z z a y a Y Y m W m m Y x a of o °` ❑ g g m J J z z a a 'u g>> °� a a a a a a a a a a 'a Q a Q Q Q a a a Q¢ Q Q a Q¢ a a m m m m m m m m m m m m m M N M N N N N M N M N N N M N M M M e -I N N M rl rl M M N '1 rl N N M N N N N N M N N m I m O m N O m m M M O M t V m M m m l O V n M n O rl N M N N m O N N V R m N H m O M N O 'd' m H N O m m m N M m n 0 V m 0 m N m m m m 0 m 11 0 0 0 n 0 H m w l0 m N N N N �m N H OM V N N ti M m N N M -I M N N HH N N N N N N n N N N .-I N N N en -I N N O m O h Vl m r1 rl O n nM N Vl < m n rl O Vl m lO M vl e -I V N lO n Vl O n n V N C M lO N m N rl V1 V1 V M V1 M O rI O m m m VI N M m n N N m e'I m m vl N \O lO m tO n C m V vl n n lO V m n V Q n lD N N w O V V 0 0 m l0 w N e{ N lO N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M' N e -I SS S S S S O O O S S O S S S S S S O S O S S S O S S S S S S O O S S O O O O m 0 0 0 m 0 o m m O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d 0 0 0 N M ei e1 M M n rl N T V "1 m d N N M N M N ei e'I e'1 V V v'I r'I VI "'I r'I e1 N m '4 1A N th N h M trt iA Li 41 i/! V! N N Nth N N 1h VV 1h N th th N N iA h M N H iA N th VY N Vf O O O O O O SSOOSSSSOSOSS000SOSSOSSSS00 0 0 0 R O O O S O O O O O O 0000000 OSS00 Om S S O O O O Ow O O Om O Om O S O O S O O O O O O Om O S O l0 '1 N M d M ei N M M V ti Cd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 S S N S O N N S N S S S S S S S O S N S 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S S S S S N ei ei 'i ei rl 'i 'i ft 'i fi 'i ft 'i 'i fi fl 'I 'i fi rl fi 't fi rl rl ei e -I ei N ei N M .'1 't 'i rl w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m w m w 0 0 o m 0 0 4 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0. N m N m ry N m d 0 m m d a m N 0 .+ v n m O It m m O a N m a w m w l0 A N w lO m a ry w I r ry m v .i m ni ry a N v 'i a n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 O o 0 0, o rl 0 M N � e . . '1 ei ' H H H H . 't M e -I 'i 'i m M 0 0 p 0 0 0 O O o o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d d d O O d a m d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d o d d d d a d m rn m m m m ry m� m o� u m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m u m u u u u u u m u¢ u O¢ O u u u u u u u u u u u u o u u u u u m u N u u u° u w w w Ld „ a U w u u w w w w w w w w w w _ _Ld _¢ w N _ Z w u O y O U m u n z z z z z z o z <z¢ z z z z z z z z z Z Z z z z z z z j z g z z z z K d' d' m m m Z c Z re VI Z Z > > > > > > 0 0 a x o a a > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > o a o ti a m o m OON ttn .t N w ¢ a o 4 m tt¢ m "a' ¢> d m tt tt ¢ tt u m m S m tt tt a > m ¢=M Qm3Oxfl 3J.i sga Z = Q3¢3 Q3 �z% Q3 QQF>Q 3 >Q>Z a 0 nO K z Q>i>aa Z Q3 >rz QpLL > aa Q a Z aZ K m w ¢ ¢ a Z O wuz aOOO ¢ aa¢z o. w p ¢ p 0 OYO O O O u > a x a x U a W a o u oamooS Soo m o o ti rovN..6N H NNN V M r H N m H N H HN dN H m. NN n yaxa I m Z m m O p a ¢ Z o Z a a z a a w w a w 0 3 Z u_ o o ,z-� r z z 5 w m z° ¢ a u J r ° o m u �z� z3<G<i a a s w .Ni SSSSSSS000000SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS88880 ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vl O O O O m 0 0 0 m 0 m 0 m vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O M m N O V V V O V O N O m O O N O O O n O N O N N m O N O O m O O O O O VY O V N N N vl VI vl e'1 Vl 'I l° f1 'i rl rl N 'I 'i rl N vl N 'i N M M rl N rl ei 'i M vi 'I 'i H m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . m w 0 0 a a a 0 080 S 00 00 O O O N O S O S S$ O O O O S N O 0 0 0 0 0 Ca S S S S S 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. S S 0. S 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 S 0 0 0 O 0 0 S S O S 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N O N 0 N N 0 0 S 0 0 0 S 0 0 a S O 0 0 p'I M ei ri ei 'i 'i I e H r I' N I H' N N e -I 'i e -I ei M M M. H M M M ei ei e' H e H M O o 0 8 S N o m 0 0 O 0 o O ti 0 0 0 00 ti 00 O O g g O N S 0 0 0000000 Irrvi v1Oi off o o .+ 0 m m m O m m n In a N m m m rl rt 0 0 V1 C V N rl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a m a v a v a a a m a a m a a a a a m a a o v a a a M N Oat Oal m m OQat m N m m ... m M 01 m m 01 m O1 M m m °I m m m Of m m m m m m m m a 0 a a a Q u u H u u u u u u� u u u u u u u u u u U u u u W u u u u u u u u u u u u u m m I° W ul W Ld W W Ld Li ¢ a a a a a a - a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z Z Z Z o Z o N z C z z z z z z p z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z Z z z z z z z z z s z s¢ a¢ a ac Z c z c z c¢ a a¢¢ a a z s s z¢¢ z> z z z z¢¢ c c m 3 m m m m m m in m m m m m m� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m O N M Q O v1 N a H ry 0 a Ia_ O ,i +" mo om m u m R R ti o o R n O V~I w> R ti O R> > tt>> > > R p N N>> N O¢ Q O a a Q Q m N R R O a a Q O m R Q N Q ¢ m > m 0 Q o o a a a Q z 0 o° a 5 a a a 0 0 z z 0° a a 0 a O z 0¢ a z z O m¢ O O Z w O z O z z Z p z Z m z w m z O Z Z a Q 0? z Z ¢ z m a a m Z 0 m m 0 m O m a z O z 0 Z O O m O T Y 3 3 a Q Y a= p 3 m Y �- g z Q 'm c¢_ a z 3 3 m c r m O O x x m In O m m m m x> >> > O- u m m O O >> m z x¢ x x u u¢ ¢ m x c u p a¢ O w m u m w m m¢ m 0 Q m w p p x x m m m p 6 u d O n N n u O. O m S J L O M m d m O V O H V O~ J r O d m VI O O O O O v O O' V O a N N lO H vl N O O N O' n M N Vl N H rl N N N tmvl N H rl m m M a� m a H �'-� N a N ati N fi N N rl .-1 M M fl rl M N. rtMl F u Z a Z z a Q O � F Q w z z w o> a a z O 0 M H Z ? u 3 J z w m z o o d z a z 3 O a ti 0 z u a O m as "' ¢ Om uu u � z z u w a J yaj O W W C Y a � Z a o G ? W O N a Z N O n p O U O a z p r Z z z G m W x z. �^ w¢ a Y 2 u z O NJ D i w z g Z¢ O z m m m O a w O 0 m w Q O 0 i W m< O m a Z w m 0 z 3 ¢ z w O a m Z G O z u W J p 0`-'ioz3z„wo,�azp¢�.�.,aw'x'o�°off>�Omoaw�a In a Q O o O i z w O Y z Z¢ m a O x¢ O z z m u O 3 w Ou = w g u � o o u u O o O O u u u u o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 o w w w w J w N N N M N N N M N M N N N m M cl M M M 'i N H M N N N m N M M N N M M M M W M N x vl m v n m N vl m ID rl n LO m M V N O m. n V m n. M 0 M m N H a m t a' N O m n m m N O M m m n N m M N N rl V1 nm m N m M V n a m O N O m m 4l1 lO •i a O m m lO m m If1 fl m M VI n m V m N lO O H N m N m a V m N ON N a a N m N N N N N N 'i N N N N N N N N n mN a ti N N O1 n N W O m a m N m w w m n b n 1 n b a O n 1 n n H w O m V m 0 Yal m am INTI N m Om1 D] lmD a H m o a lO ry N m m m rl m n o n n Vl VI H lO l0 I° m to vl N In In m In m a m m m I° m n n m N m a m O m a a r w 880888800000008880008000000000000088000 0 0 0 0 0 w 0$ 0 N$$ N 0 0 0 vi 0 0 0 vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi vi 0 N N O N O O CO N m w O ID O O M O N O n O O m m N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0$$ o$ 0 0 a o$$ om $ 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 o 0 0$ o0 00 0 eN-I 'i N N N f1 N tO N N d N .-I N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S S O O S$ S$ N 0 S N S N S N S S S N S$ S$ 0 0 0 O N O N OO $ S O N N O N N M 0 0 0 0 N 0 N M N N ei 0 0 M M 9 8 O O N O OKvt OSd OWN0 OOn d OOn d Om w 0$m O OO$O O O OmSS O O O m Np . om d m Lr! m a mm m fi 'i ri r ri ri r ft ri a ry rt m n 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ON x 0 0 0 0 o o o^ ry o o O O d o o o o pNj 0 0 0 0 v a O1 a v a a a a m o p m 0 p 0 0 o m ry o 0 0 o Op a 0 ppxpa0 0 0 0 a d a O d d d N d d d d V m d d 'O F O U d d d a ¢rn¢ m a m m m m m c mc g m¢¢ m s ¢ m¢ m U u o u u u u uU p U u n p U u u u u w U u U a U U u u 0 0 0 u U N u ui a u " ui w U w w m u % L's w w U O w w w F w x w w w `� a a z a a a a a a z a Q u z a a z Q a a w m a a a a u z a a a¢ 2 La z a a a °i a o oat�p��ooaooya��pc�c�t�>�0000 � w�� og�ooau z z w z z z z z z z z z z z r z z z p m z z z z m z z Z w z p z z z V z m m m c m m m m z m m m Z m O m m m J m m m m vii z z m m m p Z w m m m w m J Q J>> a a D J O D J 7 0 D J O a J 0 D> m J m m vt m m m m m m v m m a M m m x m m m¢ a m m m m M m m m u m> m m m m m 0 O ry O tt O rl o O iF Q O R O 0 ❑ Q Q ❑ m>❑ Q b N W ❑ A❑ w ❑ mYm wKp mwx m�nz a w❑m> Omvt G'^mz aVQV❑ �n OOmvt >m mp x xQ ZO> Mrym '❑m u0H❑m0 ❑mwvi O Q❑3 o(- , O S QQma Oa ¢ Z UZ 0 a oZ Z Z o z z m o o no o o m o o m mo❑ o o0 > o m m m O m m m ma W O u Q Q g , m M z LL X O U x x r O y 0 .2¢ 0 a a x x uu� 0 a u z z x p 0 o z G m d d 6 Vf a m V O d VI m O O M 4 C HOm VI m2N m NV O1 mamm2d Omd O 2 L 0 2 0y 0 MOdmO nON NONOO mdN VNN, MVH 1 Y m Z w o w d a w m~ z m a m z z w ❑ Z w❑ Q w Z V V w i -'w z w O p 0 m 0 z u z Z" Z O ~ =¢ w O"G On z m r a U mr O F OxFZ wz Q U z Z O O a m 0 ❑ z U O pZ �n w in Z o M 0 ail 0 0 Q u g m m a 0¢~ 0 3 z a" a a z w m o 3 o O u z z w Q LL a Z z i w¢ m J w W vxi = a z ¢ z 0 u m u s z m Ow z r J Ox '^ u i> �, ¢ o K w a Q u 2 w '" w w o a o a z w LL m a w m o J z ,. w Z LL a w o z o a>> 0 0 o w a a a a w w° w o c i a a a a w w w N M M N M N m N O n m m 0 O m h O O M O v m m m O m D N N m O N fl N N m N vl M m n M IA m n O M M n W M m m, m, N m N O t r M n N vl n O V N m m M lO n w p m V rl O m m N O O O N N n r m V N N N N N O n N tl1 N n 'i M n M b m Vf O O n n K' N t V m m N M 4 N' m n O m M m N M m ON N N N N N N N N N d N N N m N N N N N NN N N N M N tout N N r N O. m V O N W M M w. m m h W V1 m m m m O m m I d m N v v m m I N N m M O n M M VI M VM h VI O m N m d n n N m n N m m m O r m N m' M m O O M m n d N w d d h ID m N w O N m N O N d n V m vt N tO N m I n IO N w V w m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 d a N 88880088888008000088888880888000800088 S Srl 8rl S ON ST Srl ON ON SIn SN S SN Svl SN SN S S SM Sr1 S pO SN Ofi S'i S S O 0N 0ei 0 OT 0T 0'I 0N ON S O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O h 0 0 0 0 O N O m 0 0� v O OO0 O 0 o Om O O mOOOONNONNmmONnOnOONNOOOO wO 00mO N H OO O N L1 N V1 V1 V� V1 N V1 N th 1A V1 N 1/1 H N VF 'V1 N V} N N V1 t? VI1/1 VF V! 1/1 V1 N Vl V1 1A V1 i/} Vi OONV O O O O O N OOfi O O O O O O O O O O O o O 0 0 o O O 0 0 000 0 OOOOOOOSOOO O NOO0OOONOOoOaOS O O NO m 0 V M N e -I tfi0 fi N N v'1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Oei O O O O O O O O O�O� O O O O� O O0 9 0 9 0O�O� O O O O' O O o O O O O O O O O vO0OOOOOvO VSSNNSS0S0SSN00NN00 0000000NON00000 NONN ocooyN� 0N 0 0 0 0 0 m O o 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o O o o m o 0 0 0 0 0 �o N0 mOm o O OR Vmn omm N m o I N .W. 1 N - e1 W a n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 O o n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o r O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m o 0 o m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 V a mm m m m m m mm m m m m m m m o m O m m m m m m m m m a m m m U m m m N m m mQ m U U U U U U U U U m U U m U 0 0 0 U U U U U U U u U U U 0 U U U 0 U U U U w w w Ld LO LdLa m _ mLs La¢ Z U La w wa w w w a aaa a a a u Q a a a� a p a a a a Q a a a a❑ a a a Z a a a a a a a z z z Z z z z z z z¢ z z O z° z w z z z z z z z z 0 z z z w z z z N z z z z > > > > > > > > > > a > > w > > o > > > > > > > > W > > > a > > > o > > > > m m m m m m m❑ ❑ m m n a m m m mo a w om m o a m m •-� w w a 0 0 N> s x R a>> o> tt .+ tt tt tt>> tt> >> R N O O R a w F N M Q a❑ M¢❑ tt 0 0 ❑ a a O tt a m C z iC v) Q F O Q R a R w Q w Q a a a a c p¢Q Q> Q > y a >> a a¢ a a z 6¢ c¢ a Q ¢ 6 a Q a a Q > Z Z Z N Q Iw/1 a a 0 N Q Q VI Vl M m N N N V1 l7 m m m m O O p z Q? K Z a w z 3 0 o z? z z 0 0? O m a 0 0 O?? S o a? a O O O m m m O z m 0 0❑ m O a m m ¢ m m m❑ m O¢ O ti 3 w h- a g¢_ 3¢ m 3 z 3 u w m z O ¢ O¢ O m X O x >> O O a a a a a a o a x m O o 2 2 o m o o u m m w w m K o x w w H w m m o C x m x u u u a n O. M o m Q lD e'I m d m o aN d a Vl �' m O d d M d m V1 an d ul N VI o m N, r m O m O O n n m tO m O M 0 4 n o .� .+ o 0 0 0 m M o 'I o O M O m V N O m N H N tf n O O V . . m O O m N O N m M vl O N V O O M 'I N tmlf N W Vml mn W ONl O W V O rl MN m O Oaf tNlt Ool O MN m N N V� VNl tavl N n m V m V m M M M m a N fO M n N m m m m m n N V m N n O V m N n M n Vf O M m d' N O V N V M O Im a I m n m m m O N N N O Vf Vf M a N N N O O m m m m Vf m m vl VI N m O N 'i N N N M 'I N N M rl N rl M rl N M 'i N N N M N N N rl N N N a N N 'i N M m N m I m m N m m n V m a N fO m' n N l a' n a b m a m N N p m m m n n N m O O vmf am m W �n11 S n V t0 h N m m a m V n n V a m n 0 m 0 V m m M m 1D V m m n n f0 N N N N N N N N N N N N m N a m w W > Y F U w Z a m u O 0 o d w z :5¢❑ Q ❑ Z < U 0 j J Q w m w z >i "' Q m 2 F z U w m O '+' a a U U O a O ¢❑ w Y O Z m Q❑ Z Z o a 2 D z S m o u z o w o a ~ D o „m, z z w N a> o g z o r W a o a u m o "' Q z z W M Z aaa w3a=xw �Y�w�+zumvwiw}❑o O> �. U W W Z- Q Z Q W m_ l7 VI d r W❑ a d yaj W 2 2 D 7 Z> a a U W O O O O O O O D Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y M N N M '1 M M rl rl N M r m M N m M rl m m H tmlf N W Vml mn W ONl O W V O rl MN m O Oaf tNlt Ool O MN m N N V� VNl tavl N n m V m V m M M M m a N fO M n N m m m m m n N V m N n O V m N n M n Vf O M m d' N O V N V M O Im a I m n m m m O N N N O Vf Vf M a N N N O O m m m m Vf m m vl VI N m O N 'i N N N M 'I N N M rl N rl M rl N M 'i N N N M N N N rl N N N a N N 'i N M m N m I m m N m m n V m a N fO m' n N l a' n a b m a m N N p m m m n n N m O O vmf am m W �n11 S n V t0 h N m m a m V n n V a m n 0 m 0 V m m M m 1D V m m n n f0 N N N N N N N N N N N N Ni 0 o S M N N M 8r 0 0 8 C nn8N N M 0N 8 8 N S o 0 oov0 o$SoeSSeeSSeS ewo8o0$88OmWor nNMnnn, ,fro , w V N 1/1 1A 4} 1/1 V! VY V! '1/) N i/1 V1 th H V1 1/! Ll LY V! t/L i/! N Vi V! iA V! N 'M to i/! N V1 V1 V1 V1 h iA V1 8$o 0o$SSSS0000.00000....0000000000 0a 00 ....................................... 0 0$ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ry ti ti °° m n m .tea ry ti N a r .y m m m S o S S S 8$ S o 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . O O O M M OS O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N O m m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 O O O MN ON N ��� O O O o 0 0 0 0N N N ON N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N � 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 00SNOM O O O O O O O O O 0 O m 0 0O0�V 0 0 0 vl 0 0lD NV NOt O mM 0 0 0 0N0m0 0 ON2 N OO 1 1 N V rl O n o m 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O O O O o O o O o 0 0 o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a, o 0 0 0 0 0 o O mo 0 0 o a o 0 o m O o 0 0 0 0 0 o O m m m rn ,N.4 m m rn m¢ m m m rn m m m rn o rn m m m ry a, co m m a a, m m m m rn m v m m Q u u m u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u z u u u u< u u u u u u u¢ u u p LLE LLT La LL7 LLT' w 1ti w w w w w " Ljp ui ui w w Lj" La w La Ld Ldu ui u u U m O U a a a w a a a a O a Q a a a a Q a V a Q a¢ m¢ a¢ Q 0 a¢ a a Q¢ a V a a Z t� m m ,,, O t o c� O m m co m m co m m t� m t� t� c� m t� t� t� u t� t� 00< z z z o z z z z o z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z m z z z z z z z m z z LL J N �o Yt N w N V O 0 0 8 M w a 0 ry o ¢ `-' ¢ ? o ¢ -' u N OH o ax o as �,., ❑ 0 ¢ a u ¢ ¢ 4 ❑ o ae a a ¢ 0 ❑ # a 0Z¢u¢ aw 0iJzam a aW ma a 0 1 ang" 0 ¢ ¢ pzz ¢¢pZznZOzZ¢nU¢ a z O z On < O O Z O 1�ci1 m z30 x�om�u3zo3p3oac acz3c"c°C¢m Y3zs�m 0 o z- x t o o a o a u>> o x 0 o m O>>¢ m x 0m¢ x 6 0 x O x O m O m m x m O m O O ti U LL M m V1 O O LL O M H m N m O d m LL p O �' rl O rl U N V ti O N V .i N O T O V N d N MV 0$ d' 'i m O M m N tout lD $ N N N V b O wN O 0 'i rl N 'I ri m M I N N V M. M 'i M M rl 'i N ei N 2. M rl m l0 N N t -I e -I m N V. N V N m F Z w o z > SwZ 0 0 Z KO m O a Z u 2d K z m a am C z u a Y s wa�o�z� z �„ o o z u m z N w> a a d a o ? u 3 zz 0x - zu � z s z za m w G >_u 5aw� J a m a z"� M O r d¢ o �. a x x z w w u ¢ x z z z w F LL k o 0 o z z 3 a o o w o 3 a a Q a LL a w w a ¢ 0 0 0 m m °. an w M J O❑ 10i1 ¢ ¢ w u w w m u u u u u wp 0 > O S j w O Q ru Z m O u 3 3 a w z W a m LL LL LL LL u. z¢ x m m u G W= m o m a z m z m u a w aw,zLLazo�o�00000�000��a>>wwzz d===�awz�� z z a u a a m m m m m U' u u z D 3 3* 3 3 w w J F o i i x m¢ a¢ a a a a u M M N N M N N fi rl M m M M M M M M rl fl r1 N N N e -I N M M M N M M f1 N N m N N M N a vai .w-1 a to m Oai O V 1 m. w n V N 0, N O 0 ONl n m tNi1 1 O r O v o� m m vmi m m V N 1/1 1 O m ti m II N N m o n m N O d, N N m m m N- n 'i a M m. O Vl n m o Vl n rl N m m m l0 O V n m O m o m m m fi m l0 w m m M n 'i Ol 111 o m n m N m m rl 'I N N N N N N 'i N ei m M m N m O N N N N N e-1 N N M rl N m N 'i N O m N 0 m 0 n m 411 M O m 1O V m O 01 O m O m V Q m O V m vl m m N O N H m m 10 Ot 1D O f r I O m CM n m 1O M l O n O m v M. O n n rl fl T N m l m. O m m M N m V1 n V V t0 V vl h m v n n n m m I N n m V C' V v O m 10 t0 n t0 N n l0 co n 10 m lD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a a x w O N LL z O z Z W VI N W N Q U a La F v Q F Z N Z � C z 7 Z Co wCc 0 C }O w F K u m h W Z H ao z O r z 3 O 0 N r S S S S S SN S S S S S Srl SN S SN 0 S rl Srl SN S S S S'i SN S S S M S S S S o v 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 OMOOOmO nN mNOOOOOOOOOOm OOmmOOb n° N V} 1/1 VI V1 N V1 {A trt N N V! tR V1 h 1A V! h {/1 V! iA V} N aA H 1/� N N N VY Vf VY N V1 i/1 V1 1/1 aR V1 O O O O O O S SOSSOOSOOSSSm0000 SO 0o$O 0 0 0 0 0 q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ooo o 000oOo 00 0000 og00 0 m 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O0'1 0O'I ONrl Ofi fi 'iO0 0O SO 0O NO 0O 0O NO O 0O 0O O SO 0 S N N 0 0O O ON O O O O O 0O O O SO O O O SO SO S N Ne M M e .. . . M. . ,. H ' H M O . O 00 O O O O O 00 O 00 O N O O O N O O O O N O O m O O O Om o0 0 S O o m. 0 0 0 0 O Oto d V1 O O N n lbO M 00 V1 m d O vt b rl OON bVd N rl e'1 O N 'i 'i rl N rl M r'I N ei m d N O 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d Od N Od Od Od Od� Od Od Od Od 0 Od Od Od OO Oy O O O O 0N M M 4 4 N N N e''M 0 0 0 0 0, 0 N0 0000a0000000 0 0 0 0 d d d d ddd d m o m m m m m m m m m u m o m m m m m m m m N¢ m m m m u u u m u u u u u u u� u u u u u u u u u O u m u u u V a u u u u m O u u V u LLT LaWLa LLi La LLF a LL7 Lj Ld Ld lY 1.; W us ,U„ ' a Lj LLF' La 3 i.; W W LL a N La _ Lj W a 9 a yy a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a z a a a a a z a a a a d z a a a a U' m 0 F 0 O 0 0 V' u 0 z U' t� U' t� (7 l7 l7 U' V' a V' Z U' l� t� l� Z z U' U' z m a z z u z z z z z m z o z z z z z z z z z w z o z z z z z z z z o LL z z z z ¢ z ¢¢¢ s n N¢?¢¢¢ a ¢¢ s s z s? c M a a p¢¢ z¢ z z z z c¢ a > > > > > o o w > > > > > > > > > a w > > > > > > > > a > m m p m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m M m m m m m m z m m m m V vt m m m m S m tt e -I ry m u p o b o O o in tt tt < m ¢ z0a wtt b o o o o N N a ' ' a I aa a s a a tt ¢ ¢ w maR w O ,J O z a >QQ°Q Q-0p>oa 0 0 d > ap aFao o p a z 5 Z a p a x= z a o z z apo w J z p Z z z a 3¢ 0 g w m m m 3 F o p a x r- °¢ vmi a o¢>> a O s k O c>> z o- a>> o m>D 0 0 m m_ x O w0 m O m a 0 u w m m x O m m 6 x¢ Q O mT0 m 3 m d u O N Mmm 0 0 O mo Om O�nO m 'I Mod N o O OMo mNo M m Md0 O0m N N 1 NMM m m 'i rl rl rl M fl Li 0 u u Y z Y w z 0 w Q y y "LL m < a ��a w o a LL w z W 0¢ u a Q<a zuu z „ zzwao x d u m z m a p z Z O a Z z O "' r 3 O, "' p z x _ o u z o u z r w O¢ u w o m vi O z z u z a~c F c9 m H ou u z m w w g z a Q p a° o a w u w o g z w o o m 0 2¢ u z �^ u LL o m x x z 0 0 z z? a k z 3 z a>> o a Y g a z z o a o o a u u p x 2 0 0 0 0 0 t a a a a a a w 3 w u o o D u u 9 z zz m i g g g g 2 i 2 i 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z o o o o o o o o M N H N M N N N M rl rl N H N m I M m N M N N M r m M M. N M N m M N N H m m N m Vl Vl n N N m N Vl d N m M O N m m n m N n vl d N VI d m O b M O �/1 �/1 m M M N N b d n N N O m m N O d' n m vl m d N m O b M d VI r1 O M b N m m M °mi mn m O N O W O w d m VOf m O m O m Oml N m m W m O m V W °Ml W W m N N Obl rl N N N e -I 'I rl fi N N N N N N M M N M rl 'i N N N N N M N N N N N N N e -I N m O m O M d O d n l0 d N M b vl n rl m 'i n m O m O d d m n O m m d d M m v1 n .� b m M O m O n n O M rl m h ul d m vl O N M m n n d n M n lO m N d b Vl H d m n .i m Ih O d M tO t0 Vl m n rl d b d V1 n d b M n m N M lO d' n d M d m m Vl m Vl M M N t° m b N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q a w N n O W O M N N N N N NM N O M Yt O O N O Wrl N O O O N O nN n N O M O W N 0 N W N O M NN O O iA 1/1 LY V1 V! N t/) H V! N 1A V} Y} VF Vl V! N 4F N V! VY aA V1 1/1 1A ./1 1/1 V� N V� VY 1A 1/V i/F i/! V1 Vf h V� O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS O OO OO OO O O OO O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O m N O W N O O N m W O vl Vf N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NOOOONNNOOOONNOOOONONSSSSSNOSNONSSS N O OO 0 0 V o o o o a o o V o O o o d o o O OOo o g o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O no 0 ow ali�vm mN moNoNm 00 0 v 0 1 w N .+O O N N m "1 rl fl 'i N lO ei N N N d N 'I N N e4 d n O m .moi , O o o 0 000000 1 o .moi O H O O O O o O O m o o O O O o O N d C 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N .y .i .i .� .4 N N m O o 0 o O w o 0 0 0 0 o m o N m O m O O o O o 0 O m m O 0 o 0 0 0 n u m m Oal n m d. m O m m m m m m ry g m O g m g m m m m m Od1 Odt m o m m Odl m m m m O u u u m u o m M u u u u u u m O u m O u_ p u u u u u u u u Q u u u u u u u O N cj u W lO Q g N U N = W W W Q U W . Ld Li Li Ld Lo Z U< G O lJ �. U yj U V IA yj G o z a a a a¢ o a a a a a a o z a p z a z a a a a a a a W o a a a a a a a r °Q W0< Z Z Z z a ora Z Q z z z z � a z z z g z a m m z z z z z z g LL z LL z LL z z z z z z z a z z z z z z z Z Z K C m N K U 4' a m m m L' S' Y Z m, z m z w w m m L' 1' K V VI fL [L m m R' R' R' a a > > > o ° x < a > > > > > > a a o o a D a > > > > > > > o o > > > > > > > m m m m m¢ m u u m m m m m m O w m �n m i m m m m m m m U m m m m m m m W o n a o N V1 W l0 N m .-I R>O R O 0 O 0 Ow 0R 0 Q> Q Q N 0¢ Q ti r> a R R 0 0❑ Q Vf R Q a Q R Q .-� a w 0 w z R a w R m a p w w w Q Q a ¢ ¢ ¢¢¢ Ora 3Q>¢>a>3 ¢u a ¢ ¢¢Q w° QO olU po ¢ 3o S 0 ac o 3 3 0 o o a 0 z M p¢ m 3 m x p 0¢ m m O o u a d m N z u w w N ,.� d O m o a a a w m a w .a n m m d o 0 o o d .n d .+ m O M o N N .+ m m O n m o m n .n m o o .+ m o .i �aNa.N+�tia0v lmnmv,N-iMidm�tirviD+ m N m."+ Ni m m mm.d-i v'^i N �,�tiHN�. w U r W w Z U - u m w O Z U Z a a O O zW U >Fa Wamwwa w U WaOz O ° o °=wa zzwo u owa?ia zomoo w ¢ aO YO a xa u Ow Z HZ OY „yO O m avnKw ZQU ❑0 Q ¢ ¢wK °u0OO zzNJ '�"> uam^¢¢a a a ¢ Q¢¢ a¢ Q ¢ aa Q o o -wHm+ 0 0¢ a a a a M M N N N .y N M N M N N M N N N N .Y N .4 m M N N M N .Y M M N, M 10 N n vl N w O Vl N d m M N m M O w1 1 m m t0 V1 Vl N n .D m n t0 V n w m m vl O m N m O m n N O M w w VI .-1 m N V1 N .i Vl N m d n O vl rl tn0 m O N m M O V1 b Om .-I m N O w w eye Vf .. d d d m O d d m d n m N .N-1 N fi N N N n -I N N ImYI M m M N N N m N M N .Y N lD lD m M m N V1 n O m O d O w m N .mi N N d m N m 0 N M m m w 0 InYI 1011 m n n d t0 m w N n v1 m d N d O d VI tl1 w t0 d d d �/1 n Vl w d d m m � N N M w d n n d .O n 1O d 1O d l0 m 1O 10 Vf n .o N N N N N N N N N N N N Ni 0 w a a N w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o S S o S 0 S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 ON NN Oe'1 Mei Ofi ON OH Oei OH ON 0 0 M 0 0 0M 0 d 0 0 0 0 o N 0 0 M 0Wrl 0 O O OmmNO 0 W O O O O O OmrOfl vrVli oO"'I Nrvi m0r0 0M °f VT N 1/1 V1 V! 1n V1 1n 4f V1 1n 1R i/) N i/1 V! Vl Vl V1 i/T N N in V� i/1 V� V1 1n VY V! 1A N Vl N h 1A N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O S O O O S S S O S O O O O O O O O O O O.i O a O O O O O O O O O d O aN O O O O OM O O O O O O O O ON O O a o O O a a NmN OMm d 0 O 0N SN SM SM SM SN SM Or4 SN SN 0M S'1 S SM S SM SM S S SN SN SN SN S S S'i S S SSS S00000 O O 000S000 0000000N000O S N 0 0 NN 0S0 0N N N O O S O N O O O O O CS O O O 00 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O 00 O O Om Om x 0 0 0 00 00 O N m W O m l0 O n O N o] O Ol d OOd O M o ri m N ri ri rri 6 od d p m m m m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dm Nd m d d d Nd d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d Ndi md O�dy O r 0 0 N.. d d N . e. o d 00,.. d ' . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 o o O Ooo O d dd dd dd dd d o O o <<<< Ol m ¢ Ol W m d m a m m m m OI g Of m Ol m Of s m m O1 Ot V1 m m U U 0aul u u U Q U U u Z p u 0, QQl Q u OQuI uuul u u u u p u u u u u p u u u u u V u w w u' u L w a La u w w w L w' aU' OF Z z Z LL �Zal'J Zaa < Qt'J alg aV' ¢ � caaaaQQQu�QaX 0O a u u 9 u 0 g0 � 0 0 Q z z z z z z m z z 0 J Z C Z Z Z Z Z K Z Z Z Z¢ Z Z z Z s¢ c s¢ a¢ m z¢ O¢ h zz rc p¢¢¢ a¢ Z¢¢¢ s Z¢¢¢ s Z¢ a > > > > > > > > > Q x o Q > > > > > > Q > > > > > a > > > > a > > W 1/1 m m m m m m m m❑ x V1 m 6 m V1 m d' m m m m m V1 m m m 6l m VI m m m m In m m a O ry M W R N W pp W W Q W j M N a a K a > Q i W< W ON W M Q O Q ¢ QLA d> NKaain ❑mlm0 mN .Ni .N-+ �am ❑¢YN aN .Ni 3N ❑QKQam sW.i m�m NO ¢- o 0¢ K aQ Q gd' QL' QfG >a ¢ >a Q QZCZ ¢ZZ H ad¢3' 6Qa3Q¢m Z 6 °a 0 °0 z2wF3 o�o0 0 o x0❑Om° o ❑ xgovl 0 0 x>WzmN❑> i°0 o o N om u °o o o o m 0 0 mam1O o mm 0 mMaN m Z vMi M.i N z c� S m Z z o u z x z o a g ° 3 z w z z a w o 5 'z o 0 w F Q n r G O a ¢ w u z N ¢ "' x a Z O z a m w❑ w lZ'J w ol0-m, Y< o� l; 0 0 3LL max �o ao❑ u°Q" z m k zg o ❑o W Q lan w m w O w z V, w u ? a M o Q a u z i °um a Q z- x~° �aQ o o W �� 3 W 3 z -i�Joo❑au>�3a� <t�zi�m 0 3 z y s u wo Jz a¢ u x O r �¢ di ¢¢ r i y z LL F O Q r u w¢ a a o 0 0? m 3 a w Y o a w w 3 a W �, a W W o w 0 °w '0>> 0 o x Z Z a x �' o a u d a w°° u w w W w w= 0 0 0 O O N Val Val N VQI Val Val IQn Ian N Val VQ1 Val V M VI V1 V1 1A VI VI 1~/1 m m N M e'I M M 'i fl N N vi M ei N M M d O I d m N. 'i v O M O O m r M O. N O. m I N r N l N VI W d V r O n m r m M r d Ol N O m c0 d d r fi N d r W N m M OI c0 r Ot Of Vl vl d V1 d m m m M O m N r n O m N M Vl O N d tV O m m o N. N m m N tD O m M M M vl d lV m m d ei M O M n M fl V1 m tO r M T 0 O O lO 'i N M O Ip O O b Vl N Vf l0 m W r n O W m 0 m d O1 O N m vl m O r O w W O m m n H d r IO H w N d m m m w M O m m N N Ol N O e -I m m m n n W W S O III Mdn tOO n N IMO N Nm m Vl tN0 O N N n m vml r b O qr d n n d In d r d vdi N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a L w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s s O m O O O O Vf Vl O vl O O O O O O O vl O vl vl vl O O O m O O O O 0 O O O m O O O O N M V 0 M 0 VN1 N W N 0 0 0 O O N N O w N M N w e0'1 0 ✓Nl OM N 0 N N O N O M O ON O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 083000000008008000080800000 O O m 1 m m Om OM 00000000000m tNvl 0000000000000000000000000S00oo0Soo00oSo . V1 O O O O N mO N N N N O O O N O O O O V O O N O O 0 V1 N088SoS8N$NNNOOONOOOONNOONOO88 oNNO N O O N O O O O Om0ONOONOO0NOONON O O NOg O Nei m 0 0 Ow V wN N M O N hCONh m e1 N ei O N v1 M N N !VI N V N � rl N V N �-1 ei M N N N M N rl fl fl 1V1 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o N o 0w 0Nw 0w 0 dQ' ma rwl Nw Nw Nw w rwl 0 0 O 0 0 O O O m o 0 0 0 0 a o o w 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o O m O 0 n 0 Noa¢vo o o a a a ww m uu u u u o u w u u u u u u 0 u u u u u u O Z u u u u u u m u u u u w w w° a 1.i •_ h w w w w w w N w w a 3 o< a U" w' u O M Z b l7 J Z k W Z 3 z z g z z z Z z° z z z m z Z z z z Z LL❑ z z z Z z z a z z u z K U' K❑ K C m C Q K Q K K K Z K K C z K C¢ K z K z Z K C C C OC z K K Z C m W m z m m w m m {Wi1 m m m v¢i m m m v¢j m m m m m m v¢i 2 m m m m m m u m m N m 0 O O N p O O 3 ❑ Y} a N N „1 O-+ m z as u x a s u N ❑ Nn ¢ u Q Q Q a a a y a❑ a¢ a a > m x ¢� a O ❑ w O w w F, a w a w w w> w Q w a h m¢❑ a O w m❑❑> V' p Q> m Q Q > a a Q 0 '� Q a a a w Q a 0 Z N b 1n > m l9 m ti m m Q z m U' a a O u' Q u' 0 U' z 0 0 b Q U` m l7 m M m m O ¢¢ a z n a o¢ >¢ a¢ ZO u¢ z O W Z z O z z z F Z ??¢ z d z- u¢ LL m N o 3 3 F r 3: w z¢ F ac z z z s � a 3 a 2. a z 3 x x m O x O x ti 0 0 m 0 m m>> m>>> Q¢ U�>> O D u O x a 0 O° 6 m x m O x° w a x x O x x m O m m O m m m❑ M m w m m x m m u M x m m ti N O m u1 m O H w w O O m O w w 0 O O V1 w w V1 O w b e -I O N HV Om Ofi O'i N'i ON Ow Ovi rl mN w H O O O O N frl1 Nrl NN hOM NON VN Ne4 O O m N ei N ❑ Y O O k z ° a z a M M a z z ZLL v d U ° p N m w u o w m H a M m w w z O u m w a Q o 1a^ ¢ w w " Ou 1a^ Z Z 1n w Q o w hi aa mzaZm y,wo°a w ww mOw w mxw aww ww mY Q m w o m zw WOF UZy az uz w m o F o Oz❑ J u u Qaoo 0W zm Z o z ¢ °Nuwa> d1° x O K a a u uu ¢ ONYa ❑ O O N N N M N M N N N N M N N M N N N N N N f -I N N M M N N N M N N M N M N M N M N m m m V m m l0 VI m M V w N l0 m M O O N N N m M w l0 w V w !� w If1 M V M V w w O l0 N N N w m M O N l0 N M w 0 a 0 w m N w N N N w O N N m m M w N V b l0 N b N m w l0 w N H N N 111 O N M N O m In tO O M m N N m w N M m w O w O N O w V O N N N N 111 rl N l0 O m 1p V m V w� M N m w VI N M I� O V N w M N M Vl w N N e} N O N 1D N O w t11 m m lO O N O O N w N m N N l0 v1 Vl O M m I� vl b V N N O N M V N O O N V M V M N O V V m N v1 M m M m vl M V 0 O h m b V1 h O N N V N V 111 m V N V CF N V m O m h N l0 m O 1l1 M V V Vl N lO M V l0 l0 l0 V m M lO 1f1 1!1 111 N M N N N N N N N N N N N N Q x w ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 g S S S S 0 S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 0 0 S S 0 S 0 S ti 0 0 0 0 0 0 vi o o vi o N N N N O Oo, O0 00 00 02 N N N vf d aN� ^00 O0 20 2 N N N N N Vf N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M H N N N OO 0 0 0 OO 0 S 0 o0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OO 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O S . 0 0$ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 ti N ul vl m N W vl v1 m m m O Vf m N N e -I N d M M d b rl S Oo S S S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S S 0. O O S 0. . 0 N 0 S N 0 S N 0 S 0 O N 0 0 0 N S N O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 N 0 S 0 S 0 O N S •i ei N ei ri e4 fi .i fi 'i '-I rl 'i fi 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i 'i fi .i 'i 'i fi .i .i .i .i ei ei N N ei ei 'i 'i 'i O O O b O O O O O O O O m O O O O O v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O m O m n d d n O M O O m O O O O 1h n O tO d V O N Lr m M O d b b O m N b W N 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 O O m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m O 0 0 0 0 0 m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m O o¢ o m o o a o 0 0 00 a o 0 0 0 o N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d d d d d d d d o d u dy d d n d d d d O d d d d d d d M m d d d d d d m m m m m m m m m m o m m m mm N m m m m m m m m m m m m o o m m m m m m u m u u u U U U U u m u u u u �' u u Z u u u u u u u u U U U Q a U U U U u u w¢Ld LO LO _ w w w 6 w ww Q _ o _ w w w . w 2 u 2� 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2i 2 m 2 x 2 2 m 2 � � 2 O 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 w w� 2 2 2 2 2 Q o a a¢ Q Q Q a a- Q¢�¢� a¢ O¢¢ a a o¢ 0 0 0 a Q a z z¢¢ a Q Q¢ p' m z z z z z z z z z z z¢ z z z z z z z z z z0 z 0 z z z z z z z 3 z z z z z z z�� z z z z z z D ¢ > > > > > > w . ¢ > > > 2 m . ¢ > > > > w > > w > > > > m x m m m m m m m m u m m z m a m m U' m m m m m m m m m m m 0 o m m m m m m l0 b O O O o � allo °�NS u0a ,Qz 0 QxQM# o>h > >> o > QRW>Q Q Q ¢~aaR❑m>Q¢ M0>o zOu°>a ,, a a zzZZ Z z Z zp p W QZOQa pz ? O ¢ z� w 0 x o m 0>> w o 0 0 0 u mmm p¢¢¢ ¢ m x m m 2 p x m¢ m x O dudL w Q3 m O d m O O o m d 'i o l0 m d m M N o m NO d M S d m d N d m d O tD d M N N d x x d N N M V oN N N 0 m M N 0 d 0 N H O 0 rl VI r1 M O 0 22 x p 0 p Z D w ¢ 0 u R Z a 0 p y Q < < Z 0 J LL w o a a u z F w a° Ou pz u o s tzu x 0 w zLL LL LL w wpY aza3o o 0 zS m x x � �� a n o o a o ww w.az o � ° zz z z 0 O¢m<zz zo 0 0 ¢> > na 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 m m r1 m m M m N N N N N m N m ry ry m M m N m m M m rl m m m m m m N N d N rl d O m n M vl M d M d m d O o M r n N d d t0 N d O d n O m b l0 n r O N d t0 m o b r n o vt m m n m o o O O d o N O m l0 m M N N p N VI N m m M w O n N lO m N DJ N m O M N 'i m M m N n m b Vl m m O m n N m d d' N O m n N N vt N 1n N O W d m W n O m m m O N m M m m m m N N N N N N r1 N N N m rl N N N N M N N N N N N N fi N N N N N N N N fi N N N m m I m b m N n M N V N M m O w. M b u m M m m d d r n n d d m n tO r m V^ n. O vt r m r N O N d m O M lO b tD n Vt d 10 m rl m N m M lD tD N n M N O M d m m d m d M vl d n M d l0 m r r d N vt l0 d n d n 1n Yt r d N vt n tO Vf Vf d m M r r Vt n d vt N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q a O a 0 0 0 0 N O] lD N O N N rl N N M N 1/1 1/1 V1 V1 V! N O O S O OO O O 8 R Om $ 0 0 0 0 e -I N fl rl ON '1 N O O O OS S S S N S S O O O O S •i '4 'i fi .i 'i nl ei O O N S O 00 M O m m O N O N N ei N fl m M M m V1 m m lO M m m O N h V O N N N M N "1 N rl t00 a a m m m n ON From: FIN -Carol Auaustine To: FIN -Carol Auaustine Subject: FW: DBID Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:41:32 AM From: Burlingame DBID Laurie Hilt[mailto7burl inciamebidCagmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 1:20 PM To: FIN -Carol Augustine Subject: Fwd: DBID ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nuancejeweler <nuancejew 1 r aol.com> Date: Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 1:02 PM Subject: DBID To: burl ingamebidmail.com Ms Hilt, I hope this email is sufficient to lodge my protest against paying the assessment, in my case $180.00. It is an additional tax which I find unfair and unwarranted. Thank you. Richard Weiner, G.G. NuancE Jewelers, proprietor 1152 Howard Avenue nuance' I r aol com City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Carol, August 29, 2016 Please make whatever adjustment necessary on the fee as I am enclosing a copy of my lease showing that I only rent 800 sq ft. As I had mentioned before, my business in this space is failing, just as the previous ones did at this location. I am fulfilling my lease obligation but will be vacating the space upon its expiration. Any additional fees such as this one, places an increased burden on my finances. Your improvement organization has done nothing to bring clients through the door, however I am being forced to participate in its expense. Your fees should have been disclosed upon filing for my business license and/or by the landlord upon renting the space. Again, please make the adjustment and send an updated invoice to reflect the correct square footage. Thank you! Sincerely, ae," � Dane Dishman The Pretty Kitty, Inc. BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 August 19, 2016 THE PRETTY KITTY 2510 SAINT ROSE PKWY HENDERSON, NV 89074 Dear Burlingame Avenue Area Business Owner: The Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District will be coming before the City Council soon to request levy of the assessments on downtown businesses for the 2016-17 fiscal year beginning October 1, 2016. The basis of the assessments remains the same as in previous years. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on September 19, 2016 concerning the DBID assessments for 2016-17. You may attend, present comment and may also present written protests against the proposal. If the written protests total more than 50% of the proposed assessments, the proposed assessments will not be adopted. The amount of each assessment is based upon the zoning of the business location as specified in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 6.54.040, (which street, what floor [ground or above/below ground] and, if ground floor, what square footage). The proposed assessment for your business is computed as follows: Zone: 2 Square Footage: 1000 Proposed Assessment: $220 The Downtown Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District would like your input and assistance. Please visit the group's website www.burlingamedowntown.ore. You are also welcomed to attend the DBID monthly meetings which take place the second Tuesday of every month at 6:00 p.m. at the Burlingame City Hall, Conference Room A. If you have any questions regarding the details of this proposal or about your proposed assessment or square footage (if listed), please contact Ms. Laurie Hilt at burlingamebid@gmaii.com for more information. Sincerely, Carol Augustine Finance Director www.burtingame.org 650.558.7222 (office) caugustine@burlingame.org COMMERCIAL LEASE AND DEPOSIT RECEIPT AGENCY RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMATION. The following aDsnny Minkinahip fv hereby mnfllmod far this Installation and nupomedoa any prior agency election (II po agency relationship, Iwed ^NONE_'); LISTINGAOENT. t���%i-0-- is ilia agent of(crack one): rroTth l I`Irho Caesar oxciuelvWill o/ HboM Ilia ee Lo Loshee an it Um us nor, LEASING AGENT: (if at the soma Re Ilia Ijssel, Again) la (lie 4sent of (dirk ane): del Le samol ❑tai Lasea a axawatvsty; or El the Le seat eXehnkely; or 0hoih file Losses and the Lessor. Nato' This canAretafyan DOES NOT tikey Ula place oftha A0ENCY DISCLOSURE' foil Which 'nay IV mbu/mtl by Jaw. RC-CENCD FROM i1P_ 1���{ I U KIIJLV /✓)C --.1—�, 1 _harolnsUarmfaned to as LESSEE, lhesmnor 5 ( deeps), evidenced by rat a deposit which will balaop to Lessolond JAU be spoiled es 1011uws: Rent for the ported from tit. - ell /O �lY g lb-sla TOT a— 11F- pVMI; lillyAte gCCUPIAIX Standby deposit (not applicable termed laelmonlh§roto._... g_.L)QO $—S Other $ �$ l;— T'OTATOTAL L.............................................IIF S In the Vent l.eeae.react accepted by that Lasomwlnhln_3 days, xilltm TORmdad / /' Leveav offers to lanae from Loe9orine pmmiaes desalgpdae.'�i/_!JI`)®9i�✓Ej�(t ,P..C�L/•IY'//J%711k f./ti ialrwt'nddraiel bleb tblHlmatensp7 f"mrsI'mmlaeu )'conslsimp afappraxhnilely '?i (�Ci aquarafesl, wlJrLJs appmMlnpkly _%of til tel metal aquom foploDa of the entire property, uDmiihufalHwing tests am contllUonc��e-�Ai hfLk l� 1 1.TERM. Thaleim will mmmonn¢.a.{n (d�n'ler?a�- {j 1 lmidersdaa(thdar t -I IIr (� � 2. RENT. 7ne been renlwill a¢$Jy� i i� __pmmpmhpayable an lea % dayofee0monW. Aflor the first 12 monis the int will W adlusla as follow& affective upon Ilio limncloyoffheTnonle immalatolydallmving theaphaflon of 12 months from one, ofcommmare'pembl the hum.and upon Ili agxmfion of este 2 monlha 61ambnen accordance with cleanses In The U.S. Cassanar Price Indnxhor[]AII Urban Cancer em (iBD2-d9=10D), ar (olherbldox) J n ("CPI"). The ham man will he Increased to an amount equal to If= monthly feet, multiplied by a fraction, the numereter of whlfdt la the CPI for the coma calendar month ImmodWlWy pmoedinD Ute adjustment date, and Me denominator of Whloh ]& the CPI for Ilia second colander month precedinp the commerion nhof fho Leo a fair providedhoyvpbar a a fire inonmH can will at be toll than lent larmadmialy procoding Ilia adiupansn, r�k-i �rLbGc�IMI �,i+1 bTa((E)all!.�r�.1 AI) "randy vnfl be paid la I.osv J a Map �r'er emhodzed agent, at me fallmdng address .31I{J C1)f"/YaYl AyL _ �( or at such alhrephim ne mayae O*Mlinted by Lasser fmgl Zine Wtinla_ inlhaevant con Is nnlro• andby Lasemwllhln�j dayaailorduednla.Lemmaagmes ta.Nay_e Isle Giarpo ai$re L�plus Interest at J{.) -Aper annum on the-0tlmquennminardl, Leasee further sprees to pay S✓- ,(X1 foraaandlchonoradbanknheck.Tho lute Gmrpe ported Is notapmce Period,,,.,,a[(a'Lesnorls attllled to make written domandlorom and limit paid when rklo. 3. NET LEASE PROVISIONS. Uchecked [ AANO INITIALED BROW BYLESSEE, Iiia fo rmabiD piublace em included In tete Lease: Lasses agrees to pay, In addition W the base monthly cannot at forth In (tam 2, Lessee's propadlaneie share or (tin Lessor's opemthi0 expnaas, Including utlily and eurvice basic, hnumnca, mal property bass, and common area m thilaimnes. La aameh ham Is based an fho ratio of the squaw farrago of Isle Prmnlae¢ to the kola] aquom haulage of the rental epacn affno enam prophet of whide the P'emiaos erenpod. Lumme's monthly shsro of este uxpanass atlhP. camman(Pmlanf aides lam bq ___ (lallie6 Lesaaei_ y lasses la leg fa regains additional rental provmtonc. h..ndfieepths'pu al, teba USea fir Dre mnCeiannt ss and for no aharpumsso, wiuiourprior wdaen c¢ns¢nl of laasuc. Lvxs owlll not cammll slip Wpale dllpp the pmlmaea, or any nil9anCe ler pct width My disturb:tbigUxd enjoymoat of anydenanl in the building. b. USES PROHIBITED. Lassos vNil not use pay poClal of the mamise5:fdr pugmss l other Than those spactsa. No use will be mode or permitted to be made upon Hie premixes, nor acts dean, which we[ tobacco the exiuUng rota of theumnce upon Ilse properly, or Roues cancellation of insuranose polleles covering file pfipedy. Uses Will nal conduct or permit any sets by auction onflm premises. 6. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING, Lesson will not whi nthis LabEaar aublm any portion offee chmises w•ithoutpdortwihon cmisanl of Um Lisa e,, which will nothe unreasonably Moment Any suds 9a91galbaibbrstll)h1U0p Wifhaut WKON will be void and, of the option of Ihn �La�s§)yr(a�/n�III te+fe this Lsasb. I,oa.as t-Fa'l��AL-free road this page. CAUTION: Till ¢alryd6ht Iowa oltho Waled Studios habld the nnanthodad elproavallon or Ilea tom, by city roves; aclwtna acenaing orcompulabadh¢mwio. Imes n of n -1�d PRbNIE66f0XbL FOIiM 167.1 (6fi-70i6) COPYRIGHT pYPROFES610NALPUDL16111Ng,NOMTD, CA PUBLISHING a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Mazarin Vakharia, Asst. City Attorney AGENDA NO: 9b MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Regulating Garbage Container Removal in Commercial Areas RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider the introduction of an ordinance to amend Section 8.16.040(k) of the Municipal Code to change the hours during which garbage containers may be left curbside in the two downtown commercial zones. In order to do so, the Council should: A. Receive the staff report and ask any questions of staff. B. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the ordinance. D. Conduct a public hearing. E. Following the public hearing, discuss the ordinance and determine whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. If the Council is in favor of the ordinance, direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND Burlingame Municipal Code Section 8.16.040(k) provides that "Any containers placed for collection along a street, roadway or alley shall be set out only on the day established for the collection on the particular route or after 5:30 p.m. on the day immediately prior to such collection, and shall not remain thereon for more than eighteen (18) hours after it has been emptied." This regulation applies equally to commercial and residential customers. DISCUSSION Based on complaints received, certain garbage containers appear to be left curbside for long periods of time after collection, creating an unpleasant atmosphere for shoppers and diners. At its July 5, 2016 meeting, Council considered various alternatives for tightening regulation of garbage containers. After consideration of staff's presentation and public testimony, Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would require garbage containers to be removed from streets and sidewalks by 1:00 p.m. on the day of refuse collection in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Ordinance Introduction - Garbage Container Removal in Commercial Areas September 19, 2016 Area and Broadway Commercial Area, as defined in the Burlingame Zoning Code. The proposed ordinance implements Council's direction. FISCAL IMPACT None. There are potential increased costs associated with education and code enforcement if this regulation is enacted. These costs can be covered under existing budget by redirecting staff from other duties as necessary. Exhibit: • Proposed ordinance 2 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 8.16.040(k) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING REMOVAL OF GARBAGE CONTAINERS AFTER COLLECTION WHEREAS the presence of garbage containers on streets and sidewalks long after garbage collection has caused increased code enforcement complaints for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area; and WHEREAS the City has a legitimate interest in protecting the health and welfare of its residents, as well as the aesthetics of public space, by restricting the times during which garbage containers may be left on streets and sidewalks; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Section 8.16.040(k) is hereby amended as follows: (k) Any containers placed for collection along a street, roadway or alley shall be set out only on the day established for the collection on the particular route or after 5:30 p.m. on the day immediately prior to such collection, and shall not remain thereon for more than eighteen (18) hours after it has been emptied. Any containers placed for collection along a street roadway or alley in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area, as defined by the Burlingame Zoning Code, shall be removed from the streets and sidewalks by 1:00 p.m. on the day of garbage collection. DIVISION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. DIVISION 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. ANN KEIGHRAN, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19`h day of September 2016 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2016, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: MEAG14AN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk a AGENDA NO: 10a STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 19, 2016 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: September 19, 2016 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 Subject: Informational Report on Measure R, "An Ordinance to Enact Rent Stabilization and Just Cause for Eviction and Repeal Prior Restrictions on the Reaulation of Sale or Rental Price of Real Estate" RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive an informational report on Measure R, "an ordinance to enact rent stabilization and just cause for eviction and repeal prior restrictions on the regulation of sale or rental price of real estate." BACKGROUND In July, a group of proponents submitted signatures to place a measure on the November 2016 ballot that would implement rent stabilization and just cause for eviction protections in Burlingame. Upon review, the County Elections Office determined that the proponents had secured the requisite number of valid signatures to proceed; the City Clerk certified the results on August 1, 2016. At the August 1 meeting, the Council was required by State law to take one of three actions: 1. Adopt the ordinance, without alteration, at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented, or within ten days after it is presented. 2. Immediately order a special election, to be held pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1405, at which the ordinance, without alteration, shall be submitted to a vote of the voters of the City. 3. Order a report pursuant to Section 9212 at the regular meeting at which the certification of the petition is presented. Because the City has an existing voter -approved initiative (Measure T) that Measure R proposes to repeal, the Council was unable to pursue this action. Instead, the Council voted on August 1 to order a special election to be held on November 8, 2016. The City Council also asked that staff prepare a report on the impacts of Measure R. Councilmembers provided staff with a number of questions that it wished to have answered. Those questions are attached. 1 Informational Report on Measure R DISCUSSION September 19, 2016 Staff subsequently hired Management Partners, a local government consulting firm, to assist with this report. Management Partners answered many of the questions, particularly those related to the Housing Commission, while staff answered the remaining questions, which were primarily, though not exclusively, land use -related questions. Attached to this memo are reports from Management Partners and City staff responding to the Council questions. The Council will note that there are several questions that both Management Partners and City staff answered. Both staff and Management Partners endeavored to respond to all questions asked. However, in some cases, neither party was able to provide a response because no data is available. Management Partners estimates were based on the experience of other jurisdictions. Certain start-up costs as well as ancillary effects on existing City staff and work plans could not be included in the analysis because of the uncertainty in attempting to develop estimates. Should the initiative pass, the City will work to promulgate implementing regulations as quickly as possible so that the program can commence. Christine Butterfield from Management Partners and City staff will be available at the September 19 City Council meeting to answer any questions the Council may have. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of the Management Partners report is approximately $20,000. Exhibits: • Consolidated List of Questions • Management Partners Report • City Staff Memo 2 Questions for Rent Control Initiative Report Housing Commission Questions (mostly) 1. Who determines the process for the appointment for the Rental Housing Commission? 2. Will staff absorb these new duties to process, screen and oversee applicants? 3. What is the cost of staff time to conduct and manage the financial disclosure statements (3years worth) that are required from the applicants? 4. Who establishes the budget for the implementation of the initiative? 5. How many staff positions would possibly needed? i.e: hearing officer, attorney, analyst, accountant, administrative secretary and IT 6. Are the new staff employees of the city or the commission? 7. If they are city employees, will we have to pay for salary and benefits? If not, does the rent board carry liabilities involved with being an employer? 8. What if someone wanted to sue the rent board, would the city also be dragged in? 9. Does the city hold the public hearings that would occur with the rent board? If so, I would assume a city staff member would have to be present? Is that a fair assumption? 10. Who would post the agenda, provide materials, and offer technical support? 11. Who will educate commissioners on the Brown Act and make sure it is implemented correctly? 12. Who would pay for all the studies, surveys, investigations and cases that come before the Rent Board? 13. Who will oversee safeguarding all documents containing personal and private residents' information? Who is responsible if there is a security breach? 14. Where would all documents be stored and what security measures will be implemented to secure these documents? 15. Who will pay for litigation fees? 16. What are the potential sources in addition to landlords, general fund, and grants? 17. Can they potentially put some type of tax on a future ballot for the homeowners to pay? 18. My understanding is that the City has to provide the upfront costs. What could be the potential range of this amount? 19.Also, during the implementation phase, the commission can ask staff to perform the duties of the commission till it's up and running. How much staff time could be taken away from the priorities set by the Council? How many City staff members would be needed? 20. If we make the assumption that there will be litigation, how would the City handle establishing a rent board? 21. Which departments would be involved? 22. How much time would that take to establish a rent board and how much? 23. If there is litigation that arises due to the passage of this initiative, what could the range of cost be to the city? 24.Also, would money be put aside to fight potential future litigation. 25.At this point we have not put aside money for upfront costs if this initiative passes; where would pull the money from to cover this? 26. What if the landlord fee established by the rent board doesn't cover the costs; then what? 27. In rent controlled cities such as SF, EPA, Alameda, and Berkley, how much money was needed the 1 st year to set up the rent board? 28. What are their budgets? 29. What are the range of budgets after the 1st year? 30. What is the potential impact on the San Mateo County court system from lawsuits related to this? Land Use, General Plan and Housing Supply. 1. What is the number of apartments impacted and percent of multifamily housing stock affected with this proposed ordinance? This includes rent control and Just Cause Eviction 2. What number of new apartments coming online would be subject to JCE 3. What percentage of family homes would be subject to JCE 4. Is there data on what the average cost is to move a tenant in current Rent Control Cities (legal fees, lost rent, damages, and payments for moving expense)? 5. With Rent Controlled Cities, has there been an impact on their housing supply? 6. Does JCE and/or rent control affect the assess value of property over time? 7. There is a clause in the initiative on page 10 that states if a tenant is disabled, terminally ill or just 62 years of age and been in a unit for 5 years, they can't basically be evicted. I assume this also relates to houses since they would be under JCE. How can this potentially affect our housing supply and demographic diversity? 8. In Rent Controlled/JCE cities, have there been housing units taken off the market? 9. Would there be an impact on the ability of working class families to move into Burlingame? 10. What is the potential impact on the quality of the rental housing stock? 11. How would RC and JCE affect our real estate industry considering there isn't much land to build new housing? 12. Would there potentially be a decrease in sales with both single family and multi dwelling units if RCE/JCE was implemented? 13. How would the General Plan be affected? 14. How would Rent Control/JCE potentially affect our Property tax revenue? 15. How could this initiative alter our TOT? Only hotels are exempt if guests stay for a period of fewer than 14 days. 16. In RCE/JCE cities, has there been any change in crime statistics and/or safety concerns? 17. Has there been changes in the aesthetics/maintenance in RCE/JCE cities. Elections Code 9212 Questions: 1. Fiscal impact of RCE/JCE. 2. Effect on the internal consistency of the City's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on City actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. 3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the City to meet its regional housing needs. 4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. Also whether the measure would likely result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. 5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment. 6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land. 7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. Management Partners To: Ms. Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager From: Andy Belknap, Regional Vice President Steven Bocian, Special Advisor Christine Butterfield, Senior Management Advisor Subject: Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Date: September 15, 2016 This memorandum provides the results of Management Partners' review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance (ordinance) as detailed in our August 12, 2016 proposal. This engagement requested assistance in addressing a number of policy and implementation -related questions raised by the City Council concerning the ordinance. The goal of our work is to provide answers to the Council's questions based on our review of the ordinance, and existing municipal rent stabilization and just cause for eviction programs. As part of our initial meeting on August 12, 2016, City staff identified those City Council's questions that would be addressed by them and those that would be addressed by Management Partners. For consistency purposes, this memorandum includes all of the City Council's questions, and we identified those that will be addressed by staff. This memorandum includes four major sections including a background section providing a brief overview of the situation leading to our work. We have provided a general overview of the ordinance including identification of a number of uncertainties affecting our approach to answering the City Council's questions. The third section includes our response to the City Council's questions, and the fourth section includes three tables related to a general range of costs for ordinance administration. Background At its meeting on August 1, 2016, the Burlingame City Council approved placing the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance on the ballot for the November 8, 2016 General Election. The ordinance is the result of a resident initiative that received the appropriate number of signatures to qualify for the ballot. As part of the meeting deliberations, Council members raised a number of questions and concerns regarding the process and level of effort required to implement the ordinance. At the same meeting, City staff indicated it would pursue assistance from a consulting firm to address 1730 MADISON ROAD • CINCINNATI, CH 45206 • 513 8615400 • FAx 513 8613480 MANAGEMENTPARTNERS.COM 2107 NORTH FIRST STREET, SUITE 470 • SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95131 • 408 437 5400 • FAx 408 453 6191 3152 RED HILL AVENUE, SUITE 210 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 • 949 2221082 • FAx 408 453 6191 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 2 the Council's questions and to further explore the ordinance's impact on the City organization, budget, economic development, and various housing impact issues. As part of our work, we reviewed the ordinance, consulted with City staff regarding current operating practices and service costs, contacted the communities of Santa Monica, Berkeley and East Palo Alto for information about their rent stabilization and just cause for eviction programs, and reviewed ordinances and operating practices currently in place in the cities of Hayward, Alameda, Santa Rosa and West Hollywood. It should be noted that while all of these programs have some common features, their scope and implementation processes are unique. We did not identify a program that replicates the program as set forth in the ordinance. In addition, the cities of Alameda and Santa Rosa adopted programs in 2016. These new programs lack any significant data that can be used to analyze the ordinance. Nevertheless, where appropriate we used information from these communities. Governing authority is another area we reviewed that will require further analysis. Alameda, Berkeley, Hayward, Santa Monica and Santa Rosa are all charter cities, while East Palo Alto and West Hollywood are general law cities. In charter cities, local laws outline a charter city's authority. In general law cities, such as East Palo Alto, West Hollywood and Burlingame, state law provides the framework for these communities' authority over municipal affairs. Evaluating the effects of the ordinance that as it relates to Burlingame's governance authority as a general law city is outside of our scope of work. However, we believe clarifying the provisions of the ordinance that permit the City of Burlingame to exercise local control versus the provisions that are governed by state law will be an important step to resolve the areas of uncertainty; we review these in greater detail below. Given the relative scarcity of rent stabilization programs in California, the fact that each program that exists has unique elements, the complexity of the subject, and the short amount of time available for analysis, this work is not unequivocal. There are many areas where unknowns exist, and as is the case with any legislation, there are always likely to be unanticipated consequences. This analysis reflects our best professional judgement given these constraints and uncertainties. Ordinance Overview The Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance provides for rent stabilization and just cause for eviction protection to households residing in units subject to the ordinance rental units in the City. Overall, our assessment is that the proposed ordinance reflects the key rent stabilization provisions typically found in other communities. The primary provisions include: • An amendment to the City Municipal Code to establish the provisions as set forth in the ordinance; • Rent stabilization would apply generally to all rental units except single family homes and condominiums, rental units with an occupancy permit issued prior to February 1999, and owner occupied second units and duplexes; 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 3 • The just cause for eviction provisions would apply to all rental units except as noted below; • As listed with more detail in Section 20.04.040 Exemptions, units located in transient housing such as hotels, tourist homes, hospitals, nursing homes, and units owned, operated, with tenant subsidies would be exempt from both the just cause for eviction and rent stabilization; • The regulation of rent increases to establish, in part, an allowable annual rent increase linked to a cost of living index with a minimum rent increase amount of 1% and a not to exceed amount of 4%; • The establishment of conditions that allow for tenant evictions; • The formation of a Rental Housing Commission (Commission) with defined powers and duties; • The establishment of an annual Rental Housing Fee imposed on landlords in an amount deemed reasonable and necessary to meet program expenses; • A process for the submission and review of a petition from a tenant or landlord seeking an upward or downward adjustment in rent; • An appeal process for decisions made concerning petitions; and • A listing of landlord and tenant remedies concerning violations of the ordinance. In addition to the above, Section 20.04.180 of the ordinance states that its adoption would "supersede and invalidate any limitation imposed by prior City ordinances that relate to or concern the subject matter addressed herein," including City Ordinance 1356 known as Measure T. Although our scope of work does not include a general analysis of the ordinance, as part of our review and analysis to answer the City's questions, we identified a number of "tensions' or areas of uncertainty that warrant comment. We raise these not for the purpose of identifying flaws or concerns with the ordinance's intent, but because they became apparent as we were attempting to answer the City's questions, and anticipate implementation and administrative issues in the event the voters approve Measure R. A listing of these follows. Regarding the impact of the ordinance's just cause for eviction provisions, we note that Section 20.04.200 Exemptions (a) (1) will require the City to interpret the application of the exemption related to facilities "rented primarily to transient guests for a period of fewer than fourteen (14) days" as it is uncertain if this section is providing a broad exemption of units with transient guests, or only those guests that have a stay of less than 14 days. If it is the latter, the ordinance does not include a mechanism for addressing this matter, including the fact that these types of facilities most typically assess daily not monthly fees (compared to charging monthly rent). A number of the City Council members' questions concern the role of the Rental Housing Commission and overall program procedures and costs. Yet answering a number of these questions is largely dependent on interpreting program governance. Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 4 The primary area of uncertainty relates to Section 20.04.100 Rental Housing Commission (k) that reads: The commission shall be an integral part of the government of the City, but shall exercise its powers and duties under this Chapter independent from the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney, except by request of the Commission. In the period between the effective date of the Chapter and the appointment of the initial members of the Commission, the City shall take whatever steps are necessary to perform the duties of the Commission and implement the purposes of this Chapter. The tension here is somewhat obvious in that if the Rental Housing Commission is an integral part of the government of the City, then it would be subject to City Council and City Manager policies and procedures and legal consultation from the City Attorney. While the language used in this section generally mirrors language used in the City of Santa Monica's Rent Control Charter Amendment (Section 1800), that document includes additional clarifying language regarding the role of the Rent Board. As such, while we can interpret this language as creating a mechanism to establish a system that assures the Commission exercises its duties related to review of petitions, appeals and the like without influence from the City Council or the City Manager, we are uncertain if the language is intended to signify a broader range of Commission autonomy such as is currently in place in Santa Monica and the City of Berkeley's (Article XVII Elected Rent Stabilization Board) rent stabilization program. If the latter is the case, it seems that additional legal review is appropriate to determine if the implied level of autonomy is consistent with the powers outlined in the ordinance. • In addition to the broader issue of the "integral and autonomous" nature of the Rental Housing Commission, additional uncertainty was identified in Section 20.04.100 Rental Housing Commission (d) (6). This provision indicates the Commission has authority to "establish a budget for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the provisions of this Chapter, including without limitation the hiring of necessary staff, and charge fees as set forth herein in an amount sufficient to support that budget." Here again, there is concern about consistency with the provisions of a general law city and a Commission's authority to approve a budget and hire employees. Because of our uncertainty in this area, we can interpret "establish" to mean preparing and recommending a budget to the City Council that has the authority to adopt it, and "hiring necessary staff" to mean making a recommendation to the City Manager, who is the City's hiring authority. The matter of the Commission's role in charging and establishing the Rental Housing Fee presents similar uncertainty regarding its autonomy. In general, establishing fees 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 5 and adopting a fee schedule falls within the authority of the City Council and therefore, there are questions about the Commission's authority to carry out this function. Lastly, Section 20.04.200 provides that the ordinance "shall go into effect ten (10) days after the vote is declared by the City Council." The City cannot fully implement the program within a ten day period. However, it can begin the process of building the program structure including commencement of employee recruitment, development of purchasing documents, solicitation and appointment of the Rental Housing Commission members and drafting the administrative procedures required to implement the program. In the recently adopted rent stabilization programs we reviewed, we observed a ramping -up period following the effective date. Both Alameda and Santa Rosa are in the process of building the administrative systems to support new rent stabilization programs. To manage expectations, forecasting operational milestones can be beneficial to both inform the public and demonstrate implementation. While we are unable to address the above issues for the purposes of this engagement, we needed to make assumptions about the roles and responsibilities of the City Council, City staff and the Rental Housing Commission. We based our assumptions on our review of the proposed ordinance and the review of other rent stabilization programs in California. To frame these assumptions, we developed two specific categories: 1) those assumptions that fall under a heading of "integral part of the government of the City' (i.e., Integral), and 2) those assumptions that fall under "shall operate its powers and duties under the Chapter independent from the City Council, City Manager and City Attorney" (i.e., Autonomous). A summary of the impact of these categories follows. Integral Related Assumptions • The staff members administering the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance would be City employees subject to the City's personnel classification system, rules and procedures, salary schedule, compensation system, and other personnel related matters. • The rent stabilization program would receive internal and support services from existing City divisions unless otherwise determined by the City Manager. As an example, the City Manager's Office would solicit and collect applications for Commission members and the City Clerk would post meeting agendas and minutes, and retain records consistent with other City boards and commissions. The Finance Department would provide financial services such as accounting, billing and collections related to rent stabilization. Information Technology would provide services to the rent stabilization program for data and security needs. • The rent stabilization program and the Rental Housing Commission would be subject to City procedures and policies. As an example, the program would be subject to City financial policies, purchasing practices, records management, employment hiring and memoranda of understanding, etc. E Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 6 The City would initially advance program funds and provide detailed documentation of all costs to ensure full reimbursement. Examples of these initial program expenses includes: employee recruitment, rent, information technology systems (i.e., billing, property tracking, and records management), training, equipment, etc. The City Attorney's Office would advise the Rental Housing Commission similar to its role with other City programs and operations. However, the Commission would retain autonomy in its program -related decision making process. Autonomous Related Assumptions • The Rental Housing Commission would establish the rent stabilization program budget and submit it to the City Manager. The City Council would adopt the program budget, which would be part of the City Budget. • The Rental Housing Commission would establish the Rental Housing Fee and submit it to the City Council for its consideration and adoption. • One -hundred percent of the rent stabilization program costs would be recovered through the Rental Housing Fee. • The Rental Housing Commission would exercise its authority to implement and administer the ordinance, including matters related to petitions and appeals. • The City Council, City Manager and the City Attorney would implement the ordinance and provide the policy and administrative structures to enable the Rental Housing Commission to exercise its powers and duties pursuant to Section 20.04.100 (d). As indicated previously, these assumptions have been made solely for the purpose of developing a frame of reference for answering the City Council's questions based on information available at this time. Should the ordinance be approved by the voters, we assume the City will take action to implement the program based on its interpretations and information available at that time. The Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance: Questions and Responses Our responses to the questions pertaining to the Rental Housing Commission and Land Use, General Plan and Housing Supply are listed below. As indicated previously, we have included all of the questions provided by the City from the original list including those assigned to staff (noted in italics) and the responsible department. Staff is in the process of developing responses to those questions that are not included in this memorandum, but will be provided directly to the City Manager. Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 7 Rental Housing Commission Questions Responses 1. Who determines the process for the According to the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance, appointment for the Rental Housing Section 20.04.100 Rental Housing Commission (o) Commission? Composition. The Commission shall consist of five (5) Commission members appointed by the City Council, and an alternate Commission member... As such, the City may use the standard board/commission recruitment process and timeline to advertise the vacancies, collect applications, conduct interviews, select and appoint the Rental Housing Commission members. 2. Will staff absorb these new duties to Yes. The City Manager's Office will administer this process and process, screen and oversee applicants? follow its standard procedures. In the rent stabilization programs we reviewed, communities apply the standard procedures to recruit and select members. 3. What is the cost of staff time to We anticipate there will be minimal, typical staff costs associated conduct and manage the financial with the collection and filing of disclosure forms. The proposed disclosure statements (3 years -worth) ordinance provides a description of the financial disclosure that are required from the applicants? requirements in Section 20.04.100 (b) Eligibility and Appointment. Commission members shall be appointed by the City Council at a public meeting. Applicants for the membership on the Commission shall submit an application to the City Council. The application shall include a statement under penalty of perjury of the applicant's interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to, ownership, trusteeship, sale, or management and investment in an association with partnerships, corporations, joint ventures, and syndicates engaged in ownership, sale, or management of real property during the three (3) years immediately prior to the applicant's application. This document shall be made available to the public. This language is similar to the financial disclosure in the Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment Section 1803(c) Full Disclosure of Holdings: Candidates for the position of Commission shall submit a verified statement listing all of their interests and dealings in real property, including but not limited to its ownership, sale or management, during the previous three (3) years. According to Santa Monica's Rent Board and City Clerk staff, the City of Santa Monica City Clerk manages collection and maintenance of the disclosure forms. Rent Board Commissioners are required to supply the information and the City Clerk's Office retains the documents for public review. Staff reported they periodically check board and commission disclosure forms for completeness, however, they do not research the accuracy of the documents. Moreover, the disclosure forms are signed by applicants under penalty of perjury. Applicants that submit inaccurate disclosure are subject to fines and legal action. ft; Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 8 4. Who establishes the budget for Initially, staff and City Council will develop the program budget. implementation of the initiative? Upon appointment, the Rental Housing Commission will be responsible to establish the budget after members are appointed. According to the proposed ordinance, Section 20.04.100 Rental Housing Commission (d) Powers and Duties (6) Establish a budget for the reasonable and necessary implementation of the provisions of this Chapter, including without limitation the hiring of necessary staff, and charge fees as set forth herein in an amount sufficient to support that budget. However, nothing in the proposed ordinance defines the approving body and as indicated previously, we assume the City Council is responsible for adopting the City budget. Therefore, once the Rental Housing Commission establishes the budget, it would be submitted to City Council for approval. Based on our review of other rent stabilization programs, the City Council is responsible for approving the budget for the programs in Alameda, East Palo Alto and Santa Rosa. The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, established by Charter, has the authority to finance reasonable and necessary expenses by charging a fee and the Board may request and receive funds from the City. The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board develops the program budget and as a practice the program budget is included in the City of Berkeley's budget document. The staff roles to support the program typically include administrative staff (e.g., secretarial, billing), analyst and manager, legal services and hearing officers (which may be contracted). It will be important to assess the number of positions needed. To do so, an analysis would be required following adoption of the ordinance. To some degree, the final number of employees will be 0 The Santa Monica Rent Board does have the expressed authority to approve the program budget. The Santa Monica Rent Control Charter Amendment Section 1802 (a) vests the Rent Board with the authority to adopt a budget and specifies the required process steps. This provision reinforces the Board's authority and states, "The City Council and the City Manager shall have no authority to oversee, supervise, or approve this budget." 5. How many staff positions would Based on our review of the staffing of various rent stabilization possibly be needed (e.g., hearing officer, programs, we estimate that the City of Burlingame would need attorney, analyst, accountant, from three to six full-time equivalent (FTE) employees to administrative secretary and information administer the program for approximately 5,031 rental housing technology (IT))? units (as shown in Table 2 below). The related staffing cost estimates range from $680,000 to $915,000. These costs are estimated based on our survey data included in Table 1 below. (Table 1 provides a broad overview of rent stabilization costs (i.e., in-house staff and/or contract support). Table 2 includes average costs of the most similar programs and City of Burlingame cost estimates, including some one-time startup costs.) The staff roles to support the program typically include administrative staff (e.g., secretarial, billing), analyst and manager, legal services and hearing officers (which may be contracted). It will be important to assess the number of positions needed. To do so, an analysis would be required following adoption of the ordinance. To some degree, the final number of employees will be 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 9 E dependent on the City's approach to matters such as community outreach, tenant counseling, the number of petitions, the activity of the Rental Housing Commission, etc. Those activities cannot be determined by reviewing the ordinance. 6. Are the new staff employees of the -City Based on assumptions we made as a result of reviewing the or the Commission? ordinance, additional positions to support the rent stabilization program would be City employees, not Commission employees. Further, the City Clerk and the City Attorney are both expressly named with specific responsibilities in the implementation of the proposed ordinance listed in Section 20.04.150 Remedies (e) Commission or City Attorney Enforcement Action and Section 20.04.190 Codification. Of the rent stabilization programs we reviewed, employees responsible for administering the program are employees of the municipality. In East Palo Alto program staff are part of the City Manager's Office. West Hollywood staff are part of the Department of Human Services and Rent Stabilization and Santa Rosa staff will be part of the Housing and Community Services department. Even in Santa Monica, as reflected by the Charter Amendment, "Except... the Administrator and attorneys employed to represent or advise the Board... all employees of the Board are within the classified civil service of the City". 7. If they are City employees, will we have Yes. As we noted previously we assume the rent program would to pay for salary and benefits? If not, be staffed with City employees who would be part of the municipal does the rent board carry liabilities pay and classification system and eligible for benefits. involved with being an employer? Notwithstanding this, the City may elect to utilize contract services for such matters as hearing officer, billing services and other matters consistent with City practices and employment law. Typically, personnel expenses are included in the rent stabilization program costs. These costs can be recovered through collection of the program fee charged to landlords. 8. What if someone wanted to sue the Yes. As noted in the response to question 6, the City Attorney is rent board, would the City also be named as one of the parties responsible for enforcing the dragged in? proposed ordinance in Section 20.04.150 Remedies (e) Commission or City Attorney Enforcement Action and Section 20.04.190 Codification. Moreover, as an integral part of the City pursuant to Section 20.04.100 (k), the City owns the liability of the actions of the Rental Housing Commission and the administrative operation of the rent stabilization program. 9.- Does the City hold the public hearings Yes. The Rental Housing Commission staff, City or contract staff that would occur with the rent board? If responsible for administering the proposed ordinance would so, I would assume a City staff member conduct public hearings. would have to be present? Is that a fair assumption? 10. Who would post the agenda, provide The Rental Housing Commission staff would be responsible for materials and offer technical support? developing the agenda, following the City's agenda posting process and working with the City Clerk. This is consistent with the practices we observed in other rent stabilization programs. The City Clerk's responsibilities are described in the proposed ordinance. E Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 10 0 Section 20.04.190 Codification. The City Clerk and City Attorney shall take all steps necessary to ensure the proper and efficient codification of this Chapter into the Municipal Code, including making revision to numbering and similar non - substantive items contained herein. In exercising this authority, the City Clerk and City Attorney shall not alter the substantive provision of this Chapter nor take any action that contradicts express terms and purpose of this ordinance. 11. Who will educate the commissioners The City Attorney's Office would be responsible for conducting an on the Brown Act and make sure it is orientation with new members. We assume the review of the implemented correctly? Brown Act and other training would be consistent with the City's standard commission training program. 12. Who would pay for all the studies, The rent stabilization program. These activities are typically surveys, investigations and cases that included in the charge of a rent stabilization board or commission. come before the rent board? Costs associated with studies, surveys and investigations (i.e., typically excludes code enforcement and police department) would be included in the annual budget as well as recoverable through the rent stabilization fee. 13. Who will oversee safeguarding all The Rental Housing Commission staff would be responsible for documents containing personal private complying with City public records policies and procedures. The residents' information? Who is safeguards in place today to secure private data would be applied responsible if there is a security breach? to the program information (as well as any records retention policy). 14. Where would all documents be stored Program records would be maintained consistent with the City's and what security measures will be records management procedures. As noted in the response to implemented to secure these documents? question 13, the safeguards in place today to secure private data would be applied to the program information. Based on discussion with City staff, there is insufficient office space for any new rent stabilization employees and/or related materials storage. Therefore, we anticipate the use of rented office space. 15. Who will pay for litigation fees? The rent stabilization program will capture these costs. Litigation expenses are recoverable through the program fee. In our review of rent stabilization programs and the provision of legal services to support the function, we observed that programs relied on either the City Attorney's staff or employed their own attorneys to focus exclusively on the rent stabilization program. For example, Alameda, East Palo Alto and Santa Rosa secure legal services for the program through the City Attorney's Office. The cost of this staff time is tracked and included in the program costs. Santa Monica and Berkeley both have staff attorneys that are solely responsible for the rent stabilization program and related litigation. However, even in Santa Monica and Berkeley, the programs periodically also utilize the services of the City Attorney's Office. A number of the rent stabilization programs also budget for additional contract services that include legal services (e.g., East Palo Alto and Santa Monica). 16. What are the potential sources in Based on our research, rent stabilization programs, including just addition to landlords, general fund and cause for eviction administration, are funded through the program grants? fee. Berkeley, East Palo Alto, Santa Monica and Santa Rosa cover program costs with the program fee. Staff in Berkeley and Santa Monica indicated that both maintain a reserve fund and have the 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 11 ft; ability to cover deficits with those resources. The cities of Hayward and Oakland use their General Fund for a portion of the program's cost. 17. Can they potentially put some type of Our research did not identify any instance in which a rent tax on a future ballot for the homeowners stabilization board has the authority to excise a tax under to pay? California law. 18. My understanding is that the City has Yes. Pursuant to the proposed ordinance, to provide the upfront costs. What could Section 20.04.100 (j) (2) City to Advance Initial Funds. During be the potential range of this amount? the initial implementation of this Chapter the City shall advance all necessary fund to ensure the effective implementation of this Chapter, until the Commission has collected the Rental Housing Fees sufficient to support the implementation of this Chapter. The City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds from the Rental Housing Commission after the Rental Housing Fee has been collected. As provided in the response to question 5 and listed in Table 2 below, the program cost could range from $680,000 to $915,000. However, this amount does not include all startup costs. A more detailed analysis would be required to determine the specific one- time costs. (The annual cost for the cities of Alameda and Santa Rosa includes some one-time costs to implement the program.) Also, Table 3 below identifies several of the other initial program costs specific to Burlingame. We estimate initial costs of $186,200 and this includes annual rent, software, Commission training and reserves. 19. Also, during the implementation It is likely to take at least 120 days to conduct the recruitment and phase, the Commission can ask staff to selection process to fill the estimated three to six FTEs (noted in perform the duties of the Commission till Table 2 below) needed to operate the program. If that is the case, it's up and running. How much staff time about 1,560 to 3,120 hours of staff time would be necessary to could be taken away from priorities set by support the rent stabilization program implementation phase. If City Council? How many City staff the ordinance is adopted, the initial tasks could be assigned to members would be needed? existing staff or outsourced. 20. If we make the assumption that there City Staff to respond will be litigation, how would the City handle establishing the rent board? 21. Which departments would be City Staff to respond involved? 22. How much time would it take to The timeline would be based on the City's typical process to recruit establish the rent board? and appoint Commission members. As noted above, although the ordinance will be effective within ten days, it will take several months to build the program systems and administrative materials. 23. If there is litigation that arises due to This requires speculation and we cannot answer this question. The the passage of the initiative, what would limited data and variation within California makes it virtually the range of costs be to the City? impossible to identify any typical or average ranges. 24. Also, would money be put aside to As noted in the response to question 15, legal staff and contractual fight potential future litigation? services (including legal services) are budgeted on an annual basis in the rent stabilization programs we reviewed. Again, reserve policies and funds play an important role in covering program ft; Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 12 Land Use, General Plan and deficits or unexpected litigations costs. Reserves may be Housing Supply Questions established in an initial budget and included in the program fee. 25. At this point we have not put aside This is a policy decision that will need to be made by the City money for upfront costs, if this initiative Council. However, the proposed ordinance expressly provides that passes; where would (we) pull the money the "City may seek a reimbursement of any advanced funds' from to cover this? through the Rental Housing Fee in Section 20.04.100 (j) (2). 26. What if the landlord fee established The rent stabilization fee charged to landlords is intended to cover by the rent board doesn't cover the costs; the program cost. The program fee should include annual costs, then what? startup costs and reserves necessary to properly fund the 3. What percentage of (single) family homes program. If costs grow, the fee would be increased to cover the would be subject to just cause for eviction? costs. In 2016, the rent stabilization fee in Berkeley was increased 4. Is there data on what the average cost is to to cover a deficit due to growing costs. 27. In rent controlled cities such as San We contacted staff in East Palo Alto and Berkeley and they were Francisco, East Palo Alto, Alameda and unable to provide this information. However, the City of Alameda Berkeley, how much money was needed approved a rent stabilization in early 2016 and the estimated the first year to set up the rent board? program budget is $1,900,000. Yet, the budget information does not include a specific rent board category. Santa Rosa approved a rent stabilization ordinance in August 2016. The first year of operation is estimated to cost $1,248,674. This figure includes a portion of the initial startup costs. We understand that there is also potential for these programs to be stayed if new ballot measures are proposed to revise or contest them. We do not have information regarding the effect such actions may have on program costs. 28. What are their budgets? Refer to Table 1 below. 29. What are the range of budgets after Refer to Table 1 below. the first year? 30. What is the potential impact on the City Staff to respond San Mateo County court system from lawsuits related to this? Land Use, General Plan and Housing Supply Questions Responses 1. What is the number of apartment impacted City Staff to respond and percent of multifamily housing stock affected with this proposed ordinance? This includes rent control and just cause eviction. 2. What number of new apartment coming City Staff to respond online would be subject to just cause for eviction? 3. What percentage of (single) family homes City Staff to respond would be subject to just cause for eviction? 4. Is there data on what the average cost is to We did not find average costs to move a tenant. However, move a tenant in current rent control cities rents in Burlingame will drive these costs. Tenant relocation (legal fees, lost rent damages, and payments assistance costs are typically defined by reimbursement for moving expenses)? numbers and/or categories of expenses. The City of Santa Rosa requires three months' rent plus an additional $1,500 for tenant relocation assistance. In East Palo Alto and Santa Monica, tenant relocation ordinances prescribe detailed Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance 5. With rent controlled cities, has there been an impact on their housing supply? 6. Does just cause for eviction and/or rent control affect the assessed values of property over time? Page 13 reimbursement amounts, adjusted annually, by unit type (one, two or three bedroom) and tenant characteristics (e.g., age, income, and disability or terminally ill). East Palo Alto Santa Monica <2 years $7,912.02 One bedroom — $13,900 >2 years $10,549.38 (if senior/disabled/ and minor $16,000) $2,549.88 additional payment(s) for each Two or more — $18,850 (if category that applies: low senior/disabled/ income, disabled, elderly or minor $21,650) terminally ill (example: if tenant is low income and disabled, owner pays $5,099.76) and Up to $2,637.34 for moving costs with receipts Also, generally tenant relocation assistance ordinances distinguish between permanent and temporary relocation costs (e.g., per diem for hotel, meals, laundry, cat and dog Rent stabilization programs typically evolve out of concerns about increasing rents and limited rental housing supply. Although there is no definitive data about increasing or decreasing the supply of housing, the rent stabilization program staff we spoke to affirmed this lack of data, but reported that these programs have generally stabilized the number of rental units, rents and tenant population. Some communities have adopted condominium conversion ordinances to prevent the loss of rental stabilization program units. Berkeley and East Palo Alto implemented condominium conversion ordinances in reaction to property owners selling rental units to avoid the rent stabilization program. Staff reported that in some cases, the units were sold and re - rented within a number of years. To ensure property owners do not circumvent the program and purpose, these ordinances require a transparent process to document the sale and removal of a housing unit from the rental market for a defined period of time to ensure that when the unit is sold, if it returns to the rental market, it is subject to the rent stabilization program. Based on our research, we have not located data that indicates it increases or decreases assessed valuation. 7. There is a clause in the initiative on page 10 City Staff to respond that states if a tenant is disabled, terminally ill orjust 62 years of age and has been in a unit 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 14 for five (5) years, they cannot be evicted. I assume this also relates to houses since they would be in just cause for eviction. How can this potentially affect our housing supply and demographics diversity? 8. In rent controlled cities, have there been Yes. Santa Monica reported in the 2015 Consolidated Annual housing units taken off the market? Report that since 1986 a total of 2,019 units have been withdrawn from the rental housing market. Staff in East Palo Alto and Berkeley reported no change or limited change to the number of units withdrawn. East Palo Alto staff reported none of the rental units have been withdrawn in the past 15 years. Berkeley's staff reported that although the total number of registered units for each of the past 18 years has fluctuated, the overall trend is stable with over 19,000 rental units in the program. 9. Would there be an impact on the ability of City Staff to respond working families to move into Burlingame? 10. What is the potential impact on the Based on our research, maintaining safe, decent and sanitary quality of rental housing stock? housing is a focus of any rent stabilization program. Rent stabilization programs provide tenants the opportunity to petition for a rent reduction if the quality declines (property condition) or quantity of housing services (washer/dryer, parking space) is reduced. For example, West Hollywood requires that owners paint, replace carpet and windows based on specific frequency. If the replacement and repair frequency is not met, the tenant may petition for a rent reduction. Also, a number of rent stabilization programs depend heavily on city -administered rental inspection programs. Berkeley and Hayward both operate rental inspection programs and their staffs report a high degree of collaboration between rent stabilization and rental property inspection teams to ensure units meet housing quality standards. 11. How would rent control and just cause for City Staff to respond eviction affect our real estate industry considering there isn't much land to build new housing? 12. Would there potentially be a decrease in City Staff to respond sales with both single family and multifamily dwelling units if rent control and just cause for eviction was implemented? 13. How would the General Plan be affected? City Staff to respond 14. How would rent control and just cause for In our research, we did not locate data that could be used to eviction potentially affect our property tax reasonably answer this question. Therefore, it would be revenue? speculative to attempt to provide a response given the constraints with this analysis. It is possible to conceive of an analytical approach to answering the question, but it would be expensive and time consuming. 15. How could this initiative alter our City Staff to respond transient occupancy tax? Only hotels are E Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 15 exempt if guests stay for a period of fewer than 14 days? 16. In rent controlled cities, has there been We did not locate data from our research that links rent any change in crime statistics and/or safety stabilization programs and changes in crime statistics. concerns? 17. Has there been changes in the We did not locate data from our research. However, as noted aesthetic/maintenance in rent control and just in the response to question 10, rent stabilization programs cause for eviction cities? are highly dependent on local code enforcement programs. In Berkeley and Hayward, the rent stabilization and rental inspection program staff share information and work closely together to ensure rental housing properties comply with codes. Also, Santa Monica's rent stabilization program staff reported that local code enforcement staff play an important role in promoting rental housing quality by aggressively enforcing the codes, and in some situations, testifying in cases where a tenant's petition for rent reductions is due to lack of property maintenance. fti Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Survey Data and Tables Page 16 Table 1 reflects data collected from communities that operate rent stabilization programs. While all of the programs in Table 1 include rent stabilization and just cause for eviction provisions, each of the cities' programs are unique with elements specific to that City. As an example, the programs in the cities of Berkeley and East Palo Alto require rental unit registration while the others do not. Further, the level of program services also vary. As an example, the City of Alameda program includes mediation services for rental properties not subject to rent stabilization while the City of Santa Rosa's program does not include these services. Finally, the City of Hayward's fees are significantly less than other communities due to its policy to recover only a portion of program costs, a more limited administrative model, and unique program features, including those that allow landlord to remove units from the rent stabilization portion of the program if certain conditions are met. As such, it is important to view this data as representing a range of program costs. Table 1. Overview of Peer Rent Stabilization Source: Annual budget documents, city websites and program reports. ' The City of Alameda information represents and estimated amount as the program has just recently been approved. However, the fee has not yet been adopted. ' The City of East Palo Alto budget includes $206,000 City overhead charges. ' The City of Hayward includes various conditions that allow rent increases in excess of 5% including rent carry-overs. Cost is based on 80% program recovery. A total of 20% is funded by the General Fund and 3,000 units are subject to the rent control portion of the program. 4 The City of Santa Rosa program fee was adopted on August 30, 2016 based on program cost and fee estimate. Table 2, represents a range of staffing and program cost estimates for the City of Burlingame based on the programs in the cities of Alameda, Santa Rosa and East Palo Alto. The Santa Rosa and Alameda programs were selected in part because they have just recently been adopted and include one-time costs anticipated in program start up. As an example, the Santa Rosa program includes one-time program costs including consultant services to prepare an implementation plan and a cost and fee estimate, the purchase of new office equipment, program support software and nonprofit services to assist with program administration until the City can secure program staff. The Alameda information also includes one-time costs related to office equipment, consultant services, etc. However, because the program is being addressed through a service contract with its Housing Authority, these one-time startup costs are less than those in 0 of Current Program Annual Per Unit Number of City empt Non -ex Operating Housing Units Budget Program Fee ProgramNumber FTE Increase Alameda' 13,037 $1,900,000 $131 6 5% Berkeley 19,093 $4,550,000 $234 20.60 1.5% (CPI Formula) East Palo AIto2 2,400 $650,000 $234 2.00 2.40% (CPI Formula) Hayward' 3,000 $27,875 $2.77 0.50 5.00% Oakland N/A $1,773,209 $30 12.00 2% (CPI Formula) Santa Rosa4 11,076 $1,248,674 1 $113 1 4.5 13% Source: Annual budget documents, city websites and program reports. ' The City of Alameda information represents and estimated amount as the program has just recently been approved. However, the fee has not yet been adopted. ' The City of East Palo Alto budget includes $206,000 City overhead charges. ' The City of Hayward includes various conditions that allow rent increases in excess of 5% including rent carry-overs. Cost is based on 80% program recovery. A total of 20% is funded by the General Fund and 3,000 units are subject to the rent control portion of the program. 4 The City of Santa Rosa program fee was adopted on August 30, 2016 based on program cost and fee estimate. Table 2, represents a range of staffing and program cost estimates for the City of Burlingame based on the programs in the cities of Alameda, Santa Rosa and East Palo Alto. The Santa Rosa and Alameda programs were selected in part because they have just recently been adopted and include one-time costs anticipated in program start up. As an example, the Santa Rosa program includes one-time program costs including consultant services to prepare an implementation plan and a cost and fee estimate, the purchase of new office equipment, program support software and nonprofit services to assist with program administration until the City can secure program staff. The Alameda information also includes one-time costs related to office equipment, consultant services, etc. However, because the program is being addressed through a service contract with its Housing Authority, these one-time startup costs are less than those in 0 Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 17 the City of Santa Rosa. While the East Palo Alto program includes unit registration, which results in higher program costs, its proximity to Burlingame, like program elements (e.g., CPI based rent adjustments rather than fixed maximum percentage based limits in place in Santa Rosa and Alameda) and overall program scope warranted its inclusion. As noted earlier, the scarcity of these programs hinders the ability to find a wide range of data that can be used for developing a comprehensive comparison. Also, note that the cost and fee information developed by the City of Alameda has not yet been adopted by its City Council pending results of an upcoming municipal election regarding program adoption and voter consideration of a resident initiative for an alternate program. Because Table 2 is intended to provide an expected range of program costs. We anticipate Burlingame would design its administrative model in a way that effectively administers the ordinance within its existing organizational structure, physical space limitations and opportunities, availability of software and hardware systems, staffing capacities, etc. This design would also include decisions regarding overhead rates for program support versus direct recording of non -program support, use of contract services (e.g., fair housing, hearing officers, legal services, etc.), and a program cost and fee study required to adopt a program fee resolution. Table 2. Overview of Burlingame Rent Stabilization Program Operating Cost Range Alameda 13,037 $1,900,000 $131 6 East Palo Alto 2,400 $650,000 $234 2.00 Santa Rosa 11,076 $1,248,674 $113 4.5 Average N/A $1,266,224 $159 N/A Burlingame Est. 5,0311 $680,000 to $915,0004 $135 to $1823 3-6 12015-2023 City of Burlingame Housing Element and 2009-2011 American Community Survey 2 Santa Rosa and Alameda budget data is for the first year and includes some startup costs. 3 Range is 15% below and above the average. 4 Range is based on the Annual Peer Unit Program Fee multiplied by 5,031 units. Table 3 provides a list of potential program costs identified that would be somewhat unique to the Burlingame program. As an example, while programs may charge for use of office space, there is concern that the lack of exiting City office space would require the rental of private office space to house the program. Likewise, while the program cost and fee estimates in both the cities of Alameda and Santa Rosa include onetime costs for software support, these demands may be somewhat greater in Burlingame due to lack of existing systems. Nevertheless, as indicated above, a more detailed program design, cost and fee estimated will provide clarity regarding anticipated program costs. Review of the Burlingame Community Protection Ordinance Page 18 Finally, regarding program costs overall, it is important to note that following initial program implementation, program costs may fluctuate because they are driven, in large part, by program activity, including the number of annual rent adjustment petitions and other program/commission activity. In addition, the City Council's program vision and goals regarding public outreach, tenant/landlord training, use of mediation services (if deemed beneficial to address certain landlord tenant disputes), etc., will impact program costs. As such, the City will need to develop systems for the regular tracking of program expenditures to assure the program fee represents all incurred costs during a particular year. Table 3. Overview of Burlingame Rent Stabilization Program Initial Costs' 'Alameda's first year budget included commission training. Next Steps Our team will be prepared to review and discuss the information in this memorandum at the City Council Meeting on September 19, 2016. Feel free to contact Steven Bocian (sbocian@managementpartners.com) or Christine Butterfield (cbutterfield@managementpartners.com) with questions or comments. 0 EstimatedItem Cost Rental of Office Space (800 square feet) $2,600/month;531,200 annually Enhancements to software systems for billing, property tracking, records management, etc. $125,000 Reserve for unforeseen costs $25,000 Commission training, equipment, supplies, records storage, etc. $5,000 'Alameda's first year budget included commission training. Next Steps Our team will be prepared to review and discuss the information in this memorandum at the City Council Meeting on September 19, 2016. Feel free to contact Steven Bocian (sbocian@managementpartners.com) or Christine Butterfield (cbutterfield@managementpartners.com) with questions or comments. 0 City Staff Responses to Measure R Questions September 19, 2016 The following are the City staff's responses to the questions posed by the City Council regarding Measure R. For ease of response, the questions have been separated into those primarily related to the Housing Commission, and those related to land use, the City's General Plan, and the housing supply. Please note that for those questions for which a response is not provided, the response is included in the separate report generated by Management Partners and is noted with (MP). Housing Commission Questions (mostly): 1. Who determines the process for the appointment for the Rental Housing Commission? (MP) 2. Will staff absorb these new duties to process, screen and oversee applicants? (MP) 3. What is the cost of staff time to conduct and manage the financial disclosure statements (3years worth) that are required from the applicants? (MP) 4. Who establishes the budget for the implementation of the initiative? (MP) 5. How many staff positions would possibly needed? i.e.: hearing officer, attorney, analyst, accountant, administrative secretary and IT (MP) 6. Are the new staff employees of the city or the commission? (MP) 7. If they are city employees, will we have to pay for salary and benefits? If not, does the rent board carry liabilities involved with being an employer? (MP) 8. What if someone wanted to sue the rent board, would the city also be dragged in? (MP) 9. Does the city hold the public hearings that would occur with the rent board? If so, I would assume a city staff member would have to be present? Is that a fair assumption? (MP) 10. Who would post the agenda, provide materials, and offer technical support? (MP) 11. Who will educate commissioners on the Brown Act and make sure it is implemented correctly? (MP) 12. Who would pay for all the studies, surveys, investigations and cases that come before the Rent Board? (MP) 13. Who will oversee safeguarding all documents containing personal and private residents' information? Who is responsible if there is a security breach? (MP) 14. Where would all documents be stored and what security measures will be implemented to secure these documents? (MP) 15. Who will pay for litigation fees? (MP) RESPONSE: Management Partners' response reflects the existing practice of other rent stabilization programs, in that the fees for those programs generally are set to cover operating costs including ongoing litigation. In the case of the proposed Burlingame measure, it is likely that the City will bear some to all of the costs of any initial litigation challenging the validity of the ordinance. Additionally, the City will likely be the named defendant on future litigation arising out of the Commission's actions and therefore may have some exposure to litigation costs that is not covered by the program fee. The City may seek to recover some or all of these litigation costs from the program once it is established, but full reimbursement is not guaranteed. 1 16. What are the potential sources in addition to landlords, general fund, and grants? (MP) 17. Can they potentially put some type of tax on a future ballot for the homeowners to pay? (MP) 18. My understanding is that the City has to provide the upfront costs. What could be the potential range of this amount? (MP) 19. Also, during the implementation phase, the commission can ask staff to perform the duties of the commission till it's up and running. How much staff time could be taken away from the priorities set by the Council? How many City staff members would be needed? (MP) 20. If we make the assumption that there will be litigation, how would the City handle establishing a rent board? RESPONSE: If the measure is approved, the City has the duty to implement it. If there is litigation during the initial post-election phase, the City will go forward with as much of the implementation as possible. For example, it is possible that only one provision of the ordinance might be challenged, in which case, the City could proceed with the implementation of those provisions that are not being challenged. If a challenge is raised to the entirety of the ordinance, the City would have to evaluate the merits of that challenge and any related court orders in determining its actions. It is anticipated that the City General Fund will have to pay for litigation costs in the initial implementation phase should the measure pass. 21. Which departments would be involved? RESPONSE: If Measure R passes it is anticipated that the following departments would be involved at the outset to initially set up the program administration: City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Finance Department, Community Development Department, City Clerk's Office, and Human Resources Department. Upon initiation of the program, continued involvement would include the following departments: City Attorney's Office, Finance Department, and Community Development Department. 22. How much time would that take to establish a rent board and how much? (MP) 23. If there is litigation that arises due to the passage of this initiative, what could the range of costs be to the city? (MP) RESPONSE: In addition to Management Partners' response, the City Attorney believes it would be prudent to reserve up to $500,000 in litigation costs over the first two years of the ordinance's implementation. If that money is not required, it can then be reabsorbed into the General Fund. 24. Also, would money be put aside to fight potential future litigation? (MP) 7 RESPONSE: In addition to Management Partners' response, the City Attorney believes that the yearly litigation budget should be increased to cover potential additional costs. The amount of that increase will need to be determined based on experience as the program develops. 25. At this point we have not put aside money for upfront costs if this initiative passes; where would pull the money from to cover this? (MP) 26. What if the landlord fee established by the rent board doesn't cover the costs; then what? (MP) 27. In rent controlled cities such as SF, EPA, Alameda, and Berkley, how much money was needed the 1 st year to set up the rent board? (MP) 28. What are their budgets? (MP) 29. What is the range of budgets after the 1st year? (MP) 30. What is the potential impact on the San Mateo County court system from lawsuits related to this? RESPONSE: It is difficult to determine the impact on the court system at this point. However, the San Mateo Superior Court has had significant personnel cuts and partial schedule closures, creating delays in scheduling hearings. Any additional new case types or increases in filings would further exacerbate the situation, although it is unknowable how many cases would be generated by this ordinance and the similar one pending in San Mateo. Land Use, General Plan and Housing Supply: 1. What is the number of apartments impacted and percent of multifamily housing stock affected with this proposed ordinance? This includes rent control and Just Cause Eviction. RESPONSE: Within the City of Burlingame there exist approximately 6,177 rented household units. Of these, single-family residences represent 1,088 dwelling units (18%); multi -family units represent 5,089 of the total number of rental units (82%). Of the total number of rented multi -family dwelling units in the City, it is estimated that approximately 5,031 of these units were built prior to 1995, representing 99% of the total number of multi -family rental units. Pursuant to Measure R, single-family rentals would only be subject to Just Cause Eviction (JCE) provisions of the measure. An estimated 58 multi -family rental units built in 1995 and beyond would also be exempt from rent control provisions of Measure R, but would be subject to JCE provisions. An assisted living facility currently under construction at 1600 Trousdale Drive (Peninsula Health Care District) is to include 124 assisted living apartment units; additionally the Sunrise Assisted Living facility at 1818 Trousdale Drive includes 79 units and Atria Burlingame, located at 250 Myrtle Road includes 68 units — it is unclear whether these units would be 3 subject to JCE provisions of Measure R, though under any circumstances they would be exempt from rent control provisions of the measure. (Sources: 2015-2023 Burlingame Housing Element, 2009-2011 American Community Survey, Measure R text) 2. What number of new apartments coming online would be subject to JCE? RESPONSE: The SummerHill Apartment Development (1008-1028 Carolan Avenue) is to include a total of 268 multi -family rental units when completed (likely sometime before 2020). Additionally, a 29 unit apartment development is proposed at 1128-32 Douglas Avenue. These two projects combined total 297 multi -family rental units that would be subject to JCE provisions of Measure R. An assisted living facility currently under construction at 1600 Trousdale Drive (Peninsula Health Care District) is to include 124 assisted living apartment units — it is unclear whether these units would be subject to JCE provisions of Measure R, though under any circumstances they would be exempt from rent control provisions of the measure. (Sources: Community Development Department — Planning Division, Major Projects in Burlingame document from the City's website) 3. What percentage of family homes would be subject to JCE? RESPONSE: If the question is "what percentage of single family homes would be subject to JCE", any single family home that is rented now or in the future would be subject to JCE. This would include homes that are currently owner -occupied; if a homeowner were to rent out their home in the future, it would be subject to JCE. Currently the percentage of single-family homes that are rented out is roughly 18%. (Sources: 2015-2023 Burlingame Housing Element, 2009-2011 American Community Survey, Measure R text) 4. Is there data on what the average cost is to move a tenant in current Rent Control Cities (legal fees, lost rent, damages, and payments for moving expense)? (MP) 5. With Rent Controlled Cities, has there been an impact on their housing supply? (MP) 6. Do JCE and/or rent control affect the assessed value of property over time? RESPONSE: There is no definitive research to support either an increase or decrease in assessed valuation. In theory, the speculative market value of an apartment building or complex could be suppressed given the potential to realize higher rents in the future would be limited. 7. There is a clause in the initiative on page 10 that states if a tenant is disabled, terminally ill or just 62 years of age and been in a unit for 5 years, they can't basically be evicted. I assume this also relates to houses since they would be under JCE. How can this potentially affect our housing supply and demographic diversity? rl RESPONSE: In instances where a tenant qualifies for these protections, it could be assumed that the affected rental units would experience less frequent turnover than other rental units. In instances where senior citizen occupancy is involved, this could possibly result in an aging of the City's resident population, at least with regards to existing senior tenants who would be protected; though the degree to which this is likely is unknown. Conversely, while the Fair Housing Act prevents discrimination based on age, in a competitive rental situation with multiple qualified candidates, in theory seniors could find themselves at a disadvantage to rent an apartment if a landlord was concerned about the ability to evict in the future. This could make it less likely that seniors would move into the community and more likely new households moving into the community would be of a younger demographic. 8. In Rent Controlled/JCE cities, have there been housing units taken off the market? (MP) 9. Would there be an impact on the ability of working class families to move into Burlingame? RESPONSE: Units under rent control may be less likely to experience a turnover of tenancy which could reduce the supply of rental units available to working class families wishing to move into Burlingame. Given the stabilized rent levels for occupied units, there would be less impetus for existing tenants to leave their rent controlled unit even if their income level increases or there is an opportunity to downsize. Additionally, given vacancy decontrol of stabilized units, owners of rent controlled units are able to increase unit rents to market level rates upon vacancy which could make those units unaffordable to individuals or families of limited means, though in the event that such a family were able to secure a rent controlled unit, future rent increases would be limited by the provisions of Measure R. 10. What is the potential impact on the quality of the rental housing stock? RESPONSE: Generally speaking, the maintenance of a safe, habitable housing stock is a core goal of any rent stabilization program. Though staff is unaware of any data to inform a response to this question, in theory, multi -family complexes/units subject to rent control could see a diminution of maintenance in the event that the controlled rents within the development are insufficient to permit the property owner to perform adequate maintenance of the property in question. This would likely be of greater concern in instances where the multi -family property was the subject of a recent sale where the new property owner is responsible for a much greater acquisition cost and greater property taxes than an original, long-term owner of the property would be. In the event that maintenance of a property declines, the ordinance provides the opportunity for tenants to request a rent reduction. 11. How would RC and JCE affect our real estate industry considering there isn't much land to build new housing? 5 RESPONSE: It is conceivable that the rent control could have a cooling effect upon the real estate market for multi -family rental properties. Specifically, in instances where a multi -family property has been subject to long-term ownership and is the subject of a recent sale, the new property owner is responsible for a much greater acquisition cost and greater property taxes than an original, long-term owner of the property would be creating a situation where the ongoing costs of property maintenance may be difficult to cover given these increased costs. However, staff is unaware of definitive studies to verify these statements. In theory, RC and JCE could suppress speculative sales of existing apartment buildings and complexes built before 1995, as the ability to realize higher rents in the future would be limited. Existing apartment buildings or complexes may also be more likely to be withdrawn from the rental market entirely under the provisions of the "Ellis Act" (Government Code Section 7060-7060.7), which is a state law that provides landlords the unconditional right to evict tenants to "go out of business." For an Ellis eviction, the landlord must remove all of the units in the building from the rental market, and is restricted from re -renting the units in the future. Typically the units are re -sold as for -sale units through tenants-in-common arrangements, or are converted to condominiums. 12. Would there potentially be a decrease in sales with both single family and multi dwelling units if RCE/JCE was implemented? RESPONSE: It is conceivable that the rent control could have a cooling effect upon the real estate market for single-family and multi -family rental properties. Specifically, in instances where a multi -family property has been subject to long-term ownership and is the subject of a recent sale, the new property owner is responsible for a much greater acquisition cost and greater property taxes than an original, long-term owner of the property would be creating a situation where the ongoing costs of property maintenance may be difficult to cover given these increased costs. With respect to single-family rentals, JCE provisions of Measure R add an additional cost to acquisition of a property when the purchaser intends to occupy the property. 13. How would the General Plan be affected? RESPONSE: There is no known effect of the imposition of rent control and JCE upon policy direction provided in a community's General Plan. 14. How would Rent Control/JCE potentially affect our property tax revenue? (MP) 15. How could this initiative alter our TOT? Only hotels are exempt if guests stay for a period of fewer than 14 days. 0 RESPONSE: None of the hotels in Burlingame currently cater to guests who seek stays of a period exceeding 14 days. Most of the hotels who responded to staff's request for statistics on the frequencies of such longer tenancies responded that they account for less than one percent of their business. The proposed ordinance may have an impact on any future plans for investment in extended stay hotels in Burlingame, but assumptions that would allow for the measurement of such impacts would be purely speculative. 16. In RCE/JCE cities, has there been any change in crime statistics and/or safety concerns? (MP) 17. Have there been changes in the aesthetics/maintenance in RCE/JCE cities? RESPONSE: Staff is unaware of any definitive studies to address this issue. The ordinance provides existing tenants the opportunity to request a rent reduction in the event that the property is not maintained in an adequate manner. It is possible that landlords would invest less in aesthetics or facilities improvements that fall below the threshold of significance for rent reduction hearings. Elections Code 9212 Questions: 1. Fiscal impact of RCE/JCE. RESPONSE: This question has been answered above. 2. Effect on the internal consistency of the City's general and specific plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on City actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. RESPONSE: To staff's knowledge, there is no information available to demonstrate an impact (positive or negative) of rent control upon the internal consistency of the City's general plan and specific plans, including the Housing Element, and the consistency between planning and zoning policies and regulations. However future updates of the Housing Element would need to reflect the existence of such programs, and such programs may influence other housing policies and programs. 3. Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the City to meet its regional housing needs. RESPONSE: Since the imposition of the rent control of Measure R would only be upon multi -family rental units created prior to 1995, the only aspect of the measure that would affect new multi -family units would be JCE provisions. It is unknown whether the presence of JCE restrictions in the City's local regulations would have a cooling effect 7 upon the development of new rental housing units. Post -1995, with few exceptions, most new multi -family development in Burlingame has consisted of ownership units. In theory the imposition of the rent control of Measure R could encourage the conversion of apartments built before 1995 to ownership units under the provisions of the Ellis Act. 4. Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. Also whether the measure would likely result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. RESPONSE: Assumptions that would allow for the measurement of such impacts would be purely speculative. 5. Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment. RESPONSE: To staffs knowledge, there is no information available to demonstrate an impact (positive or negative) of rent control upon a community's ability to attract and retain businesses and employment. However, it is important to note that Measure R provides for vacancy decontrol of rental rates for pre -1995 units once vacated by long- term tenants, in effect raising the rents to market rates applicable for that particular time. Though employees of established businesses/industries could benefit from rent control if they are long-term tenants of their units, this benefit (if it truly exists) would not apply to businesses seeking to draw new employees into the community from outside the area. 6. Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land. RESPONSE: Any new multi -family rental units constructed upon vacant land in the City would be subject only to the JCE provisions of Measure R. It is unknown whether or not those provisions would serve to deter the construction of new housing units. 7. Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. RESPONSE: The City has no agricultural lands. Open space would not be affected by rent stabilization and just cause provisions as these properties are devoid of housing units. Staff does not have any relevant data related to the effects on existing business districts. Developed areas designated for revitalization would not be subject to rent stabilization provisions. They would be subject to just cause for eviction provisions provided that the areas are revitalized with rental housing, rather for -sale properties. E-1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Approved Minutes Regular Meeting of Thursday, August 11, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:01 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL MEMBER PRESENT: Bush, Londer, Martos, Wettan MEMBERS ABSENT: Akers 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: To accept the minutes of July 14, 2016 with the following three edits • Page 4, item 7a, staff update table — add a slash between the month and date in row 4; • Page 4, item 7b, paragraph 4 — change reference of Mr. Pene to Officer Pene; and • Page 5, item 7d, paragraph 1 — Correct website for the General Plan Update to www.envisionburlingame.org. M/S/C: Martos/Bush; 4/0/1 (Akers absent) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS— NON -AGENDA No public comments. 6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS a) Hoover School Reopening (Oral Discussion) Mr. Wong went through the PowerPoint presentation and highlighted the status of the 1 proposed improvements for Hoover School which is set to reopen on August 24, 2016. 6 He stated that new pedestrian ramps, crosswalks, a traffic island, stop controls and C Hillside Circle and Alvarado Avenue, and traffic and parking restriction signage during peak drop-off and pick-up times (pilot program) have been completed. The remaining improvements to complete prior to August 24 include additional restriping and signage, pavement legends, curb extensions and remaining concrete work around the traffic island fronting the school. Chair Londer indicated he visited the Hoover School area in the afternoon prior to the meeting and commented that it appeared everything is coming together. Mr. Wong clarified for Commissioner Wettan that there were in fact two crosswalks on Alvarado Avenue. The first crosswalk was for getting across the intersection and the other was for using the Easton stairs. Commissioner Wettan suggested that the City look into additional reflectors and/or trimming the tree that is partially obstructing a stop sign on Hillside Drive. Commissioner Wettan commented on the poor conditions of the walking path on Easton Circle near the gate. Mr. Wong explained that the short stretch of sidewalk on Easton Circle was not included in the proposed short-term improvements. Sergeant Ford explained that starting the first week of school, traffic officers, parking enforcement, and all reserves have adjusted their hours in order to saturate specific areas to address parking, traffic flow, and/or safety problems. He added that the School Resource Officer has also been working very closely with the School District. He also indicated that the Police Department will also utilize social media to help continue educating parents and residents. Commissioner Bush confirmed with Mr. Wong that Engineering staff would be collecting and reviewing pedestrian flow data in order to modify and/or make additional improvements. Commissioner Bush also encouraged staff to survey parents and faculty regarding the implemented improvements and any pertinent feedback about their experience. He also asked if City staff or members of the TSPC would be attending any School District meetings that would include the students' parents after the reopening of Hoover School. Mr. Wong indicated he would look into this and report back. Commissioner Martos clarified with Sergeant Ford that that traffic enforcement officers would start with issuing warnings and educating people rather than immediately issuing citations. He also suggested to Sergeant Ford to include the parking restrictions on the pedestrian and traffic flow maps. Commissioner Martos shared the same concern as Commissioner Wettan in regards to the path on Easton Circle near the gates. He also urged staff to have a discussion with the City Attorney sooner rather than later to review the current conditions of the walking path and assess the risk to the City. Additionally, Commissioner Martos brought up the stop sign concern on Canyon Road 2 that was brought up by a homeowner at a previous TSPC meeting. He said the stop sign is located approximately 100 yards before a crosswalk and felt this may be a danger to pedestrians. Mr. Wong explained that there is no curb or place to relocate the stop sign and it's in the most ideal location given the current road conditions. He also said moving the stop sign would create additional sight problems due to the brick wall nearby. In closing, Commissioner Martos thanked staff for their efforts related to the Hoover School improvements. b) School Speed Limits (Sub -Committee Report) Chair Londer shared that he and Vice -Chair Akers discussed and recommend implementing a school speed zone reduction to 15 MPH on Quesada Way. He indicated this would be a prime location for a pilot program, as it would impact two schools— Franklin Elementary and Burlingame Intermediate School (BIS). Chair Londer pointed out that the factors that favor the speed reduction on Quesada Way are outlined in the staff report. Mr. Wong commented on the staff report and indicated that it would be preferred to start this as a pilot program, as Chair Londer stated. He also shared discussions he has had with the City of Los Altos regarding residents contesting speed reductions on multilane roads—similar to Trousdale Drive. Lastly, Mr. Wong recommended staff reach out to the School District to obtain their insight on possible locations for school speed reductions before forwarding a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Martos said he is in agreement with the current plan and location, but did make note that he thought the stretch between Trousdale Drive and Davis Drive was a little excessive (over 500 feet). He did suggest that the Commissioners start to think about how to measure the success of the pilot program to determine if it should be implemented permanently. Mr. Wong suggested that the plan to poll the parents of Hoover School might present an opportunity to "piggy -back" and gain feedback regarding the BIS/Franklin Elementary School speed reduction pilot program. Commissioner Bush inquired as to how the City might measure success of the pilot program and suggested that impacts to bicyclists and pedestrian counts could be useful indicators. He also asked about the timing of the pilot program, such as when to start and how long it should run. Mr. Wong explained that other pilot programs the City has conducted were typically for one year. Commissioner Wettan shared the same concerns over the measurement of success and how long to run the pilot program. He also suggested that a reduction in the number of accidents might be a valuable metric, although difficult to prove. Commissioner Wettan complimented Chair Londer and Vice -Chair Akers on their thoughtful and well-done 3 analysis. A Chair Londer closed by clarifying that no action would be taken at this time. He added that staff will reach out to the School District regarding their feedback and recommendation(s) about the suggested location of the pilot program; and, if they feel any other location(s) might be a larger safety threat. The Sub -Committee will iron out additional details such as metrics of success, start date, etc.; and the Commission will resume this discussion at the next TSPC meeting. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS a) Engineering Division Reports • US101/Broadway Interchange Project — Grading in preparation of the eastern overpass approaches were started in late July and will be completed by the second week of August. Grading and construction of abutment walls for the southwest approach will continue throughout August with the goal to build retaining walls to hold fill for eastbound Broadway overpass by mid-September. Utility work is being carried out for all of August. • California Drive Roundabout — Awaiting date for next public meeting to review aesthetic treatments. TSPC Email Communications — No new communications. • City Hall Complete Streets Study — Revising finalized concepts. Working to present to the Commission at an upcoming meeting. • California Drive Bike Facility — First public meeting completed on July 26. Balanced attendance with bicyclists and residents. Design team obtained comments; will work on draft options which will be presented at the next yet to be scheduled meeting. • TSPC Priority List (Updated August 2016): TSPC Led Effort 1 Downtown Modal Access 2 B/PAC setup 6/9/16: Item 6a 3 School Speed Limit Notices/Review 8/11/16: Item 6b 4 School Traffic Issues 3/10/16: Item 6a 5 California Drive Commuter bike route 2111/16: Item 6b 6 California Drive parking restrictions 7/14/16: Item 7a 7 Broadway Parking 7/14/16: Item 6a 8 Public Shuttles/Transit 0 9 Downtown Speed Limit Review 10 Review TSPC Mandate 11 Joint agreements with Caltrans Countywide 12 ECR Corridor Infrastructure 4/14/16 & 5/12/16 13 -Bay Trail 14 Fee Schedules 15 Joint Commission Meeting Cit Council Staff Update via Report 1 Caltrans' ECR/Floribunda Com leted 2 Hoover School Update 8/11/16: Item 6a 3 Downtown Parking Strategies 7/14/16: Item 6b 4 City Hall Traffic Calming/Floribunda 7/14/16: Item 7a 5 California Roundabout 6/9/16: Item 7a 6 General Plan - Circulation Element 7 Bike\Ped Plan Update: fwd to BPAC 8 Taxi Regulation: Update by BPD 9 Carolan Complete Streets Update 6/9/16: Item 6b 10 Grant Opportunities 11 Grade Separation 4/14/16: Item 6b 12 Traffic Brochure Completed 13 San Mateo's Peninsula Ave OC b) Police Department Reports Since the last TSPC meeting, Sergeant Ford indicated there have been 20 vehicular accidents. Of the twenty accidents, four were with minor injuries; there were no fatalities or major injury accidents. No accidents occurred at EI Camino Real and Floribunda. Sergeant Ford compared the statistics for vehicular accidents for the 2015 calendar year and year-to-date in 2016. ' 2015 2016 (thru 8111/16) Total Accidents 182 199 Total Injury Accidents 105 74 (1 fatality) Sergeant Ford indicated the OTS mobilization period will begin August 19, 2016 through September 5, 2016. During this period he explained there will be additional traffic enforcement, including a DUI checkpoint and targeted railroad safety crossing enforcement at Broadway and Oak Grove. National Night Out was on August 2, 2016. Although Sergeant Ford did not have any statistics to share just yet, he indicated the event went very well. 5 c) Farmer's Market It was noted that the next Farmer's Market is scheduled for August 14 and Commissioner Martos commented that this would be a good opportunity to continue surveying merchants and patrons. Mr. Wong agreed to send Commissioner Martos the list of survey responses the City has already collected to date. Commissioner Martos chose to work from 9 — 11 am and Chair Londer from 11 am — noon. Commissioner Wettan may participate if his schedule permits. d) TSPC Chair/Commissioner's Communications Chair Londer said that he attended the most recent Envision Burlingame meeting for the General Plan Update with the main topics of discussion being historical preservation and resources and sustainability (recycling requirements and green practices). He indicated the next Envision Burlingame meeting is scheduled for the end of September but the consultant and City staff will be presenting to the City Council in early September. Commissioner Bush attended the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Summit. Some key discussion topics included the revised California standards for bicycle facilities and temporary/experimental bicycle facilities and the outcomes. In addition, Commissioner Bush spoke to Alta Planning + Design regarding consideration of a more comprehensive bicycle plan for Burlingame. He also spoke with a representative from San Mateo County (SMC) regarding a pedestrian and bicycle collision study they ` conducted and SMC would like to visit Burlingame to discuss their findings. Lastly, Commissioner Bush indicated he has been in touch with some folks concerning the future of the BPAC. He said he spoke with the store manager of Summit Bicycles to inquire about attending the next quarterly Pen Velo meeting, as they have approximately 300 members, regarding the potential path forward for BPAC. Commissioner Martos inquired about filling the leadership role of the BPAC which led into a short discussion where the Commission agreed that additional efforts can be made to find someone to fill that key role such as a call out in the City newsletter/Enews. Mr. Wong indicated he would look into outreach options to assist with BPAC leadership and participation. 8. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS Commissioner Wettan clarified the data collection efforts that were agreed upon at the August TSPC meeting. • Data collection period to begin after Labor Day through the month of October; • Each Commissioner to sign up for 10 slots (or recruit assistance); and • Data should be collected during lunch time/mid-day Monday through Saturday 6 and in the evenings on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Mr. Wong indicated he will revise and redistribute the sign-up sheet to the Commissioners. Commissioner Wettan inquired about his role on the EI Camino Real Stakeholders Committee to which Mr. Wong indicated he has not heard any news regarding the Stakeholders group and would obtain a status update. 9. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Staff update / action items regarding school speed limit reduction pilot program; and • Report back on the reopening of Hoover School. 10. ADJOURNMENT 8:43 p.m. 7 c I