Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2015.01.20
City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Meeting Agenda - Final -revised City Council Tuesday, January 20, 2015 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers Per Gov't Code Section 54953 (b)(3) Councilmember Brownrigg will be participating via telephone from the Haxton Hotel, 943 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Members of the public maV participate in the Community Forum from that location if they choose. CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Ap rpoval of the Closed Session Aqenda (Government Code 54956.9(a) and (d)(4 b. Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the public may address the Council on anV item on the Closed Session Agenda at this time. C. Adjournment into Closed Session d. Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation - Gov. Code §54956.9 (a) and (d) (4): One Case STUDY SESSION - 6:30 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Land Use Objectives and Policy Direction Regarding State Lands Bayfront Parcel 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 City o/ Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1/16/2015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final -revised January 20, 2015 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS a. There are no presentations. 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. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes of January 5 2015 Attachments: 1-5-15 Unapproved Minutes b. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Proiect Phase 3, City Project No. 62622 Attachments: Staff Report Resolution Final Progress Payment Proiect Location Map C. Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Pacific Library Partnership Grant Funds for Burlingame Library Attachments: Staff Report Resolution d. Adoption of a Resolution Reclassifying the Communications and Records Supervisor Position to a Police Services Manager Position and Authorizing the City Manager to Include the Position in the Burlingame Association of Middle Managers Memorandum of Understanding; and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Side Letter Agreement with the Association of Police Administrators Attachments: Staff Report Resolution regarding Police Services Manager Resolution regarding Police Lieutenants Job Specification City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111612015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final -revised January 20, 2015 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) a. Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 12.05 for Special Construction Requirements within the Public Right -of -Way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance Special Conditions, Specifications. Details and Provisions Standard Details Drawing Downtown Burlingame Avenue Limits Map b. Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the Citv of Burlingame. Amendin Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance) Attachments: Staff Report Ordinance Resolution January 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report November 17, 2014 City Council Staff Report 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) a. Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30 2014 Attachments: Staff Report 2013-14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report b. Adoption of a General Fund Reserve Policy for the City of Burlingame' and Consideration of a Renewal and Replacement Reserve for the City's Capital Projects Fund Attachments: Staff Report Resolution General Fund Reserve Policy C. Review of 2015 Solid Waste Services Rates Attachments: Staff Report d. Consideration of Establishing a "Whistleblower Hotline" Attachments: Staff Report 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. Chy of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 111612015 City Council Meeting Agenda - Final -revised January 20, 2015 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Department Reports: Building, December 2014 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 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - SATURDAY, JANUARY 31, 2015 - GOAL SETTING SESSION; NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MONDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2015 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 111612015 S� CITY G V BURLINGAME 40 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of January 5, 2015 1. CALL TO ORDER AGENDA ITEM 8a MEETING DATE: 1/20/15 A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Nagel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Charles Voltz. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Brownrigg, Keighran, Nagel, Ortiz, Root MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Nagel reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. rill There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Eric Kahn spoke and requested that the City consider offering the Home Energy Renovation Opportunity (HERO) Program to the residents. CM Goldman advised that this is something the City is currently researching. HIP Housing Associate Director Laura Fanucchi spoke about her organization and gave the Councilmembers the 2015 HIP Housing calendar. Burlingame City Council January 5, 2015 Unapproved Minutes 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Nagel asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar and there were no requests. Mayor Nagel advised that item 8e was postponed to a future meeting. Councihnember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, b, c, and d of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 15, 2014 CC Kearney requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes of December 15, 2014. b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO IC J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE AIRPORT BOULEVARD FORCE MAIN AND CAROLAN AVENUE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH HATCH MATT MACDONALD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROJECT DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolutions No. 1-2015 and 2-2015. c. RECOMMENDATION TO CONFIRM MAYOR'S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2015 CC Kearney requested Council approve the 2015 City Council assignments. d. ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CITY MANAGER'S CONTRACT HRD Loomis requested Council adopt Resolution No.3-2015. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE ON NEW APPLICATIONS FOR MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. COLLECTIVES, GROWING OPERATIONS, AND RELATED USES CA Kane reviewed the staff report and advised that on a periodic basis staff has been approached with proposals to open marijuana dispensaries and collectives within Burlingame. Ms. Kane further advised that currently the City's Zoning Code does not address marijuana -related establishments, but under the Code uses that are not listed as permitted or conditional, are prohibited. CA Kane said the reason this item is being brought to the Council is to provide clarity to prospective applicants for marijuana -related land uses, and the moratorium would give the City time to assess what, if any, regulation of marijuana -related uses should be adopted as part of a permanent Zoning Code revision. Council questioned if the City currently has any applications for marijuana -related businesses, and CA Kane assured them there were not at this time. Burlingame City Council January 5, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Nagel requested that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance within five days of the public hearing. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and Nathaniel Horton spoke. Council all agreed that they would support a permanent ban on any marijuana dispensaries or related uses provided it didn't put the City in harm's way for lawsuits. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt Urgency Moratorium Ordinance No. 1906; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY MORATORIUM ORDINANCE ON NEW APPLICATIONS FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS CA Kane reviewed the staff report and advised the state legislature recently altered the regulatory landscape for the massage industry again. This time the legislature would restore some, but not all, of the powers previously exercised by local governments prior to the 2009 state legislation that took away cities regulatory control over massage establishments. CA Kane said adoption of this urgency moratorium ordinance would give the City time to ensure that Burlingame's approach takes into account regional responses to the legislation and the City's own assessment of its zoning and public safety needs. Ms. Kane said the City also needs time to ascertain what our neighboring cities are doing and how it could impact Burlingame, both in a negative sense and in a positive sense. Council asked if there were any pending applications and CA Kane said there is one change of ownership pending and one new application pending. She advised that both applications were filed prior to the end of the year and the adoption of the moratorium so they would be "grandfathered" in. Mayor Nagel requested that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the Ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Root. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Nagel directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed Ordinance within five days of the public hearing. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and no one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Urgency Moratorium Ordinance No. 1907; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. c. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE — NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner reviewed the staff report and advised that the Draft Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review and determination that it complies with the State Housing Element Law. Mr. Gardiner further advised that HCD provided comments requesting changes to the Draft Housing Element, and City staff submitted revisions to address those HCD comments. Planning Manager Gardiner said once the Housing Element update is adopted, the final document will be submitted to HCD for certification. Burlingame City Council January 5, 2015 Unapproved Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner introduced Jeff Bradley of Metropolitan Planning Group who reviewed the key revisions from HCD. Council discussion and questions followed and Mr. Bradley, CDD Meeker, and CA Kane addressed the Councilmembers questions and concerns. Vice Mayor Keighran stated for the record that she respectfully disagrees with the increase in population numbers on page 14 of the report since significant population increases have not been the trend in the past. Mayor Nagel opened the public hearing and no one spoke. Councihnember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 4-2015 adopting the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update as an Amendment to the General Plan, hicluding Program H, F-9 regarding the zero net loss of housing units; and Resolution No. 5-2015 Finding no Substantial Evidence that the Approval of the 2015- 2023 Housing Element Update Will Have no Significant Effect on the Environment Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to Article 6 of the CEQA Guidelines; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.63 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REOUIWNG INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE) Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner gave a presentation on the proposed ordinance that is a merger of the existing Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing with the requirements of State Density Bonus Law Section 65915. Mr. Gardiner said this represents one of 35 housing programs in the 2015-2013 Housing Element and it will satisfy some of the community needs, but not all. Mr. Gardiner said the focus with this ordinance is to encourage inclusion of affordable units in new development and renovations to contribute to the community's needs. Planning Manager Gardiner advised that Council requested input from stakeholders at the November 17, 2014 Council meeting and he reviewed staff's efforts with Affordable Housing Developer, MidPen and some Market Rate Developers. Mr. Gardiner said they had very productive meetings with both MidPen and the Market Rate Developers and got feedback from their work with other cities in dealing with the density bonus issue. Council questions and discussion followed and Councilmembers requested modifications to the draft ordinance to eliminate references to interior finishes and minimum dwelling unit sizes. The Councilmembers also discussed some other provisions of the draft Ordinance concerning general plan standards and asked for clarification on whether it was the City's General Plan, or the general nature of the plan of the project. The Councilmembers also requested clarification on the reference to the inclusionary housing program and to impact and in -lieu fees and height limits. Mayor Nagel opened the item for public comment and there were no comments. There was consensus among the Councilmembers that the ordinance needed clarifications and staff advised that the clarifications would be made and the ordinance would be reintroduced at the next City Council meeting. Burlingame City Council January 5, 2015 Unapproved Minutes 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 13. a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, October 9 & 23, 2014 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney City Clerk Burlingame City Council January 5, 2015 Unapproved Minutes 9 B"R STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 8b MEETING DATE: January20, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3, City Project No. 82622 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 by K.J. Woods Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,592,400. BACKGROUND On March 3, 2014, the Council awarded the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 to K.J. Woods Construction, Inc., in the amount of $2,548,000. Phase 3 of the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project is part of the four phase sanitary sewer bypass improvements in the Sanchez Avenue area. The scope of work for the Phase 3 project consisted of upgrading approximately 5,300 linear feet of 8 -inch through 18 -inch diameter sanitary sewer pipeline; replacement of approximately 3,100 linear feet of lower sewer laterals; abandonment of approximately 1,460 linear feet of existing sanitary sewer pipeline; replacement of 30 sanitary sewer manholes; and installation of approximately 295 linear feet of 18 -inch diameter storm drain pipeline. The project construction has been satisfactorily completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. The final construction cost of the $2,592,400 is $44,400, or approximately 1.7%, above the awarded contract amount and within the authorized contingencies. The additional $44,400 was due to change orders for the following additional work: • Slip -lining of 240 linear feet of existing 18 -inch diameter reinforced concrete storm drain pipeline on Bernal Avenue for sanitary sewer use; • Construction of 295 linear feet of new 18 -inch diameter polyvinyl chloride storm drain pipeline on Bernal Avenue with two new storm drain manholes; • Realignment and replacement of 30 existing 8 -inch diameter asbestos concrete water main with ductile iron pipe and relocation of two water services on Bernal Avenue; and 1 Adoption of Resolution for Accepting the Sanchez Bypass and Neighborhood Sewer Rehabilitation Project Phase 3 January 20, 2015 • Adjustment of final quantities of work and reduction of payment to the contractor for overtime inspection. FISCAL IMPACT The following are the final estimated project expenditures: Construction contract $2,592,400 Construction management $ 383,706 Contract administration and testing $139,894 Total $3,116,000 Funding Availability: There are adequate funds budgeted in the Capital Improvements Budget to cover the project costs. A portion of the project costs is shared by both the City and the Town of Hillsborough as part of the Burlingame -Hillsborough Sewer Agreement. City of Burlingame's estimated contribution $2,651,000 Town of Hillsborough's estimated contribution $465,000 Total $3,116,000 Exhibits: • Resolution • Final Progress Payment • Project Location Map 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE SANCHEZ BYPASS AND NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PHASE 3, BY K.J. WOODS CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 82622 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by K.J. Woods Construction, Inc., under the terms of its contract with the City dated March 3, 2014, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 82622. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 20" day of January, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearny, City Clerk oaf Fum 7m¢ NjU m DNN 0 OA,9 3�z� VWp Y� »»»»... «»»«»»......,N N N., N.... . .....».,»»»»»»N«»--- »».. N» SEE. SSSSSSSSSS88888888 585585588885588 88888 J 88r8888m88ry888 S oggmo�«88888$888 &88 �N N a8mr8 mm -o mmS�e�rm�NBm �85�Ma�.;erMm.:" VS. 89 LLS N O � 6 Z Atha VLL 0000 0008888888880 S S SSB 88858888888888888888 88 00000 38'rv"8 8888888888 �N6 n� `m BX c = _ o68_m SS66B686 $6 n ..0.,666 5888 0o..6 SS R.Sm - mvUrc.--.'<�a�v gww�m �_mowa�mc mdqqSm g.wmm�c4 hmDi°$mv� a �zm. Nm�m�O -m �cco V. _rg°w-w. »«»«... .......n»».n»..... N�N »..N«.,.. N N.n ».......... .,N .,....»» 8 9X.99 998.9.99X9 X o o o o.... ...... 9.... a'. 98.88X8 X.. ...XX �8N558 S8S5ioS88w00008888 58558888888 58m 3 m Eo ....... 690$' U y"5 ¢i « `c x '6 m zm u a v@°c of f-Za HS�m NUS LL�(4J r/m3j CL me m 8888888888888888085 q......8 R 58 88$88$ 8888WO-ClSoheoN o8S88e�SR�8R8. .S3S. yE 5m2`>'�_rnm'c% 0 2 »«. --- .. wNNN w N«w..g.,.,.,....,., ».. .,.,. m -----------w.,'.,---- ....,., 'LL LLLL2 � 9Wa�U 2 co cwd�oo 4j Vj Vj VjU CU U1L ILL ILL 1i 1L000UUUU NmNMU U1L IL IL LL. IL CU CU <U CU U2 ¢U IL CU <U yU Wmm Mll viJvj .iJ� ���Ju�W�viJJJJwwwui ug u�u� J-iJJ��JJJJ Jw �JJJJ �z2'Ur¢ NrvnrvwnmmAnnnm�n55ee&656 eeh., .. pJWWWWWW''WW N SSSSpSQoSo SSSSoeeeSSoSSpoSSSSoS SS SSoo$ eN��NN pSpSpSpSSSS88poSoSS8p8p80000 Om Om NOOOO�Om 0 N0N�000pOO OOO OOOO 00 nw�S ODONeOO NOOOO IpOm p6 .00O ONNNNMNOM OON OVO� N �mV �em� [V p000�<�- NNON°iP <N�Ni� NV t001 N «,.,...,.. w.,., w.,., w .... w w.,--M.,-------M., ., . ., w.,.,.,., E E ° 0>> { m al Z E f NU V I v_ ° i IzNdvv o { €2q°m�mm j OOSdvLL�6 rc rc D 9 T' E E U d a m m w W 0 m i m o` E z E E E E v E�a� �nmewn 5 U m N O `m J As 0 m �`O 8N r api c v5 LLS N O 6 Z Atha VLL do�` 3M c m° + n� `m BX c rym F;,� vo om °"m5 $mEmc'o:wnqE.ovrn�Em mvUrc.--.'<�a�v gww�m �_mowa�mc mdqqSm g.wmm�c4 hmDi°$mv� a �zm. Nm�m�O -m �cco dU°3 c 2t�w°Oc azSm -.wc'-o^ Zwrcm _rg°w-w. oN o 15 N5mZ M�n -112 m--vo rm°u v M�( Uy� zz novo 3 m Eo m N m M 9 S E O O 9 g E ° N O 6 E M O ON m oM m U U a a m E a a B$ y 8 co _e x o O w a Emn m N�y o � oN o m ..zU z novo 3 m Eo 208`2 690$' U y"5 ¢i u `c x '6 m zm u a v@°c of f-Za HS�m NUS LL�(4J r/m3j CL me m 4zma 3 «mw m°w,ew�mNNUcj >Q yE 5m2`>'�_rnm'c% 2 �$oin "dw�.J2 co u'f uommwmc -co o°ocN � 9Wa�U c¢'V F °aha-mmi°����.n co cwd�oo oa co^,�m9 m`mo w`m hvmm��'u m $ma=Wv .. z�Ur-.rc(�zrcazrcsrcrczs�n zu-r �z2'Ur¢ NrvnrvwnmmAnnnm�n55ee&656 eeh., .. XXXX.XXXXX XXXXXT'XXXXXT'XXXde XX a"X XX3"XXXXXXX T'X oo.XXXXXX Xm a"XXXXXXX m�n�??g8mm�m9 umi 88SSSS8mmm8m888^<m SS8888 88008800�� ��� _ N-N� �� �� « o8o�oa888S8o�mS��� oS8800 8888888888885888 N$o$8888 BSmaSe$8o883888 80m0000 mam.0000.N�8e�SNm 888rNe8 »»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»..»»..»»»»»»»»»»M..»»»» »»»»»»»» x xxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxix x LLIL IlU¢UU¢U<UaU¢UQ J4j N (/1 U111L ILUU U¢aU QU aU U¢aU wNNIODUILLLLL LLILL <U U3 U¢¢UU QU ¢U SUU 4U ¢U 4U UU U¢ y41NN1i li u:U N SSSSSSBSSS 888p8pSSmSSpSpSpSpSpSSaSp8 SSSBSSSSS......O...pSOSO.SoSSoS pw _ SN0P0 0010 ONi°MOO OtU`Im.m101U0 ONmQ�°1°m000N�90NVIr.�N O.0O rm$ Vi ........ ...........»191°(9 Vf w✓i»Yi ViWWMtlf di f9 d)WWM----------- M»»»»M»» 0 0 m C Ip O m9 � m9 =gg m F c° c° w a w5 ° e � � � 2 ryCry N � a 8 S='. rmSm �� umog w� ` �tiFp= N mog U U U z S _ 9 g "' o n a a z w w a m 9 v z 5 o m' a r e m° a z U • 5 m° i i ; $ a F 6 m o nA- 8a w oo. a°' $ m d5°'5 °moo= °'g 0505 = 5'w rcn� z A �050U5 � w o 5 > Jmjm wmmm NtiF grc�P:mm_ "om m� m c > ac Lam==mvK EmW- �= o L_ a w 19 c a �pmtv33 g .�Oo of mm3�.3 oaa K'mp i3yaCr'i pc oy.m ....'e Q = U C m m O Z O m o N L 0 N i Z° q nU N w w -q " t y? �c- =wwv�m vE KU w�=mcwy.ww V� E "Kxv�w y- minfmmwwrn> E dna mm.F "v oi°m a�Gz =ot°il rnw�_ _m2TS m m� wmm4���c.F =.n._. m3'�mmw°m'mca3''Ena"n'mmm °w._.J°x... rmm'''s 'w'mm8 9w"=_S'vgs'°o°O1o°x�m'mmm '�adm8'mUctOirc'"">x>ux'f .K2�ni_n=u'5 �°'Su'8Sw5u'SwK3 ozFU .con 00 ' m,TmmnongsuwaeMe_EraEEEtnnonn coW Z",eZ°amKKKK°2KKKKK°'cxlsimt`_m'" F„muvmz;�ZZK<0WKwK3`0�2ZKarcKWxww 'UFxxzmJnowmw 8.4 S8�8Sm`me ammmmmmrrnrrrn�m rmmm mm 8 mm m 8w w m m B W w .B���� 8888888888888888 °°888888888888888888888 8 88888 8.8 88mooSoS 9999 8 S� 88m8Smo588oS e_o m<m888888& ��m7mneo »»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»» 88888888 m888888888 8888885888888888888888 88888888 85 SSSSSoryNneN � �ooee S.o....'o.m mBoSaSom�".e XXXX.XXXXX XXXXXT'XXXXXT'XXXde XX a"X XX3"XXXXXXX T'X oo.XXXXXX Xm a"XXXXXXX m�n�??g8mm�m9 umi 88SSSS8mmm8m888^<m SS8888 88008800�� ��� _ N-N� �� �� « o8o�oa888S8o�mS��� oS8800 8888888888885888 N$o$8888 BSmaSe$8o883888 80m0000 mam.0000.N�8e�SNm 888rNe8 »»»»»»»»»» »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» »»»»»..»»..»»»»»»»»»»M..»»»» »»»»»»»» x xxxxxx x xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxxxix x LLIL IlU¢UU¢U<UaU¢UQ J4j N (/1 U111L ILUU U¢aU QU aU U¢aU wNNIODUILLLLL LLILL <U U3 U¢¢UU QU ¢U SUU 4U ¢U 4U UU U¢ y41NN1i li u:U N SSSSSSBSSS 888p8pSSmSSpSpSpSpSpSSaSp8 SSSBSSSSS......O...pSOSO.SoSSoS pw _ SN0P0 0010 ONi°MOO OtU`Im.m101U0 ONmQ�°1°m000N�90NVIr.�N O.0O rm$ Vi ........ ...........»191°(9 Vf w✓i»Yi ViWWMtlf di f9 d)WWM----------- M»»»»M»» 0 0 m C Ip O m9 � m9 =gg m F c° c° w a w5 ° e � � � 2 ryCry N � a 8 S='. rmSm �� umog w� ` �tiFp= N mog U U U z S _ 9 g "' o n a a z w w a m 9 v z 5 o m' a r e m° a z U • 5 m° i i ; $ a F 6 m o nA- 8a w oo. a°' $ m d5°'5 °moo= °'g 0505 = 5'w rcn� z A �050U5 � w o 5 > Jmjm wmmm NtiF grc�P:mm_ "om m� m c > ac Lam==mvK EmW- �= o L_ a w 19 c a �pmtv33 g .�Oo of mm3�.3 oaa K'mp i3yaCr'i pc oy.m ....'e Q = U C m m O Z O m o N L 0 N i Z° q nU N w w -q " t y? �c- =wwv�m vE KU w�=mcwy.ww V� E "Kxv�w y- minfmmwwrn> E dna mm.F "v oi°m a�Gz =ot°il rnw�_ _m2TS m m� wmm4���c.F =.n._. m3'�mmw°m'mca3''Ena"n'mmm °w._.J°x... rmm'''s 'w'mm8 9w"=_S'vgs'°o°O1o°x�m'mmm '�adm8'mUctOirc'"">x>ux'f .K2�ni_n=u'5 �°'Su'8Sw5u'SwK3 ozFU .con 00 ' m,TmmnongsuwaeMe_EraEEEtnnonn coW Z",eZ°amKKKK°2KKKKK°'cxlsimt`_m'" F„muvmz;�ZZK<0WKwK3`0�2ZKarcKWxww 'UFxxzmJnowmw 8.4 S8�8Sm`me ammmmmmrrnrrrn�m rmmm mm 8 mm m 8w w m m B W w .B���� 58.. ..$ .. ....... .. ...... .. ....SBS.. 6$.9$'3 SSBog, o. .888888 'aa N nip mNNNm Nm ooaSo xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 80 �8 « 8888 ............. .....SSA$ ee� N �m-88mmN n N xxxxx ,x xxxxxx UUUUU NN LLUUUUUUUN SBS •...SSSS BB.BBSS.S N�_ m 88�n�8SemNN8N888�8 m p N ry W Z _ 002 Z ' 8 cN ii0 ` in w Ommm u H F H v g p n 8 a 3 3 3 a 3 wU Zpm2 O $ZZU Z '16 o vVvo0 @ Uaz'm 0-0U x'H¢nn�W a v�JoN0u. q3U a »ot NNe m "eo �R � VWV NE 'y 6.w U1N SN.pJ CNNNCN �C.0 C. Y c a vJ - Uc0 ��0-xY W W u Z W wJ N N> W W W mNY](VF ODOryaKa mwHa°u oo' Wa3335i��EEE— WSK w Z2UFK zz zdKKKKKCKLLvI Fs UQ£ N.-N�-�-N ImPV Q-•- 03I p p j$O$SSS$SSO c ImSSSS�N�SS ZW: ppNN 7U{ U6: mN U i NwwxiwNKMenn U 5UU `�a 0 � f U d b m E v 3NSN K.�'m C�FF:Y�WWS� �zz°ice �¢u'f U U U U U U O D U U N c2m � � 3 NI�NN UULL ccc� UUUU LN PILLy NNNN L6 L�'L ooao USUU E E E E rvium UUoo m "a maS O . O • � • � � m � m • ` { Ii u»i : E i II &II EEEE � » j N� » N NII I I F f N c2m � � 3 NI�NN UULL ccc� UUUU LN PILLy NNNN L6 L�'L ooao USUU E E E E rvium UUoo m "a maS O . O v a LU °oa �a mW �o LU Za U w 0 a LU LU o a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Pat Harding, City Librarian — (650) 558-7401 AGENDANO: 8C MEETING DATE: January20,2015 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Pacific Library Partnership Grant in the Amount of $7,215.60 to Fund the Burlingame Public Library's Tap, Swipe, Discover Touchscreen Project RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution accepting the $7,215.60 Pacific Library Partnership grant to fund the Library's Tap, Swipe, Discover Touchscreen Project. BACKGROUND The Burlingame Library has again been awarded the Pacific Library Partnership Innovation and Technology Grant. Staff would like to provide the technology and means to highlight materials, inform patrons about often underutilized resources, and help promote digital literacy. DISCUSSION The Tap, Swipe, Discover project will implement three touch -screen computers throughout the Burlingame Library. The terminal on the upper level will highlight a reader's advisory website with book lists and reviews. The main level terminal will be used to highlight a different subscription database each month. The lower level terminal will be used to display schedules for the new tech lab and study rooms. Each terminal will marry traditional services with a modern delivery method that is more reflective of present-day library practices and will help develop digital literacies and enhance the overall library experience for the community. FISCAL IMPACT Funds from the grant will be used to purchase touchscreen computers and related equipment. Exhibit: • Resolution 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ACCEPTING THE PACIFIC LIBRARY PARTNERSHIP GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,215.60 TO FUND THE BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY'S TAP, SWIPE, DISCOVER PROJECT WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has applied for and has been awarded a grant in the amount of $7,215.60 for the TAP, SWIPE, DISCOVER Touchscreen Project from the Pacific Library Partnership; and WHEREAS, funds from the Pacific Library Partnership grant will be used to purchase three interactive touch screen devices to enhance the library experience for the public. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. All the facts recited above, in the staff report and supporting documentation are true and correct and the Council relies upon same in accepting the grant. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to review and execute any necessary documents to receive the funds and take any further steps necessary in order to accept the grant. 3. The City Council approves the acceptance of the grant revenue and amends the Fiscal Year 2014- 15 Budget to include the additional appropriation. 4. The budget amendment shall become effective on January 20, 2015. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on January 20, 2015 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councihnembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8d a MEETING DATE: January20, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Eric Wollman, Chief of Police — (650) 777-4123 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Reclassifying the Communications and Records Supervisor Position to a Police Services Manager Position and Authorizing the City Manager to Include the Position in the Burlingame Association of Middle Managers Memorandum of Understanding; and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Side Letter Agreement with the Association of Police Administrators Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the reclassification of the Communications and Records Supervisor position to a Police Services Manager position and authorize the City Manager to include the position in the Burlingame Association of Mid Managers (BAMM) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and delete the Communications and Records Supervisor position. Staff also recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a side letter agreement with the Police Administrators for the Police Lieutenant position, which was authorized by the City Council on November 17, 2014. BACKGROUND As part of the current Police Department reorganization, staff has added a significant number of increasingly responsible job duties to the Communications and Records Supervisor position. These new duties are outside the scope of the Communications and Records Supervisor position and were assigned to meet the current and changing demands of the department. Due to the scope and number of changes in the job duties, staff recommends the position be reclassified to Police Services Manager. The current staffing level of the Police Department of 41.5 FTEs will remain unchanged. On November 17, 2014 the City Council authorized the new job classification of Police Lieutenant and the accompanying rate of pay. In order to implement this direction, the City now needs to enter into a side letter agreement with the Police Administrators to include the position and to add related administrative language and benefits associated with it. Staff has met and conferred with the Police Administrators on the terms of the side letter. Police Services Manager In 2014, the day-to-day duties of operating the Police Department's Property and Evidence Unit were transferred from a sworn Police Officer to a civilian Property and Evidence Clerk. This was done for several reasons. The Property and Evidence Unit was becoming increasingly more Police Services Manager Reclassification and Side Letter with Police Administrators January 20, 2015 specialized due to advances in technology, continuous changes in legal requirements, and additional safety requirements. Exposure to potential liability increased as well with these changes. With sworn Police Officers rotating out of this specialty assignment every two years, the incumbents struggled to gain the necessary expertise in this area prior to being reassigned. Hiring a civilian specialist kept a continuous level of expertise in this position, reduced liability exposure, and significantly enhanced the efficiency of the department. In addition, Police Officers are far more valuable to the organization and the community working in a law enforcement capacity rather than in a technical position that could better be handled by a civilian employee. The civilianization of these types of positions has become the industry standard for the reasons mentioned above. When this body of work was reassigned from a Police Officer to a civilian Clerk, the supervision and management of the Property and Evidence Unit were also transferred from a Sergeant to the Communications and Records Supervisor. As part of the recent reorganization that created the two Lieutenant positions, the department lost an Administrative Sergeant position. The duties of this position have been redistributed among various personnel. Staff felt that assigning the supervision and management of the Property and Evidence Unit to the Communications and Records Supervisor helped with this redistribution. In addition to the supervision and management of the Property and Evidence Unit, the Communications and Records Supervisor has also been placed in charge of crime analysis. The use of crime analysis has increased significantly in recent years and, with its ability to fight and deter crime and communicate crime trends to communities, crime analysis plays a major role today in law enforcement. The recent conversion of our Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management Systems has enhanced the department's ability to analyze crime statistics, and staff has identified crime analysis as an area for growth and opportunity. Managing Police Records, Communications, Property and Evidence, and Crime Analysis is a significant increase to the duties originally assigned to the Communications and Records Supervisor, requiring additional training and management -level expertise. This body of work is more consistent with the job duties of a Police Services Manager, a position which is used successfully in many other jurisdictions such as San Bruno, Menlo Park, Los Altos, and South San Francisco. The proposed salary range for this reclassified position, which is 13.5% above the Communications and Records Supervisor position, is: Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E $8001.72 $8400.46 $8812.76 $9244.03 $9705.15 The salary increase takes into consideration the average salary range of the cities listed above, as well as the fact that the current salary range of the Communications and Records Supervisor position falls well behind the average salary range of Communications and Records Supervisors in comparable cities within San Mateo County. The Communications and Records Supervisor is an exempt civil service position, and the employee in this position receives 60 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year, consistent with the leave granted to most other members of BAMM. The Police Services Manager will also be an exempt civil service position; the employee will be entitled to 60 hours of administrative leave per fiscal year and the same benefits as those received by the rest of the BAMM members. In 2 Police Services Manager Reclassification and Side Letter with Police Administrators January 20, 2015 addition, the uniform allowance the Communications and Records Supervisor receives will be transferred to the Police Services Manager position. Police Lieutenants The new Police Lieutenant job classification is a civil service exempt position, which means the incumbents are not eligible for overtime. The City's longstanding practice in these situations is to offer administrative leave as compensation for the loss of overtime earnings. (Police Officers, Corporals, and Sergeants are eligible for overtime pay; Police Captains are not.) In order to clarify the benefits afforded to Police Lieutenants, the Police Administrators MOU must be amended to include language covering the benefits, bumping rights and administrative leave provision (84 hours annually, consistent with the administrative leave granted to Police Captains). A side letter will contain the administrative details. FISCAL IMPACT The salary cost of reclassifying the Communications and Records Supervisor position to a Police Manager position, effective 2/1/15, is approximately $3500 for the remainder of the 2014-15 fiscal year. If the $3500 cannot be covered in the Police Department budget, a request for the additional funds will be made during the mid -year budget process. The cost of the Police Lieutenant benefit package was authorized by the City Council in the November 17, 2014 report. No additional funds are requested. Exhibits • Resolution regarding Police Services Manager • Resolution regarding side letter agreement with the Police Administrators • Police Services Manager Job Description 3 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECLASSIFYING THE COMMUNICATIONS AND RECORDS SUPERVISOR POSITION TO A POLICE SERVICES MANAGER POSITION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE THE POSITION IN THE BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF MIDDLE MANAGERS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, in 2014, the day-to-day duties of operating the Police Department's Property and Evidence Unit were transferred from a sworn Police Officer to a civilian Property and Evidence Clerk; and WHEREAS, hiring a civilian specialist kept a continuous level of expertise in this position, reduced exposure to liability, and significantly enhanced the efficiency of the department; and WHEREAS, Police Officers are far more valuable to the organization and the community working in a law enforcement capacity rather than in a technical position that could better be handled by a civilian employee; and WHEREAS, when this body of work was reassigned from a Police Officer to a civilian Clerk, the supervision and management of the Property and Evidence Unit was also transferred from a Sergeant to the Communications and Records Supervisor; and WHEREAS, in addition to the supervision and management of the Property and Evidence Unit, the Communications and Records Supervisor has also been placed in charge of crime analysis; and WHEREAS, managing Police Records, Communications, Property and Evidence, and Crime Analysis, is a significant increase to the duties originally assigned to the Communications and Records Supervisor, requiring additional training and management level expertise; and WHEREAS, this body of work is more consistent with the job duties of a Police Services Manager, a position which is used successfully in many other jurisdictions such as San Bruno, Menlo Park, Los Altos, and South San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the proposed salary range for this reclassified position, which is 13.5% above the Communications and Records Supervisor position, takes into consideration the average salary range of the cities listed above, as well as the fact that the current salary range of the Communications and Records Supervisor position falls well behind the average salary range of Communications and Records Supervisors in comparable cities within San Mateo County; and WHEREAS, the cost of reclassifying the position is approximately $3500 for the remainder of the 2014-2015 fiscal year. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Communications and Records Supervisor Position is reclassified to a Police Services Manager position. 2. The salary range for this position is: Ste I Step B Step C Step D Step E $8001.72 1 $8400.46 $8812.76 $9244.03 $9705.15 3. The City Manager is authorized to include the position in the Burlingame Association of Middle Managers Memorandum of Understanding. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 20th day of January, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS WHEREAS, on November 17, 2014, the City Council authorized the new job classification of Police Lieutenant and the accompanying rate of pay; and WHEREAS, in order to implement this direction, the City now needs to enter into a side letter agreement with the Police Administrators to include the position and to add related administrative language and benefits associated with it; and WHEREAS, the new Police Lieutenant job classification is a civil service exempt position, which means the incumbents are not eligible for overtime; and WHEREAS, the City's longstanding practice in these situations is to offer administrative leave as compensation for the loss of overtime earnings; and WHEREAS, the Police Administrators MOU must be amended to include language covering the benefits, bumping rights and administrative leave provision (84 hours annually, consistent with the administrative leave granted to Police Captains) for Police Lieutenants; and WHEREAS, staff has met and conferred with the Police Administrators on the terms of the side letter. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute a side letter agreement with the Association of Police Administrators. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 20th day of January, 2015, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk MUM �uR�irvcgm� POLICE SERVICES MANAGER Class specifications are only intended to present a descriptive summary of the range of duties and responsibilities associated with specified positions. Therefore, specifications may not include all duties performed by individuals within a classification. In addition, specifications are intended to outline the minimum qualifications necessary for entry into the class and do not necessarily convey the qualifications of incumbents with the position. DEFINITION The Police Services Manager holds a management position under general supervision of a Police Captain or the Chief of Police. The Police Services Manager is responsible for the day-to-day operations of police records, communications, property and evidence, and crime analysis. The position performs highly responsible and technical analytical work; and provides key assistance to the Chief and Captain in overseeing key divisions in the Police Department. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS (Include, but are not limited to the following) • Manage day-to-day operations of police records, communications, property and evidence. • Coordinate and ensure prompt exchange of reports, citations, and other essential correspondence between the department and all applicable courts of law. • Respond to requests for crime analysis, crime data, and other applicable data; research cases, prepare reports, memos, and correspondence for distribution department wide, citywide, or to the public regarding these requests; make presentations as necessary. • Develop, modify, and implement changes to policies and procedures for police records, communications, property and evidence, and information technology. • Supervise full-time, part-time, and per -diem staff in the Police Records and Dispatch Center as well as the Court Officer. • Conduct timely performance reviews. • Provide oversight in preparing work schedules for staff, ensuring adequate coverage for all shifts. • Assist in the development and management of the Police Department budget. • Manage and oversee computer assisted dispatch, radio communications systems, property and evidence modules, and related contracts. • Represent the City and act as the official City representative on applicable court -related matters. • Ensure records, property, and evidence -related audits are conducted. • Provide oversight of the communications virtual dispatch agreements. • Respond to Public Records Acts requests, coordinate and communicate with the City Attorney on these matters, and respond to other legal mandated reporting. • Supervise, train, and evaluate assigned staff, and implement disciplinary procedures when appropriate. • Attend schools, conferences, and other group meetings to keep abreast of current trends and innovations in the fields of records management, public safety dispatching, crime analysis, information technology, and police property and evidence; represent the department in a variety of local, county, state and other meetings. • Identify opportunities for improving service delivery methods and procedures. • Serve as the project manager on assigned projects; assemble teams for projects; confer with project staff to outline plan and to assign tasks and the resources required for each task; establish project milestones; ensure project progresses on schedule within prescribed budget. • Assess need for new equipment, systems and programs for the department; work with vendors in researching and selecting new products; purchase products as assigned. • Work with federal, state, and county government agencies in the area of auditing, reporting and information sharing as necessary. OTHER DUTIES • May be required to speak and present information to the public or community groups. • Provide direction and information to the public. • May appear in court and testify when necessary. • Research grant funding opportunities for the department; prepare federal and state grant applications to establish programs and obtain additional funding for the department; prepare progress reports on grants; maintain files and documentation. • Provide information technology support to staff, independent contractors, vendors, and others as needed. QUALIFICATIONS (The following are minimal qualifications necessary for entry into the classification) Education and/or Experience Possession of a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. Direct experience in the operation of a police communication system or in the operation of a modern automated records department; ability to learn the other operations. Experience working in a police organization. Familiarity with principles of management and supervision. Knowledge of the basic operation of law enforcement records, communications and property and evidence functions. Experience in a supervisory capacity. Knowledge of police records, police communications, property and evidence, information technology, modem office procedures, pertinent Federal, State, and local laws; general business software, and computer assisted dispatch. License/Certificates Possession of, or current eligibility for, a Basic Dispatch Certificate by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST). Possession of a valid California Class C driver's license. KNOWLEDGE/ABILITIES/SKILLS (The following are a representative sample of the knowledge/abilities and skills necessary to perform essential duties of the position.) Knowledge of All aspects of police records, communications, property and evidence, and information technology Ability to Effectively plan and coordinate the work of others. Gather and analyze facts and draw logical conclusions. Prepare concise, accurate and comprehensive reports; maintain police records; mentor, motivate and support subordinates to greater efforts and improved work methods while inspiring and maintaining positive morale. Develop, establish, and apply goals of the department. Interpret and respond to instruction, policies, and procedures; exercise sound judgment, acumen and discretion in decision making. Interact positively and cooperate with co-workers, respond politely to customers, work as a team member, function under demanding time pressure, respond in a positive manner to supervision, and attend work and perform duties on a regular and consistent basis. Skills Possess the knowledge of theories, principles and practices of communication and records divisions for municipal law enforcement agency; principles of management, supervision, training and employee development; principles of customer services and community relations; operational requirements of police and fire agencies; pertinent local, state, and federal law, rules, and regulations; use and/or management of dispatch records management and computer-aided dispatch systems. In addition, possess the ability to plan, organize, direct, and coordinate the activities of a public safety communications dispatch center, communicate effectively orally and in writing, and possess the ability to develop maintain effective working relationships with City Officials, other governmental agencies, department employees and the general public. aw January 20, 2015 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Mayor Nagel, Vice Mayor Keighran, and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame, California (council@burlingame.ore) 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 JOHN DI BENE AT&T Services, Inc. General Attorney 2600 Camino Ramon Legal Department Room 2W901 San Ramon, CA 94583 925.543.1548 Phone 925.867.3869 Pax jdb@an.com Re: Special Construction Requirements Within The Public Right -Of -Way Of Downtown Burlingame Avenue Dear Mayor Nagel, Vice -Mayor Keighran and Members of the City Council: Item 9(a) on tonight's agenda is a draft ordinance that would impose a 5 -year moratorium along a portion of Burlingame Avenue. The proposed ordinance exceeds the City's limited authority under Sections 7901 and 7901.1 of the California Public Utility Code to impose only limited "time, place, and manner" regulations of telephone corporations' use of the public rights-of-way to build their networks. To the extent the ordinance would deny AT&T or other telephone corporations the right to access or install their networks along Burlingame Avenue, or to the extent the additional approval process required by the ordinance would create an excessive delay for issuance of an encroachment permit, that could create an unecessary legal dispute. Such a dispute would be unnecessary because AT&T routinely works with cities throughout the State of California on moratoriums that protect their streets. There are a wide variety of acceptable time, place, and manner regulations that are permissible. We at AT&T would be happy to work with your staff to help Burlingame craft similar rules. Unfortunately, we were not consulted on the draft ordinance and only learned of it through the City's public notice process. AT&T urges the City Council to reject this ordinance and direct the staff to work to fashion an ordinance that will properly protect the City's interests without ty rights to access the public rights-of-way. Kathleen Kane, City Attorney (kkane@burlinaame.om) Mary Ellen Kiemey, City Clerk (mkearney@burHngame ora) 9 BAR STAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 9a MEETING DATE: January20, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Public Hearing to Introduce an Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add a New Chapter 12.05 for Special Construction Requirements Within the Public Right -of -Way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council hold a Public Hearing to introduce the attached ordinance amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 12.05 for special construction requirements within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue, by: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance. 2. By motion, waiving further reading and introducing the proposed ordinance. 3. Conducting a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 4. Discussing the proposed ordinance and determining whether to bring it back for second reading and adoption. 5. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND On February 19, 2013, the City Council approved the construction contract for the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape and Utilities Construction Project with an estimated budget of $16.5M. The streetscape project included new widened sidewalks with pavers; vehicular pavers in the parking areas, crosswalks and intersections; concrete bands; curb and gutter; asphalt concrete roadway; trees; tree grates; landscaping; planter pots; hanging baskets; decorative tree lights; benches; kiosks; gateway monuments; bike racks; retractable bollards; news racks; trash receptacles; smart parking meters; historic markers; decorative streetlights; electrical conduits; upgrades of the City's traffic signal; and improvements to the City's potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems. The project construction has been completed, and staff is in the process of finalizing the contract to bring it to a future Council meeting for acceptance. The project was funded by a combination of parking meter rates, Downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners, utilities enterprise funds, storm drain fees, gas tax monies, and grants. Ordinance Amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add a January 20, 2015 New Chapter 12.05 for Special Construction Requirements Within the Public Right -of -Way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue DISCUSSION In order to preserve, maintain, and protect the streetscape improvements and investments made by the City and the Downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners, the City's Municipal Code needs to be amended to include comprehensive conditions and provisions to limit excavation of new sidewalks and roadways; implement specifications, details, and requirements for proper restoration of streetscape improvements; and minimize impacts on Burlingame Avenue. Staff recommends that the Council introduce the attached ordinance adding a new Chapter 12.05 to Title 12 of the Municipal Code for compliance with these special construction requirements within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue. Following are the key elements of the proposed ordinance: • A five-year moratorium prohibiting construction work within the public right-of-way in order to preserve, maintain, and protect the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape improvements; • During the five-year moratorium, only work deemed by the Public Works Department as necessary for emergency, public health and safety, or special circumstances such as when pre-empted by law, may be allowed for construction; • Any proposed construction work shall be first reviewed and approved through a Public Works Department plan review process; and • All work within the public right-of-way shall conform to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details for all aspects of such work, including, but not limited to, construction methods; materials; restoration of sidewalk, parking area, crosswalk and intersection pavers; curb and gutter; roadway structural section; planters; and trench backfill. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with implementing the special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details under Chapter 12.05 will be covered by prospective applicants through plan .check fees based on actual staff time involved, bonds required as part of the Public Works Department plan review process, and encroachment permit fees. Exhibits: • Ordinance amending Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code • Downtown Burlingame Avenue Special Conditions, Provisions, Specifications and Details • Downtown Burlingame Avenue Standard Details Drawing • Downtown Burlingame Avenue Limits Map 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW CHAPTER 12.05 FOR SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE The City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and its Downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners have made significant investments in the improvement of Downtown Burlingame Avenue: and WHEREAS, the Downtown Burlingame Avenue improvements include, but are not limited to, design and installation of new: widened sidewalks with pedestrian pavers; vehicular pavers in the parking areas, crosswalks and intersections; concrete bands; curb and gutter; asphalt concrete roadway; trees; tree grates; landscaping; planter pots; hanging baskets; decorative tree lights; benches; kiosks; gateway monuments; bike racks; retractable bollards; news racks; trash receptacles; smart parking meters; historic markers; decorative streetlights; electrical conduits; upgrades of the City's traffic signal; and improvements to the City's potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve, maintain, and protect these improvements, the City must implement a five-year construction moratorium with comprehensive special requirements limiting construction activities within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue to work deemed by the Public Works Department as necessary for emergency purposes, public health and safety, and special circumstances such as when pre-empted by law and for construction involving provision of water, sewer, fire protection and other utility services to properties along Burlingame Avenue; and WHEREAS, to insure any work done is restored in compliance with the characteristics and standards of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue improvements, the City must implement the special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details; and WHEREAS, for compliance with these special construction requirements within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue, the Public Works Department staff developed a new Chapter 12.05 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is amended as follows: (a) A new Chapter 12.05, is added to Title 12 of the Burlingame Municipal Code and shall read as follows: Chapter 12.05 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE 12.05.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to preserve, maintain, and to protect improvements made by the City and its Downtown Burlingame Avenue property owners as part of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project. More importantly, the purpose of this chapter is to insure any work done within the public right-of-way in Downtown Burlingame Avenue is restored completely and to the satisfaction of the City in accordance with the Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details. 12.05.020 Scope. This chapter includes special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details necessary to ensure compliance with City Council direction to preserve, maintain, and protect the City's Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape improvements. The requirements include, but are not limited to, a five (5) year construction moratorium, special conditions and provisions for restoration if work is approved for emergency repairs, to preserve public health and safety, or under special circumstances as determined by the Department of Public Works, and minimizing as best as possible any impacts to Downtown Burlingame Avenue. 12.05.030 Definitions. Whenever in this chapter the words or phrases hereinafter defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the following definitions: (a) "Downtown Burlingame Avenue" is the entire length of Burlingame Avenue from EI Camino Real to California Drive and extensions along side streets such as EI Camino Real, Primrose Road, Park Road, Lorton Avenue, Hatch Lane, and California Drive, and as shown on the map attached to this ordinance. (b) "Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Improvements" completed as part of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project, include, but are not limited to, new widened sidewalks with their associated pattern -laid pavers; pavers in the parking areas, crosswalks and intersections; concrete bands; curb and gutter; asphalt concrete roadway; trees; tree grates; landscaping; planter pots; hanging baskets; decorative tree lights; benches; kiosks; gateway monuments; bike racks; retractable bollards; news racks; trash receptacles; smart parking meters; historic markers; decorative streetlights; electrical conduits; upgrades of the City's traffic signal; and utility upgrades to the City's potable water, sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems and all associated appurtenances. (c) "Public Works Department" means the City of Burlingame Public Works Department. (d) "Moratorium" is a temporary prohibition of any construction or work in the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue within the timeframe identified herein. (e) "Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details" is a set of documents providing requirements with which any construction, reconstruction, repair, alteration or grading, opening, excavation in any sidewalk concrete and pavers, curb and gutter, planter, parking area concrete and pavers, roadway; crosswalk, or intersection, or operation of construction equipment, within the area identified in this Chapter, must comply. 12.05.040 Construction Moratorium. Effective thirty days from the adoption of this ordinance, a five (5) year construction moratorium is implemented for Downtown Burlingame Avenue. The construction moratorium will end on March 1, 2020. No person, firm or corporation shall construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or grade, open or cause to be opened, or make any excavation in any sidewalk concrete and pavers; curb and gutter; planter; parking area concrete and pavers; roadway; crosswalk; or intersection; or to operate construction equipment within Downtown Burlingame Avenue during the construction moratorium, except as permitted under the exceptions set forth herein. 12.05.050 Construction allowed for purposes of emergency repairs, to protect the public health and safety, or special circumstances as determined by the Public Works Department. Any person, firm or corporation desiring to request permission to construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or grade, open or cause to be opened, or make any excavation in any sidewalk concrete and pavers; curb and gutter; planter; parking area concrete and pavers; roadway; crosswalk; or intersection; or to operate construction equipment within Downtown Burlingame Avenue shall make a written request to the Public Works Department setting forth the purpose and extent of such work to be performed or caused to be performed by such person. Following the review of request, the Public Works Department may grant special permission if the proposed work is deemed necessary for emergencies, public health and safety, and special circumstances. Such a written request shall include: (a) Drawings showing location of work area, details of proposed work, and restoration of public right-of-way per Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details. (b) Such other information as the Public Works Department shall find necessary to the determination of whether permission shall be granted. Permission for construction work shall be granted or denied within the discretion of the Director of Public Works or his or her designee, which determination shall be final. In the case of an emergency or immediate and serious threat to the public health and safety, a property owner or business tenant may make only such repairs or take such actions as necessary to avoid serious and substantial harm to property or risk to persons without following the application procedure identified here. Further repairs or work beyond that necessary to contain or stabilize an emergency situation must be approved through the process identified in this section. 12.05.060 Permit and fee. Any person, firm or corporation submitting a written request to the Public Works Department for permission to construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or grade, open or cause to be opened, or make any sidewalk concrete and pavers; curb and gutter; planter; parking area concrete and pavers; roadway; crosswalk; or intersection; or to operate construction equipment within Downtown Burlingame Avenue shall provide a minimum plan review deposit at the time of the request. The actual cost charged for the plan review shall be based on actual City staff time and material spent in, assessing and evaluating the request, plan review, preliminary site visit(s),meeting(s), and any other such work directly related and necessary to the processing of the request. The City may request additional deposits based on the size and scope of the proposed work. Any remaining deposit funds shall be either applied towards an application for an encroachment permit, if required and the applicant chooses to go forward with such permit, or refunded to the applicant. The Public Works Department may grant the request to perform work in whole or in part, subject to the Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details and conditions as the Public Works Department may determine are necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the public. If the requested work is approved, the applicant shall file with the Public Works Department an application for an encroachment permit prior to starting work. Applicable permit fees and bonds will be based on fees approved by the City Council. 12.05.070 Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details. The Public Works Department shall prepare the Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details for construction method and materials. These materials shall be available for review upon request at the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department may modify these conditions, provisions, specifications, and details as deemed necessary. 12.05.080 Restoration of public right-of-way. All construction work, openings, excavations, and damage caused by construction to the City infrastructure shall be restored in compliance with the Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, provisions, specifications, and details and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 12.05.090 Exercise of franchise. No person, firm or corporation shall exercise any franchise or privilege to construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or grade, open or cause to be opened, or make any excavation in, any sidewalk concrete and pavers; curb and gutter; planter; parking area concrete and pavers; roadway, crosswalk; or intersection for the purpose of laying or maintaining any pipes for the transmission of gas, water, heat, steam, high speed internet or wireless access, or other substances without having obtained permission from the Public Works Department in accordance with this ordinance. Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement this ordinance. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing occurred at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20`h day of January, 2015, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of February, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk February 2, 2015 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND DETAILS 1.0 GENERAL Per City of Burlingame Municipal Code 12.05, any work within the public right-of-way of the Downtown Burlingame Avenue limits shall require approval from the Public Works Department and shall comply with the following special conditions, specifications, details, and construction moratorium. The Downtown Burlingame Avenue limits shall be the entire length of Burlingame Avenue from EI Camino Real to California Drive, including but not limited to all paver crosswalks, intersections, and paver sidewalks and extensions along side streets such as EI Camino Real, Primrose Road, Park Road, Lorton Avenue, Hatch Lane, and California Drive. 1.01 Construction Moratorium Effective February 2, 2015, a five (5) year construction moratorium is implemented for Downtown Burlingame Avenue. No person, firm or corporation shall construct, reconstruct, repair, alter or grade, open or cause to be opened, or make any excavation in, any sidewalk concrete and pavers; curb and gutter; planter; parking area concrete and pavers; roadway; crosswalk; or intersection within Downtown Burlingame Avenue limits during the construction moratorium. The Public Works Department will consider allowing emergency work as needed on a case-by-case basis. If proposed construction work during the construction moratorium period is approved or authorized by the Public Works Department as necessary for emergency, public health and safety, or special circumstances, the work shall comply with these special conditions, specifications, and details. 2.0 PLAN REVIEW AND SUBMITTALS Any work within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue shall first obtain an approval from the Public Works Department through a plan review process. A written request along with required submittals shall be provided to the Public Works Department for review. A minimum deposit of $2,000 is required at the time of submission for plan review. The actual cost will be based on actual staff time and material spent on reviewing the request and plans. This plan review process is separate from any building permit plan review. The applicant shall provide, at a minimum, the following submittals for plan review to request an approval for any work within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue: (a) Letter stating the purpose and extent of such work to be performed within and/or affecting the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue; (b) A complete set of drawings showing location of work area, details of proposed work, and restoration of public right-of-way per Downtown Burlingame Avenue special conditions, specifications, and details; (c) Type of equipment use, if any; (d) Tentative construction schedule; and (e) A minimum plan review deposit of $2,000. The City may require additional deposit based on project scope and estimated construction cost. February 2, 2015 3.0 PERMITS AND FEES Any authorized and approved work within the public right-of-way of Downtown Burlingame Avenue, granted by the Public Works Department, shall obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. In addition to the standard fees listed under the Encroachment Permit Fee Schedule, an additional Encroachment Permit bond of $50.00 per square foot or a minimum 5 000 is required for work affecting the public right-of-way along Downtown Burlingame Avenue. 4.0 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING If work in the public right-of-way is approved by the Public Works Department, a meeting with the City of Burlingame Public Works Engineering Inspector shall take place prior to the initiation of the site work. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss and clearly understand the following: • Plan of work within City's right of way, including, but not limited to hours of work, deliveries, traffic control and/or pedestrian access within public right of way; sidewalk issues; parking; storage; loading of materials; repair of damaged public facilities such as paver at sidewalk, crosswalk, parking area, and intersection; road pavement; trenching restriction and requirements; and coordination with City projects within the vicinity. • Contact names and numbers of responsible personnel. A traffic control and/or pedestrian protection plan shall be submitted 5 days prior to the pre -construction meeting for review. 5.0 EQUIPMENT AND LOADING RESTRICTIONS ON EXISTING PAVERS Heavy construction equipment such as, but not limited to, fork lift, boom or crane truck are prohibited on pavers. Any equipment or material loading on pavers shall first be approved by the Public Works Department prior to use. If approval is granted, the contractor shall place, at a minimum, wooden boards to support and protect the pavers. In the event any pavers are damaged, it is the responsibly of the applicant and contractor to replace the paver(s) according to these special conditions, specifications, and details. 6.0 SIDEWALK CONCRETE PAVERS 6.01 General (A) Contractor performing any work with concrete pavers within the City's right- of-way must be on the City of Burlingame's pre -qualified list of concrete paver contractors. (B) Removal of existing concrete pavers will require the demolition of at least one existing paver. Carefully remove one paver by using the drilled hole to unlock and access the other pavers. The Contractor is responsible for the replacement of the drilled paver as well as any damaged pavers. The Contractor shall pay for, obtain and use similar colored pavers, which may be obtained from the Public Works Department at a cost of 50.00 per square foot. It is advised to use a full size paver for drilling so there is no need to cut a new paver later to fit into the space. February 2, 2015 (C) Concrete pavers shall be sealed as recommended by manufacturer. Manufacturer: Acker -Stone Industries, Contact: Ron Ehrler 909-376-2836 — 13296 Temescal Canyon Rd., Corona, CA 92883. Sealed shall be protected for a minimum of 24 hours before allowing traffic. 6.02 Sand Lavine Course Install dry sand to uniform depth required for flush finish after pavers are installed. The designed nominal depth shall be 1 -inch thick with no sand thickness less than %" or more than 1 Yz". Sand is to remain undisturbed prior to the installation of pavers. Moisture content of sand must remain constant. 6.03 Paver Installation (A) Before installing, clean concrete and stone pavers of all foreign material. Do not begin installation of pavers until subgrade and base have been prepared per specifications and details. (B) Screed sand bedding course to recommended depth. Sand is to remain undisturbed prior to the installation of unit pavers. Maintain constant sand moisture content. (C) Where pavers occur over concrete sub -slab, set with a mortar bed and grout as shown on the details. Pavers in the parking stall area, crosswalk, and intersection shall be cured for a minimum of 72 -hours before allowing vehicular traffic. (D) Start installation from a corner or straight edge, unless detailed otherwise, and proceed forward over the undisturbed sand bedding course with pavers as shown on details. Cut pavers with a masonry saw, clean and uniform to conform to edges without gaps. Cut pavers to avoid thin slices. (E) Install pavers plumb and true to line and grade to coincide and align with adjacent work and existing elevations. Use string lines to hold pattern lines true. Maximum vertical deflection shall not exceed 3/8 -inch under a 10 foot straightedge. All perimeter edges must be retained to secure the pavers and sand bedding course. Provide retainer as required. No paver joint shall be greater than 1/4 -inch. No perimeter edge joint shall be greater than 3/8". (F) No pavers shall be cut unless authorized by the Public Works Department. If approved, cut pavers with diamond blade masonry saw to fit if necessary. (G) Spread polymeric sand over the installed and approved pavers and sweep the sand into the paver joints. Insure all joints are full before clean up. Swept up and remove excess sand from the completed paver installation. (H) The completed paving installation shall be swept and washed down to provide a clean, finished, workmanlike hardscape pavement. (1) The final surface elevation of pavers shall not deviate more than 3/8 -inch under a 10 -foot long straightedge and 1/8 -inch between individual pavers. February 2, 2015 (J) The surface elevation of pavers shall be 1/8 to 1/4 -inch above adjacent drainage inlets, concrete collars or channels. (K) Apply approved water-based Paver Sealer after final cleanup and wash down of paving surfaces. Prior to applying Water-based Sealer, remove any stains and efflorescence using cleaners as recommended by manufacturer. During application, protect surrounding areas from over spray. All traffic, pedestrian or vehicular, shall be kept off of sealed pavers until initial cure time has been achieved. 6.04 Cleanup and Curing (A) All work shall be performed in such a way as to keep the site neat, clean and orderly. Upon completion of the work under this section, remove immediately all surplus materials, rubbish and equipment associated with or used in the performance of this work, and any and all Underground Service Alert (USA) markings. Failure to cleanup completely to the satisfactory of the Public Works Department and removal of USA marking may result in retention of portion or the entire Encroachment Permit bond by the City. (B) Reset all disturbed pavers and brush joints with sand or grout with mortar. Reseal individual pavers as required. (C) Sealed pavers shall be protected for a minimum of 24 hours before allowing traffic. (D) Pavers in the parking stall area, crosswalk, and intersection shall be cured for a minimum of 72 -hours before allowing vehicular traffic. 7.0 VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVERS 7.01 Crosswalk and Intersection Open trench excavation within pedestrian crosswalk and roadway intersection is prohibited. Any open excavation in the crosswalk or roadway intersection will require the replacement of the entire crosswalk or intersection. 7.02 Parking Area Open trench excavation perpendicular to length of Burlingame Avenue requires sawcut at joints per these standards. Open trench excavation parallel to the length of Burlingame Avenue require sawcut and removal of entire width of parking area from lip of gutter to concrete band. The contractor shall replace the entire width of the parking area for the length of the trench. 8.0 BEDDING AND BACKFILL 8.01 Bedding Material February 2, 2015 All trenches shall be over -excavated below the bottom of the pipe to limits shown on City Standard Drawing BA -01 and bedded with Class 1 permeable material. Class 1 permeable material shall extend above the top of the pipe to the level shown on City Standard Drawing BA -01 Class 1 permeable material used for bedding shall conform to the requirements for Permeable Material of the Standard Specifications of the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS). 8.02 Trench Backfill All trenches shall be backfilled between the bedding material and the road base with Controlled Density Fill (CDF). CDF shall be a workable and non -segregating 1-%: sack mix of Portland cement, fine aggregate, and water. Fly -ash may be used in the CDF mix provided a minimum of 75% by weight of the cementitious material is Portland cement. All component materials of CDF shall conform to the requirements for Portland Cement Concrete of the CALTRANS Standard Specifications. CDF shall have a maximum compressive strength of 150 -psi. 9.0 CONCRETE PAVING 9.01 General This section only applies to concrete paving within Downtown Burlingame Avenue. The work in this section includes all the work and materials associated with the removal and construction of new Portland cement concrete for sidewalks, concrete bands at back of walk, curbs, gutters, curb ramps, concrete parking, aprons, sub slabs, banding, and surface repairs in association with the various items of work, and construction of Rapid Strength Concrete (RSC) mix for new concrete sub -slab underneath the travel lanes, concrete bands, crosswalk sub -slabs and intersection concrete. Contractor shall be responsible for safety of the public, especially in sidewalk and street areas, during the project. Work sites shall be kept safe by placing adequate barricades, wood walks in commercial areas, eliminating tripping hazards, protecting stockpiled materials, and other means as appropriate. Open excavation shall be covered when no work is being performed. Steel plating shall be installed until temporary surfacing can be constructed. 9.02 Material Concrete used for all curbs, gutters, sidewalks, curb ramps, concrete bands in sidewalk, parking colored concrete section and other minor concrete work shall be Class B (6 -Sack) Portland cement concrete with %" max coarse aggregate and shall conform to the requirements of CALTRANS Standards Specifications. Concrete used for all travel lane (street) sub -slab, intersection colored concrete, and crosswalk bands and sub -slab, shall be 4000 psi Rapid Strength Concrete (RSC) and shall conform to the requirements of these special conditions, specifications, and details. February 2, 2015 Concrete paving specification for the integral colored concrete of the parking zones and intersections 'Green Slate' #3685, Manufactured by Davis Colors (800) 356-4848 or approved equal. All vehicular concrete shall have a minimum compressive strength of 4000 psi (parking concrete section, travel lane sub -slab, intersection concrete, crosswalk bands and sub -slab, parking concrete section, valley gutters and other vehicular concrete). All concrete work shall be true to line and grade as indicated on the drawings. Anchor plates, inserts and other items embedded in concrete shall be accurately secured so that they will not be displaced during placement of concrete. Finished paving surfaces shall not vary more than 1/8 -inch measured with a 10 feet metal straightedge, except at grade changes. No birdbaths or other surface irregularities will be permitted. Correct any irregularities to the satisfaction of City. 9.03 Control Joints Concrete paving includes Control Joints or weakened plane joints. Control Joints shall be installed in the curb & gutter, vertical curb, concrete bands, concrete parking, extended curb & gutter, Caltrans curb & gutter, and other concrete at the scoring locations shown on these details. In no case will the weakened plane joints be spaced more than 10 -feet apart. Control joints shall be at a depth of concrete thickness divided by 4 (example 6 -inches thick concrete d/4 = 1.5). Control joints shall be constructed with a special tool designed for such joints. The reinforcing bars should extend through the control joints. 9.04 Expansion Joints Expansion joints will be full depth with filler material. Expansion joints will be 20 -feet maximum spacing. Approved joint material shall be placed with top edge 1/4 -inch below the paved surface, and shall be securely held in place to prevent movement. Joint and other edges shall be formed in the fresh concrete using and edging tool to provide a smooth uniform impression. All edges shall be struck before and after brooming. After the curing period, expansion joints shall be carefully cleaned and filled with approved joint sealant to just below adjacent paved surface in such a manner as to avoid spilling on paved surfaces or overflow from joint. Slip dowels should be installed at expansion joints/cold joints. Prior to excavation to submit a plan mark-up showing the locations of full depth expansion joints to meet the 20 -feet maximum spacing. In the concrete parking area the expansion joints will be 16 -feet apart +/- to conform with the score lines. 9.05 Forms Forms shall be smooth on the side placed next to the concrete and shall have a true smooth upper edge and shall be rigid enough to withstand the pressure of fresh concrete without distortion. All forms shall be thoroughly cleaned and coated with form oil to prevent the concrete from adhering to them. The depth of forms shall be equal to the full depth of the concrete section being poured. Contractor shall exercise care not to injure any part of the tree in placing his forms. No cutting away of any part of the trunk or main roots to accommodate forms will be permitted. Forms shall be bent around tree February 2, 2015 trunks to provide a minimum of 2 -inch clearance for the finished sidewalk. It is the Contractor's responsibility to protect the concrete finish until acceptance by the Public Works Department. The color and finish shall be as close as possible to that of the surrounding pavement, with preference to a light broom finish and darkened with two (2) pounds dry lampblack conforming to ASTM D209 per cubic yard concrete. Concrete shall be scored to conform to the existing pattern. No concrete shall be poured until forms have been inspected and approved by the Public Works Department. 9.06 Street Sub -slab Joint and Finish The concrete street sub -slab will have expansion joints every 20 feet maximum perpendicular to the centerline. The expansion joint will traverse across the entire street. Sub -slab will have a rough finish with tack coat. Prior to pouring Contractor will submit for review the proposed method of achieving a rough finish. 9.07 Parking Area Joints and Finish The concrete parking area will have expansion joints spaced every spaced 20 feet maximum perpendicular the centerline. The concrete parking area will have weakened plane joints (d/4) spaced every spaced 10 feet maximum perpendicular the centerline. Parking Area Concrete will have a rough broom finish. 9.08 Lampblack Concrete that is not colored architecturally will require 2 Ib Lampblack per cubic yard of concrete. Slabs which are not exposed to the surface will not be colored. 10.0 ROADWAY PAVING 10.01 General The existing roadway section is 6 -inches asphalt concrete over 8 -inches concrete sub -base. The concrete sub -base shall be installed according to 9.0 CONCRETE PAVING of these special conditions, specifications, and details. The asphalt concrete shall be installed in three (3) lifts of 2 -inch each lift. An approved engineering pavement mat shall be installed between the bottom lift and the second (2nd) lift. The limits of removal and replace of roadway section shall be per these details. ATTACHMENTS: • Map of Downtown Burlingame Avenue Limits • Downtown Burlingame Avenue Standard Details Drawing BA -01 (total 4 sheets) Z o N C5 m W 34n mmd)w lZI a z a r a F5 $6 o m uj W ma z m Qy" � �•' It8 uj=10 3i w¢ o m ZQO Z U N O 0 'Qi,, fi' 0 - O w U�Fr] � \ % � N ¢¢� IQ/11Z��/OZ N Z w Q ¢»¢ Z W xCi .45NJ� J� O N N A K U 5 VZ Y Styr@j5/ DOE a�o J> O m U F U N¢ N > O � GI ¢ '•P' " C) i•1 U N Nzmo Z a .,z "M<4 Q m um�o m z J J Q N 0 U) a a y pK F� z z w Z g Q y LLI p 5vvvwi pOW Z ao Q U �z § F - v wa o �< < W Z(n m zz W �z O d' W v za [' 3m F z Wa wQZ W w ¢ a W O z C 3 C z o� ao 0 a U F- W K � FSiO i N w—i 'L � U y d w U m J 0. U W O QUpy ¢ F 0. W=a ZN 6 .opm JU B¢ U O JW w A.M(� O �� wo 0 gSqm O m W Z yN a r.ZZ gg CC p V W m %O o�n is =1z Z LL f omm H z a0 (n Q z Q R' a "zgz rc F 0 a ww �oN rrc /•�� z N W am zo rcNa a 0 2wgwww a� D M. N U U U m m xJzzw �� Uz 2 �a z¢ aOU Q_ zN za aF¢O wwZ wWM Y NJ OW00NQ Y p w O E¢ Z- m m J = W Z U w O w O 3Q €iil \ ONZC~ aKl~/lw WQ¢(a/IO�VIF ww :wc Oa<zQwaW .01-Lo YU w WW ¢wZpoz , tiowWWDOOm 0 w ¢WxKdwxwz O wDOZZNO WmmNNl mU¢QQJ �FW 0 u," ",,, z 34nN 'i a: z. z. m —PIPE L %A1 ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR MAINS r1 NOT TO SCALE 3 LIFTS OF 2" AC TRENCH ENGINEERLMAT NPBETWEEN -T 12' MIN. 6' woo P5 CONCRETE m SEE NOTE 5 INSERT SLIP DOWEL w 24' O.C. �JOINT (TYP.) SIDES 1.5 SACK ....._.. ({... ;";.. e_. �:.. ON BOTH SIDES �®21 ir•�r.�r�-6'irtil, —PIPE L B ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR SERVICES AND LATERALS �UJ NOT TO SCALE ice.. DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE APPROVED BY DRAWING BUR{.INGAME ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION DATE BA -A- 01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/2/15 SHEET 2 OF 4 Oom >zo <z MILL 2' AND PAVE 2' FULL WDTH, 20' MIN., OF ROADWAY f 00 oQmW OR 10' MIN. TO CENTERLINE IF ENTIRE TRENCH IS WITHIN ONE TRAVEL LANE �1A'Ip SAWCUT ACJ' PAVEMENT w aM~j 3LIFTS OF 2' AC iwm w o (6' TOTAL) PATH PAVEMENT TRENCH i A p Q ENGINEER MAT IN BETWEEN o x O D' 0 I2' MIN.SI I� r MILL 2' AND I I I 112" MIN I I PAVE 2' co Z m O m —PIPE L %A1 ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR MAINS r1 NOT TO SCALE 3 LIFTS OF 2" AC TRENCH ENGINEERLMAT NPBETWEEN -T 12' MIN. 6' woo P5 CONCRETE m SEE NOTE 5 INSERT SLIP DOWEL w 24' O.C. �JOINT (TYP.) SIDES 1.5 SACK ....._.. ({... ;";.. e_. �:.. ON BOTH SIDES �®21 ir•�r.�r�-6'irtil, —PIPE L B ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR SERVICES AND LATERALS �UJ NOT TO SCALE ice.. DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE APPROVED BY DRAWING BUR{.INGAME ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION DATE BA -A- 01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/2/15 SHEET 2 OF 4 C PAVEMENT SAWCUT ACJ' PAVEMENT ..:_ •'. ( ' _. .. ;. .. 6" 4000 PSI CONCRETE y �; INSERT SLIP DOWEL 24' O.C. AT JOINT (TYP.) �¢ 1.5SACK •" T ON BOTH SIDES n> CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL . ENGNEERPAVEMENT MAT (CDF) F' iTRACER WIRE REWIRED FOR WATER MAIN ONLY CLASS 1 16 —PIPE L %A1 ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR MAINS r1 NOT TO SCALE 3 LIFTS OF 2" AC TRENCH ENGINEERLMAT NPBETWEEN -T 12' MIN. 6' woo P5 CONCRETE m SEE NOTE 5 INSERT SLIP DOWEL w 24' O.C. �JOINT (TYP.) SIDES 1.5 SACK ....._.. ({... ;";.. e_. �:.. ON BOTH SIDES �®21 ir•�r.�r�-6'irtil, —PIPE L B ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION FOR SERVICES AND LATERALS �UJ NOT TO SCALE ice.. DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE APPROVED BY DRAWING BUR{.INGAME ASPHALT ROADWAY TRENCH SECTION DATE BA -A- 01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/2/15 SHEET 2 OF 4 H (TIP.) REMOVE AND REPLACE FULL MOTH, 6- MINIMUM, OF VEHICULAR PAVER PARKING AREA, w S' 4000 PSI -� CONCRETE 1.5 SACK— CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL (CDF) Om 00 oo m I�Cr I m pD SAWCUT (TYP.) aD IDy INSERT SUP DONEL 24' O.C. AT JOINT (TIP.) ON BOTH SIDES ,—TRACER WIRE REQUIRED FOR WATER MAIN ONLY —PIPE TRENCH SECTION FOR MAINS WITHIN VEHICULAR CONCRETE rr.1 PAVER PARKING AREA V NOT TO SCALE REMOVE AND REPLACE VEHICULAR PAVER IN PARKING AREA sAwcuT (TYP.)-� F"' I `SAWCUT (TYP.I AT PAVER JOINT WTMr� AT PAVER JOINT Y 6 4000 PSI CONCRETE iw �Od 1.5 SACK— ^� CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL ] (CDF) CLASS 1 PERMEABLE —PIPE q INSERT SUPO.C. AT JOINTINT (TYP.) ON BOTH SIDES TRENCH SECTION FOR SERVICES AND LATERALS WITHIN VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVER PARKING AREA L / NOT TO SCALE APPROVED BY DRAWING DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE TRENCH SECTION IN NO. BURLINGAME VEHICULAR CONCRETE PAVER IN PARKING AREA DATE BA -01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/2/15 SHEET 3 OF 4 CONCRETE CURB B GUTTER TO HAVE EKPANSION JOINTS EVERY 20' MAI ANO WEAKENED PLAN JOINTS EVERY 10'. JOINTS TO BE SURVEYED TO ALIGN WITH 1 =►{ CONCRETE BAND JOINTS @ MATCH EXISTING GRADE PARKING CONCRETE BAND JOINTS 6' THICK CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASF. BOX COMPACTED c- MODIFIED CITY STANDARD CURB AND GUTTER L NOT TO SCALE 12" 6' THICK CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE, 90% COMPACTED �1 12" CONCRETE BAND NOT TO SCALE AGGREGATE BASE, 90%1 11 COMPACTED - - - - CONCRETE PAVER (PEDESTRIAN) SIDEWALK V NOT TO SCALE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME AVENUE APPROVED BY DRAWING BURLiNGAME NO' ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS DATE BA -01 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 2/2/15 SHEET 4 OF 4 3y O0 O H Z- 3 oLL G a a a AGENDA NO: 9b STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: January20, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director— (650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Introduce the following ordinance by title only, waiving further reading: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance)". 2. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the ordinance. 3. Following conclusion of the public hearing, provide direction to staff regarding any desired changes to the proposed ordinance. 4. Direct staff to place adoption of the proposed ordinance on the February 2, 2015 regular meeting agenda of the City Council. BACKGROUND State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, was first enacted in 1979. The law requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income does not exceed specific thresholds. Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific affordability levels may be eligible for: • a "density bonus" to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning; 1 -introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance January 20, 2015 • use of density bonus parking standards; • incentives reducing site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural requirements that result in financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; • waiver of development standards that would otherwise make the increased density physically impossible to construct; • an additional density bonus if a childcare facility is provided. A density bonus may be approved only in conjunction with a development permit (i.e. tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and incentives will be granted at the applicant's request based on specific criteria. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale. Jurisdictions are required to adopt a density bonus ordinance prior to or in conjunction with the final certification of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in January 2015. The updated Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element includes 35 different programs, each designed to respond to various aspects of the community's housing needs. No one program is able to address every housing issue in itself, but each has an important place in contributing to a comprehensive housing strategy. The Density Bonus Ordinance (and the previous Inclusionary Ordinance) is intended to allow new housing development to contribute towards the community's need to provide housing opportunities for a range of households and incomes. In this respect, the Density Bonus Ordinance is an implementation of Housing Element Program H(C-2), which calls for incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. Additional background and discussion of the Density Bonus Ordinance can be found in the staff reports provided for the November 17, 2014 and January 5, 2015 City Council meetings. Those reports are included as attachments, the remainder of this report provides follow-up analysis to Council comments. DISCUSSION The City Council last considered the Density Bonus Ordinance at its January 5, 2015 meeting (meeting minutes attached). Councilmembers requested modifications to the ordinance to eliminate references to interior finishes and to minimum dwelling unit sizes. Interior Finishes: Typically, the City does not review or regulate interior finishes of projects. However, the existing Inclusionary Housing regulations in Code Section 25.63.040(b) state that the design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the total project development in terms of appearance, construction materials unit layout, and finished ualit (emphasis added). While the Draft Density Bonus Ordinance presented to the City Council at its January 5, 2015 meeting proposed retaining these standards (as well as adding additional standards), members of the City Council questioned whether those standards should remain. Councilmembers noted that base -grade finishes could be acceptable and represent significant 2 •Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance January 20, 2015 cost savings, and furthermore noted that the City does not typically regulate interior finishes. Therefore, the references have been removed from the draft ordinance. Minimum Dwelling Unit Size: Section 25.63.030(d) of the draft ordinance carries over the Minimum Dwelling Unit Size standards from the existing Inclusionary Housing regulations. Presumably, those standards were included to address concerns that affordable units would be undersized compared to non -restricted units in the same development. However, the unit size standards have been somewhat superseded by new language proposed in 25.63.030(c) that specifies that the number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non -restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted units with more bedrooms. Furthermore, the minimum size standards may not be responsive to changing housing preferences and types such as efficiency units and "micro" units. Given that the above language conveys the intent that the affordable units be representative of the overall mix of units in the development, the Minimum Dwelling Unit Size standards in Section 25.63.030(d) are redundant and can be eliminated. In approving a project, a finding would need to be made confirming that the affordable units were consistent with the overall development in terms of bedroom mix and average size. Additional clarifications: Councilmembers identified some other provisions of the draft ordinance that were in need of clarification: • In Section 25.63.030(c) of the ordinance, there was reference to "general plan standards' but it was unclear whether the reference was to the City's General Plan (policy document) or to the general nature of the plan of the project. The language was carried over from the existing Inclusionary Housing regulations, but does not appear to contribute to the clarity of the regulation. Therefore the references have been removed from the draft ordinance. • Section 25.63.020(g) has references to a below-market rate housing program adopted by the City (i.e., inclusionary housing program), and to impact and in -lieu fees. These references are adapted from State legislation, but upon further consideration are not currently applicable to Burlingame. The Density Bonus Ordinance will replace the existing Inclusionary Housing program, and the provision of affordable units will become discretionary. Furthermore, while impact and in -lieu fees will be evaluated in coming months in conjunction with a nexus study, the City does not currently have a program for such fees. Should the City adopt such fees in the future, their applicability to the density bonus can be considered at that time. Section 25.63.040(c) carries over from the Inclusionary Housing regulations an incentive to allow a building height up to 46 feet without a Conditional Use Permit. However this incentive would only be applicable to zones where a conditional use permit is required for buildings more than 35 feet in height (R-3, R-4, BMU, CAR and MMU districts). The wording of the incentive has been revised to provide further clarification. F Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Density Bonus Ordinance • CEQA Resolution • January 5, 2015 City Council Staff Report • November 17, 2014 City Council Staff Report January 20, 2015 4 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING CHAPTER 25.63 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE) WHEREAS State Law requires the adoption of a Density Bonus Ordinance, under Government Code §65915-65919; and WHEREAS the City's existing Inclusionary Housing provisions require modification to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS current regulations should be updated to reflect governing state law and account for local conditions; and WHEREAS efficiency and transparency are served by combining the objectives served by the existing Inclusionary Housing provisions into the required Density Bonus Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows: DIVISION 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.63 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following: 25.63.010 Purpose. (a) It is the City Council's intent that this chapter be implemented in a manner consistent with the provisions set forth in Government Code §§65915-65919, hereinafter the "density bonus law." This chapter creates procedures for identifying qualifying developments, and the submission, review, and granting of incentives and concessions consistent with state law. (b) All applicable provisions of the density bonus law are hereby incorporated by reference and shall be the default law unless otherwise provided by this chapter. (c) This chapter shall not abrogate the any other requirements set forth by federal, state, or local law, including but not limited to California Environmental Quality Act requirements and Burlingame Municipal Code. 25.63.015 Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings when used in this chapter. All other terms shall be interpreted consistent with the meaning set forth in the density bonus law. 1 ORDINANCE NO. (a) "Affordable units" shall collectively mean units qualifying as "very low," "lower," and "moderate" income units as used in this chapter and in the density bonus law. (b) `Applicant" shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, entity, or any combination thereof, who seeks a density bonus and/or concessions as defined in this section. (c) "Child care facility" shall mean a child day care facility other than a family day care home, including, but not limited to, infant centers, preschools, extended day care facilities, and schoolage child care centers. (d) "Concessions" shall be interchangeable with "incentives," unless otherwise indicated. The meaning shall be consistent with Government Code §65915(k). (e) "Density bonus" shall mean a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density as of the date of the application. (f) "Development" shall have the meaning set forth in Government Code §65915(i). (g) "Incentives" shall be interchangeable with "concessions," unless otherwise indicated. The meaning shall be consistent with Government Code §65915(k). (h) "Lower income" shall have the same definition set forth in Health and Safety Code §50079.5. (i) "Moderate income" shall have the same definition set forth in Health and Safety Code §50093. (j) "Specific adverse impact" shall have the same definition as set forth in Government Code §65589.5(d)(2). (k) "Very low income" shall have the same definition as set forth in Health and Safety Code §50105. 25.63.020 Density Bonus. This section describes the density bonuses that will be provided, at the request of an applicant, when that applicant provides restricted affordable units as described below. (a) The city shall grant a 20 percent (20%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least any one of the following in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government ORDINANCE NO. Code Section 65915: (1) At least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to lower income households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units, a development will receive an additional one and one-half percent (1.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density; or (2) At least five percent (5%) of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to very low income households. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted very low income units, a development will receive an additional two and one-half percent (2.5%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density; or (3) A senior citizen housing development; or (4) A qualifying mobile home park. (b) The city shall grant a five percent (5%) density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more additional dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct, in accordance with the requirements of this Section and Government Code Section 65915, at least 10 percent (10%) of the total dwelling units in a common interest development as defined in California Civil Code Section 4100 for moderate income households, provided that all dwelling units in the development are offered to the public for purchase. For each one percent (1%) increase in the percentage of restricted moderate income units, a development will receive an additional one percent (1%) density bonus up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the maximum residential density. (c) No additional density bonus shall be authorized for a senior citizen development or qualifying mobile home park beyond the density bonus authorized by subsection (a) of this section. (d) When calculating the number of permitted density bonus units, any fractions of units shall be rounded to the next highest number. An applicant may elect to receive a density bonus that is less than the amount permitted by this section; however, the city shall not be required to similarly reduce the number of restricted affordable units required to be dedicated pursuant to this section and Government Code Section 65915(b). (e) Each development is entitled to only one density bonus, which shall be selected by the applicant based on the percentage of very low restricted affordable units, lower income restricted affordable units, or moderate income restricted affordable units, or the development's status as a senior citizen housing development or qualifying mobile home park. Density bonuses from more than one category may not be combined. In no case ORDINANCE NO. shall a development be entitled to a density bonus of more than thirty-five percent (35%). (f) The density bonus units shall not be included when determining the number of restricted affordable units required to qualify for a density bonus. When calculating the required number of restricted affordable units, any resulting decimal fraction shall be rounded to the next larger integer. (g) Certain other types of development activities are specifically eligible for a density bonus pursuant to state law: (1) A development may be eligible for a density bonus in return for land donation pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915(g). (2) A condominium conversion may be eligible for a density bonus or concession pursuant to the requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65915.5. (h) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, all developments must satisfy all applicable requirements of any below market rate housing program adopted by the City, which may impose requirements for restricted affordable units in addition to those required to receive a density bonus or concessions. Table 1 summarizes the density bonus provisions described in this Section. Table 1: Density Bonus Summary Table 25.63.030 Development Standards for Affordable Units. 11 Additional Percentage Bonus for of Restricted Minimum Each 1% Units Percentage Percentage Increase in Required for of Restricted of Density Restricted Maximum Restricted Affordable Affordable Bonus Affordable 35% Density Units or Category Units Granted Units Bonus Very Low Income 5% 20% 2.500% 110/. Lower Income 106/o 200A 1.50% 20% Moderate Income 10% 5% 1% 40% Senior Citizen Housing 100% 20% Qualifying Mobile Park 100% 20% --- ------ Note: A density bonus may be selected from only one category up to a maximum of 35% of the Maximum Residential Density. 25.63.030 Development Standards for Affordable Units. 11 ORDINANCE NO. The affordable housing standards are as follows: (a) Concurrent Construction. The required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market -rate units unless both the final decision-making authority of the city and developer agree within the affordable housing agreement to an alternative schedule for development. (b) Moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of 30 years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). Very low and lower restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a period of 30 years for both rental and for -sale units (or a longer period of time if required by a construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program). (c) Design. Restricted affordable units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non -restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout, and be consistent with any affordable residential development standards that may be prepared by the City. (d) A regulatory agreement, as described in Section 25.63.080, shall be made a condition of the discretionary permits for all developments pursuant to this chapter. The regulatory agreement shall be recorded as a restriction on the development. 25.63.040 Development Concessions and Incentives. (a) By Right Parking Incentives. Upon request by the applicant a development that is eligible for a Density Bonus may provide parking as provided in this subsection (a), consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p), inclusive of accessible and guest parking: (1) Zero to one bedroom unit: one on-site parking space; (2) Two to three bedroom unit: two on-site parking spaces; ORDINANCE NO. (3) Four or more bedroom unit: two and one-half parking spaces. (b) Other Incentives and Concessions. A development is eligible for other Concessions or Incentives as follows: (c) In submitting a request for Concessions or Incentives, an applicant may request the specific Concessions set forth below. The following Concessions and Incentives are deemed not to have a specific adverse impact: (1) In zoning districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit; or (2) Reduction of common open space in the rear yard of a residential development by up to fifty (50) percent or two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is more, without necessity of a variance, so long as no dimension of the common open space provided is less than ten (10) feet in any direction; or (3) Use of unistall parking spaces each with a clear interior measurement of eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length without necessity of a variance; or (4) Allowance of up to fifty (50) percent of the required parking as compact parking stalls as defined in Chapter 25.70, without necessity of a variance. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial concessions for the development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 25.63.050 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards An applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The developer must demonstrate that development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subsection (a) of 2 % very low income units % lower income units % moderate income units 1 incentive 5 10 10 2 incentives 10 20 20 3 incentives 15 30 30 (c) In submitting a request for Concessions or Incentives, an applicant may request the specific Concessions set forth below. The following Concessions and Incentives are deemed not to have a specific adverse impact: (1) In zoning districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit; or (2) Reduction of common open space in the rear yard of a residential development by up to fifty (50) percent or two hundred (200) square feet, whichever is more, without necessity of a variance, so long as no dimension of the common open space provided is less than ten (10) feet in any direction; or (3) Use of unistall parking spaces each with a clear interior measurement of eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet in width and eighteen (18) feet in length without necessity of a variance; or (4) Allowance of up to fifty (50) percent of the required parking as compact parking stalls as defined in Chapter 25.70, without necessity of a variance. (d) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require the provision of direct financial concessions for the development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 25.63.050 Waiver/Modification of Development Standards An applicant may apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. The developer must demonstrate that development standards that are requested to be waived or modified will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subsection (a) of 2 ORDINANCE NO. Section 25.63.020 at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this chapter. 25.63.060 Child Care Facilities. (a) An applicant otherwise qualifying for density bonuses and/or incentives under this chapter may be eligible for the following density bonuses or incentives if they propose to construct a qualifying child care facility, consistent with §65915(h). (b) The density bonus shall be in an amount of square feet of residential space that is equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the child care facility. (c) The incentive shall be granted if it contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility. (d) The City may deny the density bonus or incentives described in this section if it finds, based on substantial evidence, that the community has adequate child care facilities. 25.63.070 Application and Review Process. (a) An application for a density bonus or incentive shall be made to the Community Development Department on forms provided by the City. The application shall include the following information: (1) A brief description of the proposed housing development, including the total number of dwelling units, affordable housing units, and density bonus units proposed. (2) The requested density bonus amount and requested incentives, if any. (3) Site plans showing the location of market -rate, density bonus, and affordable housing units. (4) Any other such information as is necessary to verify that the applicant and/or the housing development meets all requirements set forth by state and local law. (b) The application, or an incentive therein, may be wholly or partially denied for any of the following reasons: (1) The application is incomplete. (2) The application contains a material misrepresentation. 7 ORDINANCE NO. (3) The incentive has an insufficient relationship to providing affordable housing. (4) The incentive has a specific, adverse impact as defined in this chapter. (5) The incentive is contrary to federal or state law. (c) The applicant may file an appeal to the City Council within 14 days of being notified of his application's final denial. 25.63.080 Regulatory Agreement. (a) After approval of the application as detailed in §25.63.050, applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City. The terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney's Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing city official. This agreement shall be on a form provided by the City, and shall include the following terms: (1) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code §65915(c)(1). (2) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code §65915(c)(2). (3) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units. (4) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City. (5) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law. (b) This agreement shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest. The agreement required by this section shall be a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the project in question. 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 Ll ORDINANCE NO. 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. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 17th day of November, 2014 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 5th day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: 7 Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.63 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW REQUIRING INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby finds as follows: Section 1. The Ordinance revises the requirements for granting a residential density bonus to comply with revisions to State law enacted by the Legislature through the adoption of Senate Bill 1818. Adoption of the draft density bonus codifies allowances that developers have been able to use in housing developments since 2003. Further, the revisions modify the criteria and incentives offered to qualifying developments but do not authorize construction not already permitted under the City's existing codes. Also, it is uncertain how many project applicants will seek to utilize the provisions of State law and this Ordinance and where such projects might be located in the City. Further, each individual project will be subject to its own environmental review. Consequently, this ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations since it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk BAR` STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: January5, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 5, 2015 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney — (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the ordinance. 2. Adopt the following ordinance by title only, waiving further reading: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance)". BACKGROUND State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, was first enacted in 1979. The law requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income does not exceed specific thresholds. Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific affordability levels may be eligible for: a "density bonus" to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning; • use of density bonus parking standards; 1 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance January 5, 2015 • incentives reducing site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural requirements that result in financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; • waiver of development standards that would otherwise make the increased density physically impossible to construct; • an additional density bonus if a childcare facility is provided. A density bonus may be approved only in conjunction with a development permit (i.e. tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and incentives will be granted at the applicant's request based on specific criteria. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale. Jurisdictions are required to adopt a density bonus ordinance prior to or in conjunction with the final certification of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in January 2015. The updated Burlingame 2015-2023 Housing Element includes 35 different programs, each designed to respond to various aspects of the community's housing needs. No one program is able to address every housing issue in itself, but each has an important place in contributing to a comprehensive housing strategy. The Density Bonus Ordinance (and the previous Inclusionary Ordinance) are intended to allow new housing development to contribute towards the community's need to provide housing opportunities for a range of households and incomes. In this respect, the Density Bonus Ordinance is an implementation of Program H(C-2) which calls for incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. Additional background and discussion of the Density Bonus Ordinance is provided in the staff report provided for the November 17, 2014 City Council meeting. That report is provided as an attachment, the remainder of this report provides follow-up analysis to Council comments. The City Council last considered the Density Bonus Ordinance at its November 17,2014 meeting (meeting minutes attached). Council members requested follow-up on potential impacts of the proposed density bonus on typical development sites, expressed concern with reduced parking standards in locations outside of Downtown, and requested staff to engage housing developers for further input. Potential Impact on Typical Sites: At the November 17'" meeting staff presented two sample scenarios showing how the sliding scale for the density bonus would translate to numbers of units on a prototypical one -acre site. Councilmembers asked for further analysis such as illustrating the physical implications of a density bonus on a project, and the differences in the amounts of parking provided. Attached to this report is an exhibit that provides a series of scenarios for a prototypical 20,000 square foot site. This parcel size was determined to be more representative of a typical infill project in Burlingame. A number of potential scenarios are illustrated since different applicants F Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance January 5, 2015 may choose different incentives. Furthermore, the implications of additional units on a project may result in greater building mass, but alternatively could result in a greater number of smaller units within the same building mass. The prototypes are meant to illustrate a range of potential scenarios that could result with the provisions in the proposed ordinance. Developer Input: The proposed ordinance is a merger of the State's density bonus provisions and the City's previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. As such, it is intended to provide a mechanism for continuing (and expanding) the City's previous inclusionary housing program, as well as comply with the State mandate to provide specific incentives to help make the development of affordable and senior housing economically feasible. The State legislation has been in place in its current form since 2008, and the incentives it provides have been vetted by both affordable housing and market -rate developers. The City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been in place since 2003 and has been applied to a total of 8 multifamily residential projects representing 115 units including 14 affordable units. Incentives in the draft ordinance represent direction from the state legislation, together with the City's experience with projects approved and constructed since the Inclusionary Ordinance was adopted in 2003. For perspective from a representative affordable housing developer, staff reviewed the proposed ordinance with MidPen Housing. MidPen is familiar with Burlingame and has made a number of presentations to the City Council on affordable housing. Because MidPen projects are typically 100% affordable, the provisions of the regarding the percentages of affordable units would not apply, but the nevertheless the incentives offered by the ordinance would be a consideration in evaluating the feasibility of a potential project. MidPen has utilized the State density bonus provisions in other jurisdictions, and while the benefits vary for each project, MidPen has found that the incentives related to parking standards, height, density, and setbacks have been the most important in improving project feasibility. In evaluating a potential project, MidPen considers the density bonus incentives alongside all other development standards to determine whether a project will be financially feasible. With some projects, the incentives will make the difference between feasibility and infeasibility, whereas with others the incentives will simply improve the financials for an otherwise feasible project. Regarding parking, MidPen reported that the reduced parking standards allowed by the State law are important for improving project feasibility (particularly for projects with structured parking), but also emphasized that they would not build a project with less parking than would be needed to accommodate the residents. As an affordable developer, they may be especially sensitive to avoiding spill-over parking into adjacent streets. Through their post -occupancy evaluations they have found that residents of affordable housing tend to own fewer vehicles than market -rate developments. Because the Density Bonus Ordinance is designed to encourage affordable units in market -rate projects, staff also interviewed several market -rate developers familiar with Burlingame. Like MidPen, those interviewed said that they consider the density bonus incentives alongside all other development standards to determine whether a project will be feasible. Given that infill projects typically have structured parking, the lowered parking ratios provided by the State law are particularly important. Like MidPen, the market -rate developers have an interest in providing sufficient parking for demand, but from their perspective adequate parking is more directly related 3 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance January5, 2015 to the project's marketability and its competitiveness with other projects. In identifying other incentives, increased height and reduced setbacks were most commonly mentioned. Further Reduction in Parking for Projects Near Transit: In its review of the Density Bonus Ordinance the Planning Commission recommended adding the incentive further reduction in parking for projects near transit to those outlined in 25.62.040 (c) of the draft ordinance. However in its November 17`h meeting members of the City Council expressed concern with reducing parking standards outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area, given that those areas are not necessarily served by high -frequency regional rail transit. Therefore the recommendation has not been added to the proposed ordinance. An applicant can request the parking standards specified in the state legislation as outlined in 25.62.040 (c) of the draft ordinance, but the proposed ordinance does not offer further reductions outside of the Downtown Specific Plan area. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Density Bonus Ordinance • November 17, 2014 City Council Staff Report • November 17, 2014 City Council Minutes • Prototypical Development Scenarios 0 aSTAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 17, 2014 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 17, 2014 From: William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance) RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Introduce the following ordinance by title only, waiving further reading: "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Amending Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Comply with State Law Requiring Incentives or Concessions for Qualifying Developments (Density Bonus Ordinance)". 2. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the ordinance. 3. Following conclusion of the public hearing, provide direction to staff regarding any desired changes to the proposed ordinance. 4. Direct staff to place adoption of the proposed ordinance on the December 1, 2014 regular meeting agenda of the City Council. BACKGROUND State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, was first enacted in 1979. The law requires local governments to provide density bonuses and other incentives to developers of affordable housing who commit to providing a certain percentage of dwelling units to persons whose income does not exceed specific thresholds. Cities also must provide bonuses to certain developers of senior housing developments, and in response to certain donations of land and the inclusion of childcare centers in some developments. Essentially, state density bonus law establishes that a residential project of five or more units that provides affordable or senior housing at specific affordability levels may be eligible for: • a "density bonus" to allow more dwelling units than otherwise allowed on the site by the applicable General Plan Land Use Map and Zoning; 1 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 • use of density bonus parking standards; • incentives reducing site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural requirements that result in financially sufficient and actual cost reductions; • waiver of development standards that would otherwise make the increased density physically impossible to construct; • an additional density bonus if a childcare facility is provided. The density bonus may be approved only in conjunction with a development permit (i.e., tentative map, parcel map, use permit or design review). Under State law, a jurisdiction must provide a density bonus, and incentives will be granted at the applicant's request based on specific criteria. The amount of the density bonus is set on a sliding scale, based on the percentage of affordable units at each income level, as shown on Table 1 on the following page: 2 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 Table 1: Density Bonus Chart Affordable Unit 5% 1 Very Low IncomeLow D- Bonus 20% Income Bonus Moderate DensityDensityDensity Bonus Land Donation Bonus Senior Housing Bonus 6% 22.5% 20% 7% 25% 20% 8% 27.5% 20% 9% 30% 20% 10% 32.5% 20% 59/6 15% 20% 11% 35% 21.5% 6% 16% 20% 12% 35% 23% 7% 17% 20% 13% 35% 24.5% 8% 18% 20% 14% 35% 269/6 9% 19% 20% 15% 35% 27.5% 10% 20% 20% 16% 35% 296% 11% 21% 209% 17% 35% 30.5% 12% 22% 209/6 18% 35% 32% 13% 23% 209/. 19% 35% 33.5% 14% 24% 209/6 20% 35% 35% 15% 25% 20% 21% 35% 359% 16% 26% 20% 22% 35% 35% 17% 27% 20% 23% 35% 35% 18% 28% 20% 24% 35% 35% 19% 29% 20% 25% 35% 359% 20% 30% 20% 26% 35% 35% 21% 31% 20% 270/6 359% 35% 22% 329/6 20% 28% 35% 3501- 239/6 33% 20% 29% 35% 35% 24% 34% 20% 30% 35% 35% 25% 35% 200/, 31% 35% 35% 26% 35% 20% 32% 350/4 35% 27% 35% 20% 33% 35% 35% 28% 35% 20% 34% 35% 35% 29% 35% 20% 35% 35% 35% 30% 35% 20% 36% 35% 35% 31% 35% 20% 37% 35% 35% 329/6 35% 20% 38% 35% 35% 33% 35% 20% 39% 35% 35% 34% 35% 20% 40% 35% 35% 35% 35% 20% * All density bonus calculations resulting in fractions are rounded up to the next whole number. ** Affordable unit percentage is calculated excluding units added by a density bonus. *** No affordable units are required for senior housing units to receive a density bonus. 3 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 Furthermore the State Density Bonus law provides maximum parking requirements upon the applicant's request. Requesting these parking standards does not count as an incentive or concession. Table 2 outlines the maximum parking requirements set forth by the State Density Bonus law compared to multifamily parking standards in the Burlingame Municipal Code: Table 2: Density Bonus Parking Standards Compared to Burlingame Municipal Code If a child care center is also included in the affordable or senior housing development, the local agency shall grant either an additional density bonus equal to or greater than the amount of square feet of the child care center or grant an additional incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility, with the following additional requirements: 1. The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time as long as the term of the affordable units; 2. The percentage of children from very low-, low- and moderate income -families reflects the percentage of affordable units in the development; 3. The local agency shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds that the community has adequate child care facilities. Burlingame's current Housing Element was adopted in 2010. A draft of the updated 2015-2023 Housing Element is currently under review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It includes the following implementation programs related to density bonuses: Program H(C-2) - Provide incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. 1. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to comply with local and state legislative requirements 0 Burlingame �. �.wntown of Use Density:. ,. cific Plan Specific Plan StandardsType Specific Area West of Rail Area East of Rail Plan Area CorridorDowntown Corridor Studio 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 space/unit 1 Bedroom 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 1 space/unit 1.5 space/unit 2 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 1.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 3 Bedroom 2 spaces/unit 2.5 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit 2 spaces/unit Apartments: none required Guest parking None required Condominiums: 1 for 2-4 units None required None required 2 for 5-15 units 3 for 15 or more units If a child care center is also included in the affordable or senior housing development, the local agency shall grant either an additional density bonus equal to or greater than the amount of square feet of the child care center or grant an additional incentive that contributes significantly to the economic feasibility of the construction of the child care facility, with the following additional requirements: 1. The child care facility shall remain in operation for a period of time as long as the term of the affordable units; 2. The percentage of children from very low-, low- and moderate income -families reflects the percentage of affordable units in the development; 3. The local agency shall not be required to provide a density bonus or concession for a child care facility if it finds that the community has adequate child care facilities. Burlingame's current Housing Element was adopted in 2010. A draft of the updated 2015-2023 Housing Element is currently under review by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). It includes the following implementation programs related to density bonuses: Program H(C-2) - Provide incentives for developers to include affordable units in new residential projects. 1. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to comply with local and state legislative requirements 0 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 2. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to accommodate a Low -Income component of required affordable housing. 3. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to encourage smaller unit sizes (i.e. studio, SROs, one- and two-bedroom units). 4. Amend the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or adopt a Density Bonus Ordinance to extend the affordability time restrictions. 5. Amend the zoning code to provide incentives to developers who provide additional affordable units and/or serve a broader range of income levels than that required by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance or state density bonus requirements, such as reduced parking requirements, increased height limits, reduced landscaping requirements, flexible setback requirements and reduced fees. The Density Bonus Ordinance must be adopted prior to final certification of the 2015-2023 Housing Element in January 2015. DISCUSSION Relation to Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing: Chapter 25.63 of the Municipal Code, adopted by the City Council in 2003, currently provides for density bonuses and affordable housing units. The provisions in the existing chapter were developed to comply with earlier versions of the State Density Bonus Law, and to respond to community objectives to provide affordable units in new developments. The proposed Density Bonus Ordinance is intended to fully replace the existing Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing chapter. The proposed ordinance combines most of the elements of the existing Chapter 25.63 Inclusionary Housing together with the most recent requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. The most significant modifications to the existing Inclusionary Housing provisions as set forth in Chapter 25.63 would be: • Affordable units would no longer be a requirement of projects; the inclusion of affordable units would be at the discretion of the applicant, in an agreement with the City for the concessions and incentives offered in the Density Bonus Ordinance. • Units affordable to Moderate Income households would be required to remain restricted and affordable for a minimum period of 30 years, rather than the current 10 years. • The list of incentives currently provided in 26.63.030(b) would be expanded to provide additional options. • Applicants would be able to apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Ordinance. 5 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 Application of Density Bonuses: Density bonuses would be applicable to the maximum residential density of the respective General Plan, Zoning, or Specific Plan designation for a given property. Most residential areas within Burlingame have either a designated range of residential densities and/or a maximum residential density. The exception is the High Density Land Use/R-4 Zoning District, which is designated on the General Plan Land Use map as "51 plus dwelling units per acre." Developments in the R-4 district would not need to request a density bonus since there is no upper density limit, but would be eligible to request concession(s) or incentive(s) provided in the Density Bonus Ordinance in exchange for building affordable units. The incentive to allow additional building height without a Conditional Use Permit currently provided in 26.63.030(b) was originally intended to provide additional floor area that would be the approximate equivalent to a unit density bonus. The height incentive is proposed to remain in the new ordinance both to provide a mechanism for a bonus in the R-4 district, as well as to provide an incentive for providing affordable units in any residential district. Incentives: Because affordable units would be an option rather than a requirement, it is important that the incentives offered be sufficient to offset the cost of providing the affordable units, and provide sufficient encouragement for developers to participate in the program. Exhibit 1 (attached) lists the multifamily residential developments approved since Chapter 25.63 was adopted in 2003, including the incentives each development utilized. Of the eight developments, five utilized increased building height and five utilized the provision of compact parking spaces (some projects utilized two incentives). No developments requested the reduction of rear yard common open space. In meeting with prospective housing development applicants, staff has found the most commonly requested incentives to be increased building height, reduced parking stall dimensions, and reduced parking ratios. The developments approved since Chapter 25.63 went into effect (as shown in Exhibit 1) would appear to support this observation. There has also been interest from some prospective developers to incorporate, a uniform reduced parking stall dimension rather than a mix of standard and compact stalls. Currently an 8'/� x 18' "unistall" option is available in the EI Camino Real North (ECN) and Trousdale West (TW) zoning districts; the Density Bonus Ordinance proposes to allow the unistall option for developments with affordable units in all multifamily districts. Reduction in parking standards for developments with affordable units is mandated by State Density Bonus law and does not count as an incentive or concession. As shown in Table 2, the maximum parking standards outlined in the state law are slightly lower than the City's base multifamily parking standards, and are relatively comparable to those in the City's Downtown Specific Plan area. While the State Density Bonus law also allows a developer to apply for a waiver or modification of development standards that it deems to preclude the construction of a development at the densities provided in the ordinance, there are benefits to both the community and developers to M Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 having a defined "menu" of choices as currently provided in Chapter 25.63 and proposed to be further expanded in the new ordinance. A menu of options offers predictability for both the community and applicants, and allows options to be vetted in advance. In reviewing the draft ordinance, the Council, community members, and prospective developers of affordable housing may want to suggest additional incentives in addition to or in place of those outlined in the draft ordinance. In -lieu Fees, Impact Fees and Alternate Density Bonus Approaches: Burlingame has joined with other San Mateo County jurisdictions in a nexus and financial feasibility study to consider Housing Impact Fees to assess new market rate development for the increased demand that it creates for affordable housing. The nexus study is required to determine and implement impact and in -lieu fees. The study will include a range of recommendations for fees that take a variety of considerations into account, including construction costs and project feasibility. It may also provide data to assist in developing alternative options for density bonuses such as formulas based on floor area. While all San Mateo County jurisdictions are participating in the study, the fee options will be specific to each jurisdiction, and each jurisdiction will make its own determination as to the types and amounts of fees it may adopt. The study is expected to be completed at the end of this year, and further legislative action may be taken at that time. However the City is required to enact a density bonus ordinance in the meantime. Planning Commission Review and Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the Density Bonus Ordinance in its September 22otl and October 14th meetings (October 14th meeting minutes attached). With the objective of encouraging affordable units through incentives, commissioners were asked to consider additional incentives in addition to or in place of those outlined in 25.62.040 (c) of the draft ordinance. Potential additional incentives evaluated by the Planning Commission included: Relief to upper -floor step -back requirements; • Less costly interior finishes on affordable units; • Further reduction in parking for projects near transit; • Further reduction in parking for projects that have car sharing available. Some commissioners also expressed interest in requiring that the units be affordable for longer than thirty years, establishing a maximum density for the R-4 District, and eliminating the increased building height incentive. Of the potential additional incentives evaluated, the Planning Commission recommended adding the incentive further reduction in parking for projects near transit to those outlined in 25.62.040 (c) of the draft ordinance. There was not a consensus to add any of the other suggested additional incentives that had been evaluated. For the purposes of identifying areas that are convenient to transit, the staff report suggested referencing the 'Priority Development Area' (PDA) that approximately corresponds to one-quarter mile from a major rail station (Downtown Burlingame and Millbrae Intermodal) or major transit corridor (EI Camino Real with 15 -minute headway 7 Introduction - Density Bonus Ordinance November 17, 2014 express bus service), and proposing the existing Downtown Specific Plan parking regulations as a reference for reduced parking ratios. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Density Bonus Ordinance • Exhibit 1: Burlingame Multifamily Project References • Exhibit 2: Multifamily Residential Projects with Planning Approvals since adoption of Code Chapter 25.63 • Burlingame Priority Development Area (PDA) map FJ EXHIBIT 1: BURLINGAME MULTIFAMILY PROJECT REFERENCES Floribunda1512-1516 Avenue Ogden1838 -= ` woma 1226 El Camino Real 1WEM - I -- ( Camino1321 El Real Completed 2008 Total Units 9 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 28.6 Building Height 53'-1" Incentives Completed 50% Compact Parking 2012 Total Units 45 BMR Units 5 Units per Acre 49.5 Building Height 46'-0" Incentives Completed Height, 50% Compact Parking 2010 Total Units 9 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 30.5 Building Height Incentives Completed 45'-5" Height, 50% Compact Parking 2014 (estimated) Total Units 5 BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 29.9 Building Height 42'-4" incentives Height •0IBayswaterAvenue Completed 2014 (estimated) Total Units 6 BMR Units 1 ,1`•" ._ = Units per Acre 26.1 Building Height 26'-1" Incentives 50% Compact Parking :11 Trousdale Drive Completed under construction — approved 2013 Total Units 25 BMR Units 3 2 n Units per Acre 50 Building Height 60'-4" - _ Incentives 50% Compact Parking 1225 Floribunda Completed under construction — approved 2013 Total Units 6 7m ' a� ® I I BMR Units 1 Units per Acre 31.7 ED Building Height 43'-0 7/8" Incentives Height Floribunda1433 Avenue Completed approved 2014 Total Units 10 - rM_ BMR Units 1 s Units per Acre 45.9 Building Height 46'-0" P"'rs�y Incentives Height EXHIBIT 2: CITY OF BURLINGAME MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WITH PLANNING APPROVALS SINCE ADOPTION OF MUNCIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25.63 1512-1516 Floribunda Ave 1 Lot Area (sq ft) 13,709 1 Acres 0.32 1 Units 9 1 BMR Units 1 Units/ Acre 1 28.6 Type PC Approval 10/11/05 Completed/ Finaled 4/17/08 508 Peninsula Ave. 5,021 0.12 3 0 26.17/26/04 5/6/09 1840 Ogden Drive 38,905 0.91 45 5 49.57/24/06 3/1/12 1459 Oak Grove Ave 5,790 0.13 3 0 22.66/23/08 4/3/14 1226 EI Camino Real 12,874 6.30 9 1 30.55/27/08 HCondo 6/14/10 1321 EI Camino Real 7,311 0.17 5 1 29.91/10/11 under constr 904 Bayswater Ave 10,000 0.23 6 1 26.1 7/23/12 underconstr 1800 Trousdale Drive 21,741 0.50 25 3 50.03/11/13 under constr 1225 Floribunda Ave8,223 0.19 6 1 31.7 Condo 9/9/13 under constr 1433 Floribunda Ave 9,515 1 0.22 10 1 45.78 Condo 2/24/14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014 0*0 City of Burlingame, CA 0000 •080 City Council Meeting 000 January 20, 2015 .mm Overview • Financial Audit Results • Financial Reports • Financial Highlights • General Fund Revenues • Fund Balance & Current Assignments • GASB 45 — Retiree Health Obligation • Other Funds • Next Steps z 1/20/2015 1 • Financial statements accurately reflect the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2014 and comply with accounting standards (GAAP & GASB) • No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls & financials • Recommendations discussed with Audit Committee •ee se Financial Reports ' • Introductory Section • Financial Section • Auditor's Report • Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) • Basic Financial Statements • Notes to the Financial Statements • Supplementary Information • Statistical Section 4 1/20/2015 2 eOD Financial Audit Results' • Financial statements accurately reflect the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2014 and comply with accounting standards (GAAP & GASB) • No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls & financials • Recommendations discussed with Audit Committee •ee se Financial Reports ' • Introductory Section • Financial Section • Auditor's Report • Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) • Basic Financial Statements • Notes to the Financial Statements • Supplementary Information • Statistical Section 4 1/20/2015 2 Financial Highlights:00 •00 General Fund Revenues . Increase of $4.3 million, or 8.5% growth over prior year Property taxes Sales and use taxes Transient occupancy taxes Othertaxes Licenses and permits Charges for services Fines, forfeitures and penalties Investment income Intergovernmental/Grants Other revenue Total FY 13-14 FY 12-13 $15,496,548 $15,384,141 10,196,123 9,198,871 21,357,066 18,244,310 2,970,165 2,969,688 111,712 101,753 3,967,406 3,680,900 788,772 860,476 225,080 133,386 170,146 404,875 344,610 308,603 Change % Change $112,407 0.73% 997,252 10.84% 3,112,756 17.06% 477 0.02% 9,959 9.79% 286,506 7.78% (71,704) -8.33% 91,694 68.74% (234,729) -57.98% 36,007 11.679/ $55,627,628 $51,287,003 $4,340,625 8.46% 5 General Fund Revenues: "'° ..°° Property Tax, Sales Tax & TOT Property, sales &Tnr,Oent O[mparry Tax Historical Performance —11—,Y —e,t T- 6 1/20/2015 3 3 5136 EW6 3B]9 SB10 SOIL S%S E013 3014 B,dW Ea15 l4 �6n - -f l lits 5i1 6D 5 � 8 Y55 SB.B - 10.16 -50.55 y, ID 0.y5 B 6L —11—,Y —e,t T- 6 1/20/2015 3 3 EW6 3B]9 SB10 SOIL S%S E013 3014 B,dW Ea15 nsnl Year —11—,Y —e,t T- 6 1/20/2015 3 3 •1• Financial Highlights: General Fund Balance FY13-14 FY12-13 Change General Fund Historical $ 6,000,000 $ 5,000,000 .®o Revenues & Expenditures 2,000,000 2,000,000 - OPEB Retiree Medical Reserve - 4,800,000 55.6 Contingency Reserve se.6 51.3 - 4sa 500,000 q3.4 63.3 Unreserved Fund Balance 13,251,265 7,429,633 Ol.fi 60.7ye.o .1 Total Unrestricted WA ]3.._... ..__ 36.7 6.] 33.8 General Fund Balance: 22,251,265 $ 19,729,633 0.3 q.5 3p.o • Revenues Me Up-dlN,ss ..... wA Us ,- FM607 rY0L09 rN609 FY0910 Fnn61 FY71-11 "i. FV1314 FYOB-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 N1041 Fri1-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 Revenues Base 4.3% -7.4% -9.7% 18.0% 6.9% 10.8% 8.4% Expenditures Base 9.3% 1.3% -5.a% -3.6% 6.4% 25% 6.5% 7 Net Base -19.2% -82.7% -59.1% an 8% 9.1% 42.7% 13.1% •1• Financial Highlights: General Fund Balance Unrestricted ending fund balance increased from $19.7 million to $22.2 million. L 1/20/2015 0 FY13-14 FY12-13 Change Economic Stability Reserve $ 6,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Catastrophic Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 - OPEB Retiree Medical Reserve - 4,800,000 (4,800,000) Contingency Reserve 500,000 500,000 - General Plan Reserve 500,000 500,000 Unreserved Fund Balance 13,251,265 7,429,633 5,821,632 Total Unrestricted General Fund Balance: 22,251,265 $ 19,729,633 $ 2,521,632 Unrestricted ending fund balance increased from $19.7 million to $22.2 million. L 1/20/2015 0 io©m Financial Highlights: ©o Changes in OPEB Obligation 2014 Annual Required Contribution 5 5,353,000 mtereston net OPER obligation 1,430,703 Adjustment to annual required contribution (1,401,000) Annual OPEC lost(expenae) Trust Pre -funding Contributions(Pay -go) Decrease in net OPER Obligation Net OPER - beginning year Net OPEB obligation - and of year 5,390,703 (6,600,0D0) (2,369,957) (3,579, 154 19,344,179 $16,265,025 9 Financial Highlights: ::Q ••00 Other Funds • Capital Project Funds o Total $11.4 million in spending • Debt Service Funds * $7.3 million principal o $4.5 million interest • Enterprise Funds • Internal Service Funds ,0 1/20/2015 ll .00 Credit Rating00 • Issuer rating — AA+ (rating reaffirmed in March 2014) • Water & Wastewater Enterprises — AA+ • Storm Drain Bond Rating - AA ..ou 00 Next Steps • Recommendation that the City Council accept CAFR and results of financial audit • Fund balance and other financial data now available for Mid -year Report and fiscal year 2015-16 budget planning ,2 1/20/2015 11 a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Carol Augustine — (650) 558-7222 AGENDANO: 10a MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 Subject: Accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2014 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year 2013-14. BACKGROUND Following the close of each fiscal year, the City's external auditors conduct an audit of the City's financial records and assist in the compilation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The paramount objective of general purpose external financial reporting is accountability. The goal of a financial statement audit is to provide users with a reasonable assurance from an independent source that the information presented in the statements is reliable. The audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014 was just recently completed. DISCUSSION The 2013-14 fiscal year audit is the fourth annual audit performed by Brown Armstrong Accountancy Corporation as the City's external auditors. The firm conducts their audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. The standards require that the auditors plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. On a sample basis, they examine evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall basic financial statement presentation. The auditor's unmodified ("clean') opinion is presented as the first item in the financial section of the CAFR (page 1). In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, the auditors also issue a report of recommendations to City management identifying any areas for improvement in the City's internal control over financial reporting. The City's Audit Committee, currently comprised of Councilmembers Ricardo Ortiz and John Root, recently met with staff and the auditors to discuss the audit reports, results and recommendations. 1 Comprehensive Annual Financia/ Report 2013-14 January 20, 2015 Each year, the City participates in the CAFR award program administered by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), and has been successful in obtaining the award each fiscal year beginning in 1989-90. Staff has submitted the City's FY 2013-14 CAFR to the GFOA program and is confident that the report will again merit the GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The FY 13-14 CAFR is posted to the City's web site (Finance Department web page at http://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?paqe=22). Management's Discussion and Analysis Governmental Accounting Standards require a Management's Discussion and Analysis (referred to as MD&A) to be included with the audited financial statements, with the intent of giving readers an objective and easily readable analysis of the City's financial performance for the year. The MD&A includes a discussion of the basic financial statements, some condensed financial information, an analysis of the City's financial position and results of operations on both a City- wide and Fund basis. The Management's Discussion and Analysis begins on page 5 of the CAFR. As noted in the document, the financial standing of the City remains relatively strong. The City's total revenues increased $10.7 million over the prior year, and total expenses increased slightly over $7.75 million. The increased expenses included a $6.6 million contribution to the newly - established trust fund for the City's retiree medical obligations, authorized by the Council and included in the amended budget for the 2013-14 fiscal year. (The contribution was treated as a special item — "OPEB pre -funding" — to facilitate comparisons with prior year financial results.) The government -wide financial statements, which provide a broad overview of the City's finances, indicate that the City's net position increased $17.5 million (9.2 percent) during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014: $8.3 million due to governmental activities and $9.2 million due to business -type activities (largely comprised of the City's Water and Wastewater utilities operations). Governmental revenues were up nearly $7.8 million from the prior year - due largely to increases in transient occupancy, property and sales tax revenues - as the economy continued its recovery from the 2009 downturn. The largest improvement in net position for business -type activities ($3.6 million) was in the wastewater utility. Changes within each of the City's Enterprise Funds, which are reported as business -type activities, are explained in the MD&A. General Fund Status General Fund highlights for the 2013-14 fiscal year are also summarized in the MD&A. A separate disclosure, the Budgetary Comparison Schedule for the General Fund, is included (page 124) as Required Supplementary Information, Note 5. The General Fund experienced a surplus for the year, as revenues of the fund exceeded expenditures and net transfers by over $2.9 million. The largest positive budget variance was reported for transient occupancy tax revenues, which totaled $21.3 million, over $3.1 million higher than in the previous fiscal year. Property and sales tax revenues were up a combined $2.2 million over the prior year, an additional reflection of strong tourist demand and improved consumer confidence. Many of these revenue increases were anticipated at mid -year and were reflected in the adjusted budget for the year. Still, actual revenues came in $2.3 million higher than the adjusted budget, a positive variance of 4.4 percent. 2 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2013.14 January 20, 2015 Budgetary savings (positive expenditure variances) within the General Fund were experienced in all departments, resulting in expenditures of $2.0 million (roughly 4.7 percent) less than budgeted for the fiscal year. The highest percentage of budgetary savings was in Public Works, largely due to the higher amount of staff time charged to the City's ongoing projects in the Capital Projects Fund rather than to General Fund operations. Budgetary savings were also experienced in the area of "Other Employee Benefits". The large variance is due to the lump -sum budgeting for compensated absences — accrued leave that is paid to employees upon separation — at the fund level, while paying these benefits at the departmental level. (For fiscal year 2014-15, "Other Employee Benefits" has been eliminated as a departmental category, and the budgets for accrued leave are included in each departmental budget.) As noted, despite the $6.6 million transfer to fund the trust account for retiree medical benefits, General Fund revenues exceeded expenditures and net transfers by nearly $3 million. Since local government expenditure budgets (appropriations) serve as the legal level of budgetary control, some level of savings will be realized in any fiscal year. In addition, budgets are developed based on year-round occupancy of all authorized staff positions. In periods of high turnover or other reasons for an increased level of staff vacancies, higher budgetary savings may be experienced. Proprietary Funds Proprietary Funds are used to account for activities that are fueled by charges for the services provided by each fund. Enterprise Funds account for external activities (largely utilities), while Internal Service Funds (ISFs) account for internal (interdepartmental) activities. The City of Burlingame maintains enterprise funds to account for the activities of its water and wastewater operations. Charts depicting the historical financial performance of these two funds are included in the MD&A. The funds are self-supporting: the sale of water and provision of wastewater services to customers generates the revenue needed to support the operations and capital needs of these utilities. Both utilities experienced an increase in net position in fiscal year 2013-14: nearly $2.8 million (16.2 percent) for the Water Fund, and $3.6 million (9.6 percent) for the Wastewater Fund. For greater transparency in reporting the results of various enterprise activities, landfill operations were separated out from the Solid Waste Management Fund in the 2013-14 fiscal year, and are now reported in a separate fund. Although both funds are fueled by a surcharge on garbage rates, the Solid Waste Fund accounts for City costs of street cleaning, the household hazardous waste program, steam cleaning of City receptacles and other related activities, and provides a rate stabilization reserve for rate payers. Conversely, the Landfill Fund accounts for post -closure maintenance and monitoring of the City's old landfill site. The City reports its obligation to ensure that the City's landfill site is properly maintained going forward as a post -closure liability, which results in a deficit position for the fund. However, the landfill surcharge should serve not only to maintain the site, but also to reduce the unfunded portion of the post -closure liability in the years to come. 3 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2013-14 January 20, 2015 Other enterprise funds include the Parking Fund and the Building Fund. These funds also ended the fiscal year with increased net positions. The City's six Internal Service Funds (ISFs) are utilized to report activities that provide insurance, facilities, vehicles and equipment, and information technology services to support the City's various programs and functions. The City's OPEB (Other Post -Employment Benefits) Fund was created in fiscal year 2013-14 to account for funding of the external trust account established to meet the City's retiree medical obligations. Going forward, surcharges on departmental payrolls will provide revenue to the OPEB ISF; retiree medical premiums and monthly contributions to the trust account will comprise the fund's expenditures. This fund should retain a relatively small balance as the City forwards any remaining departmental charges to the trust fund, where higher interest earnings are obtained. The combined net positions reported in all of the ISFs experienced a decline in fiscal year 2013- 14 due largely to actuarially -determined increases in the City's general liability and workers' compensation programs. During fiscal year 2013-14, the former "Risk Management Fund" was split into two separate funds to better track each of these activities. The City is self-insured for these programs, and it strives to maintain additional reserves to protect against unusual losses beyond normal experience. Charges to the departments are calibrated so as to cover costs of insurance and the payment of claims, though demands of these funds have varied considerably in recent fiscal years. As of June 30, 2014, all of the ISFs maintain adequate balances, and internal (departmental) charges for services will require only small adjustments in future years. Other Funds The MD&A discusses changes in the City's Capital Projects Fund and Debt Service Fund, which are considered major funds for financial statement purposes. Capital project expenditures totaled $11.4 million. Leading the list of spending on capital projects during the fiscal year was the Burlingame Avenue Streetscape Project ($8 million). Debt activities for the year were limited to debt service payments on the City's outstanding debt, which included $4.6 million in principal payments and $2.8 million in interest and administrative costs. As noted in the document's Letter of Transmittal, the City's AA+ general obligation credit rating was re -affirmed by Standard & Poor's in March 2014. The City also has eleven non -major governmental funds, all of which are considered Special Revenue Funds. (Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of governmental revenues that are restricted or committed for purposes other than debt service or capital projects.) Details of these funds are reported in the Combining Financial Statements beginning on page 127 of the CAFR. The City's largest special revenue fund is the Storm Drainage Fund. Although fee revenues to the fund (over $2.6 million) were only slightly higher than the prior year, transfers of $7.0 million to support capital improvements to the City's storm drain infrastructure, as well as nearly $1.0 million for debt service on previously issued bonds, resulted in a reduction in the fund's balance of $5.2 million. The impact of the 2013-14 fiscal year results for the City's General Fund on the current year budget continues to be analyzed in conjunction with a monthly budget -to -actual review. A review of all of the City's funds, an update on the status of major projects and priorities, and an update of M Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2013-14 January 20, 2015 economic conditions will be presented to the Council with the mid -year report and budget adjustments in March. At that time, the long-term financial forecast will also be revised. FISCAL IMPACT Acceptance of the City's CAFR has no direct impact on City resources. However, obtaining an unqualified opinion from the auditor is an important independent verification and validation of the City's financial management practices and a prerequisite to receiving the GFOA award. An award-winning CAFR contributes to the City's excellent bond rating. Exhibit: • City of Burlingame Fiscal Year 2013-14 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 5 1/20/2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year 2013-2014 City of Burlingame, CA i i i City Council Meeting • January 20, 2015 6URLINGAME Overview • Financial Audit Results • Financial Reports • Financial Highlights • General Fund Revenues • Fund Balance & Current Assignments • GASB 45 — Retiree Health Obligation • Other Funds • Next Steps 2 1 1/20/2015 Financial Audit Results • Financial statements accurately reflect the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2014 and comply with accounting standards (GAAP & GASB) • No material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal controls & financials • Recommendations discussed with Audit Committee 3 Financial Reports • Introductory Section • Financial Section • Auditor's Report • Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) • Basic Financial Statements Notes to the Financial Statements Supplementary Information • Statistical Section 4 2 1/20/2015 Financial Highlights: General Fund Revenues • Increase of$4.3 million, or 8.5% growth over prior year FY 13-14 FY 12-13 Change %Change Property taxes $15,496,548 $15,384,141 $112,407 0.73% Sales and use taxes 10,196,123 9,198,871 997,252 10.84% Transient occupancy taxes 21,357,066 18,244,310 3,112,756 17.06% Othertaxes 2,970,165 2,969,688 477 0.02% Licenses and permits 111,712 101,753 9,959 9.79% Charges for services 3,967,406 3,680,900 286,506 7.78% Fines,forfeitures and penalties 788,772 860,476 (71,704) -8.33% Investment income 225,080 133,386 91,694 68.74% Intergovernmental/Grants 170,146 404,875 (234,729) -57.98% Other revenue 344,610 308,603 36,007 11.67% Total $55,627,628 $51,287,003 $4,340,625 8.46% 5 General Fund Revenues: Property Tax, Sales Tax & TOT Property,Sales&Transient Occupancy Tax Historical Performance 2500 22.36 21.10 10.00 13.24 16.13 u.00 _ '►"'3s.ca--� ls.2s �vrop�rry 13.31 +-'14.39 8•-I'I.'S6 �--- � � 7 v-Sales 3 11.27 Tax h 10.00 10.16 10.34 1030 x'46 .-TOT .. 3.25 E:Or— E.SD._.. - GIB 3.00 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Budget 2015 FWAY- 6 3 1/20/2015 General Fund Historical Revenues & Expenditures s° -60.0 55.6 51.3 50.0 ____- __ 46.3 43.4 43.3 41.6 40.0 40.296.0 36.735.8 .7 3 9 I 30.0 -_ -. - ■Revenues *Expenditures 20.0 _ t_...... ''.._...... -.._....... 10.0 0.0 _... _ _. _.... FY06 07 FY07-08 FYOS-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY1314 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 FY10-11 FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13.14 Revenues Base 4.30% -7.4% -8.7% 18.0% 6.9% 10.8% &4% Expenditures Base 9.3% 1.3% -5.8% -3.6% 6.4% 2.5% 6.6% 7 Net Base -19.2% -62.7% -59.1% 877.8% 9.1% 42.7% 13.1% Financial Highlights: =�:s •°° General Fund Balance " FY13-14 FY12-13 Chan e Economic Stability Reserve $ 6,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 1,000,000 Catastrophic Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 OPEB Retiree Medical Reserve - 4,800,000 (4,800,000) Contingency Reserve 500,000 500,000 General Plan Reserve 500,000 500,000 Unreserved Fund Balance 13,251,265 7,429,633 5,821,632 Total Unrestricted General Fund Balance: 22,251,265 $ 19,729,633 $ 2,521,632 Unrestricted ending fund balance increased from$19.7 million to$22.2 million. 8 4 1/20/2015 Financial Highlights: Changes in OPEB Obligation 2014 Annual Required Contribution $ 5,353,000 Interest on net OPER obligation 1,438,703 Adjustment to annual required contribution (1,401,000) Annual OPEB cost(expense) 5,390,703 Trust Pre-funding (6,600,000) Contributions(Pay-go) (2,369,857) Decrease in net OPEB Obligation (3,579,154 Net OPEB-beginning year 19,844,179 Net OPEB obligation-end of year $16,265,025 e Financial Highlights: Other Funds ,4 • Capital Project Funds , Total $11 .4 million in spending • Debt Service Funds $7.3 million principal $4.5 million interest • Enterprise Funds • Internal Service Funds ,o 5 1/20/2015 • Credit Rating • Issuer rating — AA+ (rating reaffirmed in March 2014) • Water & Wastewater Enterprises — AA+ • Storm Drain Bond Rating - AA Next Steps • Recommendation that the City Council accept CAFR and results of financial audit • Fund balance and other financial data now available for Mid-year Report and fiscal year 2015-16 budget planning ,2 6 aSTAFF REPORT AGENDANO: 10b MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 From: Carol Augustine — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a General Fund Reserve Policy for the City of Burlingame; and Consideration of a Renewal and Replacement Reserve for the City's Capital Protects Fund RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and approve the General Fund Reserve Policy developed from the "A Risk -Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve Requirements for the City of Burlingame". In addition, staff recommends that the Council consider the establishment and funding strategies of a Renewal and Replacement Reserve within the City's Capital Project Fund. To support the City's goal of sustaining long-term financial strength, the City Council approved a strategy "to develop a policy for reserves that addresses how much to reserve and for which events." The City contracted with the Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) for assistance in conducting a risk-based analysis of its General Fund reserve levels. That analysis, which examined the City's risks including vulnerability to extreme events and public safety concerns, revenue source stability, expenditure volatility, liquidity, other funds' dependency, leverage, and capital project funding, was submitted to the City Council at its regular meeting on September 5, 2014. The analysis established an optimal range of reserves for the City of Burlingame of $14.0 — 17.4 million. As such, the GFOA found the City's reserves to be adequate as a hedge for unexpected losses from events such as natural disasters and economic downturns. However, it recognized that current reserves are not adequate to fund identified capital needs, which were confirmed and prioritized by the Council at that same meeting. Establishing General Fund Reserve Target Levels Reserves are a critical element of effective financial management. In order to establish appropriate reserve levels, the City needs to be cognizant of specific risks that could threaten its long-term fiscal health. In recent years, the City has aggressively set aside funds to allow for the prefunding of the liability associated with retiree health insurance. With an irrevocable trust fund established for this purpose, payments on these commitments are now part of the City's annual 1 General Fund Reserve Policy January 20, 2014 operating budgets. Burlingame's General Fund Reserve Policy can therefore address the true purpose of reserves, which is to maintain the ability to deal with potential emergencies and unforeseen events such as unanticipated dips in revenues, natural disasters, unbudgeted asset replacements or other expenditure increases. Shown below is a summary of the GFOA's recommended reserve targets, compared with fiscal year actual (audited) 2013-14 standings of the City's General Fund balance: CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA GENERAL FUND BALANCE ASSIGNMENTS FY12-13 FY13-14 GFOA Recommendations Recommended Actual Actual Risk Averse Less Risk Reserve Results Results Amount Averse Amount Amounts Economic Stability Reserve $ 5,000,000 Catastrophic Reserve 2,000,000 OPEB Retiree Health Reserve 4,800,000 General Plan Reserve * 0 Contingency Reserve 500,000 Subtotal, Assigned Fund Balance 12,300,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 12,300,000 $ 12,300,000 $ 12,300,000 2,000,000 4,600,000 1,200,000 4,000,000 500,000 1,000,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 9,000,000 17,400,000 14,000,000 17,800,000 Add: Unassigned Fund Balance 7,429,633 13,251,265 4,851,265 8,251,265 4,451,265 Total, Unrestricted Fund Balance $ 19,729,633 22,251,26 $ 22,251,265 $ 22,251,265 $ 22,251,265 * Temporary reserve, funded $500,000 in FY 2013-14, and $500,000 in FY 2014-15, to fund General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Update, "Burlingame 2040" The recommendation for a Catastrophic Reserve was the most difficult to quantify due to the lack of historic loss data on earthquake damage to municipal facilities and the potential for extreme events other than earthquakes. The GFOA suggested that the higher end of the range may be more prudent for the City. However, its recommendation for the City's Economic Stability Reserve was very firm: based on the City's various economically sensitive revenues, a very high economic stability reserve is needed. In addition, the economic impact of a catastrophic event anywhere in the Bay Area is likely to be more severe than the impact on the City's municipal facilities. The Council appeared to be comfortable with a relatively higher (risk -averse) level of General Fund reserves, which is being recommended by staff. Again, in fiscal year 2013-14, the City liquidated its OPEB Retiree Health Reserve. It also increased the Economic Stability Reserve to $6 million, with a resulting $9 million assigned General Fund balance reported for the fiscal year. Due to a General Fund operating surplus of $2.9 million, the fund's balance increased overall, and application of the recommended reserve amounts are shown using the June 30, 2014 unrestricted fund balance of over $22.25 million. If staff's recommendation for General Fund reserve levels is approved, the fund would reflect an unassigned balance of $4.45 million. (Unassigned fund balances are considered to be available for further appropriation by the Council.) K General Fund Reserve Policy January 20, 2014 Adopt a Formal General Fund Reserve Policy In their analysis, the GFOA recommended the City adopt a formal General Fund reserve policy, and worked with City staff to develop the draft policy that was included with the presentation of its risk-based reserve analysis. A reserve policy should accomplish the following, specific objectives: • Memorialize the final reserve target in a document that receives formal City Council approval. • Officially establish the intent of the City to maintain the target level of reserves. • Describe the acceptable uses of reserves. This prevents the reserves from being used inappropriately and, thus, degrading the City's risk mitigation capabilities. • Describe who is authorized to use the reserves. • Provide guidance on how to replenish reserves back to target levels when necessary. The two-page reserve policy drafted by the GFOA provides for all these objectives, and was altered only minimally by City staff since its presentation. The higher end of the target level for the Catastrophic Reserve was maintained, reflecting the generally risk -averse direction given by the City Council. Note that the target levels of reserves in the policy are stated as a percentage of budgeted revenues, and the "Recommended Reserve Amounts" previously shown are based on budgeted revenues for the 2013-14 fiscal year. If the General Fund Reserve Policy is adopted as drafted, reserve levels would be increased approximately $1.5 million in the current fiscal year, as fiscal year 2014-15 revenues were forecasted to be 9.5 percent higher than the 2013-14 adopted budget. An increase in reserves — $1 million for the Economic Stability Reserve and $0.5 million for the Catastrophic Reserve — would be requested as part of the 2014-15 Mid -Year budget revisions in March. Computation of General Fund Reserve Recommendation for 201415: Economic Stability Reserve Catastrophic Reserve General Plan Reserve Contingency Reserve Subtotal, Assigned Fund Balance Remaining Fund Balance, 7/1/14 Add: Budgeted Surplus, 2014-15 Total, Projected Unassigned Fund Balance GFOA Recommendation* Percentage Amount 24% $13.3 million 2-9% $1.1 - 5.0 million Staff Recommendation *Reflected as a %of General Fund Budgeted Revenues before transfers ($55,276,421) 13,300,000 4,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 19,300,000 2,951,265 377.058 3,328,323 Section IV of the policy describes how the City intends to fund the reserve targets (if they are not at targeted levels), conditions under which the use of reserves would be appropriate, who may authorize the use of reserves, and a statement as to how reserves would be replenished. The terms of this section were drafted according to the GFOA recommendations, but the Council may 3 General Fund Reserve Policy January 20, 2014 wish to adjust specific terms of the policy. Staff has added a Section V to provide for an annual review of the policy. Provide Annual Fundina for Renewal and Replacement Noted throughout the risk-based analysis performed by the GFOA were several factors that limit the City's financial flexibility (leverage), especially: • Unfunded capital planning/ facilities needs • Limited debt capacity • Tight operating budgets due to payoff of long-term obligations These factors no doubt impacted the various reserve levels ultimately recommended by the GFOA. They also weighed heavily in Council's discussion of what level of reserves is most prudent for the City's fiscal sustainability. The Council has been grappling with the question of how to fund a list of needed capital/facilities projects for many years. The projects have been prioritized and await the identification of optimal timing and opportunities for funding. While not recommending a separate reserve for unfunded capital needs, (capital needs do not constitute a risk or uncertainty appropriate for General Fund reserve financing), the GFOA did recognize this area of concern. It suggested that funding strategies for future capital projects be included in the City's capital planning process. The City currently maintains a five-year capital plan that provides a reliable source of funding for each specific project for the City's entire infrastructure (including streets/sidewalks; storm drainage, water, and sewer systems; parking facilities; parks and trees; and City -owned buildings). For capital project needs for which the funding has not yet been identified, the GFOA recommended a Renewal and Replacement Fund. A Renewal and Replacement fund would be funded each time a new capital project is added to the City's portfolio of capital assets. Similar to the City's Equipment and Facilities ISFs (Internal Services Fund) that provide maintenance of City assets, a "reserve" would be funded for each capital project to provide for renewal and replacement of the completed asset. While this is an accepted best practice for long-range capital planning, it does not provide funding for capital assets until they have been completed. Another way that cities finance large capital projects such as land acquisition or buildings is to build up a positive General Fund balance over time. Doing so may eliminate the need for entering into debt, or at least reduce the amount of debt needed when capital expenditures are required, thereby reducing interest costs. Staff recommends a blending of these two long-term financing mechanisms with an establishment of a Renewal and Replacement fund within the Capital Projects Fund. Unlike the current Capital Projects Fund balance, funding would not be appropriated to a specific project; rather, it would accumulate for capital projects to be initiated. when timing is optimal and sufficient other funding is identified. As such, the Renewal and Replacement "Reserve" would be available for appropriation (for capital projects) as the Council sees fit, as opposed to residing in the General Fund as "unassigned" fund balance, available for operational use. The City has already r, General Fund Reserve Policy January 20, 2014 "assigned" $500,000 of General Fund balance as a Contingency Reserve to cover unexpected expenses that may arise during the course of the fiscal year that were not considered during budget planning. Although a Renewal and Replacement Reserve within the Capital Projects Fund can be supported without the identification of one specific project, the City's CIP planning can follow its regular, rigorous cycle of identifying projects, linking projects to appropriate funding, and managing multi-year projects through to completion. The new reserve would simply provide a source of funding/partial funding for the City's ever-present capital needs. As with General Fund reserves, the Renewal and Replacement Reserve could be funded from General Fund revenues in excess of projected expenditures, in addition to one-time revenues. The extent of Renewal and Replacement funding could be determined once the results of General Fund operations for the fiscal year have been determined, and included as a transfer to the Capital Projects Fund at the subsequent mid -year review. Conversely, the Council could decide to fund the Renewal and Replacement Reserve with each annual budget process. The amount of transfer could be determined after all operational needs are met, or it could be predetermined to be a percentage of projected General Fund revenues. If preferred, the Council could establish a minimum transfer to the new reserve as part of the General Fund's operating budget. Note that currently, an annual transfer from the General Fund, calculated at approximately 20% of the City's annual transient occupancy tax revenues, supports specific capital projects in the City's annual CIP budget. Staff recommends that the Renewal and Replacement Reserve be established, with initial funding in the current fiscal year of $3.0 million. This would leave approximately $330,000 as '.unassigned fund balance' in the General Fund for 2014-15, assuming a surplus (as budgeted) of $377,000 for the year. Additional funding of the Renewal and Replacement Reserve could be considered with the 2015-16 budget process. FISCAL IMPACT A General Fund reserve policy based upon the needs of the City and specific risk conditions faced by the City will help ensure financial solvency through fiscal emergencies, provide guidelines for sound financial management with an overall long-range perspective, and enhance the transparency of the City's financial management. As such, the policy should help maintain the City's excellent credit rating and help determine when and whether to issue debt in order to advance major capital initiatives. Exhibit: • Resolution adopting a General Fund Reserve Policy for the City of Burlingame. 5 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A RESERVE POLICY FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame wishes to support its goal of sustaining long-term financial strength through the establishment of clearly articulated fiscal policies; and WHEREAS, reserves are the cornerstone of financial flexibility, proving options for responding to unexpected issues and a buffer against economic downturns and other forms of risk; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the City engaged the services of Research and Consulting Center of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the various risks that would compel the City to require a reserve; WHEREAS, the analysis of the GFOA determined that the City should retain its Economic Stability Reserve to protect and preserve City services from dramatic drops in General Fund revenues that are highly sensitive to economic conditions; and WHEREAS, the GFOA analysis also determined that the City should retain its Catastrophic Reserve to provide for the cost of repairs to City buildings and facilities caused by natural disasters or other catastrophic events; and WHEREAS, based on its analysis, the GFOA recommended that the City should establish a target reserve level of about 27 to 33 percent of the City's General Fund revenues; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the analysis and GFOA's recommendations in establishing the parameters of a General Fund reserve strategy; and WHEREAS, a General Fund Reserve Policy maintains a basis for coping with fiscal emergencies, provides guidelines for sound financial management with an overall long-range perspective, and enhances transparency in the City's financial strategies, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: The General Fund Reserve Policy for the City of Burlingame as shown on the attached Exhibit A is hereby adopted. Terry Nagel, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 20th day of January, 2015, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk EXHIBIT A City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document General Fund Reserve Adoption Date: January 20, 2015 Last Revision Date: Owner Department: Finance I. Introduction A General Fund reserve helps ensure that the City of Burlingame (the City) can provide consistent, uninterrupted municipal services in the event of economic disruption or an extreme event. Two of the City's primary revenue sources, the transient occupancy tax and sales tax, are known to be sensitive to downturns in the economy. Further, like many other California cities, Burlingame must be prepared for seismic and other catastrophic events that could threaten its long term fiscal health. This policy establishes the amounts the City will strive to maintain in the General Fund reserve, how the reserve will be funded, and the conditions under which the reserve may be spent. II. Amounts Held in Reserve The City of Burlingame will strive to hold the amount listed below as "assigned" General Fund balance, expressed as a percentage of the City's annual operating expenditures for the General Fund. These amounts are expressed as goal ranges, recognizing that fund balance levels can fluctuate from year to year in the normal course of operations for any local government. The reserves are broken into three separate categories, each with their associated target amount of reserves: 24 % of budgeted revenues - Economic Stability Reserve. Available to protect and preserve City services from dramatic drops in General Fund revenues that are highly sensitive to economic conditions, mainly transient occupancy taxes and sales taxes 2% - 9% of budgeted revenues - Catastrophic Reserve. Available to make repairs and reconstruct City buildings and facilities that may be damaged by natural disasters or acts of war or terrorism $500,000 - Contingency Reserve. Available to cover unexpected expenses that may arise during the course of the fiscal year that were not considered during budget planning If, based on the Finance Director's analysis and forecasting, the target balance is not being met or is likely not going to be met at some point within a five-year time horizon, then a plan to meet the target balance will be developed. This plan will then be presented to the City Council for consideration. III. Funding Reserve Targets Funding of unrestricted fund balance targets will come generally from one-time revenues, unusually high yields from transit occupancy taxes or sales taxes, and projected revenues in excess of projected expenditures. They will generally be reserved in the following priority order: Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A City of Burlingame, California Financial Policy Document General Fund Reserve 1. Economic stability reserve 2. Catastrophic reserve IV. Conditions for Use of Reserves A. Use of Reserves It is the intent of the City to limit use of the General Fund reserves to address unanticipated, non-recurring needs or known, planned future obligations. Reserves shall not normally be applied to recurring annual operating expenditures. The reserves may, however, be used to allow time for the City to restructure its operations in a deliberate manner (such as might be required in the case of a severe economic downturn), but such use will only take place in the context of an adopted long-term plan to reach a sustainable structure. The City may only use up to 50% of the reserve for Economic Stability to continue operations without reductions in any one year of economic difficulty. The use of the reserve is limited in this way so that the balance of the reserve would be available to help the City address any additional financial problems that the City could confront after adoption of a subsequent year's budget. B. Authority to Use Reserves The City Manager may authorize the use of reserves unless that use would cause the City's reserves to drop below 26% of the city's regular annual operating general fund revenues. Any proposed use that would cause the reserves to be below this amount must be approved by the City Council, by majority vote. In all cases, the City Council and management shall only use reserves for purposes consistent with the purposes described in Policy IV -A above. C. Replenishment of Reserves hi the event the City Council authorizes use of the reserves, the City Manager shall propose a plan for the replenishment of the reserves to the City Council. The City will strive to replenish the reserves within one year of use, but will make every reasonable effort to fully replenish them within five years of use. V. Annual Review of Policy The General Fund Reserve policy will be reviewed at least annually, and discussed if changes are necessary, to safeguard its effectiveness and relevance to the City's long-term needs, and to ensure that the policy remains current with government financial best practices. Page 2 of 2 i 1/20/2015 Genera[ Fund Reserve Policy and Establishment of a CIP Renewal & Replacement Reserve Purpose of a Reserve Policy • Mitigate Risk • Revenue shortfalls • Asset failure • Emergencies • Provide guidelines for sound financial management with a long-range perspective • Enhance financial management transparency • Improve credit rating 1 1/20/2015 Background TheGwemment Financed nAssorhNon • Risk-based analysis provided by GFOA A Risk-Based Analysis of General Fund Reserve • Reserve range recommended: Requirements for the City of • Economic Stability Reserve Burlingame • Catastrophic Reserve August 2014 • Limitations: Unfunded projects/facilities Limited debt capacity Tight operating budget • Draft Reserve Policy Objective of a Reserve Policy ✓Memorialize the reserve target ✓Establish the intent of City to maintain the target ✓Describe Acceptable Uses v/Describe who is authorized to use ✓Provide guidance on how to replenish 2 1/20/2015 Reserve Recommendations Computation of General Fund Reserve Recommendation for 2014-15: Staff GFOA Recommendation* Recommendation Percentage Amount Economic Stability Reserve 24% $13.3 million $13,300,000 Catastrophic Reserve 2-9% $1.1-5.0 million 4,500,000 General Plan Reserve 1,000,000 Contingency Reserve 500,000 Subtotal,Assigned Fund Balance $19,300,000 Remaining Fund Balance,7/1/14 $2,951,265 Add: Budgeted Surplus,2014-15 377,058 Total,Projected Unassigned Fund Balance $3,328,323 *Reflected as a%of General Fund Budgeted Revenues before transfers($55,276,421) Unfunded Capital Needs • An on-going issue • Not a risk; a constraint • Sinking Fund recommended Funded by General Fund operating surplus Other one-time revenues :. 3 1/20/2015 Next Steps • Changes to/adoption of General Fund Reserve Policy • Further discussion about a Renewal and Replacement Reserve within the Capital Project Fund, and/or other supporting fiscal policies • Funding of new Renewal and Replacement Reserve, if approved, would be provided with the 2014-15 Mid-year Report and amendments 4 aSTAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2015 AGENDA NO: 10C MEETING DATE: January20, 2015 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222 Subject: Review of Solid Waste Rates for Calendar Year 2015 This item is for information purposes only. No Council action is required regarding the City's solid waste rates for 2015, as no increases to solid waste rates are proposed. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame is a member of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority Joint Powers Agreement (SBWMA). Under the SBWMA Joint Use of Powers Agreement, each member agency sets its own solid waste rates for residential and commercial customers. Each of the 12 SBWMA member jurisdictions has a franchise agreement with Recology of San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste, residential recycling, and residential green waste collections. The franchise agreements began January 1, 2011 and expire December 31, 2020. In addition, a contract with South Bay Recycling provides for operations at the Shoreway Environmental Center, which is owed by the SBWMA. The Shoreway facility serves as a regional solid waste and recycling facility for the receipt, handling and transfer of refuse, recyclable and organic materials. Prior to the new franchise agreement in 2011, Allied Waste held the franchise agreements with SBWMA member agencies, based on a "cost plus profit" compensation model. After stabilizing in 2005, moderate rate increases (shown in the table below) were sufficient to cover annual increases in solid waste expenses. However, in 2009, commercial revenue began to diminish as the area's business activity slowed with the economy. Because approximately 70% of solid waste revenue is derived from commercial accounts, the decrease in commercial activity created a deficit that had to be financed by rate increases each subsequent year. Despite these increases, the City held a deficit position of over $700,000 at the end of the franchise agreement with Allied in 2010. Historical Solid Waste Rate Adjustments - City of Burlingame Rate Year 12004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1 2014 Rate Adjustment 1 17% 0% 3% 5% 5% 8% 6% 1 17% 25% 0% 1 0% 1 Solid Waste Rates for 2015 January 20, 2015 Due to this deficit position, the rising costs of solid waste collection and disposal, and variations in customer service subscriptions (migration to smaller bin sizes based on higher recycling rates), rates were increased by 25% in 2012. In addition, transfers from the General Fund, a decrease in reimbursements for City costs (agency fees), and use of the Solid Waste Fund reserves, enabled the City to pay off the deficit position with Allied. In subsequent years, revenues to the fund have been adequate to generate surpluses within the Solid Waste Fund account, and an estimated $1.1 million surplus had been accumulated from the City's solid waste services going in to the 2015 calendar year rate setting process. Solid waste rates are determined by three major factors. First and foremost is the annual cost of collecting and disposing of garbage and recyclables. Residential and commercial solid waste recyclable and organic materials are collected by Recology and taken to the Shoreway facility for processing, staging, and shipment. The franchise agreement with Recology is a "fixed cost" contract where future costs are adjusted based on contractually approved indices. The second largest factor in the costs of Solid Waste services is in the form of disposal fees (tipping fees at the Shoreway facility and the landfill). Tipping fees are approved by the SBWMA Board and then passed through to the SBWMA agencies to be added to rates. Finally, City fees and eligible solid -waste related costs which the City finances through solid waste rates must be considered in establishing rates. These are referred to as "agency fees', collected by Recology with the customer billings and remitted to the City monthly. These costs include an 8% franchise fee charged to Recology for their use of City right-of-ways to conduct private business. Franchise fees are General Fund revenues. Rates also include the costs of monitoring and testing the City's former landfill and reducing the post -closure liability associated with the landfill; the cost of City -sponsored waste reduction and hazardous waste programs; street sweeping; and the periodic steam cleaning of public trash receptacles. Estimated Solid Waste Program Expenses $0.82,8% Rate Year 2015 $0.43,4% , $0.71,6 • Contracmr Compensation ■ Disposal & Processing • Franchise Fees • landfill Postclosure ■ Other City Expenses $ amounts in millions ) 2 Solid Waste Rates for 2015 January 20, 2015 Since the deficit due to Allied Waste was paid in 2012, rates have adequately covered all these costs. The higher rates ended the need for General Fund transfers to support activities of the Solid Waste Fund, and provided surplus funding of a Solid Waste Rate Stabilization Reserve. Current reserve levels will allow the City to modulate future rate increases, and insure that it is in good fiscal position when the current franchise agreement with Recology terminates at the end of 2020. At current rates, 2015 revenues for solid waste services are estimated to be slightly over $10.6 million, with a negligible surplus/shortfall after all costs (including agency franchise and other fees) are accounted for. In 2014, residential rates for solid waste services in Burlingame were found to be below the average for SBWMA agencies, and commercial rates were only slightly higher than average. A new rate comparison for 2015 will be available prior to the establishment of 2016 rates, but with no rate increases proposed, the City should fare well in this comparison. Rates are set by each agency in accordance with Proposition 218, which requires that all customers be given a 45 -day written notice of the City's intent to adjust rates. No rate change was recommended for the 2015 calendar year. FISCAL IMPACT Current rates that have been in place since 2012 fully cover all anticipated costs of providing solid waste services in calendar year 2015, without requiring a draw on the City's Solid Waste Fund reserves. Therefore, no rate adjustment is needed. In addition, a healthy reserve level allows protection against future year service cost increases. 3 Q m N c • 13 M O m to 10 U W m m in In Q r4 " r'l ID In In S3 OI N In i~ N O M O m ID in N +�-I C r1 d 0 iii0 w V N m VI 4� In F] ry �' m ci . i h chi In ID fl 4 N w 0 +P�i rn rn 6 w v to K w 0 "i rl w N m a rl rl ,ti ,ti rl ri .ti ri ri rl V'I 4'! 4'F Vc An LR L'c ih 4T 47 4'Y 4R in in 4R Vc in 9 w In F 0 O aIm7, N 0 4 5g "7 r` In r7 O r�i ID T�Y rl @ N IJO m In i -r N Iry In n5 In h+ N f+ dri 4i m hall ru In in ct -±N # m m m � s7 sY t! m 4BpR 4T 4R 4R 4T 4T 4T 4T 4T 4'L rLyM1 4R 4'L cin 4uR a/I, LR O N w m in I, 8 nw1 6 A N Chi aS F+ Ie mY 8 8N m m cm0 bN5 :Ks}} c4 In 0 4s In N 4 m m rn v m In m in V4 in Vc Vc Inc %% I.% 4M1 Vt V1 Vc LR VF I Vc I Vc I in 14R Cr O O N In In m iM lh ri In N r1 4@1. n Hr= r I N An Ib C Al OI 1�1y7 +� W 4R 171 ID N M 4R m A6 N ri Aa Oi N " 4'R rl $p1 rn 4'i V1 sY f+ W +I, H tll M N vi. ilyy � m in 1 h in pl V� 0 0 m " 4fy1 [W 9 13 M O m to 10 U W m m in In Q r4 " r'l ID In In S3 OI N In i~ N O M O m ID in N +�-I C r1 d 0 iii0 w V N m VI 4� In F] ry �' m ci . i h chi In ID fl 4 N w 0 +P�i rn rn 6 w v to K w 0 "i rl w N m a rl rl ,ti ,ti rl ri .ti ri ri rl V'I 4'! 4'F Vc An LR L'c ih 4T 47 4'Y 4R in in 4R Vc in 9 w In F 0 O aIm7, N 0 4 5g "7 r` In r7 O r�i ID T�Y rl @ N IJO m In i -r N Iry In n5 In h+ N f+ dri 4i m hall ru In in ct -±N # m m m � s7 sY t! m 4BpR 4T 4R 4R 4T 4T 4T 4T 4T 4'L rLyM1 4R 4'L cin 4uR a/I, LR O N w m in I, 8 nw1 6 A N Chi aS F+ Ie mY 8 8N m m cm0 bN5 :Ks}} c4 In 0 4s In N 4 m m rn v m In m in V4 in Vc Vc Inc %% I.% 4M1 Vt V1 Vc LR VF I Vc I Vc I in 14R Cr O O N In In m iM lh ri In N r1 4@1. n Hr= r I N An Ib C Al OI 1�1y7 +� W 4R 171 ID N M 4R m A6 N ri Aa Oi N " 4'R rl $p1 rn 4'i V1 sY f+ W +I, H tll M N vi. ei v r I N VI Q* N N " 41 N 1 m in pl 4A in 1 h in pl V� 0 0 m " 4fy1 [W 9 N {71 ID 47 rmi rh £1' 11x'1 ��7 {P��• N rl ri rl 4') ilF l 4T 4.siR' 4'c 4M1 4T 4'L 4R 4•F VF 4'V V4 4R aN r�,lrNl, rV.IM 59 13 n F+ �i In s} N In si' m Cn m w w In m m In In ID � fJ r- m In N VppI !t} 4'F 4R 4'1 4'1 U% 4'1 irr 4'1 44 44In in 4!F 4'F 4r4 d r raj W h tYl vt F; rrt�i pp�I oOp N M N 111 N In m N 12Y N N in N M m LppR 41 iron 4T 4T 4'c 4T Ln 4A LR G4A in a4'pF L'4 4y'Si 'A 8 N tNry71 m m inri c�3 rCmr57 n� m ri, VY lip Irt .C.ral N !r ri -i g H ai 4 vH N v A , r^A N N Vim 4T 4T LR 4M1 in 4M1 V' Vc Vc VF C tT � � 4 r1, 47 rCgg EYy � ar m� N L C C T t gg 90 VA L6 VI in KIM w 46 46 46 ma 46 46 Li z c a STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: January 20, 2014 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7243 AGENDA NO: 1 Od MEETING DATE: January 20, 2014 Subject: Consideration of Establishing a "Whistleblower Hotline" Staff recommends the City Council provide direction on whether it wishes to establish a "whistleblower hotline." BACKGROUND During the future agenda portion of a City Council meeting in late 2014, then -Vice Mayor Terry Nagel asked that the City consider establishing a whistleblower hotline. Vice Mayor Nagel noted that she had been approached by several residents who had concerns about the City but were uncomfortable reporting those concerns to staff. For that reason, Vice Mayor Nagel suggested that the City consider establishing some type of whistleblower hotline to enable residents to report any concerns they may anonymously. DISCUSSION The City already provides a number of mechanisms for making whistleblower -type complaints. The online Citizen Connect, system, for example, enables people with complaints about the City, City staff, or elected or appointed officials to register their concerns either anonymously or by providing an email address or phone number. Those who lodge their complaints anonymously receive responses to their messages, but the identity of the complainant remains masked. In addition, more than a year ago, the City established an email address (infoa-burlinaame.org) that is available for anyone wishing to register a complaint or concern. In order to remain anonymous, one could set up an email address using an alias on one of the many free email services. Finally, the City has a main telephone number listed on the homepage of the website, along with many other telephone numbers that go to individual departments. Anyone wishing to place an anonymous call could mask their caller ID by dialing "67 prior to the City telephone number. This will block the caller ID for this call only. Those using cell phones can also block their caller ID, either permanently or temporarily, by enabling certain settings on their phones. 1 Consideration of Whistleblower Hotline January 20, 2015 Should the City Council be interested in establishing a whistleblower hotline, staff would recommend setting up a new, unstaffed phone number that is configured to receive messages. Messages would then be checked on a regular basis, though likely not more than once per day, and dealt with accordingly. Those interested in speaking to a live person, rather than leaving a message, could avail themselves of one of the three options described above. FISCAL IMPACT There are minimal costs associated with setting up a hotline, and checking the messages periodically. Exhibits: • None 2 m w C m Q O N U C m D N N � 0 O j � N '0 c m 3� w s 3 F� th T o E N � C E rnm ¢ o C N MFy o O y F m j m 3 w a C+ a E m FT" PZ ab2 rw •, a E rn E G 0 W $v o U Y ¢ c Z A a o U (D n d. 0 Y!/]•I Vi ,, Q' >om F`4 C O nom m m m � n 3 > m v m m Z o_ N 3.0 0 m N 0 = L H 0 p o 0 O m 0 O1 C C O w m +- - w N m N � m E > rno 0 m C 9 m t0 m a� 0 o a m--0 F n~ O m n O M � N 7 co N N o � O_ 0 0 O O O O O \o O v M W O O M 00 O d a � 00 t- o 0� O M O O o0 M O M LO M O O v O N M W O O it .�. 'Zi" Lr� 00 :4t N o W o It v O o (� O t, I n o � 00 O M � N 7 co N N o � O_ O O N O O \o O v O O M 00 O d a � 00 t- o O rn o o O O 7 O v O N M W N O it .�. ^, O M � N 7 co N N o � � a Cn t- o rn o o O O 7 O v O N O o v o It v O o (� O t, I n o � 00 O (- m O N N N rY O M co M 'tet :4t O W U E U a O O U Q w a 3 w Q za w 3 3 � Ux Pte4 z Z z z w w 44 H A M O A O C) o, O � M N O O n O N It M ON 00 00 N M 't � � � M N N 0 P4 n N 0, O V M_ u�W O_ Ca q c4 N W N M O o c M ao 44 H A 00 N '-I tn N N 00 4 (. ' M O O C) o, O � M O N n I ON o � � � M N 0 F= 0, 00 N '-I tn N N 00 4 (. ' M O O C) 00 O N n I ON o � � � M N F= u�W Ca q c4 z 0 � o H H H w a w adi 00 N '-I tn N N 00 4 (. '