HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2018.07.02City Council
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, July 2, 2018
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A
Approval of the Closed Session Agendaa.
Closed Session Community Forum: Members of the Public May Address the Council on
any Item on the Closed Session Agenda at this Time
b.
Adjournment into Closed Sessionc.
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Gov. Code section 54957.6)
City designated representative: Sonya M. Morrison
Employee Organizations: Association of Police Administrators, Burlingame Police
Officers Association, Burlingame Police Sergeants Association, AFSCME Local 829
Administrative Unit, AFSCME Local 829 Maintenance Unit, AFSCME Local 829
Burlingame Association of Middle Managers, Teamsters Local 856, and Department
Heads and Unrepresented Unit
d.
Closed Session: Conference with Legal Counsel re: Liability Claim, pursuant to California
Government Code § 54956.95:
Claimant: Name unspecified pursuant to California Government Code § 54961
Agency claimed against: City of Burlingame
e.
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
Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018
July 2, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Veolia Donation for Music in the Parka.
Parks and Recreation Foundation Scholarship Presentationb.
Peninsula Wellness Community Update (Director Frank Pagliaro)c.
Staff ReportAttachments:
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.
Adoption of City Council Meeting Minutes June 18, 2018a.
Meeting MinutesAttachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Accepting the Carolan Complete Streets Project by Ghilotti
Construction Company Inc., City Project No. 83680
b.
Staff Report
Resolution
Final Payment Summary
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to EPS, Inc. dba Express
Plumbing for the 2017 Citywide Sanitary Sewer Point Repair, City Project No. 84830, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
c.
Staff Report
Resolution
Bid Summary
Construction Contract
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018
July 2, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Adoption of a Resolution Rejecting All Bids Received for the Tree Pruning and Stump
Removal Contract for FY 2018-2019 and FY 2019-2020 and Authorizing Staff to
Re-advertise the Project, City Project No. 85450
d.
Staff Report
Resolution
Bid Summary
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Amending and Restating a Contract for Sales, Use and
Transactions Tax Audit and Information Services with Hinderliter, de Llamas and
Associates (HdL), and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract
e.
Staff Report
Resolution
Contract
Attachments:
Adoption of Resolution Appointing a Representative and an Alternate for the PLAN JPA
Board of Directors
f.
Staff Report
Resolution
Attachments:
Adoption of a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to Chrisp Company for the
California Drive Complete Streets Project, City Project No. 84540, and Authorizing the
City Manager to Execute the Construction Contract
g.
Staff Report
Resolution
Construction Contract
Bid Summary
Project Location Map
Attachments:
Set Public Hearing Date for an Appeal of the Planning Commission ’s June 11, 2018
Action Denying Without Prejudice Applications for Conditional Use Permits to Install New
Wireless Communications Facilities (Antennae and Equipment) on Existing Wood Utility
Poles Located Within the Right -of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701
Winchester Drive
h.
Staff Report
Letters of Appeal
Attachments:
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018
July 2, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code Regarding No Parking During Specified Hours
a.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Revised Draft Chapter 13.36.020 of BMC
Attachments:
Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal
Code Regarding Parking Meter Zones
b.
Staff Report
Ordinance
Draft Revised Chapter 13.40.010 of the BMC
June 4 2018 Staff Report
Attachments:
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Approval of Conceptual Plan for the New Community Centera.
Staff Report
Staff Report from August 17, 2015 Study Session
Executive Summary
Staff Report from March 19, 2018
Staff Report from June 18, 2019
Mission Design Conceptual Plan
Pavilions Design Conceptual Plan
Attachments:
Discussion of Residential Impact Feesb.
Staff Report
February 20, 2018 City Council Staff Report
February 20, 2018 City Council Meeting Minutes (excerpt)
"Fees vs. Units" Presentation - 21 Elements and Home for All
Attachments:
Update on the Process to Commission Public Art to Honor Anson Burlingamec.
Staff Report
Subcommittee Members Info
January 2, 2018 Staff Report
Request for Qualifications
Request for Proposals
Attachments:
Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018
July 2, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final
Topgolf Update and Consideration of Additional Access Routed.
Staff Report
Access Request
Project Description
Attachments:
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
Mayor Brownrigg's Committee Reporta.
ReportAttachments:
Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reportb.
ReportAttachments:
Councilmember Beach's Committee Reportc.
ReportAttachments:
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees
are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at
(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for
public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and
minutes are available at this site.
NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Next regular City Council Meeting -
Monday, August 20, 2018 (note the July 16 and August 6 meetings are cancelled)
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
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.
Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Approval of Conceptual Plan for the New Community Center
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the conceptual plan options, Mission and Pavilions
in the Park, for the new community center and approve one option to develop in the schematic
plan phase.
BACKGROUND
Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new
community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the
active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center
Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City
Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014.
On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the community center. The
attached staff report from the study session provides a thorough background of the master and
conceptual plan processes (Exhibit A and B). At the study session, the City Council provided the
following input on the conceptual plan: create a more active presence on Burlingame Avenue,
strengthen the civic aspect of the design, and create more depth and detail in the facades. With
this feedback, Group 4 continued to refine the conceptual plan for the building.
On August 25, 2015, staff brought the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission to gather
further input. On April 14, 2016, staff presented the completed traffic study to the Traffic, Safety
& Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek additional input regarding parking options, the impact of
construction on parking, and the phasing options of the project. TSPC Commissioners offered
suggestions including exploring options for bike and pedestrian access. Overall, the Commission
favored the under-the-community center building parking option. They also offered suggestions if
both parking options (under the community center building and one-half level under the tennis
courts) are considered, including looking at parking permits for the lot under the tennis courts
and/or installing meters for the tennis court lot to offset the cost of added parking. Additionally,
Commissioners expressed interest in using the tennis court parking area as an option for
downtown parking.
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
2
The CAC met again on April 20, 2016 to discuss the input from the City Council, Planning
Commission, and TSPC. From the comments generated at the previous meetings and additional
input from the CAC, Group 4 further refined the conceptual plans.
At the March 19, 2018 Council meeting, staff and Group 4 presented the conceptual design for
the Mission design building along with parking options, project budget, cost reduction strategies,
sustainability options, and next steps (Exhibit C). Staff and Group 4 also shared renderings of the
conceptual design for the Pavilions in the Park option, which was the other design favored by a
number of members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
After discussion, the City Council made a number of decisions relative to the project scope, the
building’s size, the location of parking, the maximum budget, and the sustainability features of the
new building. The City Council also requested that staff gather input from the community on the
Mission and Pavilions in the Park options prior to bringing the conceptual plan back to the City
Council for approval before the summer recess. Staff and Group 4 subsequently presented a
status update at the June 18, 2018 Council meeting (Exhibit D), thereby providing the City
Council with an opportunity to review the conceptual design options and updated site plan and
ask clarifying questions.
Updated Site Plan
The project scope is limited to the portion of the Master Plan east of the Lion’s Club Hall. The
current project replaces the existing, structurally deficient ~25,000 sf single-story recreation
center with a new two-story 35,700 sf community center building. While the new facility’s overall
square footage will increase by over 10,000 square feet, the building footprint is anticipated to
remain approximately the same size to accommodate on-site surface and underground parking
as well as ample outdoor amenities. The project also includes the replacement of the playground
and full-size outdoor basketball court in-kind, but more appropriately located to maximize outdoor
opportunities and indoor-outdoor connections to the new facility. To address safety concerns
raised about the existing playground’s close proximity to the street, the relocated playground will
be moved away from the street to a location east of the softball field, where the picnic area
currently exists. The picnic area will be relocated further southwest to have closer proximity to
the new community center, activating the public spaces of the park and the outdoor terraces of
the community center program spaces. The full-size basketball court remains in approximately
the same location, but will be reconfigured for optimal orientation and shifted south to eliminate
the existing awkward terminus of the pedestrian pathway at the basketball court.
Updated Parking Plan
As set forth in the Master Plan approved by the City Council in July 2014, a total of 143 off-street
parking spaces are required to serve the new community center and Washington Park. This
quantity of parking spaces was developed through direct communication with the community, the
City, and a parking consultant who performed parking demand calculations for the proposed
project. Parking demand calculations were estimated for both the typical daily peak hour demand
(i.e. the highest amount of parking demand expected to occur during an hour for both an average
weekday and weekend) as well as the maximum parking demand during an event (which would
be rare and is used to show the scenario in which the project generates the most demand). Of
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
3
the 143 off-street parking spaces required in the Master Plan, 59 spaces are accounted for in the
existing surface lot west of the Lions Club Hall. The remaining 84 spaces will be located on the
project site in a surface lot and a single-level underground parking lot east of the new community
center. Approximately half of the 84 spaces are planned for the surface parking lot, with the
remaining spaces accommodated in the underground parking lot.
The proposed surface parking lot with vegetated landscape and trees will take the place of the
existing facility location, while the new building will be located immediately to the west of the new
lot, closer to the greater Washington Park and other civic amenities. The surface lot will provide a
transitional buffer between the new building’s activities and the single-family residences along the
eastern edge of the park. A vegetated sound wall between the parking lot and residential homes
is being considered to mitigate vehicular noise impact from the surface lot. The parking lot will
also include a designated pick-up and drop-off zone immediately adjacent to the entry plaza. To
accommodate the tour bus trips associated with recreation programming, it is anticipated that the
section of Burlingame Avenue directly in front of the community center will be zoned for bus
loading and unloading during specific timeframes.
Underground Parking Options
The project team is currently exploring two different underground parking options. The first option
includes underground parking that is primarily separated from the community center building,
connected via a small lobby that allows visitors access from the underground parking directly up
via elevator or stairs to the community center lobby. The second option, which may yield
potential cost savings, explores locating a portion of the underground parking under the building
in order to eliminate extra slab, waterproofing, etc. This second option also would include a lobby
at the underground parking level that would allow visitors access from the parking garage up to
the street level (and potentially into the community center lobby as well).
DISCUSSION
DESIGN OPTIONS
The two design options under consideration by the community and City Council are the Mission
design (Exhibit E) and Pavilions in the Park design (Exhibit F). While the designs diverge in both
inspiration and look, both have been well-received by the community.
Mission Design
• Context. The Mission design option is a contemporary reinterpretation of Burlingame’s
civic heritage of mission design architecture as exemplified in the nearby Caltrain station,
Burlingame Library, and Burlingame Fire Station 34. The Mission design seeks to fit into
the rich historical context of Burlingame while becoming its own distinct landmark for the
community.
• Massing/Orientation. The landmark feature of the Mission design option is the high-
volumed entry tower, reminiscent of a mission tower that incorporates a mission-design
vocabulary of overhangs, trellises, and simplified openings. The building is articulated
through a series of recesses along the street and park sides, helping to break down the
overall building’s mass and length. On the exterior, these indentations allow for planted
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
4
areas or seat walls, while vertical circulation or smaller programmatic spaces on the
interior respond to the articulated zones. In turn, the indentations further break down the
continuous gabled roofs, creating distinct volumes. On the south and northwest ends of
the building, the overall volume steps down from two stories to a smaller mass to create a
more residential scale for each end of the building’s wings. The flat-roofed areas in
between the gabled roofs provide functional space for rooftop mounted air handling and
ventilation units.
• Fenestration. The two most prominent window features are the arches located at the
central entry volume that serve as the main entrances, or portals, to the building from
Burlingame Avenue and Washington Park. The glazing at these locations is planned to be
deeply inset within the arches, reinforcing the transition from solid to the void, and
expressing the layering of building materials. The insets at these prominent openings will
be celebrated with the use of terracotta accents, and allow for a rich play of shadows
within the main lobby space. The two secondary window arches will be concentrated at
either end of the building’s wings, anchoring the first level corridors, and serving as key
wayfinding elements on the interior. The southwest wing arch will be within the creative
arts classroom, and is the first face of the building patrons will encounter approaching
from the west along Burlingame Avenue. The location of this arch, looking towards
downtown, creates a strong architectural dialogue with Burlingame’s other civic structures
– including the Caltrain Station just down the road. The northwest wing arch is located
within the Community Hall, and will be a focal point for the space, offering framed views
outwards to the former Gunst Estate and park. This arch is centered on the raised
platform, with the lower portion of glazing having the opportunity to open up to the exterior
portion of the raised platform for indoor/outdoor connections. The other windows
throughout the building vary in size with regard to the program within but maintain a
proportion in keeping with the building’s mission design heritage.
• Materiality. The exterior material palette of the Mission design façade includes stucco,
wood accents, and a phenolic panel rainscreen system. The roof is planned to be red tile.
Wood and steel trellises accent the building entry and outdoor program spaces.
Pavilions in the Park Design
• Context. The inspiration for the Pavilions in the Park design arose out of the community’s
desire to create a community landmark that celebrates its beautiful and natural setting and
serves as a gateway and connection to Washington Park.
• Massing/Orientation. The primary massing of this option consists of three distinct
pavilions that float above the rest of the building and serve as an invitation into and
through the building with glassy connections to Washington Park. Subtle butterfly roofs on
each pavilion sweep up to embrace the street and entry on Burlingame Avenue as well as
open up to the park, focusing views upward to frame the mature park trees and sky
beyond. The central pavilion anchors the building entry and creates a dynamic gathering
lobby that visually connects the street with the park. The community room pavilion is
nestled on the east side of the building and opens up to an adjoining patio as well as an
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
5
indoor/outdoor platform. The pavilion on the west side of the building creates a welcoming
approach from downtown and a warm atmosphere amongst the tree canopy for the fitness
studio and fine arts classroom housed within. The three pavilions are connected by simple
rectangular building forms that are deferential to the pavilions and break down their two-
story scale with a play of materials, trellises, and articulated ins and outs of the building
walls. As a complement to the pavilions, the community center is bookended by lower
height volumes that step down the building scale to the adjacent Lions building on the
west and the parking lot on the east. On the west side, the kids town classroom and
support spaces are housed under the lower height volume, while the kitchen and other
community room support spaces are on the east side.
• Fenestration. The glassy pavilions provide natural daylighting, sweeping views to the
park, and a visible connection to the street. The rhythm of windows on the other portions
of the community center responds in size and to the program within and the views out to
the park and the street. On the street side, smaller windows accent the facade, especially
on the first floor, to fit into the scale of the surrounding neighborhood context. On the park
side, where strong physical and visual connections are wanted, larger full-height glazed
walls and framed windows are utilized, blurring the distinction between inside and
outside.
• Materiality. The exterior material palette of the Pavilions in the Park design façade
includes stucco, horizontal and vertical wood accents, fiber cement rainscreen, and
polished concrete. The three pavilion butterfly roofs are standing seam metal, while the
parapeted flat roofs are planned to be TPO roofing. Wood and steel trellises accent the
building entry and outdoor program spaces, and a series of louvers control daylighting.
DESIGN COMPARISON
Both the Mission design and the Pavilions in the Park design concepts meet the project goals and
site and programmatic requirements through their respective designs. The site plan for both
schemes is the same; both feature the same above- and below-ground parking plan, drop-off,
entry plaza, outdoor spaces and rooms, playground, basketball court, picnic area, and connection
to the greater Washington Park. Both schemes have the ability to support additional parking
spaces (approximately 30 spaces) beyond what is currently planned, should the City Council
decide to add supplemental parking to the project scope. Since both design concepts have the
same site plan, the sustainable design strategies for the site are the same, including, but not
limited to: drought tolerant planting, storm water quantity and quality control, heat-island effect
reduction, bicycle parking, designated spaces for carpools, and electric vehicle charging.
In addition, the building program for both the Mission design and Pavilions in the Park design is
the same; both schemes meet the same square footage, adjacency, and functional requirements.
While the materials for each design concept differ, both schemes have a comparable construction
budget, and both would employ modern building construction techniques that make both design
concepts equal in terms of constructability and overall construction schedule.
Both the Mission design and Pavilions in the Park design concepts also have the ability to take
advantage of sustainable design strategies within the building via energy-efficient mechanical and
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
6
lighting systems, natural ventilation and daylighting, low-flow fixtures, low-e glazing, and green
building materials.
Photovoltaic Panels
One differentiator between the two schemes in terms of sustainable design strategies is the
percentage of roof area that can be dedicated for photovoltaic panels. In the Mission design,
approximately 50% of the roof area can be captured for photovoltaic panels. Half of the gabled
roof faces southeast or southwest at an optimal solar orientation; however, the other half of the
roof faces northeast or northwest at an angle that is not advantageous for capturing sunlight. In
the Mission design, due to the roof form, the solar panels would be highly visible on both the
street side and from the park. In the Pavilions in the Park design, approximately 75%-80% of the
roof area can be dedicated for photovoltaic panels, with the panels primarily hidden from view
due to the flat and minimal slope of the roof forms. 20%-25% of the roof area for both schemes
will need to be dedicated for mechanical equipment, vents, flues, and maintenance access; in
both designs, mechanical wells and screening would reduce or hide the visibility of these service
elements.
Light Pollution & Bird Protection
One design concern for civic facilities that are located adjacent to residential neighborhoods is
light pollution at night. A civic building inherently has larger spans of glass than its residential
counterparts, and the ability to see into and through the building during the day creates a
welcoming and inviting atmosphere for all. For nighttime use, several light pollution and glare
mitigation strategies have been identified to ensure that the new community center fits into its
residential context while still being fully functional after-hours for programming and events,
including:
• Windows with tinted or fritted glass
• Exterior mechanical louvers or interior window shades that are programmed to close at
night
• Thoughtful lighting design with warm color temperatures (this can be accomplished with
energy-efficient LEDs) and sufficient but not over-lit lighting levels
• Luminaires with well-shielded light sources and a balance of direct-indirect light
• Auto-off function for unoccupied rooms (20-minute maximum is required per Cal Green for
classrooms and meeting rooms)
Another design concern related to glazing on civic facilities is the flight path of birds and windows.
When glass has a high glare or high reflection, especially at higher elevations, birds may not see
the glass and fly into it. Strategies that have proven successful for avian protection while
enhancing, rather than detracting from, the architectural aesthetic include fritted or textured glass
and minimizing glare and reflection with overhangs and trellises.
Outreach Summary
In order to gauge public support for the two different conceptual plans, City staff and Group 4
undertook significant community outreach, including placing intercept kiosk events at active
community destinations and conducting an online survey. Intercept kiosks were located at the
Recreation Center lobby, Burlingame Public Library lobby, and Burlingame Fresh Market. The
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
7
online survey was advertised through the City website, Parks & Recreation website, Burlingame
Library website, City Commissions, email blasts, Facebook, Nextdoor, eNews, and the Citizens
Advisory Committee.
As shown below, the various outreach methods reached a large number of Burlingame residents:
• Online Survey: 500 participants
• Community Center Kiosk: 450 participants
• Library Kiosk: 264 participants
• Burlingame Fresh Market: 396 participants
• Total: 1621 participants
The result of the community outreach is that 51% of the respondents (827 votes) preferred the
Mission design, while 49% (796 votes) preferred the Pavilions in the Park design. Those
preferring the Mission option noted that they valued the historic character of other community
buildings in Burlingame, while those supporting the Pavilions in the Park option recognized that
the contemporary design would allow a more seamless integration of the indoors to the outdoors.
Next Steps
Once the City Council has approved the conceptual design at the July 2, 2018 City Council
meeting, the consultant team and staff will begin to complete the CEQA requirements and the
schematic design phase of the project. In the fall of 2018, staff will ask the City Council to provide
input on the Schematic Design at a Council Study Session. Staff anticipates asking for Council
approval of the Schematic Design plans by the end of 2018; work on the construction documents
will commence thereafter.
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure
that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-
setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan
for the Measure I funds. (The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.)
As noted at the goal-setting session, an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the
issuance of lease revenue bonds for the project would yield bond proceeds of approximately $15
million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community Center project, the City will need to rely on a
combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the
Capital Investment Reserve. Staff thus recommended that the Council consider an additional $1
million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately
$30 million, with the remaining financing for the Community Center project to be provided from
the Capital Investment Reserve or some other source not yet determined. The recommended
debt service funding from Measure I and other General Fund monies ($2 million in total) is
included in the proposed budget for 2018-19, in anticipation of the bond issuance for the
Community Center project sometime in the upcoming fiscal year.
Approval of Conceptual Plan Option for the New Community Center July 2, 2018
8
Exhibits:
• Staff Report from August 17, 2015 Study Session
• Executive Summary
• Staff Report from March 19, 2018
• Staff Report from June 18, 2018
• Mission Design Conceptual Plan
• Pavilions in the Park Design Conceptual Plan
Burlingame’s New Community Center
Conceptual Design Executive Report
City of Burlingame
March 2018
BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNCONTENTSCONTENTS
OVERVIEW AND PROCESS .................................................................................................1
SITE CONNECTIONS AND PARKING ................................................................................3
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS AND OPTIONS .........................................................5
PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTION ..................................................................7
Building Style, Orientation, and Form .................................................................................8
Program Organization ........................................................................................................10
Building Materiality ...........................................................................................................16
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY .............................................................................................17
SUSTAINABILITY ................................................................................................................18
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................18
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................20
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYOVERVIEW AND PROCESS
At the start of 2015, the City of Burlingame engaged Group 4 Architecture to develop
the conceptual design for the Burlingame Community Center in Washington Park.
The project builds upon the Burlingame Community Center Master Plan approved
by the City Council in July 2014, aiming to confirm the building program, establish
the preferred conceptual floor plans, site plan, and building massing for both the
community center and Washington Park improvements.
The existing recreation center is a much loved and well used community asset, serving
residents for nearly 70 years. Set amidst groves of mature trees, the center also abuts the
former Gunst Estate, a historical estate originally owned by cigar retailer Moses Gunst
who built his mansion there in 1904. The Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department
currently offers a diverse range of programs, providing recreational and enrichment
opportunities for community residents of all ages. Unfortunately, the existing center
has reached its maximum capacity; the spaces are insufficient for programs, services,
and events, which greatly limits the Parks and Recreation Department’s ability to
adequately serve the community. Due to its lack of ADA compliance and limited
parking, it is inaccessible or difficult to access for some community members. Originally
built in the late 1940s, the center has aged building systems (mechanical, plumbing,
electrical, and data systems), in addition to seismic safety issues. The character and
ambiance of many spaces within the facility are dated and limit the revenue potential.
The proposed community center is being designed to meet the needs of today’s
community and to have the flexibility to evolve to meet the ever-changing needs
of future patrons. Located slightly to the west of the existing facility, the new multi-
generational community center will be nearly 43% larger than the existing facility
through the addition of second floor. This will allow for a programming capacity of
510+ hours per week; the existing recreation center can only program about 300 hours
per week. The design of the building will be functional and beautiful, honoring the rich
history and heritage of Washington Park and Burlingame.
2 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe conceptual design process engaged staff, stakeholders, and the community-
at-large at all levels through online surveys, drop-in events in Washington Park,
intercept kiosks at the Fresh Market, and public meetings. Community members had
the opportunity to weigh in on program and site diagrams, architectural styles, and
massing options. Project oversight was provided by a Citizens Advisory Committee
comprised of key community leaders. The CAC guided the overall development of the
conceptual design and provided the design team with feedback throughout the entire
process, ultimately helping refine the preferred conceptual design option.
The following meetings were held during the conceptual design phase:
▪Two (2) Fresh Market outreach kiosks events
▪Two (2) community open houses at Washington Park
▪One (1) lunchtime kiosk at Burlingame High School
▪One (1) lunchtime kiosk at Burlingame Intermediate School
▪Two (2) Parks & Recreation Commission meetings
▪Five (5) Citizen Advisory Committee meetings
▪One (1) City Council study session meeting
▪One (1) Planning Commission meeting
▪One (1) Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission meeting
▪In addition to an online survey, which collected 122 responses on building design
value options
Overall, the conceptual design phase engaged nearly 870 Burlingame community
members, including both in-person interactions and online survey respondents.
May 2015 Fresh Market kiosk event
3 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSITE CONNECTIONS AND PARKING
As established during the Master Plan process, the site location of the new community
center is slightly to the west of the existing recreation center. The shift allows for the
building to act as a nexus for the park, organizing events around outdoor terraces that
connect interior and exterior spaces.
The building itself acts as the easternmost anchor of the new “charm bracelet” of park
amenities running through Washington Park, connecting downtown Burlingame to the
community center. On the ground floor, all main programmatic spaces have direct
indoor-outdoor connections to the terraces, allowing indoor programming to expand
outwards into the park, and greatly expanding the programmable square footage of
the community center.
Visitors entering the community center from Burlingame Avenue or the adjacent
parking lot will be greeted by a nicely scaled plaza, with planted seat walls that provide
places for patrons to wait to be picked-up. Space for covered bike parking will be
provided on the southeastern facade of the building, allowing for convenient and safe
parking places for cyclists.
Directly to the east of the new building, a small surface parking lot with vegetated
landscape and trees takes the place of the existing facility location. The surface lot
provides a buffer between the new building’s activity and neighbors along the eastern
edge of the park. A vegetated sound wall between the parking lot and immediate
neighbors is being considered to reduce any noise form the surface lot. The lot will
also provide a designated vehicle pick-up and drop-off zone immediately adjacent
to the entry plaza. Traffic, Safety, and Parking Commission commissioners have
recommended exploring zoning the surface lot for short-term, senior, ADA, and staff
parking only.
Tennis Courts
Park
P
r
o
m
e
n
a
d
e
Park Promenade
Horseshoe Pits
Bocce Courts
Basketball
Court
Softball
Fields
Gunst
Estate
Playground
Plaza
Site plan
N
4 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe conceptual design maintains the recommended 143 off-street parking spaces set
forth in the Master Plan to serve the new community center and Washington Park. This
quantity of parking spaces was established through direct communication with the
community, the City, and the parking consultant. During the conceptual design phase,
a traffic analysis and report was created, which further validated the proposed parking
approach.
As outlined in the Master Plan, there are two options for meeting the parking need:
▪The first option places 70 parking spaces directly under the building, in addition to
a new parking lot on the southeast edge of the park. The added construction cost
of mechanical ventilation for under-building parking is offset somewhat by sharing
a single structural system with the new building above. These spaces also have the
advantage of being able to directly tie into the new community center through a
lower level vestibule containing interior stairs and an elevator into the community
center lobby and outdoor plaza.
▪The second option locates parking under the tennis courts on the western end of
the park. Moving the courts up a half-level creates an opportunity to have terraced,
amphitheater-style seating facing the park. Parking is depressed a half-level below
grade to provide approximately 70 parking spaces. Natural ventilation reduces the
overall cost relative to parking that is fully below grade.
In both schemes, the remaining 73 spaces would be accommodated at the new
parking lot on the southeast edge of the park and the parking lot adjacent to the Lions’
Club (with a slight reduction in surface parking at this location to accommodate the
relocated basketball court). To accommodate the frequent tour bus trips associated
with recreation programming, the section of Burlingame Avenue directly in front of the
community center will be zoned for bus loading and unloading. The curb in front of
Recommended parking options
5 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYCONCEPTUAL DESIGN PROCESS AND OPTIONS
During the programming phase of the project, the consultant developed a series
of design values, which included a set of images that encompassed an array of
architectural styles (ranging from traditional to contemporary), and expressed options
for the overall look and feel that the community center could have. Community
members were asked during the outreach events to prioritize and rank the values,
based on individual opinion of which value or image was most appropriate for the
project’s location in Washington Park and the Burlingame context as a whole.
The results generated an understanding of the community’s preferred design aesthetic,
and helped guide the initial conceptual design options for the new community center.
The highest ranked design values were Contextual Inspiration, Traditionally Influenced,
Warm + Inviting, and Civic. Many of the design values can work in conjunction with
one another, with the final design often encompassing multiple values.
From the input on the design values, four massing options were developed for the
CAC’s review. Two of the options were more traditionally influenced, and two were
contemporary in style. The CAC reviewed and commented on each option.
Preferred design values
6 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ▪Option A2 : Traditionally Influenced “Arts & Crafts.” Using the former Gunst Estate
home and the arts and crafts bungalows of northern California as inspiration, this
option had a strong gabled roof, but broke the massing down on the entries and park
side of the building to create a more human-scaled experience. Second-story covered
balconies provided upper-level outdoor space, referencing the sleeping porches
of arts and crafts homes from the early 20th century. The CAC particularly liked the
community hall’s massing, which broke down in scale on the park side, incorporating
clerestory glazing and a continuous covered outdoor colonnade. The CAC disliked
the entry, which many felt was too institutional. Several comments also centered on
the dominance of the gabled roof, and suggested a more shallow pitch for the main
roof forms to reduce its visual prominence.
▪Option A1: Traditionally Influenced “Mission.” This option was redolent of Burlingame’s
existing civic context and rooted in Spanish California mission styled architecture. It
included a high-volumed entry tower reminiscent of a mission tower, and incorporated
a Mission-style design vocabulary of overhangs, trellises, and simplified openings. The
material palette consisted of stucco, red tile roofs, and wood accents. The CAC had
a strong preference for this option, and especially liked the entry tower component.
Other comments included more articulation of the overall building massing, the
exploration of more traditional elements, such as arches, and making the trellis or
colonnade more prominent.
Option A1
Option A2
7 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ▪Option B1: Warm + Inviting “Gables.” This more contemporary option also utilized a
continuous gable roof as a strong design move; the elongated roof forms accentuated
the linearity of the building form. On the park side corners of the two main wings, the
roof edges were “deconstructed” or chamfered, allowing for natural light to enter
the upper volumes, and created a more contemporary, civic feel to the building. A
warm material palette of wood, glass, and color accent panels was proposed. CAC
members were in agreement that this option was not the right solution for Washington
Park, with many feeling that the gable roof was too dominant, similar to the feedback
received for Option A2.
▪Option B2: Warm + Inviting “Pavilions In the Park.” The most contemporary option
presented to the CAC, this scheme broke the Center’s building mass down to create
four distinct “pavilion” forms that corresponded to the four main programmatic zones:
Community Hall; main entry; enrichment classrooms; and fitness and arts spaces.
Each mass contained a single shed roof form that sloped up towards the park. This
allowed for a smaller building mass along the street side, responding to the smaller-
scaled residential neighbors while still maintaining a grand civic scale along the park.
Generous overhangs and second level clerestory glazing further accentuated the open,
floating pavilion forms of the building. The CAC felt the building forms responded
nicely to the park, and were well integrated with the park setting. In contrast to the
other options, the shed roofs reduced the visual prominence of the roof forms, and
many CAC members liked the open transparency of the building. Some members felt
Option B1
Option B2
8 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYthe forms were well articulated, while others voiced the opinion that the forms
were too broken up. Many members liked the design, but worried that it did not
represent Burlingame’s values and context.
The CAC selected the Mission and the Pavilions In the Park options for further
development at the next round of community outreach, but encouraged the design
team to explore hybrid options as well, combining key concepts or features of each
option.
At the second round of community outreach, residents were given the opportunity to
comment and vote on the two refined designs (the Mission style and Pavilions in the
Park options), as well as provide input on specific design approaches, such as indoor-
outdoor connections or the Burlingame Avenue street relationship. The feedback
collected from the community process showed that the majority or respondents
supported the traditionally influenced Mission option. While many respondents liked
aspects of the Pavilions in the Park option, there seemed to be an overall consensus
that the Mission option was a better fit for Burlingame’s existing architectural context
and community values.
With the initial input from the CAC and community received, the design team further
developed and refined the Mission option. Additional design input was collected at
subsequent CAC meetings, as well as at a City Council study session and a Planning
Commission meeting, all of which helping shape the preferred conceptual design
option.
PREFERRED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OPTION
BUILDING STYLE, ORIENTATION, AND FORM
The preferred Community Center design is a contemporary reinterpretation of
Burlingame’s civic use of Mission styled architecture (as seen in the Burlingame
Library, Fire Station, and Caltrain station). While the design is rooted in the Mission
style through its use of gabled roof forms, overhangs, deep inset windows, and
primary materiality, the Community Center’s stylistic reinterpretation occurs in several
ways: the breakdown of building mass in response to the immediate site context and
building program; generous fenestration and expression of interior program space;
the contemporary use of building technologies and materials; and incorporating best
practices for sustainable design.
Massing
The preferred conceptual design option will be two stories, with the main entry mass
smaller in height than an adjacent four-story apartment building located across the
street from the Lion’s Club. The two Community Center wings will be kept to a minimal
height to support the recreation activity inside without overwhelming its single-family
residential neighbors. Keeping with the recommendation set forth in the Master Plan,
the new building footprint is sited at the location of the existing building and the
existing children’s play area. As such, the park’s mature tree canopy can be preserved
as much as possible. In order to further support connections between the building
and park, the Center’s footprint is L-shaped. Through two wings and a central lobby,
the majority of the Center’s spaces are connected to the park with outdoor rooms and
views.
The building is articulated through a series of recesses along the street and park
sides, helping to break down the overall building’s mass and length. On the exterior,
these indentations allow for planted areas or seat walls, while vertical circulation or
smaller programmatic spaces on the interior respond to the articulated zones. In turn,
the indentations further break down the continuous gabled roofs, creating distinct
9 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYvolumes, similar in effect to the well received Pavilions in the Park scheme. On the south
and northwest ends of the building, the overall volume steps down from two stories to
a smaller mass to create a more residential scale for each end of the building’s wings.
The flat-roofed areas in between the gabled roofs provide functional space for rooftop
mounted air handling and ventilation units.
Arched Great Windows
The arch is one of the strongest design elements that can be found within Mission
style architecture, and many Burlingame residents expressed their fondness for it. The
Library, Fire Station, and Caltrain Station all incorporate the arch into their design
vocabulary, and the new community center will do so as well. The design team sought
to be purposeful in the use of the arch, as to not downplay its significance, and thereby
used the arch in four distinct locations on the building.
The two most prominent arches are located at the central entry volume, and will
serve as the main entrances, or portals, to the building from Burlingame Avenue and
Washington Park. The glazing at these locations will be deeply inset within the arches,
reinforcing the transition from solid to the void, and expressing the layering of building
materials. The insets at these prominent openings will be celebrated with the use of
terracotta accents, and allow for a rich play of shadows within the main lobby space.
The two secondary arches will be concentrated at either end of the building’s wings,
anchoring the first level corridors, and serving as key wayfinding elements on the
interior.
▪The southwest wing arch will be within the Creative Arts classroom, and is the
first face of the building patrons will encounter approaching from the west along
Burlingame Avenue. The location of this arch, looking towards downtown, creates
a strong architectural dialogue with Burlingame’s other civic structures – including
the Caltrain Station just down the road – and asserts the building’s civic character.
Rendering view of main entry and plaza off Burlingame Avenue
10 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ▪The northwest wing arch is located within the Community Hall, and will be a
beautiful focal point for the space, offering framed views outwards to the former
Gunst Estate and park. This arch is centered on the raised platform, with the lower
portion of glazing having the opportunity to open up to the exterior portion of the
raised platform for indoor/outdoor connections.
Facades and Accents
The park and street facades of the community center wings take the existing site
context into account while simultaneously responding to the programmatic functions
occurring within the building. Along the street and parking lot facades, the bands of
windows are smaller and strategically placed to allow daylight into the interior spaces,
but are careful to not impose on neighboring residences. On the park side, where
strong physical and visual connections are wanted, larger full-height glazed walls and
framed windows are utilized, blurring the distinction between inside and outside. The
main program spaces on the ground floor will have direct access to the outdoors
through retractable, glazed sliding doors permitting the flow of space to the outdoors.
The organizational pattern of the windows directly responds to the program function
within the interior; more glazing provided for public spaces where programs and
activities occur, and reduced or minimal glazing in non-public staff and back-of-
house areas. In effect, a playful fenestration pattern is created, expressing the interior
functions of the spaces, and reducing the institutional feel of the building. Many of the
windows begin to wrap the corners of the pavilion-like volumes, sculpting the forms
and further breaking down the building mass. The window patterning will continue to
be developed in subsequent design phases, as the floor plans and spaces are refined,
with input from the public and City Council.
PROGRAM ORGANIZATION
First Level
Connecting the two wings at the center of the building is the main entry lobby. Visitors
who enter the new community center from Burlingame Avenue will be welcomed into
a light-filled, two story space with direct views through the building to the park itself.
A secondary entrance to the park will directly link the community center to the “charm
bracelet” park promenade. The lobby will serve as an informal gathering area or pre-
function space, and will offer seating and tables for patrons to relax, work, or meet
friends.
The central stair will be an integral feature of the lobby, ascending to a balcony
overlooking the lobby and park, connecting visitors to the upper level. To the left of
the lobby entry from Burlingame Avenue will be the main service desk and elevator;
to the right will be the lounge, which flows off the lobby to offer a more intimate
gathering space for patrons. The lounge overlooks the surface parking lot and drop-
off area, allowing patrons to wait inside for their rides during inclement weather.
If under-building parking is included in the project, the elevator will be two-sided,
connecting the garage to the interior lobby as well as an exterior vestibule, and could
be operational after-hours.
Branching off the lobby to the northwest, is the Community Hall wing of the building.
Visitors will be afforded a direct view down the corridor to the beautiful Community
Hall and its arched window with views out to the Gunst Estate. Positioned along the
corridor is a meeting room that could comfortably accommodate 12 individuals. The
ground floor’s main restrooms are located further down the corridor, placed near the
Community Hall for ease of access during large events. The Community Hall itself
will be a double-height space able to serve a dining capacity of 266, or 400 guests
11 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYRendering view of main lobby
Rendering view of the Community Hall interior
12 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYin a theater/auditorium style layout. For flexibility of use, the space will be divisible,
allowing for two smaller programmable spaces. At the northwest end, a raised platform
is centered on the arched window, with access to an outdoor platform, providing the
opportunity to incorporate Music in the Park and other Parks and Recreation events into
the building. To the west of the space, sliding glass doors will open to the Community
Hall terrace, providing a seamless connection to the outdoors, and allowing for indoor
events to expand outside. Integrated seat walls, planters, and fire pits are some of
the landscaped features for this terrace. A catering kitchen and storage areas will
border the Community Hall to the northeast, and will have direct access to the surface
parking lot for operational flexibility and independent use of the Community Hall.
Two park restrooms (accessed directly from the outdoors) on the park side are located
directly to the south of the Community Hall, close to the park side building entrance
for additional surveillance.
Branching to the northwest, in the opposite direction from the lobby, is a wing of three
classrooms that are primarily focused on youth and teen programming, in addition
to the Creative Arts & Ceramics and staff spaces. All of these spaces have been
intentionally placed along the park, allowing for dedicated outdoor space and views
towards the park.
▪The Maker Room will provide a flexible classroom for a variety of activities with
a focus on technology. Such programs could include a coding class, carpentry
course, or any hands-on type of craft activity.
▪The Teen Scene, immediately adjacent to the Maker Room, offers teens a dedicated
after school hangout and homework space.
▪The Kids Town classroom will provide space for early childhood education or
preschool programming, and will feature a dedicated restroom for children, as
well as a secure outside play yard.
Rendering view of Kids Town classroom
13 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYFirst floor plan
Second floor plan
ART
YARD
COMMUNITY
HALL TERRACE
OUTDOORTHEATER
BIKEPARKING
PLAY
YARD
PLAYGROUND
PARK PRO
M
E
N
A
D
E
ENTRY
PLAZA
PARK
PLAZA
DROP-OFF ZONETERRACE
BIKE
PARKING
N
N
14 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYAnchoring the end of the wing, the Creative Arts & Ceramics space will offer a generous
amount of space for ceramics and pottery programming. A dedicated kiln room and
oversized storage area will support the space. The Creative Arts room will have direct
access to a large outdoor arts yard, allowing for art activities to occur outside during
warm weather. Staff space makes up the remaining portion of the wing, and is oriented
along the Burlingame Avenue side of the building.
The design team worked directly with Recreation staff on the layout of these spaces,
and it’s envisioned that during the summer months, the classrooms and Creative Arts
space in this wing will be used for the youth summer camps, consolidating the more
active, youth-oriented programming to one part of the building, and allowing the
remaining Community Hall wing and upper levels to be open for other recreation
programming.
It is important to emphasize that all program spaces within the community center are
envisioned as multi-use space, available to patrons of all ages when not programmed
for a specific age group.
Second Level
On the second level, at the top of the central stair, is the Large Meeting Room that
can serve as a large classroom or secondary event space, allowing for lifelong learning
lectures or space for the Parks and Recreation Department Commission meetings.
Overlooking the lobby to the interior and the entry plaza to the exterior is the enclosed
Active Lounge, which will primarily provide programming for senior activities such as
cards, billiards, and informal gathering. The Active Lounge’s location at the nexus of
the building provides for dynamic views to the interior and exterior, and allows for
ease of access from the elevator, which is located immediately adjacent to the entry
of the lounge.
Continuing off of the lobby and Active Lounge is the Fine Arts Classroom, providing
ample space for painting, drawing, and other fine arts courses. Overlooking the
park and tree tops, the space will be an inspirational setting for creating art. Next
to the Fine Arts Classroom is a dedicated Musical Arts studio, for music lessons and
classes. At the end of the second story wing is a Dance & Fitness Studio set amongst
the trees, which will contain a sprung wood floor and a mirror wall for dance classes
and fitness focused programming. Special attention will be given to the acoustical
attenuation and vibration isolation between the Dance & Fitness Studio and spaces
below it. Three separate storage closets support the space, allowing for an abundance
of dedicated storage for various service provider equipment. The Studio has access to
a small balcony along the park side for patrons to step outside for a breath of fresh air
before or after a workout. Along the Burlingame Avenue side of the wing is a divisible
Enrichment Classroom, which will provide the space and the necessary technology for
a multi-purpose training classroom environment.
Overall
The proposed total square footage of the building is currently 35,700 square feet,
providing for an increase of nearly 11,000 square feet of program space from the
existing condition today. As previously mentioned, the gain of program square footage
is possible through the addition of a second story. The new community center’s overall
building footprint is around 25,000 square feet, compared to the existing recreation
center’s footprint of just over 24,000 square feet today.
15 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYRendering view of the Active Lounge
Rendering view of the Dance & Fitness Studio
16 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYBUILDING MATERIALITY
The selection of building materials for the new community center reflects the Spanish
California mission style inspiration as well as Burlingame’s existing civic architecture
and nearby downtown character. Durability and ease of maintenance will be of utmost
importance. The primary material for the building is stucco, with a precast stone base
along the entire ground level of the building, creating a strong, continuous datum line
along the length of the building. The roof material will be high quality concrete tiles,
similar in look and color to clay roof tiles. The recessed indentations between pavilions
and accent material between glazing bands will provide an opportunity to introduce
more contemporary materials. One option for the secondary material between the
volumes will be terracotta panels, which relate in color and texture to the roof tiles and
clay materiality of historic mission structures. Inset terracotta accent or richly colored
integral cement fiber board panels could also be used between segments of glazing.
Daylighting is paramount to sustainably illuminating the interiors, particularly the
multi-purpose classrooms, Community Hall, and arts spaces. In order to balance the
desire for transparency with the need to control glare and solar heat gain on the east
and south facades, integrated metal sunscreens will protect the glass windows and will
be painted with a corrosion-resistant paint. Along the west elevations of the Creative
Arts and Community Hall elevations, where window walls open to the exterior, large
trellises will further reduce the solar gain into the spaces. The trellises create another
opportunity to incorporate a more contemporary vocabulary within the building
through their use of steel and wood members.
On the interior, an elegant material palette is envisioned, allowing for a contemporary
feel to the 21st century community space. Terrazzo, large format tiles, or stained concrete
could be used for the lobby and ground floor circulation space, with wood flooring in
the Community Hall. Accent or feature walls could incorporate wood-veneered panels,
creating a warm and inviting feel to many of the public spaces. Ceiling treatments may
Rendering view of the Community Hall wing and outdoor terraces
17 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYinclude inset wood slats in the lobby, lounges, Community Hall, and arts classrooms, with
acoustical tile in meeting and classroom spaces. Public art opportunities will be identified
within the building, allowing for local artists to contribute to the beauty of the space with
commissioned paintings or sculptures.
In subsequent design phases, the design team will look to the Burlingame community and
City Council for further direction on exterior and interior materiality, integrating input on
final material selections and colors.
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY
An important innovation in the functional planning of community and recreation centers
today is the ability to close down certain zones while keeping others open along with their
associated services. In addition to times when the entire building is open and staffed,
there may be periods when, for instance, a public meeting or wedding reception in the
Community Hall runs beyond the Community Center’s open hours. In these instances, the
other program spaces can be closed while the restrooms and parking remain available
to guests. Roll-down or sliding gates and partitions (concealed in the ceiling or wall) can
be utilized to block off the classroom wings, allowing for the lobby or Community Hall
to remain open after hours. The Community Hall maintains a secondary access off the
surface lot, allowing the space to function with the lobby and main entry secured.
Access to the under-building garage will be able to operate independent of the community
center building. An exterior vestibule, accessed from the outside at the entry plaza and
serviced by the two-sided elevator and separate set of stairs, allows the under-building
garage to be accessible when the Community Center is closed.
Regarding staffing, the central service desk is strategically placed in the lobby in order
to maintain sight lines along both wings of the building, as well as the central stair. This
strategy supports the new, larger building to operate with staff levels similar to today’s
Burlingame Recreation Center, while providing significantly more public amenities.
Exterior and interior material palette inspiration
18 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNEXECUTIVE SUMMARYSUSTAINABILITY
The use of sunscreens and trellises will enable effective natural daylighting and are
just one element of a comprehensive strategy to make the new Community Center
a LEED Gold (or higher) rated sustainable building. Overhangs will further shade the
windows on all sides of the buildings, while light shelves will be used on the interior of
classroom and staff spaces to project daylight further into the building.
During the next design phase, the design team will conduct an Integrated Design
Workshop with the client and engineering team to confirm goals and objectives
for efficiency, sustainability, functionality, performance, first and life cycle costs, and
other project considerations, and identify strategies and options for building and
site systems consistent with those objectives. One of the sustainable strategies that
may be utilized are rooftop photovoltaic (PV) panels for onsite renewable energy. The
gabled roofs and general southeast orientation of the building provide an optimal
condition to incorporate a PV array. Many of the interior spaces have the opportunity
for natural cross ventilation, including the Dance & Fitness Studio, Large Meeting
Room, and Community Hall. Naturally ventilating these larger, active spaces would
allow for improved air quality and lower cooling loads.
Site sustainable features will include bioretention areas that filter and clean the
rainwater runoff from the roofs and the parking lot before it flows back to the Bay.
Pervious paving for the terraces and parking lot could be utilized, functioning similarly
to the bioretention areas, filtering the water before it enters the groundwater supply.
Covered bicycle parking and electrical vehicle charging stations would promote
alternate means of transportation.
For the interiors, materials and furnishings will be selected for sustainable production
and the preservation of indoor air quality.
CONCLUSION
The conceptual design process for the new Burlingame Community Center has
enabled residents to accomplish the first steps toward successfully realizing a shared
vision for Burlingame’s future. Their participation ensures this vision will address their
unique needs and celebrate community values. The Burlingame Community Center
will be the new jewel of Burlingame, welcoming and serving all ages and backgrounds
of the city’s diverse population. From this initial design concept we have been able
to create a basic cost estimate for the community center building and parking. This
estimate and the building’s design were based upon several preliminary assumptions
about the site, surrounding development, program requirements and the timing of
the funding and construction of the project.
These concepts will evolve in the following design phases, and will allow for continued
input from the community and City Council, particularly in relation to the fenestration,
materiality, color schemes, and sustainable features. Though this is just the beginning
of a long process,the Burlingame Community Center conceptual design project was
a momentous start, enjoying widespread support from the Burlingame community.
PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
20 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNAPPENDICESAPPENDIX 1: COST MODELS
21 BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER CONCEPTUAL DESIGNAPPENDICESAPPENDIX 2: PARKING OPTIONS
BURLINGAME COMMUNITY CENTER04.14.16 7
12421-02
1
STAFF REPORT
Exhibit C
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: March 19, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center
Conceptual Plan and Next Steps
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the presentation on the conceptual design options
for a new community center and provide feedback on the next steps.
BACKGROUND
Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (CAC), and community members, has been working on developing plans for a new
community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the
active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center
Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City
Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014.
On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the community center. The
attached staff report from the study session provides a thorough background of the master and
conceptual plan processes (Exhibit A). At the study session, the City Council provided the
following input on the conceptual plan: create a more active presence on Burlingame Avenue,
strengthen the civic aspect of the design, and create more depth and detail in the facades. With
this feedback, Group 4 continued to refine the conceptual plan for the building.
On August 25, 2015, staff brought the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission to gather
further input. On April 14, 2016, staff presented the completed traffic study to the Traffic, Safety
& Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek additional input regarding parking options, the impact of
construction on parking, and the phasing options of the project. TSPC Commissioners offered
suggestions including seeking options for bike and pedestrian access. Overall, the Commission
favored the under the community center building parking option. They also offered suggestions if
both parking options (under the community center building and one-half level under the tennis
courts) are considered, including looking at permitting for the lot under the tennis courts and/or
seeking meters for the tennis court lot to offset the cost of added parking. Additionally,
Commissioners expressed interest in using the tennis court parking area as an option for
downtown parking.
City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018
2
The CAC met again on April 20, 2016 to discuss the input from the City Council, Planning
Commission, and TSPC. From the comments generated at the previous meetings and additional
input from the CAC, Group 4 further refined the conceptual plans.
DISCUSSION
Conceptual Plan
The proposed community center is being designed to meet the needs of today’s community and
to have the flexibility to evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of future patrons. The new
community center’s site has been developed with direct, ongoing consultation with the
community-at-large, park users, neighbors, and City staff. Located slightly to the west of the
existing facility, the new multi-generational community center will be nearly 43% larger than the
existing facility through the addition of a second floor and will act as a nexus for the park,
organizing events around the patios that connect interior and exterior spaces.
Additionally, a small surface parking lot with ample trees and landscaping will be located adjacent
to and east of the new building, providing a buffer between the new building’s activity and the
homes directly adjacent to the east edge of the park. A wide, organically-shaped promenade
clearly links the park’s existing and new amenities with the landscape and mature trees. From
west to east, this new promenade links the tennis courts, horseshoe pits, bocce courts, a
basketball court, the Lions Club, picnic area, a fenced children’s play area, and the new
community center with a well-lit, safely-designed linkage for both pedestrians and cyclists.
Parking
As outlined in the Master Plan, there are two options for meeting the parking need:
1. The first option places 70 parking spaces directly under the building. The added construction
cost of mechanical ventilation for under-building parking is offset somewhat by sharing a
single structural system with the new building above. These spaces also have the advantage
of being able to directly tie into the new community center through a lower level vestibule
containing interior stairs and an elevator into the community center lobby and outdoor plaza.
The cost estimate ranges from $6,944,000 to $7,924,000.
2. The second option locates parking under the tennis courts on the western end of the park.
Moving the courts up a half-level creates an opportunity to have terraced, amphitheater-style
seating facing the park. With this option, parking is depressed a half-level below grade to
provide approximately 70 parking spaces. Natural ventilation reduces the overall cost relative
to parking that is fully below grade. The cost estimate ranges from $5,334,000 to $6,307,000.
In both scenarios, the remaining 73 spaces would be accommodated at the new parking lot on
the southeast edge of the park adjacent to the new building and at the parking lot adjacent to the
Lions Club (with a slight reduction in surface parking at this location to accommodate the
relocated basketball court).
A third cost-saving option, which was not included in the Master Plan, involves using surface only
parking. In this scenario, parking would be provided next to the Lions Club building as well as
City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018
3
east of the new community center. This option would require a smaller building footprint and a
larger surface parking lot next to the community center.
Building Design
The community center design is a contemporary reinterpretation of Burlingame’s civic use of
Mission styled architecture (as seen in the Burlingame Library, Fire Station 34, and Burlingame
Avenue Caltrain station). While the design is rooted in the Mission style through its use of gabled
roof forms, overhangs, deep inset windows, and primary materiality, the community center’s
stylistic reinterpretation occurs in several ways: the breakdown of building mass in response to
the immediate site context and building program, arrangement and expression of interior program
space, the contemporary use of building technologies and materials, and incorporating best
practices for sustainable design.
Massing, Arched Great Windows, Facades and Accents and Building Materiality
A complete description of the massing, arched great windows, facades and accents, and building
materiality can be found in the executive summary attached to this report.
Sustainability
One area the Council may wish to consider is whether the building should be LEED-certified
and/or Zero Net Energy (ZNE). LEED is a green certification program managed by the US Green
Building Council. LEED-certified buildings are considered leading examples of environmental
sustainability, water and energy efficiency, and healthy and productive spaces for occupants. A
ZNE building is a building that produces as much energy as it consumes by being extremely
energy-efficient and generating onsite renewable energy. To achieve ZNE, a building must be
well designed by an experienced team and generally includes extra insulation, high performance
windows, natural and LED lighting, smart HVAC systems, and onsite solar power systems. A ZNE
building may cost incrementally more (approximately $2-8 per sq. ft. according to some studies)
than a conventional building. However, the operational costs of a ZNE building are significantly
lower than in a conventional building over the long term. The current cost estimates for the
project assume that the community center is built to the LEED Gold standard.
Project Budget
The project’s cost estimate has been revised as of January 2018. The proposed community
center building itself is estimated to range from $20,863,000 to $22,827,000 (including FF&E).
The site work, including parking and relocation of the playground and basketball court, ranges
from $13,329,000 to $14,863,000 depending on which parking option, described above, is
selected. The total project budget including soft costs and contingencies is estimated to range
from $51,550,000 to $56,740,000.
Cost Reduction Strategies
Staff and Group 4 have identified two cost-reduction strategies that reduce the scope of the
construction area in the park. All construction identified in the Master Plan that is west of the
Lions Club is removed from the project scope to achieve the cost reduction.
1. Reduce the project’s scope by limiting the project to a new community center with the same
building square footage as described above. Under this option, the project includes both
City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018
4
surface parking and parking under the community center. This option also includes relocating
the playground and reducing the size of the basketball court to half-size. No site work would
be done west of the Lions Club building. The estimated total project cost with this open is
$38,037,000 to $41,711,000.
2. Reduce the project’s scope by limiting the project to a new community center with a reduced
building square footage (approximately 3,700 square feet less) from that described above in
order to allow for a larger surface parking lot adjacent to the community center. Under this
option, there would be no subterranean parking. This option does include relocating the
playground, reducing the size of the basketball court to half-size, and the loss of the drop-off
area in the surface parking lot. No site work would be done west of the Lions Club
building. The estimated total project cost with this option is $30,097,000 to $32,924,000.
Other Cost Reduction Strategies
Other cost reduction strategies, in addition to reducing the project scope, have been explored.
Research on these options indicates that, while there may be some cost savings (10-25%), they
would not be appropriate for the proposed new community center for the following reasons:
Pre-engineered Buildings: Pre-engineered buildings are metal buildings that consist of a
structural steel framing system supporting a metal roofing system, with a variety of wall panel
choices. Pre-engineered buildings lend themselves to single story, large volume spaces such as
gyms or warehouses. The proposed community center is a series of program spaces, with one
large-volume space for the community hall. It has been designed as a two-story building in order
to minimize its footprint, and therefore minimize the impact of the proposed new center on the
park.
Modular Buildings: Modular buildings are sectional prefabricated buildings that consist of multiple
sections called modules. The modules are fabricated offsite and transported to the site for
assembly. Modular construction lends itself to smaller, repetitive types of volumes that deliver
efficiency in their ability to be reproduced.
Concrete Tilt-up Buildings: In tilt-up construction, the building's walls are poured directly at the
jobsite in large slabs of concrete called "tilt-up panels" or "tiltwall panels.” These panels are then
raised into position around the building's perimeter, forming the exterior walls. Concrete tilt-up
construction lends itself to buildings with simple geometries and openings. The proposed new
community center’s massing has been carefully designed and sculpted to be respectful of the
residential neighbors and to respond to the indoor/outdoor connections that exist on the park side
of the building.
Next Steps
Based on the direction and preference of the City Council, staff can proceed in one of two ways:
Option 1. Update the current conceptual design for the new community center project based on
the input received from the Council tonight. This effort would include the consultant
team working with staff to develop an updated conceptual design package and
sharing it with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the community, and the
City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018
5
Planning Commission. Once the conceptual design is updated to integrate review
comments by the various stakeholders described above, the conceptual plan would
be brought back to the City Council for review and consideration. The anticipated
timeline to complete this work is 3-4 months at a cost of $50,000.
Option 2. Revise the current conceptual design for the new community center project based on
the input received from the Council tonight. This option includes a redesign of the
community center building and would require the consultant team to develop a
revised conceptual design package that would reflect the input received from the
Council. This effort would include the consultant team working with staff and the City
Council to develop the revised conceptual design. Study sessions would be
scheduled early on with the City Council to integrate their early input into the
development of the revised design. The revised conceptual design package would
then be shared with the Parks and Recreation Commission, the community, and the
Planning Commission for their input. The revised conceptual design package would
be brought back to the City Council for their review and consideration. The
anticipated timeline to complete this work is 6-8 months at a cost of $90,000-
$100,000.
Once the conceptual design has been approved by the City Council, the consultant team and
staff can begin to complete the CEQA requirements and the construction document phase of the
project. Staff anticipates that once the City Council accepts the conceptual design, the
construction document phase and CEQA approvals will take approximately 18 -20 months.
Council Direction
In order to proceed with the plans to build a new community center, staff requests direction on
several questions. Many of these are iterative; the answer to one question may change the
answer to another. Thus, Council may wish to consider the questions in a different order than
presented below.
1. What is the preferred parking option?
2. Should the scope of the project as described in the cost reduction strategies above be
revised? If so, in what way?
3. Does the Council wish to keep the current conceptual design or revise it? If the Council
wishes to revise the design, what is the Council interested in seeing?
4. Should sustainability features remain in the design? If so, is LEED Gold appropriate, or is the
Council interested in a lower (Certified or Silver) or higher (Platinum) certification level or the
building achieving zero net energy?
5. What is the recommended maximum budget for this project?
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure
that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-
setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan
for the Measure I funds. (The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.)
City Council Study Session Regarding the Proposed Community Center Conceptual Plan March 19, 2018
6
As noted at the goal-setting session, an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the
issuance of lease revenue bonds for the project would yield bond proceeds of approximately $15
million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community Center project, the City will need to rely on a
combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the
Capital Investment Reserve. Staff thus recommended that the Council consider an additional $1
million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately
$30 million, with the remaining financing for the Community Center project to be provided from
the Capital Investment Reserve or some other source not yet determined.
Exhibits:
• Staff Report from the August 17, 2015 Study Session
• Executive Summary
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: June 18, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: June 18, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Status Report on the Conceptual Plan Options for the New Community
Center
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the status report on development of the
conceptual plan options, Mission and Pavilions, for the new Community Center.
BACKGROUND
Since 2012, City staff, in collaboration with Group 4 Architecture, the Citizens’ Advisory
Committee (CAC), and community members , has been working on developing plans for a new
community center in Washington Park. The work includes development of a Master Plan for the
active areas of the park and identifies the site locations of the park amenities (Community Center
Master Plan) and conceptual designs of the proposed building within the Master Plan. The City
Council approved the Community Center Master Plan on July 7, 2014.
On August 17, 2015, the City Council held a study session on the community center. The
attached staff report from the study session provides a thorough background of the master and
conceptual plan processes (Exhibit A and B). At the study session, the City Council provided the
following input on the conceptual plan: create a more active presence on Burlingame Avenue,
strengthen the civic aspect of the design, and create more depth and detail in the facades. With
this feedback, Group 4 continued to refine the conceptual plan for the building.
On August 25, 2015, staff brought the conceptual plan to the Planning Commission to gather
further input. On April 14, 2016, staff presented the completed traffic study to the Traffic, Safety
& Parking Commission (TSPC) to seek additional input regarding parking options, the impact of
construction on parking, and the phasing options of the project. TSPC Commissioners offered
suggestions including exploring options for bike and pedestrian access. Overall, the Commission
favored the under-the-community center building parking option. They also offered suggestions if
both parking options (under the community center building and one-half level under the tennis
courts) are considered, including looking at parking permits for the lot under the tennis courts
and/or installing meters for the tennis court lot to offset the cost of added parking. Additionally,
Commissioners expressed interest in using the tennis court parking area as an option for
downtown parking.
Status Report on the Conceptual Plan Options for the New Community Center June 18, 2018
2
The CAC met again on April 20, 2016 to discuss the input from the City Council, Planning
Commission, and TSPC. From the comments generated at the previous meetings and additional
input from the CAC, Group 4 further refined the conceptual plans.
At the March 19, 2018 Council meeting, staff and Group 4 presented the conceptual design for
the Mission style building along with parking options, project budget, cost reduction strategies,
sustainability options, and next steps (Exhibit C). Staff and Group 4 also shared renderings of the
conceptual design for the Pavilions style building, which was the other style favored by a number
of members of the Citizens’ Advisory Committee.
After discussion, the City Council made a number of decisions relative to the project scope, the
building’s size, the location of parking, the maximum budget, and the sustainability features of the
new building. The City Council also requested that staff gather input from the community on the
Mission and Pavilions style building options prior to bringing the conceptual plan back to the City
Council for approval before the summer recess.
DISCUSSION
Since the March 19 meeting, the project team has updated the project scope and design to
incorporate:
the updated project scope and limits of work, which are now defined by the area of the
park bounded by the east side of the Lions Club, the south side of the softball field, the
existing picnic area east of the softball field , and the east boundary of the park.
an updated site plan that reflects the new boundaries and relocates the playground so as
to accommodate the full-court basketball court
design updates, design development, and presentation graphics for the two conceptual
design options, the Mission (Exhibit D) and the Pavilions (Exhibit E)
Both of the design options, the Mission and the Pavilion s, have the same program spaces and
adjacency opportunities. At this phase of design, the project cost models for the two design
options are similar, they use similar exterior base materials, similar quantities of accent materials ,
and have similar massing and volumes.
The exterior materials palette for the two designs both use stucco as an option for the base
material but have different opportunities for the roof material and accent materials. The materials
palette for the Mission design includes: stucco/plaster base wall material, concrete roof tile, terra
cotta and wood accents, with wood and steel trellis es. The material palette for the Pavilions
design includes: stucco/plaster/polished concrete base wall materials, metal roof, metal/fiber
cement panel and wood accents, with wood and steel trellises.
Inherent with the massing of the design options, their respective roof lines, and roofing materials,
the Pavilions option is inherently more compatible with integrating roof-mounted photovoltaic (PV)
arrays. The Pavilions design option has approximately 1/3 more capacity to accommodate PVs;
the PVs on the Pavilions option are almost completely concealed within the butterfly roof; and the
installation, mounting, and maintenance of the PVs on a metal roof is substantially easier. The
exact calculation and quantity of PVs required to meet the zero net energy goal identified by the
Status Report on the Conceptual Plan Options for the New Community Center June 18, 2018
3
City Council will not be possible until the next phase of the project, the schematic design phase ,
when the building envelope, mechanical system , and integration of natural ventilation is further
defined.
The community’s input on the two design options is being collected through intercept kiosks
located at the Recreation Center, the Library, and at the June 11 Farmers Market; the June 21
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting; and an online survey that was promoted to the
community through social media and was available from June 5 through June 15.
To date, 1,222 community members have shared their design option preference. Thus far,
respondents have shown a slight preference for the Mission design option (620 votes) vs. the
Pavilions design option (602 votes).
Next Steps
Staff will return to the City Council at the July 2 Council meeting to provide additional updated
project information and seek direction on the preferred Conceptual Design option . Once the City
Council has approved the conceptual design, the consultant team and staff can begin to complete
the CEQA requirements and the construction document phase of the project. Staff anticipates
that once the City Council accepts the conceptual design, the construction document phase and
CEQA approvals will take approximately 18-20 months.
FISCAL IMPACT
In November 2017, the voters of Burlingame approved Measure I, a ¼ cent sales tax measure
that will generate an estimated $1.75 million to $2 million annually. At the January 27, 2018 goal-
setting session, the City Council discussed the City Manager’s recommended expenditure plan
for the Measure I funds. (The City Council approved the recommendation on February 20, 2018.)
As noted at the goal-setting session, an annual pledge of $1 million toward debt service on the
issuance of lease revenue bonds for the project would yield bond proceeds of approximately $15
million. Therefore, in order to fund the Community Center projec t, the City will need to rely on a
combination of Measure I revenues plus ongoing General Fund revenues and/or monies from the
Capital Investment Reserve. Staff thus recommended that the Council consider an additional $1
million annual General Fund transfer to allow for a lease revenue bond issuance of approximately
$30 million, with the remaining financing for the Community Center project to be provided from
the Capital Investment Reserve or some other source not yet determined. The recommended
debt service funding from Measure I and other General Fund monies ($2 million in total) is
included in the proposed budget for 2018-19, in anticipation of the bond issuance for the
Community Center project sometime in the upcoming fiscal year.
Exhibits:
Staff Report from the August 17, 2015 Study Session
Executive Summary
Staff Report from the March 19, 2018
Mission Style Conceptual Plan
Pavilions Style Conceptual Plan
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: LOBBY
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: ACTIVE LOUNGE
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: KIDS TOWN
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: COMMUNITY ROOM
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: DANCE + FITNESS STUDIO
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: PARK-SIDE VIEW
MISSION DESIGN OPTION: BURLINGAME AVENUE ENTRY VIEW
MISSION DESIGN OPTION
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: LOBBY
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: ACTIVE LOUNGE
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: KIDS TOWN
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: COMMUNITY ROOM
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: DANCE + FITNESS STUDIO
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: PARK-SIDE VIEW
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION: BURLINGAME AVENUE ENTRY VIEW
PAVILIONS DESIGN OPTION
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Residential Impact Fee Update
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the ongoing work being prepared
for consideration of establishing residential impact fees.
BACKGROUND
Residential impact fees may be collected by cities and used to support programs for those in
need of affordable housing and to build new housing units for lower income individuals and
families. The fees are collected from developers of new residential projects and used for land
purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing affordable housing.
Jurisdictions may tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide
variety of reasons, as long as the amount of the fee is not arbitrary or capricious, and so long as
the fees for all projects remain below the legal maximum supported by a nexus study.
As part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a Residential Impact
Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City of Burlingame, together with a Commercial Linkage
Fee Nexus Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices,
and commercial space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low-, low- and moderate-
income residents. The maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by
estimating the number of new worker households associated with new development. A final
analysis was then completed that considered factors like local conditions and the fees of
neighboring jurisdictions to determine a potential range of impact fees. These studies enable the
City Council to consider the adoption of commercial linkage and/or residential impact fees that
would be used to provide affordable housing.
On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing commercial linkage fees
for new commercial development in Burlingame. The adopted fees are $7.00 per square foot for
new retail development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00 per square
foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for office greater
than 50,000 square feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the
fees are $5.00 per square foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square foot for new hotel
Residential Impact Fee Update July 2, 2018
2
development, $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and $20.00 per
square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. Over time, these fees will provide a
dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
On February 12, 2018 the City Council held a study session to consider the establishment of
residential impact fees that would apply to new residential development in Burlingame (February
12, 2018 staff report and meeting minutes attached). The City Council directed staff to further
study potential fee levels and structures, consider an on-site “in-lieu” option for providing
affordable units within development projects, and obtain input from housing developers and other
stakeholders.
DISCUSSION
Staff has engaged Seifel Consulting Inc. to prepare an analysis of options for residential impact
fees per the direction provided by the City Council at the February 12th meeting. A key focus of
the Seifel Consulting work program is to develop recommendations related to the potential
adoption of new fees on residential development and the best strategies to incentivize the on-site
provision of affordable housing within new development as part of the City’s housing program.
Tasks included in the work program include:
• Evaluation of Current Development Conditions and Potential Housing Fee Levels. As one of
the key goals of the work program is to recommend a set of housing fee levels that will
encourage the provision of on-site affordable housing, Seifel has been reviewing the “21
Elements” nexus studies to understand the basis for the recommended f ee levels for
Burlingame, with a particular focus on the market and financial feasibility analysis of housing
in Burlingame. This includes reviewing the core assumptions and methodologies used in the
Nexus Studies, interviewing developers who are undertaking projects in Burlingame or nearby
cities, and gathering recent market data and development financial pro formas in order to
estimate current (2018) residential revenues, development costs, and land prices.
• Financial Analysis and Recommendations on City’s Housing Fee Program. Seifel will use the
information gathered in the development conditions evaluation to model the development
feasibility of various housing types in Burlingame in order to recommend how best to achieve
on-site development of affordable housing within new development. Analysis includes both
rental and ownership developments that are similar to the prototypes analyzed in the prior
nexus studies: For-Sale Single Family Attached (i.e., townhomes and rowhomes), For-Sale
Condominiums, and Rental Apartments. Based on updated development information, the
current affordability gaps between market rate and affordable housing will be assessed at
specific household Area-wide Median Income (AMI) levels. The analysis will assess the
financial trade-offs between providing units on-site at various target income levels and paying
a development fee.
• State Density Bonus Provisions. Consistent with State law, Burlingame Municipal Code
Section 25.63 provides development bonuses and incentives for new housing developments
that include a percentage of affordable units within the project. The analysis will analyze how
factoring the utilization of State Density Bonus provisions could incentivize the production of
Residential Impact Fee Update July 2, 2018
3
on-site affordable units in Burlingame through the use of potential concessions and incentives
that have been typically provided to recent developments in Burlingame.
At the July 2, 2018 City Council meeting, Seifel Consulting will present initial findings for review
and comment. A memorandum will be prepared subsequently, reflecting results of the analysis
and input from the City Council.
Home for All/21 Elements “Fees vs. Units” Workshop: On June 6, 2018, San Mateo County
“21 Elements” and “Home for All” conducted a workshop titled “Fees vs. Units: Designing an
Effective Inclusionary Policy.” 21 Elements and Home for All are both initiatives of the San Mateo
County Department of Housing, with the objective of addressing housing matters as a county-
wide effort. The workshop included a series of presentations providing information on the
dynamics of residential impact fees compared with on-site affordable units provided within
development project, including:
• The pros and cons of impact fees vs. on-site units
• Benefits and challenges of offering developers alternatives to building units on site
• Factors and trade-offs jurisdictions should consider when developing policies that
complement fees
• How the cost of on-site units compares to impact fees
The material presented in the workshop addressed a number of issues in common with the
research being prepared by Seifel Consulting. A copy of the workshop presentations is attached.
FISCAL IMPACT
Previous analyses (provided in the February 12, 2018 City Council staff report) have estimated
residential impact fees ranging from $7,225,000 to $19,125,000 within the next five years, based
on the current development applications under review. The level of fees collected will vary
depending on fee level structure adopted, and the potential provision of an on-site option in lieu of
payment of fees.
Exhibits:
• February 12, 2018 City Council Staff Report
• February 12, 2018 City Council Meeting Minutes
• “Fees vs. Units: Designing an Effective Inclusionary Policy” presentation slides – June 6,
2018
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: February 20, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: February 20, 2018
From: William Meeker, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255
Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager – (650) 558-7253
Subject: Discussion of Residential Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council provide direction on whether the City should pursue
adoption of an ordinance imposing residential housing impact fees.
BACKGROUND
Affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower-income
residents. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects, and used for land
purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing.
Jurisdictions may tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide
variety of reasons, as long as they are not arbitrary or capricious and the fees for all projects
remain below the legal maximum permitted by a nexus study.
As part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a Residential Impact
Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City of Burlingame, together with a Commercial Linkage
Fee Nexus Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices,
and commercial space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low-, low- and moderate-
income residents. The maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by
estimating the number of new worker households associated with new development. A final
analysis was then completed that considered factors like local conditions and the fees of
neighboring jurisdictions to determine a potential range of impact fees. These studies enable the
City Council to consider the adoption of commercial linkage and/or residential impact fees that
would be used to provide affordable housing.
On June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Commercial Linkage
Fee for new commercial development in Burlingame. The adopted fees are $7.00 per square foot
for new retail development, $12.00 per square foot for new hotel development, $18.00 per square
foot for office projects of 50,000 square feet or less, and $25.00 per square foot for office greater
than 50,000 square feet. For developers who utilize prevailing wages or area standard wages, the
fees are $5.00 per square foot for new retail development, $10.00 per square foot for new hotel
development, $15.00 per square foot for office of 50,000 square feet or less, and $20.00 per
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
2
square foot for office greater than 50,000 square feet. Over time, these fees will provide a
dedicated source of funding for programs supporting workforce housing in Burlingame.
The item under consideration by the City Council on February 20th is whether or not to establish
residential impact fees that would apply to new residential development in Burlingame.
DISCUSSION
Housing Need: For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not
kept up with the thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten worse in recent years.
Between 2010 and 2016, San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes
of all types. The resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 1 to 16. In other words, only one new
housing unit was built for every 16 new jobs created. This jobs-housing gap drives up the cost of
housing for homebuyers and renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers,
and forces friends and family members to move away because they can no longer afford to live in
Burlingame or San Mateo County.
A significant number of new jobs pay wages that are not sufficient to cover local housing costs.
This includes jobs generated by new development. The region’s driving economic sectors are
increasingly split between high-wage jobs in industries such as professional and technical
services, and low-wage jobs in hospitality, childcare, retail, and others. Those in the low-wage
workforce increasingly commute into the area from long distances, which results in increased
traffic in the region and ultimately limits the pool of employees for local businesses. For a worker
earning minimum wage, the cost of gas and bridge tolls together with the long commute times
make it difficult (if not infeasible) to justify employment in a low-wage local job. Local service
businesses have reported difficulty hiring and retaining employees, even when offering wages
well above minimum wage.
The City of Burlingame has been proactive in addressing the supply aspect of the housing
situation through the encouragement and approval of significant numbers of new housing units.
The Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, together with the most recent Housing Element update,
have emphasized the construction of new housing units to address the increased demand for
housing units near employment in Burlingame and San Mateo County. Per the City’s most recent
Residential Projects Overview document (attached), 472 units have been approved, and an
additional 334 units are currently under review by the Planning Commission, for a total of 806
units. Of these, 178 would be priced below market rate for households in the Moderate, Median,
Low, or Very Low income categories.1
Legal and Policy Context: Impact fees are charges imposed by jurisdictions that can be used to
support and build new development. Since the 1970s, California cities have used impact fees to
reduce costs paid by the public for items like roads, parks, schools, water, and sewer. The money
1 By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the
“Area Median Income” (AMI); “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI;
“Very-Low Income” means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI ; and “Extremely-Low Income”
means a household with an income at 30% of AMI.
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
3
generated by housing impact fees is placed into a fund to help pay for new affordable housing.
Fees can be set per square foot, per unit, or by some other measure, and can only be applied to
new development projects. Before being adopted, jurisdictions must show that there is a
connection, or nexus, between the impacts of development and the fees charged.
A nexus study assesses the connection between new development and the need for new
affordable housing. This is accomplished by calculating the number, type, and salaries of jobs
that will result from a new development. The study then establishes the maximum impact fee that
can legally be charged to a developer for each type of development being studied. Residential
developments include single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums, and apartments.
The logic behind impact fee nexus studies is that residents of new housing spend money on
goods and services like landscaping, childcare, and restaurants. Many of the workers providing
these services and working at these new businesses earn lower wages, and cannot afford to buy
or rent a home at market-rate. Nexus studies calculate the maximum fees that would be
necessary to bridge the difference between what these new worker households can afford to pay,
and the cost of developing housing units to accommodate them.
While a nexus study will inform a jurisdiction about the maximum amount it can legally charge as
an impact fee, the maximum fee level may not be appropriate given local housing market
conditions, existing fee levels in the region, or the jurisdiction’s current fee structure. A feasibility
study considers these conditions and recommends a more appropriate range of fees that does
not unduly burden or lessen the profitability of new development.
Housing Impact Fees in Other Jurisdictions: The following table is a summary of Housing
Impact Fees that have been adopted by other San Mateo County jurisdictions. This information
can inform the Council’s discussion regarding the appropriate fee amount for the City of
Burlingame:
TABLE 1:
SUMMARY OF HOUSING IMPACT FEES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction Townhomes
Per SF
Condominiums
Per SF
Apartments
Per SF
Date Fee
Adopted
Colma $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 September 2016
Daly City $18.00 $22.00 $25.00 2014
Foster City None1
East Palo Alto2 $23.00 $23.00 $33.71 2014
Menlo Park None1
Redwood City $25.00 $20.00 $20.00 2015
San Bruno $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 November 2016
San Carlos3 $20.59 $20.59 $21.00 2010
San Mateo City None1
San Mateo County4 $12.50 $12.50 $10.00 June 2016
LOWEST $12.50 $12.50 $10.00
AVERAGE $19.87 $19.73 $21.39
MEDIAN $20.59 $20.59 $21.00
HIGHEST $25.00 $25.00 $25.00
1 No Housing Impact Fee adopted, but Inclusionary Housing requires Below Market Rate units in new developments.
Some municipalities allow on-site Below Market Rate units to be satisfied with in-lieu fees.
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
4
Jurisdiction Townhomes
Per SF
Condominiums
Per SF
Apartments
Per SF
Date Fee
Adopted
2 Fee increases to $44.00/sf for projects with structured parking.
3 Fees vary based on number of units, up to $42.00/sf for largest projects. Also assesses fee on single family
additions.
4 $5.00/sf for first 2,500 sf, $12.50 per each square foot over 2,500 sf. Only applies to projects with 4 or fewer units;
projects with 5 units or more are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
In prior discussions, Councilmembers have suggested a tiered system where fees increased with
the size of the development and number of units. Referencing other municipalities, some exempt
smaller projects, such as residential projects with fewer than five units. Other jurisdictions have a
slightly higher fee for higher-density projects, where the threshold is units per acre (for example,
greater than 35 units per acre). San Carlos is unique in having a full sliding scale for residential
projects, with a detailed schedule providing an incremental adjustment for each additional unit,
from 1 up to 280 units (attached).
One reference the City Council may wish to consider is the current tiered system in place for
condominium planning application fees. Currently, the application fees are tiered into the
following categories:
10 units or fewer
11-25 units
26-50 units
51-100 units
101 or more units
Potential Revenues: Estimating potential fees anticipated to be collected depends on a number
of variables, including the residential densities, sizes of units (since the fees are typically based
on square feet, not number of units), and the fees themselves. Some jurisdictions also provide
discounts for projects paying prevailing construction wages, similar to the model the City Council
adopted for commercial linkage fees. Furthermore, if an in-lieu option is offered, the impact fees
collected would be lower depending on how many units are built with projects.
Should housing impact fees be adopted in the coming months, they would apply to new
residential projects that have not had applications deemed complete as of the effective date of
the ordinance implementing the fee. Per the City’s most recent Residential Projects Overview
document (attached), approximately 500 additional units have been presented to the public in
conceptual form, but either have not been formally submitted for review, or are part of master
plans with development projects to be submitted at later dates. Beyond that figure, there could be
potentially 350 to 400 additional units that have been discussed in conjunction with the update of
the General Plan, based on property owner input, and factoring the residential densities proposed
in the Draft General Plan.
Table 4 below provides a rough estimate of the range of potential fees that could be collected,
working with the assumption that applications for 850 to 900 new units may be contemplated in
the near term (approximately five years). For purposes of the estimate, the assumption is an
average unit size of 850 square feet. The estimate provides a range of potential fees based on
the lowest, average, and highest fees currently found in San Mateo County.
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
5
TABLE 2:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL NEAR-TERM HOUSING IMPACT FEES
Units
Floor Area
(assuming 850
sf/unit)
Housing Impact
Fees – Lowest
($10.00/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees – Average
($20.00/sf)
Housing Impact
Fees – Highest
($25.00/sf)
850 722,500 $7,225,000 $14,450,000 $18,062,500
900 765,000 $7,650,000 $15,300,000 $19,125,000
Other Applicable Fees: New housing development is subject to a number of impact and service
fees, so housing impact fees should be considered within the context of the full array of
applicable fees, and the potential impact on the viability of a project.
The costs involved with development in Burlingame include planning and building plan check and
permit fees, utility service fees, school fees, and a recycling fee. Unlike many other cities, the City
does not have park dedication fees or a bedroom tax. The City also has no exactions on
residential developers to provide public art or sound walls.
Planning Fees: Burlingame’s Planning Department is only partially funded by fees, with the
remaining costs covered by the City’s General Fund. However fees have been increased in the
past few years to more fully recover the costs to process the applications.
With the exception of condominium permits, which are tiered based on project size, Planning fees
are fixed on a per-project basis.
Building Fees: Building permit fees are charged on a sliding scale that is based upon the
valuation of the project, plus plan check fees. The estimated valuation of a project is checked
against a minimum valuation per square foot for residential development. The basic plan check
fee is 65% of the building permit fee. The energy plan check fee (when applicable) is an
additional 25% of the building permit fee. The basic fee for electrical, plumbing, and mechanical
permits is $25 dollars, with additional fees charged on a line-item basis.
Public Facilities Impact Fees. In 2008, the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1830
in order offset the impacts of new development projects on City facilities. In establishing the fees,
the City had a study conducted that provided information on the nexus between development
projects and impacts on City facilities and set out a formula of fees that would serve to offset
some of those impacts. Public Impact Fees applicable to new residential development are shown
on Table 3 below.
This Space Intentionally Blank
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
6
TABLE 3:
BURLINGAME PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES
Service Area Multifamily
Fee per Dwelling Unit
General Facilities and Equipment $1,636
Libraries $1,415
Police $259
Parks and Recreation $350
Streets and Traffic $1,105
Fire $381
Storm Drainage $391
If a project proposes to include open space/recreational amenities on site, the project applicant
can request a waiver of the Public Facilities Impact fee related to Parks and Recreation. The
Municipal Code Chapter related to Public Facilities Impact fees allows a developer of a project to
apply to the Community Development Director for a reduction or waiver of any one of the fees.
The fee waiver request will be considered by the Planning Commission at the time that the
development application is considered. The findings for such a waiver would be based on the
provision of open space/recreational amenities to be available for the use of the residents;
therefore, the project would not create an impact to the existing parks in the community.
Public Works: Public Works fees associated with housing development typically include sewer
connection fees, which are $195 per unit for multi-family structures. Water meter and service
connection fees can range from $4,100 to $5,420 depending on the size of the service and meter
required. Sidewalk and special encroachment fees range from $315 to $570 for properties in
residential zoning districts.
School Fees: School fees are collected to offset costs of rehabilitation and maintenance of school
buildings, with 60% of the fees collected going to the elementary school district, and 40% to the
high school district. Fees are collected on all new construction projects and residential remodels
in Burlingame that add 500 square feet or more. Residential school development fees are $3.17
per square foot.
For reference, Table 4 below provides an overview of applicable fees for a typical 10-unit
residential condominium project. Fees for entitlements, construction fees, public facilities impact
fees, and school fees would total $41,906 per unit.
This Space Intentionally Blank
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
7
TABLE 4:
ESTIMATE OF POTENTIAL FEES FOR A 10-UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Fees/Costs Multiple Family1
Entitlement
Fees
Design Review 1,165
Condominium Permit, 10 units or
fewer 3,236
Engineering Plan Review 1,770
Arborist Review 234
Noticing 445
Environmental Review2 145,000
Environmental Posting Fee 600
County EIR Fish & Game Fee 2,216
Condominium Map 6,413
Subtotal 161,079
Per Unit 10-unit bldg
Construction
Fees
Building Permit 14,583 145,830
Fire Sprinkler Permit 719 7,910
Utility Connection 275 2,750
Subtotal 15,577 156,490
Impact Fees
General Facilities and Equipment 1,636 16,360
Libraries 1,415 14,150
Police 259 2,590
Parks and Recreation 350 3,500
Streets and Traffic 1,105 11,050
Fire 381 3,810
Storm Drainage 391 3,910
Subtotal 5,537 55,370
School Fees Elementary & High School 4,612 46,123
Total $ 419,062
1 Multiple family development is assumed to be a 10-unit condominium development, 14,550 square foot construction,
requiring a tentative map. Costs shown are per unit, other than entitlement costs, which would remain the same
regardless of project size.
2 Environmental review assumed to be an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Infill Exemption
document.
In-Lieu Option: Adoption of a residential impact fee could also include an “in-lieu” option, where
the developer could choose to provide an affordable unit or units on site in lieu of submitting the
impact fee. Whether a developer would choose an on-site option would depend on a number of
factors such as the amount of the impact fee, the size of the development, the comparable cost of
underwriting the affordable units for a designated time period and affordability level, and whether
the ownership of the development is expected to be retained or sold at completion of
construction. For example, a developer building apartments that they intend to own and manage
for an extended time frame may have a different perspective and make a different choice than a
developer building condominiums to be sold with completion of construction.
Should the City Council have an interest in pursuing an in-lieu option, staff can arrange further
research on potential terms for the on-site in-lieu option, such as designated time periods and
affordability levels as they compare to the proposed impact fee. The Council may also choose to
Housing Goals Discussion February 20, 2018
8
consider an in-lieu option for projects subject to commercial linkage fees, where a commercial
developer could choose to provide units on site (subject to zoning) or in an off-site development
in lieu of the applicable linkage fee.
FISCAL IMPACT
Residential impact fees ranging from $7,225,000 to $19,125,000 within the next five years are
estimated based on the current development applications under review.
Exhibits:
Residential Projects Overview
Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study, November 2015
City of San Carlos Affordable Housing Impact Fee Table, Rental Residential
Developments
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on February 20, 2018
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Emerson Burri.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. STUDY SESSION
a. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES
City Manager Goldman stated that the study session was a continuation of the discussion started at the
January 27, 2018 City Council Annual Goal Setting Session.
CDD Meeker stated that affordable housing impact fees are used to support and build new homes for lower-
income residents. The fees can be charged to developers of new residential projects, and used for land
purchase, construction costs, or site rehabilitation related to providing workforce housing. Jurisdictions may
tailor the fees so they meet local needs. The fees can be adjusted for a wide variety of reasons, as long as
they are not arbitrary or capricious, and the fees for all projects remain below the legal maximum permitted
by a nexus study.
CDD Meeker stated that as part of the San Mateo County “21 Elements” multi-jurisdictional effort, a
Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study was prepared for the City, together with a Commercial Linkage Fee
Nexus Study. These studies describe and quantify how the development of homes, offices, and commercial
space creates a need for housing, particularly for very low, low, and moderate-income residents. The
maximum impact fees that can be legally charged were calculated by estimating the number of new worker
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
2
households associated with new developments. A final analysis was then completed that considered factors
like local conditions and the fees of neighboring jurisdictions to determine a potential range of impact fees.
CDD Meeker stated that on June 19, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing a Commercial
Linkage Fee for new commercial development in Burlingame.
CDD Meeker stated that tonight, staff is asking Council for direction on whether an ordinance should be
created to implement a residential impact fee.
Councilmember Keighran noted that Millbrae wasn’t included in the staff report and asked if Millbrae had
linkage fees. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the negative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if it was correct that the residential impact fee does not pertain to single
family homes but does pertain to single family homes attached (townhouses). Planning Manager Gardiner
replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the staff report notes that the City doesn’t have park dedication fees or
a bedroom tax. However, the City does have a parks and recreation fee. CDD Meeker stated that the City’s
parks and recreation fee is for park maintenance and improvements. Park dedication fees are a result of the
Quimby Act and are collected from new residential subdivisions.
Councilmember Keighran asked what a bedroom tax is. CDD Meeker replied that he was unsure and would
research it for the Council.
Councilmember Keighran asked if the utility connection under potential fees for a 10- unit residential project
is water and sewer. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked if staff discussed the potential range of residential impact fees with
developers. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that staff has not yet discussed the fees with developers.
Councilmember Keighran asked if staff was looking for Council to determine what the residential impact fee
should be tonight. She explained that she didn’t want Council to make a decision and then have staff discuss
whether the fees were feasible with the developers. Planning Manager Gardiner explained that staff was
looking for the Council to determine a few things at the study session: 1) if they would like to enact
residential impact fees; 2) if the City enacts fees, a possible range for the fees; 3) if they want tiered fees; 4)
if the City will offer a prevailing wage discount; and 5) feedback on the in-lieu option.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City had not undertaken a nexus study on other impact fees since
2007/2008 and asked if the City anticipated updating these fees in the near future. City Manager Goldman
stated that staff started reviewing development impact fees when the City undertook the study to update the
Master Fee Schedule. However, at the time, staff was in the early days of updating the General Plan, and
wanted to wait until the project was further along before finalizing the development impact fee study. City
Attorney Kane stated that some of the fees were recently recalibrated including the entitlement fees, cost of
design review, and engineering plan review.
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
3
Councilmember Beach asked if staff had any insight on school fees and what the school districts are seeing
as far as a potential need to increase their fees in the future. City Manager Goldman stated that the school
fees are split between SMUSHD and BSD, with BSD getting a larger share of the fees. She noted that she
reached out to BSD Superintendent MacIsaac who informed her that BSD had reached its cap for what it can
charge for school fees. However, Superintendent MacIsaac stated that the schools are overcrowded and that
they are feeling the pressure to open a new school.
Councilmember Beach stated that the cap would have to be increased by the State. City Manager Goldman
replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed why single family homes weren’t included in the residential impact fee study.
She explained that there wasn’t a great potential for new single family homes to be built in the City.
Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the nexus fee study in the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. City
Manager Goldman stated that there will be a fee study, but it isn’t clear how it will interact with the parks
and recreation fee in the staff report.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed Table 1 in the staff report which is a summary of housing impact fees in San
Mateo County jurisdictions. She stated that although there is a lot of construction in Belmont and South San
Francisco, neither city has implemented residential impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that both
South San Francisco and Belmont have inclusionary housing. Additionally, Belmont charges a fee of $20
per square foot for apartments.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that the City Council established a double tiered structure for commercial linkage
fees. The two tiers accounted for the prevailing wage discount. She asked if other cities were using this
structure for residential impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Keighran asked how attached or separated accessory dwelling units fit into residential
impact fees. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that it is a policy choice. He added that some cities do
charge an impact fee for ADUs, but staff isn’t recommending that.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed Table 2 in the staff report, which is a summary of the estimated potential near-
term housing impact fees. He explained that in this table if 900 units are built, then the range of housing
impact fees is $7.65 million to $19.125 million. He asked how many units of affordable housing could be
built with $19 million. Planning Manager Gardiner stated that the conversation on how the City will utilize
these fees is similar to the conversation the City Council had with commercial linkage fees. The City
Council would need to decide whether the funds should be utilized to build units or leveraged with an
organization like HEART.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
4
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County representative Leora Tanjuatco expressed the
organization’s support for passing residential impact fees. She discussed the importance of housing fee
funds as most county, state and federal grants require matching funds.
Burlingame resident Mark Burri voiced his support for promoting prevailing wage and for building
affordable housing.
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz voiced his support for moving forward with the impact fees. He stated that he
believed the City should go with the double-tiered system for residential impact fees. Additionally, he stated
that the ranges for the tier without prevailing wage discount should be:
1. Less than 10 units - $15 per square foot
2. 11-25 units - $17 per square foot
3. 26-50 units - $20 per square foot
4. 51-100 units - $22 per square foot
5. More than 100 units - $25 per square foot
Lastly, he voiced his concern about an in-lieu option. He stated that he needed more information on this
matter so that when the Council created an in-lieu option, they knew the cost of a below market rate unit in
comparison to the proposed residential impact fee.
Councilmember Beach stated that residential impact fees are something worth exploring. She discussed the
Council’s vision/goal of creating a wider array of affordable housing in the city and that these fees are one
tool the Council can use. However, she cautioned her colleagues that it might be a little premature to set a
number before talking to all the stakeholders. She explained that during the summer she had discussed
residential impact fees with some developers. She stated that the developers were supportive of the idea but
cautioned her that if the price tag was too high on these fees, Council may end up not encouraging the type
of housing that the City wants. She noted that one of the developers informed her that even $20 per square
foot can deplete a contingency on a project. Therefore she stated that the Council needed to be very
thoughtful when approaching this topic.
Councilmember Beach explained that as the General Plan is reviewed; the City Council should discuss other
incentives that could be used such as reducing the parking requirements in exchange for affordable housing.
She stated that in theory she was in support of residential impact fees but wanted to make sure that the
Council came to the right number.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in speaking with a number of developers, the way these fees are formulated
into the pro forma is that it is a direct offset of the value of the land. Therefore, if it’s a $10 million piece of
land, and there is $1 million in fees, then the land is worth $9 million not $10 million. She stated that the
proposed amendments to the General Plan are creating a substantial amount of up-zoning throughout the
city’s residential areas. By doing this, the City is increasing the value of property by rezoning areas to allow
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
5
for three stories where only two stories were allowed before. Accordingly, she stated there is room in the up-
zoning areas for the fees to be accommodated.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she supports residential impact fees but wanted to make sure that the City’s
fees are comparable to neighboring cities.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the City needed to ensure that fees are set so as to encourage affordable
housing units in larger projects. She asked staff to get feedback from developers on residential impact fees.
She noted that she wanted a tiered system, prevailing wage discount, and an in-lieu option.
Mayor Brownrigg concurred with the Vice Mayor that with the potential up-zonings in the General Plan
amendments, there will be a significant increase in land value. He explained that he believed the City should
look at a dual program of inclusionary housing and/or fees. He stated that he was increasingly leaning
towards inclusionary housing. He discussed how both Foster City and Los Gatos have inclusionary housing
and how it benefited their communities.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed the increasing issue of hiring/maintaining police officers, teachers, and other
professions in the city. He stated that creating affordable housing isn’t just the right thing to do morally but
also a strategic plan for Burlingame. Therefore, the question for him was what produces the most affordable
units. He stated that the City created impact fee programs in the past for issues like parking, and the funds
have not been used. He discussed the study in the staff report that explained that the average cost to
construct a unit is $350,000 not including the cost of land. However, he stated that he believed this cost to
be higher, citing examples of Oakland’s recently approved affordable housing project and the City’s own
project on Lots F and N.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City has been told it needs 400 units for low and very low income levels.
This is a cost of $200 million. He stated that he doesn’t see how the residential impact fees will get the City
close to this number.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City undertakes inclusionary housing, managed by the City or a
nonprofit, the City could target the moderate income levels like teachers that may be priced out of other
affordable housing developments.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that as staff discusses residential impact fees with stakeholders, they should also
discuss inclusionary housing. He listed cities that have inclusionary housing requirements including San
Bruno, Menlo Park, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he supported staff hiring a consultant to review the different options and
determine which option is most likely to have an effect, what the timeframe would be, and what type of units
could be produced.
Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t want to mandate inclusionary housing. Instead, she wanted
to give the developers the choice of inclusionary housing or residential impact fees. She stated that funding
could be used to renovate existing housing stock in exchange for the landowner keeping the units affordable.
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
6
Mayor Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Keighran’s idea because the City had a significant stock
of relatively affordable units. He stated that the City needs to both build units and preserve affordable units.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he believed the Council should move forward with establishing tiers for
residential impact fees and then create the in-lieu of fees program. He explained that the in-lieu program
would take longer to research and create. However, he didn’t want the City to delay implementing fees.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he understood Councilmember Ortiz’s position but that he believed that much
of the housing would be created after the amendments to the General Plan were finalized. However, he
acknowledged that the City should signal to the market that fees and the in-lieu program are coming.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that establishing the residential impact fees is about incentives: whether the City
wants developers to choose inclusionary housing or pay the fees. Therefore, he didn’t think it was
appropriate to decide what the fees are prior to creating the in-lieu program.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that Home for All conducted research on these types of fees and what had been
shown to instigate new affordable housing. She suggested that staff reach out to Home for All to obtain their
findings.
Councilmember Keighran stated that the City needed to take a holistic approach where the fees and the in-
lieu program are reviewed, researched, and established together.
Councilmember Beach stated that she falls into the camp of being thoughtful and not rushing a decision. She
stated that she recognizes Councilmember Ortiz’s point about urgency but thought the Council needed to
meet with stakeholders and further research their options.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed that on page three of the staff report it states that “fees can be set per square
foot, per unit, or by some other measure, and can only be applied to new development projects.” She stated
that another measure that could be applied is rent per square foot. Therefore, the City could incentivize
developers to maintain an affordable rental rate for a certain time period.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City could structure fees differently for different areas of the City. City
Attorney Kane stated that she would need to do further research.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if staff had direction. Planning Manager Gardiner replied in the affirmative and
stated that staff would further research inclusionary housing.
City Attorney Kane stated that the City’s former inclusionary housing program required moderate rent for
ten years, and it required that the unit mix be identical to the market mix. She explained that this had an
interesting effect—because the below market rate period was so short, the developers built regular market
units and designated a few as below market rate. She stated that you are building a very different type of
housing in that example then if you said the BMR unit could be a workforce housing unit. However, the
workforce housing unit will be more naturally affordable beyond the required time because it is less
luxurious than other units.
Burlingame City Council February 20, 2018
Approved Minutes
7
City Attorney Kane asked if the City Council wanted to give flexibility to the developers in regards to the
type of housing under the in-lieu option. She stated that this would help staff with focusing their discussion
with the different stakeholders.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of providing developers flexibility because the goal is to
build more affordable housing units. She asked that staff obtain input from the developers on other
incentives that could assist in creating affordable housing. Additionally, she noted that she wanted the
affordable units to stay affordable for a longer period of time than the City’s former program.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe the last BMR program worked well. He added that the
previous program kept units affordable for 10 years, which was not long enough to justify an incentive. He
stated that he leaned into mandating inclusionary housing because of the success that both Palo Alto and Los
Gatos had with their programs.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he wanted to give the developers the choice of paying the fee or building
inclusionary housing.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed her concern that inclusionary housing isn’t a permanent solution. She stated
that projects like the one on the City’s Lots F and N are more sustainable.
Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Manager to work with staff on a proposed timetable for bringing this matter
back to Council.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PRESENTATION OF THE PARKS & RECREATION FOUNDATION AND LIONS CLUB
DONATION
Parks & Recreation Foundation representative Randy Schwartz and Burlingame Lions President Kwang Park
presented the City Council with a check for over $18,000. Mr. Schwartz explained that the donation was for
the Paloma Park improvements. The money was raised through a bocce tournament and brick selling
campaign.
They presented the City Council with a replica of the brick that the five Councilmembers purchased for the
park.
Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmembers thanked the Parks and Recreation Foundation and the Lions Club for
their hardwork and donation.
b. CAROLAN AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT UPDATE
Fees vs. Units:
Designing an Effective Inclusionary Policy
June 6, 2018
Agenda
•Welcome & Introductions
•Research Summary: Place Matters
•Legal Framework
•Fees vs. Units: Real World Examples
•Additional Resources
•Q & A / Discussion
Presenters
•Stephanie Reyes, Grounded Solutions
Network
•Josh Abrams, Baird + Driskell Community
Planning
•Rick Jacobus, Street Level Advisors
Research Summary: Place Matters
Stephanie Reyes
Mixed-Income CommunitiesHow important is it to create more economic and/or racial integration? Is it enough to integrate neighborhoods or do we need to integrate each building?
Mixed-Income CommunitiesQ: How important is it to create more economic and/or racial integration? A: Very important, especially for children.
Differences in poverty rate in the neighborhoodwhere kids grow up make a bigger difference to their economic future than differences in parentsincome.SHARKEY, PATRICK. 2009. “Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap.” Economic Mobility Project: An Initiative of the Pew Charitable Trust.
The Equality of Opportunity Project (Chetty and Hendren, 2015)Moving to an economically integrated community improves the life chances for lower income kids - The earlier they move the greater the benefit
Public Housing 19th PercentileTax Credits 30th PercentileHousing Choice Voucher Holders26th PercentileEllen, Ingrid Gould, and Keren Mertens Horn. 2012. “Do Federally Assisted Households Have Access to High Performing Public Schools? Civil Rights ResearchPoverty & Race Research Action Council (NJ1). Median quality of nearest school
Public Housing 19th PercentileTax Credits 30th PercentileHousing Choice Voucher Holders26th PercentileInclusionary Housing40th to 60th percentileMedian quality of nearest schoolSchwartz, Heather L., Liisa Ecola, Kristin J. Leuschner, and Aaron Kofner. 2012. “Is Inclusionary Zoning Inclusionary? A Guide for Practitioners. Technical Report.” RAND Corporation.
Mixed-Income CommunitiesHow important is it to create more economic and/or racial integration? Is it enough to integrate neighborhoods or do we need to integrate each building?
Mixed-Income CommunitiesQ: Is it enough to integrate neighborhoods or do we need to integrate each building? A: Reply hazy, try again
Studies have found that most interactions occur between people of similar socioeconomic background. Cross-income interactions tend to be infrequent and superficial. Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2011. “Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
“The benefits that low income families have realized from living in mixed-income developments and income-diverse neighborhoods have been derived from improvements in placerather than interactions with people.”Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2011. “Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
“Mixed-income strategies that extend beyond those covered here include… research on mixed-income achieved through inclusionary zoning programs.”Levy, Diane K., Zach McDade, and Kassie Dumlao. 2011. “Effects from Living in Mixed-Income Communities for Low-Income Families: A Review of the Literature.” Metropolitan Housing and Communities Center. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
KNOWN UNKNOWNXXXBenefit of neighborhood integration to low-income householdsBenefit of building integration to low-income households Benefit of integration to higher-income households
Legal Framework
Josh Abrams
Impact Fees and
Inclusionary Zoning
Josh Abrams
Baird + Driskell Community Planning
Two Questions
1)Do you want fees or units
2)Should you name it “inclusionary” or
“impact fees”
Inclusionary Zoning
Police power:
Health, safety, morals, and general welfare
A Short History
Steady trend of cities in high cost areas
adopting inclusionary zoning programs
1974 2009
1
A Short History
Steady trend of cities in high cost areas
adopt inclusionary zoning programs
1974 2009
1
1,379
Inclusionary Era
1974 -2009
Grounded Solutions
Inclusionary Map
https://gsn.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=c4c8ebef970b43f597de7bfd2fd1b954
Impact Fees Era –2010-2016
Impact Fees Era
2010-2016
Market rate development
Fees paid
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
New Affordable Housing
Impact fee -Charge imposed by a local
government on a new development
project that is used to reduce the impacts
of that development or provide
infrastructure associated with the new
development.
California Impact Fees Era
2010-2016
= 7,000 people
Of the 737,000 people
in San Mateo County,
all but 23,000 live in
participating
jurisdictions
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East Palo Alto
Foster City
Half Moon Bay
Menlo Park
Millbrae
Pacifica
Portola Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo County
San Mateo
South San Francisco
California Impact Fees Era
2010-2016
•Cupertino
•Mountain View
•Palo Alto
•Sunnyvale
•Campbell
•Los Altos
•Milpitas
•Santa Clara
•Santa Clara County
•Saratoga
Already completed both studies
Participating
Drawbacks
•Nexus study required (and must be
updated), methodology untested in courts
•Mitigation fee act may be triggered,
untested in courts
•Limits on spending the money
•Fees tend to be lower
2016 –2017
Both Era
2018
Inclusionary Era -Rejoinder
Advantages of Inclusionary
•No broad-scale challenge possible in
California
•No nexus study to do or refresh (or be
sued about)
•No mitigation fee act reporting rules or
limits
•Often there is support for higher
requirements
Fees and Units
Units
Funds
Traditional Inclusionary
Fees and Units
Fee Favoring Inclusionary
Redwood City Inclusionary
Step 1 –Internal discussions and priority
setting
Step 2 –Conduct market analysis
Step 3 –Model alternatives
1)Decide on the priority affordability level
2)Compare the cost to the old requirement
Prototype -Rental
Units 225, mostly 1 and 2 bdrms
Size 1 acre
Land costs $100,000 per unit
Hard costs $340 per sf
Soft costs 20% of hard costs
Profit target 18%
Size 240,000 rentable sf
Inclusionary Housing
Calculator
Residential / Affordable
Housing Nexus
Commercial / Affordable
Housing Nexus
Nexus Study
•Expected development
•Disposal income or residents or employees
•Affordability gap (cost to build new housing)
Data:
Incomes,
spending
patterns
cost to build
affordable
homes
Feasibility
•Feasibility Studies
–Appropriate fee levels
–Goal is not to adversely impact development
–Should be lower than the legal maximum
–Not required, but recommended
Effect on Fees on Home
Prices
Homes for Sale in San Mateo County
Effect on Prices
Effect on Prices
“The argument against inclusionary housing
would probably lose much of its power if it
became widely known that,in the long run,
landowners and not homebuyers bear the
costs.”
-Nico Calavita and Kenneth Grimes in the Journal of the
American Planning Association
Fees vs. Units: Real World Examples
Rick Jacobus
Fees vs. Units
Considerations
•Leverage
•Time to spend fees
•Access to land/projects
•Economic integration
•Local capacity/Administration
•Community support
Leverage
Case Study
•Seattle Incentive Zoning
Program
•Most developers are given a
choice between providing
units on site or paying a fee
•In every case, developers with
the choice paid the fee
•Should the program be
changed to require onsite
units only?
How long does it take to
spend fee $?
•Between 2000 and 2013 it took the Office of
Housing an average of 47 months (3.9 years) to
spend fee revenue.
Balance of uncommitted funds
$0
$25,000,000
$50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Between 2000 and
2012...Seattle invested $230
million in 124
developments providing
6,338 units of affordable
housing
10% of the City’s
investment came from
Bonus funds (in lieu fees)
$0
$25,000,000
$50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Bonus $ was invested in
23 projects which
produced a total of
1446 units
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
But the bonus $ was a
small portion of each
project’s financing
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The average was only
$15,867 of Bonus per
unit funded.
0
25,000,000
50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
But the Bonus $ made
4% tax credit deals
possible that would not
have been funded if
other funds had been
used up on earlier
projects.
0
25,000,000
50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
These are the projects
that would not have
been built ‘but for’ the
bonus funds.
4%
LIHTC
Projects
These 4% projects
leveraged $292,000 in
county, state and federal
investment
0
25,000,000
50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The average City
investment in 4% LIHTC
projects was $43,768
2009 - 2012 average was
$49,177
0
25,000,000
50,000,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
The $22,170,884 in
Bonus Funds, led to
the creation of 507
affordable units This is the number
of units that would
not have been built
if the Bonus $ was
not available.
The fee funded
projects served
households earning
30-60% of AMI
Where on-site units
would have served
households at 80%
of AMI
What the bonus
floor area is
“worth” to a
developer
?
“Cost” to
provide one
unit onsite
$325,000
Fee In
Lieu
$146,000
~$49,000
City cost per
LIHTC Unit
Source: DRA Feasibility Study, Downtown Rental Prototype
In Lieu Fees and Economic
Integration
Are the units produced in
significantly different
neighborhoods than the
projects paying the fees?
“Opportunity cost” differs by
neighborhood
Opportunity
Cost
High
Demand
Areas
Lower
Demand
Areas
Low Fee Program
Opportunity
Cost
High
Demand
Areas
Lower
Demand
Areas
Fees
Units
High Fee Program
Opportunity
Cost
High
Demand
Areas
Lower
Demand
Areas
Units
Units
Opportunity
Cost
High
Cost
Low
Cost
Land
Dedication
Supporting
Development
1.Developer Options
2.Pricing
3.Marketing
4.Eligibility Screening
5.Buyer Financing
Long Term
Stewardship
1.Monitoring
2.Enforcement
3.Managing resales
Program Administration
Stewardship
25
Third Party Stewardship
•Local Government
•Private Contractor/Realtor
•Quasi Governmental Agency
•Housing Nonprofit
•Community Land Trust
Additional Resources
1Additional ResourcesGrounded Solutions Network resourcesInclusionary Housing Calculator inclusionaryhousing.org/calculatorInclusionary Housing Database Map inclusionaryhousing.org/mapIn-Lieu Fee section of InclusionaryHousing.org inclusionaryhousing.org/designing-a-policy/off-site-development/in-lieu-fees/Grounded Solutions Network membership groundedsolutions.org/membership/
2Additional ResourcesSan Mateo County resources21 Elements 21elements.comHousing Endowment and Regional Trust (HEART) heartofsmc.org
Q & A / Discussion
Contacts
•Stephanie Reyes, Grounded Solutions
Network sreyes@groundedsolutions.org
•Josh Abrams, Baird + Driskell Community
Planning abrams@bdplanning.com
•Rick Jacobus, Street Level Advisors
rick@streetleveladvisors.com
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Update on the Process to Commission Public Art to Honor Anson
Burlingame
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive an update on the process to commission public
art to honor Anson Burlingame.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2017, the Council held a study session to discuss a public art display to honor
Anson Burlingame and agreed that further work could be done by an ad hoc Subcommittee.
Subsequently, the City established a subcommittee that included Mayor Brownrigg and
Councilmember Beach, Lance Fung and John Talley of Fung Collaboratives, Ruth Waters, Russ
Cohen, Leslie Holtzman, and David Chai. Andra Norris joined the group in March 2018. More
information about the Subcommittee members is attached to this report (Exhibit A).
DISCUSSION
The public art project consists of three phases:
Phase 1:
• Plan and facilitate two educational workshops, for the Councilmembers and community
members, about what public art is, the benefits of public art, national and local views on
public art, best practices, how the public can get involved, and what art can mean in
Burlingame.
• Hold one meeting of the Subcommittee and community working group to begin the
conversation, talk about ideas and locations, and create a list of potential artists and/or
ways to advertise the project.
Phase 2:
• Research possible grant opportunities to help fund the art.
• Meet with potential local funders, such as businesses or patrons.
• Create the Call for Artists.
• Present to Council to update the status of the project.
• If appropriate, request Council approval to commission an art piece.
Update on the Process to Commission Public Art to Honor Anson Burlingame July 2, 2018
2
Phase 3:
• Advertise and promote the Call for Artists.
• Select the final location and artist to commission the new site-specific artwork.
• If on The Bay Trail, coordinate with ABAG and BCDC for site planning.
• With the City Attorney, develop and execute a contract between the City and the artist.
• Work directly with the artist to create the final proposal.
• Present the proposal to the Council and get approval for a detailed proposal, timeline,
budget, artist statement, renderings, etc.
• Schedule meetings with City stakeholders to provide information about the work.
• Work on installation details such as engineering, safety, ADA compliance, and signage.
• Schedule and complete a ribbon-cutting event.
At the July 3, 2017 City Council meeting, the Council was given an update on the Subcommittee’s
progress and approved completing the first two phases of the project. Staff presented another
update at the January 2, 2018 City Council meeting (Exhibit B) on the completion of Phases 1
and 2. At that meeting, staff also requested additional funding prior to beginning Phase 3 to
enable the Subcommittee to publicize the Call for Artists and receive preliminary renderings from
two to three artists in order to have conceptual ideas that would allow the Subcommittee
members to solicit funds from potential donors.
The City Council approved an additional General Fund appropriation in the amount of $13,833 to
finalize the request for qualifications (RFQ) (Exhibit C) and request for proposals (RFP) (Exhibit
D), publicize the Call for Artists, and interview the artists from the RFQ and RFP stages in order
to complete preliminary artist renderings.
The Consultant received 18 RFQ submissions. Of the 18 submissions, eight were disqualified
because the artist didn’t meet the minimum requirements of the RFQ or didn’t follow the RFQ
instructions. The Consultant team, based on their extensive art background, selected the top
seven most qualified and appropriate submissions for the Subcommittee’s review. After
evaluation and discussion, the Subcommittee selected three artists to be interviewed on April 4,
2018: Kate Dodd, John Roloff, and Stutz/Dihn. The Subcommittee interviewed all three artists
and determined that John Roloff and Stutz/Dihn should be invited to the RFP phase.
The two artists were given eight weeks to complete the RFP phase; on June 7, 2018, the artists
presented their statement of intent, a written description and visual representations of the artwork,
a budget, and a timeline. The Subcommittee discussed the aesthetics of the design(s), the
manner in which Anson Burlingame would be honored by exemplifying his actions and
philosophy, the relationship of the artwork to the site location, the commitment of the artist to the
project, and the feasibility of the proposed budget. The Subcommittee subsequently decided to
continue working with John Roloff to continue refining the artwork in honor of Anson Burlingame if
funding becomes available.
It should be noted that while the Councilmember Subcommittee members and staff were able to
review the submitted RFQ’s and RFP’s and were invited to the interviews, they did not participate
in the decision-making process.
Update on the Process to Commission Public Art to Honor Anson Burlingame July 2, 2018
3
FISCAL IMPACT
Currently, funds in the amount of $23,833 have been budgeted for this project. At this time, no
additional funds are being requested.
Exhibits:
• Information about Subcommittee Members
• January 2, 2018 Staff Report
• Request for Qualifications
• Request for Proposals
Exhibit A
Information about Subcommittee Members
Fung Collaboratives
Fung Collaboratives is an arts organization founded in 1999 by Lance Fung. Their mission is to
explore and develop interesting conversations between and through the arts. Through the
development of curatorial, commercial, and educational events under a single organizational
umbrella, Fung Collaboratives fosters the collaboration of both emerging and established artists
in intimate and ambitious projects with domestic and international settings.
Ruth Waters
Ruth Waters is the founder and executive director of the Peninsula Museum of Art, now located
in Burlingame and serving the Greater Bay Area. She has been working in sculpture for 60
years and in arts administration for 40 years..
Russ Cohen
Russ Cohen is a past president of the Burlingame Historical Society and currently serves as its
vice president. He is the founder of the Burlingame Hillsborough History Museum currently
located in the historic Burlingame Train Station and has designed all the exhibits since its
opening in 2008.
Leslie Holtzman
Leslie Holzman worked in the public art field for many years and led the City of Oakland's public
art program. Prior to that, she worked in project management for the public art programs in San
Jose and Los Angeles.
Janet Martin
Janet Martin is an owner of the Studio Shop, an art gallery in Burlingame. She is also a past
Parks and Recreation Commissioner.
Andra Norris
In 2012, Andra Norris moved her San Francisco art gallery — Gallerie Citi — to Burlingame in
order to bring more art to the Peninsula. She has worked as a gallerist since 2003 and is
currently the owner and director of Andra Norris Gallery — a contemporary art gallery in
downtown Burlingame. She was a dedicated studio artist for 20+ years previously.
David Chai
David Chai, the committee’s historical consultant, was fascinated with Anson Burlingame, the
namesake of the City of Burlingame, when the City celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2008.
Mr. Chai was able to collaborate with Dr. George Koo, a local Chinese American community
leader, to obtain private funding to hire two professional librarians to search and document all
relevant material on Anson Burlingame. One librarian searched the local libraries and the US
Library of Congress while the other searched the primary libraries in Beijing, China.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: January 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: January 2, 2018
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an
Amendment to the Agreement with Fung Collaboratives and Approve an
Additional General Fund Appropriation in the Amount of $13,833
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the City
Manager to execute an amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services with Fung
Collaboratives and approve an additional General Fund appropriation in the amount of $13,833.
BACKGROUND
On February 21, 2017, the Council held a study session to discuss a public art display to honor
Anson Burlingame. The Council agreed that further work on this matter should be done by an ad
hoc Subcommittee, and Mayor Ortiz appointed Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Beach
to this group.
DISCUSSION
The members of the Subcommittee and staff held a preliminary discussion, and then staff
conducted research to learn how other local cities have addressed the commissioning of public
art. In addition, staff met with representatives from the Cities of Redwood City and South San
Francisco, who have public art programs, and talked with Ruth Waters from the Peninsula Art
Museum and Cindy Abbott from the Sanchez Art Center in Pacifica. Based on the information
gathered, the Subcommittee agreed to meet with Lance Fung and John Tally with Fung
Collaboratives.
Fung Collaboratives is an arts organization founded in 1999 by Lance Fung. Their mission is to
explore and develop interesting conversations between and through the arts. Through the
development of curatorial, commercial, and educational events under a single organizational
umbrella, Fung Collaboratives fosters the collaboration of both emerging and established artists
in intimate and ambitious projects with domestic and international settings. Recently, they have
been working with Redwood City to develop their Public Art Master Vision.
The Subcommittee met with Lance Fung and John Tally on Tuesday, June 6, 2017. The
Subcommittee was very impressed with the knowledge and background experience of Fung
Amendment to the Agreement with Fung Collaboratives January 2, 2018
2
Collaboratives and felt that they would be a valuable resource to educate the Burlingame
community about public art and to help guide the commissioning of a public art piece.
The Subcommittee reviewed Fung Collaboratives’ proposed process, which included three
phases.
Phase 1:
1. Plan and facilitate two educational workshops, for the Councilmembers and community
members, about what public art is, the benefits of public art, national and local views on
public art, best practices, how the public can get involved, and what art can mean in
Burlingame.
2. Hold one meeting of the Subcommittee and community working group to begin the
conversation, talk about ideas and locations, and create a list of potential artists and/or
ways to advertise the project.
Phase 2:
1. Research possible grant opportunities to help fund the art.
2. Meet with potential local funders, such as businesses or patrons.
3. Create the Call for Artists.
4. Present to Council to update the status of the project.
5. If appropriate, request Council approval to commission an art piece.
Phase 3:
1. Advertise and promote the Call for Artists.
2. Select the final location and artist to commission the new site-specific artwork.
3. If on The Bay Trail, coordinate with ABAG and BCDC for site planning.
4. With the City Attorney, develop and execute a contract between the City and the artist.
5. Work directly with the artist to create the final proposal.
6. Present the proposal to the Council and get approval for a detailed proposal, timeline,
budget, artist statement, renderings, etc.
7. Schedule meetings with City stakeholders to provide information about the work.
8. Work on installation details such as engineering, safety, ADA compliance, and signage.
9. Schedule and complete a ribbon-cutting event.
At the July 3, 2017 Council meeting, the Council was given an update on the Subcommittee’s
progress and approved completing Phases 1 and 2.
In order to ensure that there is adequate input from the community, the Subcommittee is
supported by the Anson Burlingame Art Committee (AB Committee) comprised of Ruth Waters
from the Peninsula Art Museum; Russ Cohen from the Burlingame Historical Society; David Chai,
who has extensively researched Anson Burlingame; and community members Janet Martin and
Leslie Holzman.
The AB Committee met on August 15, September 20, and December 14, 2017. During the
meetings, the Committee established goals and a process, developed workshop formats, and
discussed public outreach, fundraising, possible locations for the art work, and next steps.
Amendment to the Agreement with Fung Collaboratives January 2, 2018
3
The first Public Art Workshop was held on September 26, 2017; discussion items included art in
the public realm and what it could mean in Burlingame. The second workshop, which was held
on October 24, 2017, included an overview of the history of Anson Burlingame and the qualities
the community members would like to see in an art piece in honor of Anson Burlingame.
To date, Phases 1 and 2 have been completed. In order to continue to Phase 3, all of the funding
needs to be secured prior to advertising the Call for Artists. To solicit funds from potential donors
without a more concrete concept of the proposed art piece is challenging. The Subcommittee is
therefore requesting $13,333 in additional funds in order to publicize the Call for Artists and
provide for preliminary renderings from two artists to aid the fundraising effort.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on a project budget of $125,000, the Fung Collaboratives fee is $25,000 (20%) for Phase
3. The additional funding of $8,333 (1/3 of the 20% Phase 3 fee) would allow for the
development of the concept; this amount would be subtracted from the total Phase 3 costs. An
additional $4,500 is needed for artist renderings, and $1,000 is needed for web postings and
promotion of the Call for Artists. Staff therefore requests an additional General Fund
appropriation in the amount of $13,833.
Exhibits:
Resolution
Amendment to the Agreement
City of Burlingame Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
Public Art Project
Purpose: To select two to three artists who would proceed to the RFP process (Request for
Proposals). The finalists will be notified by 04/11/18 by email.
Issued: 03/05/18
Entry Deadline: 03/23/18
Contact: burlingamerfq@fungcollaboratives.com http://www.fungcollaboratives.org/
Project Overview: The City of Burlingame seeks a professional visual artist to create the City’s
most important public artwork to date in the spirit of Burlingame’s namesake Anson Burlingame.
The project was inspired by the upcoming sesquicentennial of the Burlingame Treaty in 2018. In
addition to being timeless, the artwork is to commemorate the values and spirit of Anson
Burlingame (as opposed to the man himself) and evolve a sense of placemaking within the
community. It is important that the selected artist engages with the history and culture of
Burlingame. The artwork should equally embrace both aesthetics and content. To this end, the
artist will work with a steering committee that will provide community input, along with other
information relevant to the culture of Burlingame and desired oversight of the project. Up to
three artists will be selected to move on to the request for proposal stage (RFP) where they will
each receive a $1,500 payment for their proposal. The selection committee will then select one
artist to move forward with this project.
Budget: $100,000 for artist fee, design, materials, fabrication, and installation.
Location: Washington Park. This location was selected based on its visible location across from
the Caltrain Burlingame Station. Children and adults frequent this park for a multitude of active
and passive activities. It is accessible by foot, bicycle, and vehicle. There are many unique
features in the designated site from which the artist may react to or be inspired from.
Washington Park Burlingame, CA
360 View Link
Site Location
Eligibility: Requirements for eligibility:
•Must be a professional artist.
- Definition of professional artist- “a practitioner in the visual arts with an original, self-
conceptualized body of work, generally recognized by critics and peers as a
professional possessing serious intent and ability.”
•Must have experience working with substantial budgets ($50,000 - $100,000).
•Must have five years of professional experience as a working artist.
•Must be legally able to work in the United States.
•Must be at least 18 years of age.
•This is a national search to find the most appropriate artist with a preference to find a Bay
Area artist, if possible.
•Burlingame City Council and staff and their relatives and family members are ineligible.
•The City of Burlingame does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, color,
national origin, age, ancestry, disability, economic status, or gender identity.
Evaluation Criteria: The selection committee will then use the following criteria to evaluate the
remaining eligible artist:
•Original and personal approach.
•Professional credentials (as evidenced in the submitted materials).
•Artistic excellence of past work.
•Experience with public art or large scale, permanent sculptural work.
•Experience with site-specific artwork.
•Ability to spend time in Burlingame for research and conceptualization through to final
execution.
Submissions: All submissions must be electronic. Send the following documents in a single PDF
file to: burlingamerfq@fungcollaboratives.com
1.A letter of interest: Outline your approach to public art, your interest in this specific
project, what you bring to the project as an artist, experience with other projects of
similar scope, sources of inspiration presented by the project, any other comments that
might help differentiate you as a candidate, and your name, address, phone number, and
email. Not to exceed one page.
2.A professional resume/CV: Not to exceed three pages.
3.A descriptive narrative of possible aesthetic directions. NOTE- this is not a proposal
(that is for the RFP stage). Instead tell us about the philosophy of how you might
approach this project, thoughts on materials, what you would like the audience to learn or
experience from the artwork, points of inspiration, anything you glean from initial
research about Anson Burlingame, his character, or your connection to the City.
4.Images of past works: Eight maximum, with a brief description for each project
including the title, size, and artist’s intent.
5.Professional references: At least three professional references from past projects with
contact information.
Timeline:
Deadline submission – 03/23/18
Committee review and select finalists – 03/28/18
In-person interview (Skype if in person not possible) – 04/04/18
Finalists notified via email (if you don’t hear by this date, you have not been selected) – 04/11/18
City of Burlingame Request for Proposals (RFP)
Anson Burlingame Public Art Project
Purpose: To finalize the artist that will move forward with the project.
Issued: 04/6 /18
Entry Deadline: 06/1/18
Contact: John Talley, Executive Director Fung Collaboratives -
http://www.fungcollaboratives.org/ - burlingamerfp@fungcollaboratives.com
Project Review: The City of Burlingame seeks a professional visual artist to create the City’s
most important public artwork to date in the spirit of City’s namesake Anson Burlingame. The
project was inspired by the upcoming sesquicentennial of the Burlingame Treaty in 2018. In
addition to being timeless and relevant, the artwork is to commemorate the values and spirit of
Anson Burlingame (as opposed to the man himself) and evolve a sense of place making within
the community. It is important that the selected artist engages with the history and culture of
Burlingame.
Some of this information is provided in this document to provide additional background for the
artist in the creation of their proposal. The selection committee will use the proposal to determine
which artist will be hired for the project.
Proposal Award: The artist will be awarded $1,500 for the submission of a qualifying proposal
and be paid after receipt of electronic submission.
Future Project Budget: $100,000 for artist fee, travel, design, permits, materials, fabrication,
installation, design collaborators, etc. The final contact will pay this total sum throughout the
realization phase with specified milestones correlated to the timeline and budget.
Art Site Description: Click here to view a google map of the site locations.
Click here for a 360 degree view that shows all 3 locations.
Proposal Submission Requirements: The proposal is the means for the artist to fully present
his or her ideas to the committee and is what the committee will review in selection of the final
artist. As such it should be thorough and provide all information necessary to accurately
communicate the envisioned artwork. All proposal materials must be submitted electronically a
single pdf. Any late or incomplete submissions will be considered invalid. In these cases, the
artist fee will not be paid. Send your pdf to burlingamerfp@fungcollaboratives.com
1. Artist Statement of intent describing the artist’s personal connection to, and interest in,
the project and what they bring to the project as an artist.
2. A written description of the artwork: Up to two pages, this should describe the
aesthetic direction of the artwork. (What it is, how it looks, materials, size etc.)
3. A descriptive narrative Up to three pages, that addresses:
- The artist’s philosophical approach and conceptual framework for the art.
- How the artwork takes into consideration community input as well as information
provided by the steering committee.
- How the artwork commemorates the spirit of Anson Burlingame and the culture of
the City of Burlingame.
- How the art connects to and interacts with its location.
- How the artwork addresses and interacts with the community.
- Points of inspiration for the project.
- Takeaways from research and time spent in Burlingame.
4. Visual representations of the artwork including sketches and drawings, minimum of
three 3D renderings (elevation, details, aerial view), site photographs with intended
artwork, site plans or other graphics.
5. Technical considerations: All information regarding the materials and material
specifications, dimensions, fabrication and installation methods, proposed short and long
term maintenance.
6. Detailed budget describing how funds will be allocated to materials, fabrication,
shipping, installation, etc. Please include budget for artist travel and stay in Burlingame
as well as artist fee. Note: recommended artist fee should not exceed 20% of the
combined total for materials and fabrication.
7. Timetable
Evaluation Criteria: The Selection Committee will use the following criteria to evaluate the
proposals and determine which artist will be selected for the project :
1. Aesthetics: The quality and artistic excellence of the design , including creativity and
originality, use of materials, appropriateness of content and the degree to which the
artwork will remain interesting and relevant over time.
2. Manner of honoring Anson Burlingame and his actions and philosophy: How the
artwork illustrates these important tenets to the general public.
3. Relationship of Artwork to the site: How does the artwork address and interact with
visual, and communal aspects of the location? Consider including the types of activities
that take place there, the demographic of the audience, the community’s relationship to
the site, and the artwork’s place making for the community.
4. Durability longevity and maintenance: The degree to which the artwork will not
require excessive and costly maintenance and will stand up to environm ental conditions.
5. Time in Burlingame: The ability to embed yourself in the City to better understand the
site, residence, and function of the new public art commission.
Policies: Artists will retain ownership of design ideas submitted with this application. When the
contract has been signed between the City and the selected artist, the materials submitted with
this proposal, as well as the artwork, will become property of the City. The artist will, however,
retain ownership of the artistic concept including copyright and reproduction rights.
Timeline:
Deadline submission – 06/1/18 – Midnight PST.
Committee review, artist interviews, and select finalist – week of June 4th.
Artists receive notification as to weather or not they have been selected – week of June 11th.
1
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA NO:
MEETING DATE: July 2, 2018
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204
Subject: Topgolf Update and Consideration of Additional Access Route
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the status of the Topgolf project and Topgolf’s
request for an additional access route to the project site across City land.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2016, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the lease management of
the Golf Center site for the operation of golf or other recreational or entertainment activities that
would be open to the public. On March 21, 2017, the City Council selected Topgolf International
as the preferred operator of the site. The Topgolf proposal included building a 65,000 sq. ft. LEED
Silver-certified facility with 102 hitting bays, 3,000 sq. ft. of event space, a full-service restaurant
and bar, a rooftop terrace, pool tables, shuffle board, and supporting areas. The facility, which
would be built on the existing Golf Center site, would offer general entertainment, food and music,
golf lessons for all ages, summer camps, tournaments, and leagues. After negotiating with
Topgolf and City Council discussion, the City Council approved a Term Sheet on July 3, 2017
setting forth the key business terms for a potential lease of the site. Since then, Topgolf has
completed its test borings to verify soil conditions and worked on refining its design and plans for
the site. An exclusive negotiation agreement was executed this spring to govern the relationship
between the City and Topgolf during the entitlement and environmental review phase of the
project. The City has retained discretion as to whether to enter into a final lease, to be
determined based on the environmental review process and final design submissions.
DISCUSSION
Topgolf intends to submit a complete Commercial Design Review application to the City in July.
As originally conceived, the project’s sole access would be from Anza Boulevard. Given the
close proximity to the 101 ramp, City staff and others expressed concern about potential traffic
impacts. In examining the project details, Topgolf determined that adding another route from
Airport Boulevard would improve traffic flow and provide for better emergency vehicle access.
Therefore, Topgolf has developed a suggested access route over City land from Airport
Boulevard. The proposed route would not require moving any significant City infrastructure.
Because this suggested change is outside the scope of the originally contemplated project
description, staff seeks Council direction on whether to allow Topgolf to proceed with the
Topgolf Update and Consideration of Additional Access July 2, 2018
2
alternate access in the entitlement and review process. Council should also provide any
additional guidance on terms or conditions of the anticipated lease related to the alternate access
route.
FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of allowing additional access to the site depends on Council’s direction. No
impact on existing City facilities is anticipated, provided that sufficient care is taken in the design
and construction of an alternate access road.
Exhibits:
• Topgolf’s description of access request
• Topgolf’s updated project description
Page 1 of 1
TopGolf USA Inc
8750 N. Central Expressway, Ste 1200
Dallas, TX 75231
P: 214.377.0663
June 19, 2018
Margaret Glomstad
Parks and Recreation Director
City of Burlingame
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Topgolf Easement Request
Dear Ms. Glomstad:
TopGolf USA Inc. (“Topgolf”) requests City approval of an access easement to encompass
a proposed driveway connection from the Topgolf parking facility to Airport Boulevard. An exact
location is forthcoming pending the results of the ongoing traffic study and engineering design. The
provided conceptual site plan represents the intent of the request which is to provide an additional
point of access to Topgolf, minimize traffic impacts to the adjacent properties, and improve
emergency vehicle access. The intent is for the driveway to be constructed in a manner so as to
minimize impacts to the existing landfill cap.
TopGolf is providing approximately 523 parking spaces on its site and believes that a
second access point is necessary to improve traffic flow and enhance safety if two access points
were approved by the City. TopGolf believes that traffic would be more evenly distributed and life
safety would be enhanced by adding the Airport Boulevard access. Anza Boulevard, currently
TopGolf’s only access point is also a freeway access to Highway 101 which can be congested at
peak hours. Airport Boulevard access provides an alternate access for safety vehicles should
there ever be an emergency. Moreover, TopGolf also believes that vehicle trips would be better
distributed with two access points.
Thank you for considering TopGolf’s request and look forward to a favorable decision by City
Council. TopGolf understands that this request is scheduled for July 2, 2018. TopGolf plans on
being in attendance to answer any questions.
Very truly yours,
Tanner Micheli
Director of Real Estate Development
Topgolf
Enclosures
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg
Subject: Committee Report
On June 15, I met with senior representatives of Enterprise Rental Car. They informed me that it now appears highly unlikely that SFO will be building a second Car Rental facility within the next 5 years, and perhaps it never will. Enterprise believes SFO has a fundamental misunderstanding of trends in their industry, but they are the landlords so for now it is off the table. They shared with me that they have several alternatives that they are actively exploring, since they well understand that the City does not envision at-grade parking lots as a good use of prime bayfront land. We agreed to regroup in Q3 to examine progress and alternatives. On June 22, I met with the City Manager and Planning Director (Emeritus) Bill Meeker and Planning Director Kevin Gardiner to discuss Rollins Road transition planning. At a recent Chamber of Commerce board meeting, Board Member Clark Guittard noted that there was a great deal of commercial activity occurring in the North End due to the presumed changes proposed in the General Plan. He offered/requested to be part of any implementation meetings that might be organized to help land owners understand the changes that are coming (if approved of course) and help the City understand the dynamics of that area today. Coincident with Clark's offer, as we all know the State is taking steps to reduce local control over projects in an effort to speed development approvals. With these two trends in mind, we wanted to meet to plot out the roll out should the GP revisions be approved, what design elements ought to be within them, and the timing of all of the above. The outcome of our meeting was an agreement that Staff would be reporting to the Council later this summer, after Planning Commission has had another look at the GP, and we will discuss at that time how to manage the North End transition both from a design and a legal point of view. This may entail hiring outside expertise to help us design a program that will work, that will create the neighborhood we want to see, that will be livable for new residents, pedestrians and cyclists, with open space, and yet also an attractive re-development opportunity for landowners so that we can generate additional housing for our community and wider region. So stay tuned! On June 28 I met with members of SAMCAR to review various housing initiatives and
potential incentive programs. I undertook this in order to become more informed about how different kinds of incentives might be perceived and valued, and to underscore to SAMCAR our City’s intention of working with them to develop effective affordable housing programs. I also attended on June 28 an SBWMA meeting at which the final budget will be reviewed and probably approved (the meeting has not happened as I write!).
Brownrigg Committee Report July 2, 2018
2
On June 15 BIS held its 8th Grade graduation, in which a brighter and cuter Brownrigg played a role. BIS did a great job with the event; the speeches and performances by students were terrific. During the period I held several conversations concerning the logistics for the October 12
Anson Burlingame Memorial Bust event at our Library. Please hold the date, and the time will be 6 - 8 pm. More details to be provided soon.
1
Memorandum
To: City Council
Date: July 2, 2018
From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson
Subject: Committee Report
Constituent Meetings June 19 - David Chai update on Anson Burlingame event in October. June 21 - Meeting Terry Nagel and Erika James of BNN to get update on needs. June 23 - Attended CALLPrimrose benefit luncheon. Great effort to address the increasing issue of food instability with local families. June 28 - Meeting with CalMatters to provide a community update and briefing on statewide political matters.
Peninsula Clean Energy
June 19 - Meeting to review staffing and business discussion. Hired temporary CFO and retained search firm to help with the permanent placement. June 20 - Meetings and phone calls regarding budget and search conversation for new CFO. June 27 - Meetings and phone calls on CEO review and salary update. June 28 - Board meeting for Peninsula Clean Energy - packet here: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/learn-more/board-of-directors/. Topics included annual budget update and five year forecast. Information on various energy procurement and legislative issues.
Burlingame City June 21 - Bill Meeker Retirement lunch - a wonderful affair and he will be missed. We are so fortunate to have such talent and depth to promote from within. June 22 - Economic Development Committee meeting focused on ordinance for local shopping districts to mitigate unsightly windows, discussion about awards for storefront beautification and also grant opportunities to assist local small business with exterior upgrades. June 28 - Pinning ceremony for Burlingame’s finest.