Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2018.08.20
City Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 20, 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 representatives: Timothy L. Davis, Sonya M. Morrison, Kathleen Kane, Carol Augustine, Lisa Goldman, and Sheryl Schaffner Employee Organizations: Association of Police Administrators, Burlingame Police Officers Association, Burlingame Police Sergeants Association, Teamsters Local 856, and Department Heads and Unrepresented Unit d. Note: Public comment is permitted on all action items as noted on the agenda below and in the non-agenda public comment provided for in item 7. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Mayor may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION 5. UPCOMING EVENTS 6. PRESENTATIONS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 August 20, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Update on Burlingame School District Demographics and Construction (Dr. Maggie MacIsaac) a. Broadway Grade Separation Update (Caltrain Project Manager Rafael Bolon)b. PresentationAttachments: 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 July 2, 2018a. Meeting MinutesAttachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Parking Meter Zones b. Staff Report Ordinance Attachments: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding “No Parking During Specified Hours” c. Staff Report Ordinance Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a $48,300 California Office of Traffic Safety Grantd. Staff Report Resolution OTS Grant Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 August 20, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Contract for Tree Pruning & Stump Removal for FY 2018-2019 (City Project #85450) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement with Timberline Tree Service e. Staff Report Resolution Scope of Work Bid Summary Agreement Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Support for Clean Air Day, Wednesday, October 3, 2018; Adoption of a Resolution Urging the United States Congress to Enact a Revenue-Neutral Tax on Carbon-Based Fossil Fuels; and Consideration of a Future Discussion Related to Investment of City Funds in Fossil Fuels f. Staff Report Clean Air Day Resolution Carbon Fee and Dividend Resolution Letter to Mayor Brownrigg Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response Letter to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses” g. Staff Report Resolution Response Letter San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Development of a Residential and Commercial and Adaptive Reuse Project at 220 Park Road (Former Post Office Site) h. Staff Report Resolution Agreement for Professional Services Scope of Work (Exhibit A) Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contribution to the Public Agencies Post-Employment (Pension) Benefit Trust Administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) i. Staff Report Resolution Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 August 20, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Annual Renewal of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID): Resolution Approving the 2017-18 Annual Report; Declaring the City ’s Intention to Establish and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2018-19 and Setting Required Public Hearing for September 17, 2018 j. Staff Report Resolution Notice of Public Hearing Attachments: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending June 30, 2018k. Staff Report Portfolio Holdings 6-30-2018 CERBT Strategy PARS Statement Attachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commissionl. Staff ReportAttachments: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Beautification Commissionm. Staff ReportAttachments: Approval of Recommended Changes to City Purchasing and Contracting Proceduresn. Staff Report Proposed Purchasing and Contracting Procedures Threshold Summary Table Attachments: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC for the Installation of Conduit on City Right of Way and Ratifying the Use of That Agreement as a Form for Subsequent Similar Applications o. Staff Report Resolution Proposed Agreement Attachments: 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment) Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 August 20, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolutions Approving an Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to Incorporate Corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards a. Staff Report Exhibits 1 and 2 Resolution - Amendments Resolution - CEQA Attachments Land Use Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan Attachments: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 District Regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units b. Staff Report Proposed Ordinance Code Language Showing Tracked Changes May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpt) June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (excerpt) Government Code Section 65852.2 Attachments: 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Real Estate Agreement with Caltrain and Related Documents to Allow Relocation of Caltrain Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) to City Property on the East Side of the Railway Tracks in the Industrial Zone a. Staff Report Resolution Addendum to FEIR dated July 12, 2018 Mayor's Letter to Caltrain dated July 31, 2018 Mayor's Letter to Caltrain dated August 1, 2018 Proposed PS-3 Site Plan Proposed Site Plan Draft Real Estate Agreement Attachments: 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 August 20, 2018City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Mayor Brownrigg's Committee Reporta. Committee ReportAttachments: Vice Mayor Colson's Committee Reportb. Committee 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 Tuesday, September 4, 2018 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 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/4/2018 Burlingame Broadway Grade Separation City Council Meeting August 20, 2018 Agenda I.Overview II.Project Description -- Updates III.Next Steps IV.Questions 2 Overview Project Location 4 Existing Broadway At-Grade Railroad Crossing •92 Caltrain trains each workday use this crossing (114 after Electrification), in addition to freight •Average of 2 accidents & 105 traffic citations per year •Lack of grade separation increases vehicular and train delays •Ranked #1 on CPUC priority list for grade separations 5 Project Goals Enhance safety for motorists, bicyclist & pedestrians Improve Caltrain rail operations efficiency Improve traffic flow and reduce delays Reduce automobile congestion and emissions Gateway treatment for Broadway New Broadway Station and parking lot Landscaping and other enhancements 6 Project Description Project Update •A design option was selected by City Council in 2017 with input from the community •Grade Separation will partially elevate rails and partially depress roads at Broadway 8 Design Update •Shoofly alignment •Station Layout •Vertical profile •Horizontal profile 9 New Broadway Station 10 Centerboard platform Pedestrian underpass Weekday Services Preliminary Station Layout Conceptual Roadway Plans 11 Rendering: Broadway & California 12 Rendering: Broadway & Carolan 13 Project Funding Preliminary Design & Environmental Clearance 14 Measure A City of Burlingame $3.85 M $0.5 M Next Steps Next Steps •Spring 2019: Complete 35% Design •Spring 2019: Additional Public Meetings •Summer 2019: Complete Environmental Clearance 16 17 Website: www.caltrain.com/BBGS Public Meeting Notices 18 Example of mailed notice Contact Information •Dedicated Website: www.caltrain.com/BBGS •Email: BBGS@caltrain.com •Outreach Hotline: 650.508.7726 Questions Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting on July 2, 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 former Mayor Cathy Baylock. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. CLOSED SESSION a. 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 PUBLIC 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 b. 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 City Attorney Kane reported that direction was given, on both matters, but no reportable action was taken. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 2 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Brownrigg reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION OF VEOLIA DONATION FOR MUSIC IN THE PARK Recreation Coordinator Kevin Sanchez thanked Veolia for their continued support of Music in the Park. He stated that because of Veolia’s support, the City will have five concerts this July. Veolia’s Vice President Paul Savage presented the City with a check for $5,000 to support Music in the Park. Mayor Brownrigg and the City Council thanked Veolia for their generous donation. b. PARKS AND RECREATION FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP PRESENTATION Parks and Recreation Foundation member Randy Schwartz stated that the Foundation’s mission is to raise funds for youth scholarships and improvements to local parks and to create new recreation programs. He stated that this year, the Foundation used funds to create a map of the Ed Taylor Trail at Mills Canyon, buy equipment for the Bayside Dog Park, assist BYBA with improvements to the Bayside Park dugouts, and contribute $18,000 to the Paloma Park renovations. Mr. Schwartz presented the City with a check for $5,000 for youth scholarships. The City Council thanked the Foundation for their contribution and their hard work. c. PENINSULA WELLNESS COMMUNITY UPDATE (DIRECTOR FRANK PAGLIARO) Peninsula Health Care District (“District”) Director Pagliaro gave a presentation on the proposed Peninsula Wellness Community Center. He explained that the District recently signed an agreement to begin negotiations on the project. He noted that it is estimated the project will break ground in 3.5 years. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the District is still reviewing options for the project. However, their initial thoughts are that the project would contain a senior living facility containing 400 units along Marco Polo. He explained that the Board has not yet determined if some of the units would be designed for individuals with specific disabilities and how many affordable units the project would contain. He noted that the helicopter flight path dictates where buildings will be located. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the Board is proposing creating a “Hub” for the community, which would include a theater for public meetings and a café. He also noted that the District is working with the Burlingame School District and Gatepath in order to ensure that these facilities remain open. He explained that the project would also contain green space, a community garden, and gym. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 3 Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City adopts housing linkage fees, would they apply to this project. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative and stated that independent living units for seniors would be considered multi-family units. Mayor Brownrigg asked if linkage fees still apply when the property is owned by a nonprofit. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked if the public would be allowed to weigh in on community benefits before the project goes to the Planning Department. Mr. Pagliaro replied in the affirmative and stated that the Board envisions holding town hall meetings. Mayor Brownrigg thanked the District for their assistance in keeping the seniors’ gym. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the District felt bound to profit maximize on the proposed project. Mr. Pagliaro stated that the District wants to use the profits from this project to continue funding other programs such as suicide prevention in the high schools and wellness in grade schools. Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the District create a simple list of the contributions it makes to the community that could be circulated in the City’s e-newsletter. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the District should determine how much of their project they want to be affordable and give that portion of the project to an affordable housing developer. Councilmember Ortiz asked Mr. Pagliaro to discuss the need for this proposed project. Mr. Pagliaro explained that the County’s population is aging, and it is important to prepare for this. Councilmember Keighran noted that 25% of the County’s population is going to be over the age of 60 by 2030 (the highest in the United States). She explained that the amenities of the proposed project are going to be important. She added that she would like to see Gatepath stay in its location as it would be a benefit to the senior community. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame resident Carolyn Way discussed her concerns about the size and impact of the building on the community. Burlingame resident Kathy Smith voiced her concern about the traffic impact on the neighborhood. Cheryl Fama, Chief Executive Officer of the Peninsula Health Care District, discussed the District’s proposed project and how it would benefit the community. She added that the vision of the wellness center is to focus on healthy aging and to encourage research and innovation. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 4 Councilmember Beach stated that affordability is critical. She challenged the Board to not only think about affordability for the seniors but also for the workforce. She noted that included in affordable housing discussions is the need for daycare and preschool facilities. She discussed the need for green space in the project and asked the District to look into utilizing shuttle systems to relieve traffic. Councilmember Keighran asked about putting the District’s meeting dates and times in the City’s e- newsletter. 7. PUBLIC COMMENT The City Council thanked Bill Meeker for his service to the City, congratulated him on his retirement, and presented him with a gift. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. ADOPTION OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 18, 2018 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2018. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CAROLAN COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT BY GHILOTTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 83680 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 93-2018. c. ADOPTION OF 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 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 94-2018. d. 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 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 95-2018. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 5 e. 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 Finance Director Augustine requested Council adopt Resolution Number 96-2018. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE PLAN JPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS City Attorney Kane requested Council adopt Resolution Number 97-2018. g. 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 DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 98-2018. h. 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 CDD Meeker requested Council set September 4, 2018 as the 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. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED HOURS Assistant DPW Morimoto explained that side streets near the Broadway Commercial District and Downtown Burlingame Avenue have signage that restricts parking between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. He stated that the signage was originally installed to facilitate the cleaning and maintenance of the downtown areas. However, upon a recent review of the Burlingame Municipal Code, it was discovered that these restrictions were not codified. Therefore, he asked that the City Council adopted the proposed ordinance to update the code to reflect the existing signage. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 6 Additionally, he explained that currently Gilbreth Road has parking restrictions from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. These restrictions were originally adopted to reduce the impact of overnight parking of large trucks along the frontage road. However, the Yaseen Community Center is experiencing problems with the parking restrictions as they hold community meetings/events that extend past 10:00 p.m. The Yaseen Community Center asked the City to modify the restrictions so that their members are able to utilize on-street parking. Mr. Morimoto stated that after review, staff recommends modifying the parking restriction hours to 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. Assistant DPW Morimoto noted that TSPC supported both amendments. Councilmember Keighran asked if the Yaseen Community Center has hours of operation on record. Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that he didn’t know but that he would get back to Council with this information. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to publish notice of the proposed ordinance. b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING METER ZONES Assistant DPW Morimoto stated that staff was recommending that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance to revise the parking meter zones at the following locations: 1. South Lane from California Drive to West Lane to a 10-hour parking limit 2. West Lane from South Lane to 200 feet south of South Lane to a 10-hour parking limit Vice Mayor Colson asked how the public is informed of these changes. City Manager Goldman stated that there is signage but that staff could include it in the e-newsletter. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City could color code the meters to signify long-term and short-term parking. Councilmember Keighran asked if there would be a transition period. Mr. Morimoto replied in the affirmative and stated that they can put signage out prior to changing parking spots. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer read the title. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 7 Councilmember Beach made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Mayor Brownrigg asked the City Clerk to publish notice of the proposed ordinance. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad began by reviewing the scope of the Community Center project. She stated that the project includes a full-sized basketball court, playground, underground and surface parking, and a new Community Center. She stated that staff is asking Council to decide whether to move forward with the Mission or Pavilions design for the Community Center. Architect Dawn Merkes reviewed the Mission design including an exterior fly through of the project. She noted that in the Mission design, photovoltaic tiles can only be used on half of the roof. She next reviewed the Pavilions design including an exterior fly through of the project. She noted that in the Pavilions design, photovoltaic tiles can cover 80% of the roof. Ms. Merkes discussed lighting and daylight design strategies. She reviewed options such as glazed glass, sun shades, and luminaire selection. Ms. Merkes discussed the public outreach they conducted on the two options. She stated that they received 1,623 responses, with 49% voting for the Pavilions and 51% voting for the Mission design. She reviewed public comments on the two designs. Ms. Merkes reviewed the next steps for the project. She stated that the schematic design would be done between July and October, 2018, and construction would begin in 2020. Councilmember Keighran asked about the cleaning and maintenance costs of the windows in the Pavilions design. Ms. Merkes responded that she didn’t know the maintenance costs but would expect the two designs to have similar costs. She added that she believed the windows in the Pavilions design would need a major window cleaning once a year. Mayor Brownrigg stated that the City Council was interested in getting to zero net energy. He asked how the City would get to zero net energy with the Mission design if only 50% of the roof can be covered in photovoltaics. Ms. Merkes replied that the City could consider adding photovoltaics as shade structures over surface parking. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 8 Burlingame residents Cathy Baylock and Tom Payne voiced their support for the Mission design. Burlingame resident Sandra Lang discussed the importance of what lies within the building and asked that the City work with the community to ensure that programming addresses the needs of the public. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment. Councilmember Ortiz stated that he has struggled since the beginning with the two options. He stated that he was leaning towards the Pavilions design and believes that it will complement its surroundings. Councilmember Beach thanked the architecture team and the committee for putting forth two great designs. She stated that when she started to review the designs she leaned towards the Mission design. However, the photovoltaics were not shown in the earlier renderings to the community, and she believes that they work better in the Pavilions design. Moreover, the photovoltaics cover up to 80% of the roof in the Pavilions design and only 50% in the Mission design. Additionally, she discussed the importance of natural light and felt that the Pavilions design did a better job maximizing natural light. She also noted that after seeing the fly over views of the two designs, she believed that the Mission design was not as attractive as the Pavilions coming from Burlingame Avenue. Councilmember Beach stated that the Pavilions design takes inspiration from the parks and the trees, and the Mission design takes inspiration from other civic buildings. She stated that if City Hall is redone, that should be done in the Mission style. Councilmember Keighran stated that she didn’t believe the City could go wrong with either design. She explained that after reading all the public comments, it was clear that no one despised either of the designs. She stated that she originally felt that the Mission design would be the best, but the Mission design is associated with quiet places like schools, the library, and city halls. She noted that the Pavilions design has more of an interaction with the outside. She stated that she believed the Pavilions design was better suited for the location, and the photovoltaics looked better on the Pavilions design. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she has an affinity for both designs. She discussed the importance of where you place modern architecture. She explained that glass buildings look good in natural environments because they reflect their surroundings. She stated that the Pavilions design connects to the environment. She noted that the Pavilions design needed more work, but she stated that she supported the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg discussed the importance of having the Community Center be light and airy. He stated that the Pavilions design allows the community to embrace the park. Councilmember Keighran asked Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad to speak about the proposed programming for the new Community Center. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that she envisions working with the community to see what types of programs they would like in the new building. She stated that while her staff attends state Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 9 conferences to learn about best practices, each community is different, so it is important to get feedback from the community. The City Council unanimously voted to move forward with the Pavilions design. Mayor Brownrigg voiced his concern that the playground is immediately adjacent to the first base line of the baseball field. He stated that higher netting is needed to protect children on the playground. Mayor Brownrigg asked that the City budget for smart parking in the underground parking lot. Vice Mayor Colson asked that the architect put in more stone work and less concrete. Councilmember Keighran asked that EV charging stations be installed in both the surface level and underground parking lots. Councilmember Beach stressed the need for smart curb management. She discussed the fact that the Portola Valley Community Center integrates the wood of trees in their community and asked that the City consider the same. Vice Mayor Colson asked when landscaping plans come into play. Ms. Merkes stated that the landscape plans will be presented to the City Council for their review during schematic design. b. DISCUSSION OF RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES CDD Gardiner stated that on February 12, 2018, the City Council held a study session to consider the establishment of residential impact fees. He explained that the City Council directed staff to further study potential fee levels and structures, consider an onsite “in-lieu” option for providing affordable units within development projects, and obtain input from housing developers and stakeholders. CDD Gardiner stated that staff has engaged Seifel Consulting to prepare an analysis for residential impact fees. He noted that the consultants weren’t asked to determine from a policy standpoint whether fees or onsite units is preferable. Libby Seifel began by reviewing the pre-development phase of a project. She stated that this is the riskiest phase as capital is most expensive at this point and requires significant return to attract investment. She explained that the more risks a project takes on, the more potential returns may increase. She noted that the Bay Area is notorious for the amount of risk that is inserted in projects. She discussed the term “developer margins,” which refers to the necessity of building in a margin for risk, so that if everything goes well, that entire margin is profit. Next, Ms. Seifel reviewed the development cost factors of a project. She stated that hard construction costs and parking construction represent more than 50% of the total development cost. She noted that land cost is also a large factor, especially in a high market area like Burlingame. She reviewed the rising cost of parking Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 10 in developments. She stated that parking spaces are often more than $60,000 for a below-grade space and approximately $40,000 for an at-grade space. Ms. Seifel reviewed land acquisition costs, which are based on existing use and future development use. She explained that developers determine how much they can pay for land by undertaking a “residual land value” analysis. Under this process, the developer estimates the value or revenue anticipated for the completed project, totals up the costs of the project and their developer margin, and the remainder is the budget or residual value of the land. She stated that property values in Burlingame range from $150 to $400 per land square foot. She noted that this creates a value per land acreage of between $6.8 million and $15.6 million. Ms. Seifel reviewed real estate trends that affect housing development and affordability. She stated that interest and cap rates are at historic lows, which means that prices are higher. Construction costs are still increasing and projected to intensify with the Sonoma County rebuilding effort. Housing supply has not kept pace with demand, while apartment rent growth has flattened due in part to the housing affordability crisis. She also noted that the affordability gap has widened for many households and that the current economic cycle could end soon. She displayed a graph that showed the significant increase in home prices in Burlingame from March 2008 to March 2018. She stated that single family homes are now valued at more than $2 million. She also displayed a graph that showed the stabilization of apartment rent. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the apartment rent stabilizing graph was for all of San Mateo County. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Colson asked if apartment rent was stabilizing because the demand is decreasing or the supply is increasing. Ms. Seifel stated that she believes that the rent is stabilizing because people are doubling or tripling up in apartments. Ms. Seifel stated that the 2015 Housing Nexus Study discussed three prototypes: single family attached homes, condominiums, and apartments. She stated that in the 2015 Housing Nexus Study, the average unit size was much larger than what is currently being built; the total affordability gap was measured across the whole development and was much less than the current gap; and construction costs were not accurately reflected. The study also reviewed housing impact fees in neighboring communities with an average of $20 to $25 fee per square foot. Ms. Seifel stated that in May 2018, the Concord Group did a market assessment and focused primarily on the area extending from Daly City to San Carlos. She explained that the Concord Group found that studio apartments cost more per square foot than three-bedroom apartments. She noted that this trend resulted in individuals doubling or tripling up in order to have cheaper rent. Ms. Seifel explained that Seifel Consulting, in collaboration with staff, looked at the three prototypes from the 2015 Nexus Study for Burlingame. She noted that they updated the typical unit size, density, and parcel size to reflect current conditions in Burlingame. She stated that they reviewed three prototypical development types: multifamily apartments on a three-acre site with a density range of 50 to 120 dwelling Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 11 units per acre, condominiums on a ½ acre site with at least 50 dwelling units per acre, and single family attached homes on a 1.7 acre site with 18 dwelling units per acre. Ms. Seifel reviewed the findings for each prototype. She began with apartments and reviewed typical apartment characteristics: 1. Unit size was 850 net square feet 2. Market rate rent per month was about $3,750 3. Parking ratio was 1.45 spaces per unit Ms. Seifel explained that they then looked at the affordability gap per unit. She stated that if the market rate for rent was $3,750, they determined what the affordability gap was by reviewing what an individual at 110% AMI could pay, 100% AMI, and so on. The graph showed that the gap for 110% AMI was a little over $1,000. She stated that this information is translated into apartment values by taking the net operating income divided by the cap rate. She displayed this information on a bar chart that showed that the value gap gets significant as AMI decreases. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the Burlingame Apartment Value bar chart displayed the door cost of each unit. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative and explained that it is the door cost with developer margin. Ms. Seifel reviewed the consultants’ findings on apartment affordability gap at alternative on-site requirements. She explained that the purpose of this was to figure out if the City is going to have a residential impact fee, how can the fee be set or structured to incentivize on-site affordable housing in lieu of paying the fee. She gave the example of a 100-unit development where 15%, or 15 units, are affordable for those at 110% AMI. The affordability gap for the 110% AMI is spread across all of the units to create a fee instead of the cost it would take to provide that unit. She stated that this would create a $20-$40 housing linkage fee per square foot for moderate income levels. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City aims for 10% affordable, and you give developers the choice of paying a fee that is less than $30 per square foot, they are going to pay the fee. Ms. Seifel replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach asked Ms. Seifel to discuss what would happen if the City wants to get into deeper levels of affordability such as the 50% AMI range. Ms. Seifel stated that it is much harder because of the costs. She stated that the fee would be close to $70 a square foot. Vice Mayor Colson discussed the length of time that a developer would have to keep a unit affordable instead of paying the fee. Ms. Seifel stated generally covenants run 55 years for rental and 45 years for ownership. She noted that some communities are moving to permanent restrictions. Vice Mayor Colson asked if the residential impact fees apply only to new construction, or do they also apply to renovations. Ms. Seifel replied that typically they only apply to new construction. Therefore, after the 55 year covenant runs on an affordable unit and the developer needs to renovate, they wouldn’t be hit with a second round of residential impact fees. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 12 Ms. Seifel stated that the consultants next reviewed the return on cost. She explained that the return on cost is determined by net operating income over development cost. The threshold ranges from 5-7% return on cost. She stated that they assumed a threshold of 5.25% return on cost and assumed that land values were a little bit more expensive if you had a higher density but lower cost per door. Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the apartment analysis. 1. Apartment rents currently are not increasing as fast as construction costs. 2. Land purchase and construction costs (including parking) significantly affect development feasibility 3. Depending on these costs factors, apartment projects do not yield sufficient returns to attract capital (feasibility gap) 4. Higher density alternatives are more feasible when per unit land values are less than lower density projects 5. Onsite affordable housing requirements focused on moderate income households are more feasible and best correlate to housing fee levels between $15 and $25 per square foot. Next Ms. Seifel reviewed their findings for condominiums and stated their typical characteristics: 1. Sales price is approximately $940,000 2. Parking ratio is 2 spaces per unit 3. Affordability gap ranges from 150% AMI to 80% AMI 4. If the City had a 15% affordability requirement, the impact fee would be more than $15 to $20 dollars per square foot. Ms. Seifel reviewed single family attached characteristics: 1. Sales price is approximately $1.63 million 2. 2 parking spaces She explained that the affordability gap for single family attached is significant. Ms. Seifel reviewed the key findings from the for-sale analysis 1. Housing prices have been increasing rapidly, but most buyers need significant cash or “trade-up” value in homes to afford new units. 2. For sale developments are more financially feasible than apartments given high price points. 3. The for sale housing affordability gap is significant, particularly for large units, and ranges between $20 and $180 square feet for prototypes studied. 4. Onsite affordable housing requirements focused on households between 110% and 135% AMI are financially feasible, assuming reasonable land and construction costs. Ms. Seifel stated that from a policy perspective, one of the potential strategies to help developers succeed is to use density bonuses. Under State law, a density bonus allows local governments to provide additional density or housing units in exchange for the provision of affordable housing onsite. This includes special provisions for land dedication and senior housing. She stated that the State’s density bonus law doesn’t work very well for anything other than very-low income housing. She explained that this is because the law says you can get the maximum state density bonus if you have 11% of units at very low income (50% AMI). But to obtain the bonus building low income units, the developer has to dedicate 20% of the project to low Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 13 income; for moderate income, the developer has to dedicate 40%. She explained that Burlingame would need to create its own density bonus program customized for the City’s market. She explained that in Burlingame they found that a density bonus with reduced parking requirements would assist in incentivizing developers. She stated that this could be done by reducing parking from 1.4 spaces per unit to .7 spaces per unit. Ms. Seifel reviewed strategies to encourage onsite affordable housing: 1. Allow more housing units to be built when imposing on-site affordable housing a. Density bonus and height modification b. Incentives and concessions c. Allow smaller affordable unit sizes, especially for ownership d. Smaller parking space dimensions e. Significant parking reductions for residential and retail, especially near transit and public parking 2. Streamline development approval 3. Limit City imposed development impact fees. Ms. Seifel discussed parking requirements. She stated that communities are moving towards decreasing parking requirements when developments are near transit and public parking. Additionally, she stated that the State’s density bonus law allows for parking at .5 space per bedroom. She stated that for affordable units, it can be .5 spaces per unit (no matter the number of bedrooms). Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. Burlingame residents Eileen Easterbrook and Jan Stokley discussed the impact of housing prices on those with disabilities. They asked that the City consider policies for low income housing. Burlingame resident Mario Muzzi discussed his concerns with the cost of impact fees. Housing Leadership Council representative Daniel Valverde thanked the City Council for having this conservation and asked that the City move forward with residential impact fees. Mayor Brownrigg closed public comments. Mayor Brownrigg and City Manager Goldman discussed holding a study session on a separate night to further discuss the residential impact fees. Mayor Brownrigg asked that his colleagues voice questions or items that they would like the staff to address in a future staff report. Councilmember Keighran asked staff to research tiered fee systems. Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was interested in the conversation around the low and very-low income units. She stated that these units might need support services as they would belong to those transitioning Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 14 from homelessness or senior citizens. She stated that it would be good to get more information about what types of support services these units would need. Councilmember Ortiz stated that the City needs to come up with a way to encourage new construction and create affordable housing. Councilmember Beach discussed amending the parking requirements in order to incentivize affordable housing. She asked whether her colleagues favored collecting the residential impact fee or having developers build on-site housing. She stated that she would like more information on tipping the scale towards one method or the other. Councilmember Beach asked for more information on how often the fees need to be reviewed once established. Vice Mayor Colson explained that she believed the only feasible way to get low and very-low income housing in Burlingame is to utilize City land. Mayor Brownrigg stated that what is indisputable is that the City needs to ensure that people of limited means have access to communities like Burlingame. He stated that he believes the City should assist in both preserving existing units and building new units. Mayor Brownrigg thanked SAMCAR for their recent letter stating that they believe that Measure T doesn’t prohibit the City from creating inclusionary housing requirements provided that there is an in-lieu option for the developers. Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of partnerships with HEART and other nonprofits to create affordable developments. c. UPDATE ON THE PROCESS TO COMMISSION PUBLIC ART TO HONOR ANSON BURLINGAME Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad explained that the Committee was making progress on the art installation to honor Anson Burlingame in the front of Washington Park. She stated that the Committee received 18 RFQs, eight of which were disqualified. Out of the remaining ten, the Committee chose to interview three. After the interviews, the Committee asked two of the artists to answer the RFP. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad stated that the Committee reviewed the two options, voted, and made the unanimous decision to move forward with John Roloff. She stated that the plan is for the Committee to meet with Mr. Roloff, refine his ideas, and then make a presentation to the City Council in the fall to gain the Council’s input. Committee member Andra Norris stated that Mr. Roloff would be a great fit for the City as he was known for his outdoor sculptures. She noted that one of his installations is across from the San Francisco MOMA. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 15 Vice Mayor Colson stated that there would be large spaces for art in the new Community Center, and she asked if the City would follow a similar process. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach discussed the qualifications of the Committee and thanked them for their assistance. Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. d. TOPGOLF UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROUTE City Attorney Kane stated that TopGolf would like to acquire an access point from Airport Boulevard to the project site. She noted that staff supports this request. She explained that she was bringing this request to Council because it was outside the scope of Council’s direction to her on negotiating the lease. Mayor Brownrigg asked if the access road was going to be one way. A TopGolf representative explained that they would like it to be a two-way road. Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to allow City Attorney Kane to negotiate on the City’s behalf for an additional access road into the Topgolf facility; seconded by Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilmember Beach asked Topgolf to work on reducing the amount of traffic that their project would create. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS a. VICE MAYOR COLSON’S COMMITTEE REPORT b. COUNCILMEMBER BEACH’S COMMITTEE REPORT 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Parking & Safety Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Brownrigg adjourned meeting at 11:12 p.m. Agenda Item 8a Meeting Date: 8/20/18 Burlingame City Council July 2, 2018 Unapproved Minutes 16 Respectfully submitted, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Parking Meter Zones RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to revise the parking meter zones at the following locations: • South Lane from California Drive to West Lane (10-Hour Parking Limit); and • West Lane from South Lane to 200 feet south of South Lane (10-Hour Parking Limit). In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND At its June 4 meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with the recommendations from the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) for improving short-term parking conditions in the Burlingame Avenue Downtown area. These recommendations included the conversion of Parking Lots A-3, C, and W from long-term to short-term, and Parking Lots B-1 and K-1 from short-term to long-term. The recommendations also included the conversion of on-street parking along Chapin Avenue, Howard Avenue, South Lane, and West Lane from short-term to long-term spaces. Staff will proceed with making changes to the parking time limits in the parking lots as directed by the City Council. However, making changes to on-street parking spaces will require an amendment to Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). DISCUSSION In order to implement the conversion of on-street parking spaces from short-term to long-term, two existing sections of Chapter 13.40.010 need to be amended. West Lane is not currently in Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.40.010 of the BMC August 20, 2018 2 the BMC as a parking meter zone, while South Lane is only listed as a 2-hour parking limit zone. The code needs to be revised to include West Lane as a parking meter zone, with a 10-hour parking limit, and to change South Lane to a 10-hour parking limit zone. Chapin Avenue and Howard Lane are currently included in the BMC with both 2-hour and 10-hour parking limits for both streets, and therefore no changes to the code are required. At the July 2 City Council meeting, the Council introduced the proposed ordinance and held a public hearing. After the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council directed staff to bring the ordinance back for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT The cost associated with the modification of the meters and signage is minimal and will be absorbed within the Parking Enforcement and Public Works Department’s budgets. Exhibit: • Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND CHAPTER 13.40.010 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING METER ZONES The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, Chapter 13.40.010 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides for Parking Meter Zones in the commercial areas of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council directed the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) to develop recommendations to improve parking conditions in the Burlingame Avenue Downtown area to help alleviate short-term parking concerns; and WHEREAS, the TSPC, with assistance from Public Works staff, subsequently studied the long-term and short-term parking conditions in the Burlingame Avenue Downtown area; and WHEREAS, the TSPC discussed the matter at its meeting on February 8, 2018 and unanimously voted to recommend that the City convert 91 long-term parking spaces to short- term in the core area and adjusting the same number of parking spaces from short-term to long- term in the outer lying areas of the commercial district; and WHEREAS, the City Council discussed this matter at its June 4, 2018 meeting, accepted the recommendations of the TSPC, and directed staff to implement the parking time limit changes with the exception of TSPC-recommended changes to Parking Lot O; and WHEREAS, in order to implement parking time limit changes within the public streets, the City’s Municipal Code needs to be amended; and WHEREAS, per the recommendations of the TSPC, the streets that require parking time-limit changes include: Chapin Avenue, West Lane, South Lane, and Howard Avenue; and WHEREAS, Chapin Avenue and Howard Avenue are already listed as parking meter zones with both short-term and long-term parking limits in the Burlingame Municipal Code, and do not require any modification at this time; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Municipal Code needs to be revised to list West Lane as a parking meter zone with a 10-hour Parking Limit; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Municipal Code also needs to be revised so that South Lane from California Drive to West Lane is listed with a 10-hour Parking Limit rather than a 2- hour Parking Limit. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 2 The City Council amends Chapter 13.40.010 - Parking Meter Zones of the Burlingame Municipal Code to read as follows: (a) The streets hereinafter described are defined and established as parking meter zones. The parking of vehicles along such portions of these streets, and at such times as may be designated by the city council, shall be controlled, regulated, and inspected with the aid of parking meters: (1) Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive; (2) Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive; (3) California Drive, west side, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue and Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and east side from North Lane to two hundred seventy (270) feet south of Howard Avenue; (4) Capuchino Avenue from one hundred forty (140) feet north of the centerline of Broadway to two hundred thirty-three (233) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (5) Carolan Avenue from South Lane to North Lane; (6) Chapin Avenue, from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; (7) Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to two hundred eighty-two (282) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (8) City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road; (9) Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; (10) East Lane from Burlingame Avenue to North Lane; (11) Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive and one parking space on the southwest corner of Highland at Howard; (12) Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Avenue; (13) Laguna Avenue from Broadway to one hundred thirty-six (136) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (14) Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue, and the east side of Lorton Avenue from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; (15) North Lane from Carolan Avenue to East Lane; (16) Paloma Avenue from one hundred (100) feet north of the centerline of Broadway to one hundred twenty (120) feet south of the centerline of Broadway; (17) Park Road, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue, and the west side of Park Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; (18) Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; and the east side of Primrose Road from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; and the west side of Primrose Road from Howard Avenue to two hundred (200) feet south of the centerline of Howard Avenue; (19) South Lane from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to California Drive; (20) West Lane from South Lane to two hundred (200) feet south of South Lane. (b) The following parking meter rates are established in the city: (1) 24-Minute Parking Limit On the following streets: Broadway from El Camino Real to Rollins Road; Capuchino Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue; and Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue: 20 cents for 24 minutes On the following streets: California Drive from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; Highland Avenue from California Drive to Howard Avenue; Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Highland Drive; Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; Park Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; and Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue: 40 cents for 24 minutes All other areas: 5 cents for each 12 minutes (2) 1-Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Broadway: 50 cents for one hour All other areas: 5 cents for each 30 minutes (3) 2-Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Burlingame Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive: $1.00 the first hour; $2.00 the second hour On the following streets: California Drive from Bellevue Avenue to Bayswater Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; Highland Avenue from California Drive to Bayswater Avenue; Howard Avenue from Primrose Road to Highland Avenue; Lorton Avenue from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue; Park Road from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue; Primrose Road from Bellevue Avenue to Howard Avenue: $2.00 for two hours On the following streets: Capuchino Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue; Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue; Laguna Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue; and Paloma Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Carmelita Avenue: $1.00 for two hours All other areas: 75 cents for each hour (4) 4-Hour Parking Limit On the following street: Howard Avenue from Primrose Road to Highland Avenue: $1.00 for each hour (5) 10-Hour Parking Limit On the following streets: California Drive from Howard Avenue to Bellevue Avenue; Chapin Avenue from Primrose Road to El Camino Real; City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road; Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to California Drive; and Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to California Drive: $3.00 for 10 hours On the following streets: Lorton Avenue from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; Park Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; Primrose Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; South Lane from Carolan Avenue/East Lane to California Drive; and West Lane from South Lane to two hundred (200) feet south of South Lane: $3.00 for 10 hours All other areas: 25 cents for each 2-1/2 hours Section 3. The Public Works Department and the Police Department are directed to take necessary actions to implement this ordinance. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. ____________________________ MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of July 2018 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: _____________________________ MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding “No Parking During Specified Hours” RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) to update the section regarding “No parking during specified hours” on the following streets: • Burlingame Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to California Drive, Monday through Saturday, 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; • Capuchino Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue, Wednesday (east side), Thursday (west side), 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; • Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue, Monday (east side), Tuesday (west side), 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; • Laguna Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue, Monday (east side), Tuesday (west side), 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; • Paloma Avenue from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue, Wednesday (east side), Thursday (west side), 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; and • Gilbreth Road, both sides, from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. By motion, adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND Parking Restriction Signage on streets near Broadway and on Burlingame Avenue: The side streets near the Broadway Commercial District and Downtown Burlingame Avenue have signage restricting parking between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. These signs were originally installed many years ago to facilitate the cleaning and maintenance of the downtown areas. The street-sweeping in commercial areas and overall downtown maintenance activities are Ordinance Amending No Parking During Specified Hours August 20, 2018 2 typically done on weekdays in the early morning hours between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. to minimize impacts to businesses. Upon a recent review of the BMC regarding parking restrictions, it was discovered that, although the parking restriction signage in these areas has been in place for many years, it was not included in the code. Therefore, staff is proposing to update the code to reflect the existing signage. Parking Restriction Signage on Gilbreth Road: Currently, Gilbreth Road between Cowan Road and Mahler Road has parking restrictions from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. These restrictions were originally adopted to reduce the impact of overnight parking of large trucks along the frontage road, and it has been working well. However, the Yaseen Community Center (YCC) located at 1722 Gilbreth Road is experiencing problems with the parking restrictions as they hold community meetings/events on Friday nights and on weekends that can sometimes extend past 10:00 p.m., thereby presenting problems for their members. YCC requested that the City modify the hours of the parking restrictions so that their members are able to utilize on-street parking without being cited. Staff has reviewed this matter and coordinated with the Police Department, Community Development Department, and YCC to modify the hours of the existing parking restriction along both sides of Gilbreth Road. The proposed new parking restriction hours are 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. DISCUSSION The Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) discussed the proposed recommendations to update the BMC for parking restrictions at its March 8, 2018 meeting and unanimously voted to support the recommendations to update the code to reflect the existing parking restriction signage of “No Parking between 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.” on Burlingame Avenue, Capuchino Avenue, Chula Vista Avenue, Laguna Avenue, and Paloma Avenue. They also voted in favor of the recommendation to restrict parking on Gilbreth Road between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. At the July 2 City Council meeting, the Council introduced the proposed ordinance and held a public hearing. After the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council directed staff to bring the ordinance back for adoption. FISCAL IMPACT The costs associated with the modification of the signs on Gilbreth Road are minimal and can be absorbed within the Public Works Department’s budget. Exhibit: • Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND CHAPTER 13.36.020 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED HOURS The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: Section 1. Factual Background and Findings. WHEREAS, current Chapter 13.36.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code provides for “No Parking during Specified Hours” on certain streets; and WHEREAS, the streets of Burlingame Avenue, Laguna Avenue, Paloma Avenue, Chula Vista Avenue, and Capuchino Avenue currently have signage restricting parking from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. to facilitate downtown maintenance and cleanup activities, and for street-sweeping purposes; and WHEREAS, during a recent review of the Burlingame Municipal Code, it was discovered that the above streets are not listed in Chapter 13.36.020, and therefore the Code needs to be amended to reflect the existing parking restriction signage; and WHEREAS, currently Gilbreth Road between Cowan Road and Mahler Road has an overnight parking restriction from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., which is causing problems for members of the Yaseen Community Center, for which they have requested changes to the overnight parking restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department coordinated with the Police Department and the Community Development Department to review the overnight parking restriction needs, and the overall needs of the general public, and determined that the existing signage should be modified to restrict parking from 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. to address the needs of the Yaseen Community Center; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission discussed the matter at its meeting on March 8, 2018, and unanimously voted to support the recommendations for modifying the on-street parking restrictions on Gilbreth Road from 12:30 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., and updating the code to reflect the existing parking restriction signage of “No Parking between 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.” on Burlingame Avenue, Capuchino Avenue, Chula Vista Avenue, Laguna Avenue, and Paloma Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 2. Chapter 13.36.020. – ‘No parking during specified hours’ of the Burlingame Municipal Code shall be amended to read as follows: “It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to park the vehicle on the following streets on the designated hours and days as follows: (1) Adrian Road, east side between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted; (2) Airport Boulevard, east side, from Beach Road to Fisherman’s Park, between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (3) Broadway, both sides from El Camino Real to California Drive, 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., Sundays and holidays excepted, unless otherwise prohibited or limited; (4) Burlingame Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Occidental Avenue between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; (5) Burlingame Avenue, both sides, from El Camino Real to California Drive between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday; (6) California Drive, west side from Juanita Avenue to Broadway between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; west side from Trousdale Drive to Dufferin Avenue, between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday; (7) Capuchino Avenue, from Broadway to Carmelita Avenue between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., east side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays; (8) Carmelita Avenue, south side, from California Drive to El Camino Real, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.; north side, from California Drive to El Camino Real, between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; (9) Carolan Avenue, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; east side between Broadway and a point two hundred twenty-five (225) feet southerly from the southeasterly right-of-way line of Broadway from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; west side from Sanchez Creek to the centerline of Larkspur Drive from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; (10) Chula Vista Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays; (11) El Camino Real West Service Road from Trousdale to Murchison from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.; (12) Gilbreth Road, both sides, from Cowan Road to Mahler Road, between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; (13) Howard Avenue, north side, from El Camino Real to Crescent Avenue, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted; (14) Laguna Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Mondays; west side on Tuesdays; (15) Paloma Avenue, both sides, from Broadway to Carmelita between 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.; east side on Wednesdays; west side on Thursdays; (16) Peninsula Avenue, north side from the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Humboldt Street, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted; (17) Rhinette Avenue, south side, between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Sundays and holidays excepted; and (18) Rollins Road, west side from North Carolan Avenue to Broadway from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.” Section 3. The Public Works Department is directed to take necessary actions to implement this ordinance. Section 4. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in the manner required by law. ____________________________ MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of July 2018 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: _____________________________ MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Eric Wollman, Chief of Police – (650) 777-4124 Subject Adoption of a Resolution Accepting a $48,300 California Office of Traffic Safety Grant RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting a $48,300 California Office of Traffic Safety Grant and amending the Police Department’s operating budget for fiscal year 2018-19. BACKGROUND In January 2018, the Police Department submitted a grant application to the State of California, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), for funding of a selective traffic enforcement program grant (STEP). OTS approved the grant application, and the Police Department was subsequently awarded grant #PT19016 in the amount of $48,300 for the 2018-19 federal fiscal year, October 1, 2018 through September 30, 2019. This grant is designed to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary collision factors, distracted driving, night time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, and enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. This endeavor will continue to increase traffic safety through heightened public awareness and increased traffic enforcement. DISCUSSION The majority of the grant amount will be allocated for overtime salaries for funding personnel from the Burlingame Police Department to conduct traffic enforcement deployments in Burlingame. The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will be responsible for planning all of the traffic enforcement deployments. These deployments will include DUI saturation patrols, traffic enforcement operations, distracted driving enforcement, bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement, and seat belt enforcement. In addition, the Burlingame Police Department will participate in National Walk to School Day on October 3, 2018, National Bicycle Safety Month in May, National Click it or Ticket Mobilization May 14 through June 3, 2018, National Teen Driver Safety Week October 21-27, 2018, National Distracted Driving Awareness Month in April, California Office of Traffic Safety Grant August 20, 2018 2 National Motorcycle Safety Month in May, National Child Passenger Safety Week September 23-29, 2018, and California’s Pedestrian Safety Month in September 2019. The Burlingame Police Department Traffic Unit will facilitate training of officers in the areas of Standard Field Sobriety Testing, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement, and Drug Recognition Expert. FISCAL IMPACT This grant funds the overtime costs associated with conducting the above mentioned deployments. Grant expenditures will be reimbursed through the Office of Traffic Safety on a quarterly basis, based on expense claims filed. There will be no fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund, other than staff time associated with administering this grant. Exhibits: • Resolution • California Office of Traffic Safety Grant #PT19016 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR AN OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM GRANT #PT19016 WHEREAS, the City Council has determined there is a need to fund the Office of Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant at a total cost of $48,300; and WHEREAS, there is funding available under the Office of Traffic Safety Grant number PT19016 in fiscal year 2018-19; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to appropriate the additional $48,300 needed to fund the Office of Traffic Safety activities from the available Office of Traffic Safety Enforcement Grant. NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: The City Manager is authorized to adjust the fiscal year 2018-19 budget to include the necessary appropriations for the expenditure of the grant funds. __________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: __________________________ City Clerk 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 1 of 11 State of California – Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT GRANT NUMBER PT19016 1. GRANT TITLE Selective Traffic Enforcement Program (STEP) 2. NAME OF AGENCY 3. Grant Period Burlingame Police Department 4. AGENCY UNIT TO ADMINISTER GRANT From: 10/01/2018 Burlingame Police Department To: 09/30/2019 5. GRANT DESCRIPTION Best practice strategies will be conducted to reduce the number of persons killed and injured in crashes involving alcohol and other primary collision factors. The funded strategies may include impaired driving enforcement, enforcement operations focusing on primary collision factors, distracted driving, night -time seat belt enforcement, special enforcement operations encouraging motorcycle safety, enforcement and public awareness in areas with a high number of bicycle and pedestrian collisions, and educational programs. These strategies are designed to earn media attention thus enhancing the overall deterrent effect. 6. Federal Funds Allocated Under This Agreement Shall Not Exceed: $48,300.00 7. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: The parties agree to comply with the terms and conditions of the following which are by this reference made a part of the Agreement: Schedule A – Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives and Method of Procedure Schedule B – Detailed Budget Estimate and Sub -Budget Estimate (if applicable) Schedule B-1 – Budget Narrative and Sub-Budget Narrative (if applicable) Exhibit A – Certifications and Assurances Exhibit B* – OTS Grant Program Manual *Items shown with an asterisk (*), are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement as if attached hereto. These documents can be viewed at the OTS home web page under Grants: www.ots.ca.gov. We, the officials named below, hereby swear under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that we are du ly authorized to legally bind the Grant recipient to the above described Grant terms and c onditions. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto. 8. Approval Signatures A. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF DEPARTMENT B. AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY NAME: PHONE: NAME: Rhonda L. Craft PHONE: (916) 509-3030 TITLE: FAX: TITLE: Director FAX: (916) 509-3055 ADDRESS: , ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300 Elk Grove, CA 95758 EMAIL: EMAIL: rhonda.craft@ots.ca.gov (Signature) (Date) (Signature) (Date) C. ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY 9. DUNS NUMBER NAME: Carolyn Vu DUNS #: 965021376 ADDRESS: 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300 Elk Grove, CA 95758 REGISTERED ADDRESS: 501 Primrose Rd CITY: Burlingame ZIP+4: 94010-3906 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 2 of 11 10. PROJECTED EXPENDITURES FUND CFDA ITEM/APPROPRIATION F.Y. CHAPTER STATUTE PROJECTED EXPENDITURES AGREEMENT TOTAL $48,300.00 AMOUNT ENCUMBERED BY THIS DOCUMENT I CERTIFY upon my own personal knowledge that the budgeted funds for the current budget year are available for the period and purpose of the expenditure stated above. $48,300.00 PRIOR AMOUNT ENCUMBERED FOR THIS AGREEMENT $ 0.00 ACCOUNTING OFFICER’S SIGNATURE DATE SIGNED TOTAL AMOUNT ENCUMBERED TO DATE $48,300.00 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 3 of 11 State of California – Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT Schedule A GRANT NUMBER PT19016 1. PROBLEM STATEMENT Since partnering with the Office of Traffic Safety, the Burlingame Police Department has greatly enhanced the safety of travelers on its roadways, as evidenced by drastically reduced fatal and injury collisions. This was accomplished through increased enforcement and education, funded and stimulated by our partnership with OTS. The largest reduction is injury collisions in in 2016 relative to the previous years (as evidence by our 33% reduction in injuries from collisions in 2015). This accomplishment is a direct result of enhanced enforcement through our partnership with the Office of Traffic Safety. 2. PERFORMANCE MEASURES A. Goals: 1. Reduce the number of persons killed in traffic collisions. 2. Reduce the number of persons injured in traffic collisions. 3. Reduce the number of pedestrians killed in traffic collisions. 4. Reduce the number of pedestrians injured in traffic collisions. 5. Reduce the number of bicyclists killed in traffic collisions. 6. Reduce the number of bicyclists injured in traffic collisions. 7. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol-involved collisions. 8. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol-involved collisions. 9. Reduce the number of persons killed in drug-involved collisions. 10. Reduce the number of persons injured in drug-involved collisions. 11. Reduce the number of persons killed in alcohol/drug combo-involved collisions. 12. Reduce the number of persons injured in alcohol/drug combo-involved collisions. 13. Reduce the number of motorcyclists killed in traffic collisions. 14. Reduce the number of motorcyclists injured in traffic collisions. 15. Reduce hit & run fatal collisions. 16. Reduce hit & run injury collisions. 17. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) fatal collisions. 18. Reduce nighttime (2100 - 0259 hours) injury collisions. B. Objectives: Target Number 1. Issue a press release announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15. The kick-off press releases and media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed to the OTS Public Information Officer at pio@ots.ca.gov, and copied to your OTS Coordinator, for approval 14 days prior to the issuance date of the release. 1 2. Participate and report data (as required) in the following campaigns, National Walk to School Day, NHTSA Winter & Summer Mobilization, National Bicycle Safety Month, National Click it or Ticket Mobilization, National Teen Driver Safety Week, National Distracted Driving Awareness Month, National Motorcycle Safety Month, National Child Passenger Safety Week, and California's Pedestrian Safety Month. 10 3. Develop (by December 31) and/or maintain a “ HOT Sheet” program to notify patrol and traffic officers to be on the lookout for identified repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. Updated HOT sheets should be distributed to patrol and traffic officers monthly. 12 4. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) (minimum 16 hours) POST-certified training. 2 5. Send law enforcement personnel to the NHTSA Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) 16 hour POST-certified training. 1 6. Conduct DUI Saturation Patrol operation(s). 12 7. Conduct Traffic Enforcement operation(s), including but not limited to, primary collision factor violations. 5 8. Conduct highly publicized Distracted Driving enforcement operation(s) targeting drivers using hand held cell phones and texting. 5 9. Conduct highly publicized pedestrian and/or bicycle enforcement operation(s) in areas or during events with a high number of pedestrian and/or bicycle collisions resulting from violations made by pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. 2 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 4 of 11 3. METHOD OF PROCEDURE A. Phase 1 – Program Preparation (1st Quarter of Grant Year) The department will develop operational plans to implement the “best practice” strategies outlined in the objectives section. All training needed to implement the program should be conducted this quarter. All grant related purchases needed to implement the program should be made this quarter. In order to develop/maintain the “Hot Sheets,” research will be conducted to identify the “worst of the worst” repeat DUI offenders with a suspended or revoked license as a result of DUI convictions. The Hot Sheets may include the driver’s name, last known address, DOB, description, current license status, and the number of times suspended or revoked for DUI. Hot Sheets should be updated and distributed to traffic and patrol officers at least monthly. Implementation of the STEP grant activities will be accomplished by deploying personnel at high collision locations.Media Requirements Issue a press release announcing the kick-off of the grant by November 15, but no earlier than October 1. If unable to meet the November 15 date, communicate reasons to your OTS Coordinator. The kick-off press releases and any related media advisories, alerts, and materials must be emailed for approval to the OTS Public Information Officer at pio@ots.ca.gov, and copied to your OTS Coordinator, 14 days prior to the issuance date of the release. B. Phase 2 – Program Operations (Throughout Grant Year) The department will work to create media opportunities throughout the grant period to call attention to the innovative program strategies and outcomes.Media Requirements Send all grant-related activity press releases, media advisories, alerts and general public materials to the OTS Public Information Officer (PIO) at pio@ots.ca.gov, with a copy to your OTS Coordinator. The following requirements are for grant-related activities and are different from those regarding any grant kick-off release or announcement. If an OTS-supplied, template-based press release is used, there is no need for pre-approval, however, the OTS PIO and Coordinator should be copied when at the same time as the release is distributed to the press. If an OTS-supplied template is not used, or is substantially changed, a draft press release shall be sent to the OTS PIO for approval. Optimum lead-time would be 10 days prior to the release distribution date, but should be no less than 5 working days prior to the release distribution date. Press releases reporting the immediate and time-valued results of grant activities such as enforcement operations are exempt from the recommended advance approval process, but still should be copied to the OTS PIO and Coordinator when the release is distributed to the press. Activities such as warrant or probation sweeps and court stings that could be compromised by advanced publicity are exempt from pre-publicity, but are encouraged to offer embargoed media coverage and to report the results. Use the following standard language in all press, media, and printed materials: Funding for this program was provided by a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Email the OTS PIO at pio@ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator at least 30 days in advance, a short description of any significant grant-related traffic safety event or program so OTS has sufficient notice to arrange for attendance and/or participation in the event. Submit a draft or rough-cut of all printed or recorded material (brochures, posters, scripts, artwork, trailer graphics, etc.) to the OTS PIO at pio@ots.ca.gov and copy your OTS Coordinator for approval 14 days prior to the production or duplication. Space permitting, include the OTS logo, on grant-funded print materials; consult your OTS Coordinator for specifics and format-appropriate logos. Contact the OTS PIO or your OTS Coordinator, sufficiently far enough in advance of need, for consultation when deviation from any of the above requirements might be contemplated C. Phase 3 – Data Collection & Reporting (Throughout Grant Year) Invoice Claims (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30) Quarterly Performance Reports (due January 30, April 30, July 30, and October 30) Collect and report quarterly, appropriate data that supports the progress of goals and objectives. Provide a brief list of activity conducted, procurement of grant-funded items, and significant media 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 5 of 11 activities. Include status of grant-funded personnel, status of contracts, challenges, or special accomplishments. Provide a brief summary of quarterly accomplishments and explanations for objectives not completed or plans for upcoming activities. Collect, analyze and report statistical data relating to the grant goals and objectives. 4. METHOD OF EVALUATION Using the data compiled during the grant, the Grant Director will complete the “Final Evaluation” section in the fourth/final Quarterly Performance Report (QPR). The Final Evaluation should provide a brief summary of the grant’s accomplishments, challenges and significant activities. This narrative should also include whether goals and objectives were met, exceeded, or an explanation of why objectives were not completed. 5. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT This program has full administrative support, and every effort will be made to continue the grant activities after grant conclusion. 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 6 of 11 State of California – Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT Schedule B GRANT NUMBER PT19016 FUND NUMBER CATALOG NUMBER (CFDA) FUND DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 402PT-19 20.600 State and Community Highway Safety $30,000.00 164AL-19 20.608 Minimum Penalties for Repeat Offenders for Driving While Intoxicated $18,300.00 COST CATEGORY CFDA TOTAL COST TO GRANT A. PERSONNEL COSTS Positions and Salaries Full-Time $0.00 Overtime DUI Saturation Patrols 20.608 $18,300.00 Traffic Enforcement 20.600 $12,256.00 Distracted Driving 20.600 $11,960.00 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement 20.600 $4,784.00 Part-Time $0.00 Category Sub-Total $47,300.00 B. TRAVEL EXPENSES In State Travel 20.600 $1,000.00 $0.00 Category Sub-Total $1,000.00 C. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES $0.00 Category Sub-Total $0.00 D. EQUIPMENT $0.00 Category Sub-Total $0.00 E. OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0.00 Category Sub-Total $0.00 F. INDIRECT COSTS $0.00 Category Sub-Total $0.00 GRANT TOTAL $48,300.00 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 7 of 11 State of California – Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT Schedule B-1 GRANT NUMBER PT19016 BUDGET NARRATIVE PERSONNEL COSTS QUANTITY DUI Saturation Patrols - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel. 12 Traffic Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel. 5 Distracted Driving - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel. 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enforcement - Overtime for grant funded law enforcement operations conducted by appropriate department personnel. 2 TRAVEL EXPENSES In State Travel - Costs are included for appropriate staff to attend conferences and training events supporting the grant goals and objectives and/or traffic safety. Local mileage for grant activities and meetings is included. Anticipated travel may include the Governor’s Highway Safety Association conference and the annual International Association of Chiefs of Police DRE conference which are both scheduled for Anaheim. All conferences, seminars or training not specifically identified in the Budget Narrative must be approved by OTS. All travel claimed must be at the agency approved rate. Per Diem may not be claimed for meals provided at conferences when registration fees are paid with OTS grant funds. 1 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES - EQUIPMENT - OTHER DIRECT COSTS - INDIRECT COSTS - STATEMENTS/DISCLAIMERS There will be no program income generated from this grant. Nothing in this “agreement” shall be interpreted as a requirement, formal or informal, that a particular law enforcement officer issue a specified or predetermined number of citations in pursuance of the goals and objectives. 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 8 of 11 State of California – Office of Traffic Safety GRANT AGREEMENT Exhibit A GRANT NUMBER PT19016 CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES Failure to comply with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives may subject Grantee Agency officials to civil or criminal penalties and/or place the State in a high risk grantee status in accordance with 49 CFR §18.12. The officials named on the grant agreement, certify by way of signature on the grant agreement signature page, that the Grantee Agency complies with all applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and directives and State rules, guidelines, policies and laws in effect with respect to the periods for which it receives grant funding. Applicable provisions include, but are not limited to, the following: • 23 U.S.C. Chapter 4—Highway Safety Act of 1966, as amended • 49 CFR Part 18—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments • 23 CFR Part 1200—Uniform Procedures for State Highway Safety Grant Programs NONDISCRIMINATION The Grantee Agency will comply with all Federal statutes and implementing regulations relating to nondiscrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88- 352), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin (and 49 CFR Part 21); (b) Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. 1681-1683 and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336), as amended (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disabilities (and 49 CFR Part 27); (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6101-6107), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-259), which requires Federal-aid recipients and all sub-recipients to prevent discrimination and ensure nondiscrimination in all of their programs and activities; (f) the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-255), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of drug abuse; (g) the comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-616), as amended, relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or alcoholism; (h) Sections 523 and 527 of the Public Health Service Act of 1912, as amended (42 U.S.C. 290dd-3 and 290ee-3), relating to confidentiality of alcohol and drug abuse patient records; (i) Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, as amended (42 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.), relating to nondiscrimination in the sale, rental or financing of housing; (j) any other nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statute(s) under which application for Federal assistance is being made; and (k) the requirements of any other nondiscrimination statute(s) which may apply to the application. BUY AMERICA ACT The Grantee Agency will comply with the provisions of the Buy America Act (49 U.S.C. 5323(j)), which contains the following requirements: Only steel, iron and manufactured products produced in the United States may be purchased with Federal funds unless the Secretary of Transportation determines that such domestic purchases would be inconsistent with the public interest, that such materials are not reasonably available and of a satisfactory quality, or that inclusion of domestic materials will increase the cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent. Clear justification for the purchase of non - domestic items must be in the form of a waiver request submitted to and approved by the Secretary of Transportation. POLITICAL ACTIVITY (HATCHACT) The Grantee Agency will comply with provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C. 1501-1508) which limits the political activities of employees whose principal employment activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds. 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 9 of 11 CERTIFICATION REGARDING FEDERAL LOBBYING Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans, and Cooperative Agreements The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form- LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instructions. 3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all sub- award at all tiers (including subcontracts, sub-grants, and contracts under grant, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. RESTRICTION ON STATE LOBBYING None of the funds under this program will be used for any activity specifically designed to urge or influence a State or local legislator to favor or oppose the adoption of any specific legislative proposal pending before any State or local legislative body. Such activities include both direct and indirect (e.g., “grassroots”) lobbying activities, with one exception. This does not preclude a State official whose salary is supported with NHTSA funds from engaging in direct communications with State or local legislative officials, in accordance with customary State practice, even if such communications urge legislative officials to favor or oppose the adoption of a specific pending legislative proposal. CERTIFICATION REGARDINGDEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION Instructions for Primary Certification 1. By signing and submitting this grant agreement, the Grantee Agency Official is providing the certification set out below. 2. The inability of a person to provide the certification required below will not necessarily result i n denial of participation in this covered transaction. The prospective participant shall submit an explanation of why it cannot provide the certification set out below. The certification or explanation will be considered in connection with the department or agency's determination whether to enter into this transaction. However, failure of the Grantee Agency Official to furnish a certification or an explanation shall disqualify such person from participation in this transaction. 3. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when the department or agency determined to enter into this transaction. If it is later determined that the Grantee Agency Official knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default. 4. The Grant Agency Official shall provide immediate written notice to the department or agency to which this grant agreement is submitted if at any time the Grantee Agency Official learns its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 5. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, grant agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meaning set out in the Definitions and coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the department or agency to which this grant agreement is being submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 6. The Grantee Agency Official agrees by submitting this grant agreement that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 10 of 11 is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency entering into this transaction. 7. The Grantee Agency Official further agrees by submitting this grant agreement that it will include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” provided by the department or agency entering into this covered transaction, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. 8. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the list of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non- procurement Programs. 9. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 10. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 6 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the department or agency may terminate this transaction for cause or default. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters-Primary Covered Transactions 1. The Grantee Agency Official certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief, that its principals: a. Are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded by any Federal department or agency; b. Have not within a three-year period preceding this grant agreement been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against them for commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State or local) transaction or contract under a public transaction; violation of Federal or State antitrust statutes or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of record, making false statements, or receiving stolen property; c. Are not presently indicted for or otherwise criminally or civilly charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or Local) with commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1)(b) of this certification; and d. Have not within a three-year period preceding this application/grant agreement had one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local) terminated for cause or default. 2. Where the Grantee Agency Official is unable to certify to any of the Statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this grant agreement. Instructions for Lower Tier Certification 1. By signing and submitting this grant agreement, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification set out below. 2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this grant agreement is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances. 4. The terms covered transaction, debarred, suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction, participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal, grant agreement, and voluntarily excluded, as used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definition and Coverage sections of 49 CFR Part 29. You may contact the person to whom this grant agreement is submitted for assistance in obtaining a copy of those regulations. 5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this grant agreement that, should the proposed covered transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or 6/6/2018 10:06:04 AM Page 11 of 11 voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated. 6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this grant agreement that it will include the clause titled “Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion— Lower Tier Covered Transaction,” without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations for lower tier covered transactions. (See below) 7. A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a lower tier covered transaction that it is not proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required to, check the List of Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement and Non- procurement Programs. 8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is proposed for debarment under 48 CFR Part 9, subpart 9.4, suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions: 1. The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this grant agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency. 2. Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this grant agreement. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director – (650) 558-7307 Bob Disco, City Arborist – (650) 558-7333 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Awarding the Contract for Tree Pruning & Stump Removal for FY 2018-2019 (City Project #85450) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement with Timberline Tree Service RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution awarding the Tree Pruning & Stump Removal contract for FY 2018-19 in the amount of $368,190 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement with Timberline Tree Service. BACKGROUND Tree pruning and stump removal funds were included in the Parks Division operating budget for FY 2018-19. The FY 2018-19 work includes the pruning of 31 large eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive, 90 eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real north of Dufferin Avenue, 63 eucalyptus on Oak Grove, and 330 sycamore trees, as well as the removal of four large eucalyptus trees and a variety of six large street trees. Because of the size of the trees, the work requires the use of high climbers as well as aerial lifts. Stump removal and emergency work also will be performed at various locations on an as-needed basis. Crews consisting of two to three fully qualified tree workers, each with a minimum of three years’ experience, will have all the equipment necessary to perform the work, including a chipper and truck of sufficient size to accommodate at least one day's wood chips, and access to an aerial lift. For each year of the contract, the scope of work includes unforeseen trimming at City owned Public Works facilities and pump stations for the Public Works Department and Water Division as well as unanticipated trimming and/or removals for the Parks Division. The bid was itemized into 19 sections, 1-10 for FY 2018-19 and 11-19 for FY 2019-20. The sections are specific tree work throughout the city including stump removal/grinding (Exhibit B). Bidders were instructed to bid a lump sum cost for the 19 sections over the two-year period. The City of Burlingame reserves the right to select any, all, or none of the section bids, depending upon available funding, and to terminate the agreement based on available funds and for failure Tree Pruning & Stump Removal Agreement FY2018-2019 August 20, 2018 2 to perform in accordance with work specifications. There is a provision for emergency call outs, planting, and watering, if necessary, during the life of the contract. The project was advertised for bids on July 3, 2018. The City received three bids, which were opened on July 19, 2018. DISCUSSION The bid results were as follows (Exhibit C): Bidder FY 18-19 Sect.1-10 FY 19-20 Sect. 11-19 Total Timberline Tree Service $368,190 $335,550 $703,740 Bay Area Tree Specialist $359,950 $354,000 $713,950 The Professional Tree Care Co. $371,050 $390,160 $761,210 Included in each year’s price is tree work up to $20,000 for the Water Division and up to $20,000 for the Public Works Department as well as up to $50,000 for unanticipated tree work for the Parks Division. If the work performed by Timberline Tree Service is satisfactory, the contract will be extended for FY 2019-20. FISCAL IMPACT The FY 2018-19 Parks Division, Water Division, and the Public Works Department operating budgets have sufficient funds for tree work on City property. Exhibits: • Resolution • Scope of Work • Bid Summary • Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Contract RESOLUTION NO.________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AWARDING A CONTRACT TO TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE INC., FOR TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT CITY PROJECT # 85450 WHEREAS, the City Council authorized, and the Department of Parks and Recreation issued, an invitation for bids for Tree Pruning & Stump Removal, City Project No. 85450; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2018, at 2 p.m., all bids received were opened in public by the City Clerk, at City Hall in Burlingame, California; and WHEREAS, the bid of Timberline Tree Service, Inc. was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid for the total itemized job in the amount of $368,190 for FY 2018- 19 and $335,550 for FY 2019-20; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the bid documents, the City reserves the right to award, and the City shall award, only those portions of the bid items for which the City has funding. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The bid of Timberline Tree Service, Inc. is determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid for Tree Pruning & Stump Removal, City Project No. 85450, and it is accepted. 2. The City Manager is authorized to execute an agreement with the low bidder, Timberline Tree Service, Inc., for the performance of said work, in the form attached to this resolution. ___________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk SCOPE OF WORK FOR 2018-2019 Section 1 – Perform crown reduction and thin approximately 31 Red Gum Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive between El Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue. The goal of this section is to reduce the trees to form a smaller, compact tree and thin the trees to remove epicormics shoots and remove potential hazards (Several trees will require working around high voltage wires). Section 2 – Trim/Thin approximately 90 Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real (Northbound/Eastside), between Dufferin Avenue to Murchison Drive, and (Southbound/Westside), between Murchison Drive and Trousdale Drive. Section 3 – Thin/Trim approximately 63 Eucalyptus trees on Oak Grove Avenue from Carolan Avenue to Winchester Drive (Several trees will require working around high voltage wires). Section 4 – Perform crown restoration and crown cleaning on approximately 330 Sycamore Trees with an average DBH of 20-22” and 30-70’ in height, located between Vancouver Avenue and El Camino Real and between Sanchez Avenue and Devereaux Drive. (See attached map section D) Specific objective is to (1) improve the structural appearance and remove deadwood on all trees; (2) side trim and shape to a natural, upright form. Section 5 – Eucalyptus tree removals: Remove tree, grind stump, remove all debris, and backfill with clean soil: 305 Burlingame Ave: tree # 62 990 Burlingame Ave: tree # 4 1712 Easton Dr.: tree # 30 1304 Bernal Ave: tree # 49 Section 6 – Pine & Cypress tree removals: Remove tree, grind stump, remove all debris, and backfill with clean soil: 170 Pepper Ave: side pine trees on Ralston #1 & 3 245 Chapin Lane: side pine trees on Ralston # 1, 2, & 3 869 Walnut Ave: side cypress on Forestview #1 Section 7 - Perform up to $20,000.00 trimming for Water Division Section 8– Perform up to $20,000.00 trimming for Public Works Department Section 9 – Up to $50,000.00 for unanticipated Trimming and/ or Removals Section 10 - Bid shall include a lump sum price for the removal of approximately 60 stumps (generally measuring 15 – 48” in diameter),and approximately 30 stumps (generally measuring 2-15” in diameter); the notification of USA; the removal of grinding spoils; the replacing of soil with approved planting mix; and any necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, and supplies. Work to be conducted quarterly in: September, December, and March. Bid Alternates: Planting Cost per tree. Trees, stakes and ties will be supplied by the City and will not be included in the cost. The City plants approximately 250 - 15 gallon trees and 50 - 24”box trees. All sites shall be notified to Underground Service Alert (USA) prior to digging. All plantings shall be done in accordance with ISA Standards, ANSI A300 and City specifications. Watering Hourly Rate per person, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment and labor for watering newly planted trees. Emergency Call-out Hourly Rate per person, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, supplies and labor, for Emergency Work as specified in Section 14.05 of the Description of Work. Contractor must provide, when requested by the Parks Representative or police dispatcher, a m inimum four-hour emergency call-out “basic crew”. Contractor shall be available to respond within three hours for the period of the contract emergency work. SCOPE OF WORK FOR 2019-2020 Section 11 – Perform crown reduction and thin approximately 28 Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive between El Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue. The goal of this section is to reduce the trees to form a smaller, compact tree and thin the trees to remove epicormics shoots and remove potential hazards (Sev eral trees will require working around high voltage wires). Section 12 – Reduce Crowns (by no more than 20%) thin and trim approximately 55 Eucalyptus trees at Bayside Park, 1125 Airport Blvd., on the west side of Bayside Park, fronting the Cr own Plaza Hotel to Airport Blvd. Excludes tress with a DBH of less than 8”, height less than 25’. Hotel cooperation will be needed. Reduce Crowns (by no more than 20%) thin and trim approximately 92 Eucalyptus trees on the frontage of Bayside Park on Airport Blvd. Thin and trim 22 Eucalyptus trees at the park entrance along the sewage treatment plant. Excludes trees with a DBH of less than 8”, height less than 25’. (Traffic control will be necessary to prune trees outside the park fence.) Section 13- Reduce by 30 feet, approximately 60 Eucalyptus trees on the east side of the base ballfield at Cuernavaca Park located at 3075 Hunt Drive, Burlingame, CA. Section 14 – Perform crown restoration and crown cleaning on approximately 184 Sycamore Trees with an average DBH of 20-22” and 30-70’ in height, located between California Drive and El Camino Real and between Oxford Rd and Edgehill Dr. (See attached map section C1) and approximately 217 Sycamores Trees with an average DBH of 20 -22” and 30-70’ in height, located between Vancouver Ave and Skyline Blvd and between Easton Drive and Adeline Drive (See attached map section C2) Specific objective is to (1) improve the st ructural appearance and remove deadwood on all trees; (2) side trim and shape trees to a natural upright form. Section 15 – Eucalyptus tree removal: Remove tree, grind stump, remove all debris, and backfill with clean soil: 1501 Easton Dr.: tree # 80 Section 16 - Perform up to $20,000.00 trimming for Water Division Section 17– Perform up to $20,000.00 trimming for Public Works Department Section 18 – Up to $50,000.00 for unanticipated Trimming and/ or Removals Section 19 - Bid shall include a lump sum price for the removal of approximately 60 stumps (generally measuring 15 – 48” in diameter),and approximately 30 stumps (generally measuring 2-15” in diameter); the notification of USA; the removal of grinding spoils; the replacing of soil with approved planting mix; and any necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, and supplies. Work to be conducted quarterly in: September, December, and March. Bid Alternates: Planting Cost per tree, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment and labor for tree planting. Trees, stakes and ties will be supplied by the City and will not be included in the cost. The City plants approximately 250 - 15 gallon trees and 50 - 24”box trees. All sites shall be notified to U nderground Service Alert (USA) prior to digging. All plantings shall be done in accordance with ISA Standards, ANSI A300 and City specifications. Watering Hourly Rate per person, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment and labor for watering newly planted trees. Emergency Call-out Hourly Rate per person, including all necessary tools, implements, equipment, materials, supplies and la bor, for Emergency Work as specified in Section 14.05 of the Description of Work. Contractor must provide, when requested by the Parks Representative or police dispatcher, a minimum four -hour emergency call-out “basic crew”. Contractor shall be available to respond within three hours for the period of the contract emergency work. Tree Pruning and Stump Removal Bid Summary 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 BID OPENING 7/19/18 at 2:00PM at City Hall Timberline Bay Area Tree Specialists The Professional Tree Co 2018-2019 Section 1 50,000.00 34,100.00 39,440.00 Section 2 25,000.00 24,800.00 37,440.00 Section 3 21,000.00 37,800.00 25,920.00 Section 4 105,000.00 99,000.00 73,440.00 Section 5 25,300.00 22,700.00 19,070.00 Section 6 13,640.00 14,800.00 22,740.00 Section 7 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 8 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 9 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 Section 10 38,250.00 36,750.00 63,000.00 Sub Total (Section 1-10)368,190.00 359,950.00 371,050.00 Planting 15 gal 265.00 275.00 200.00 24" box 325.00 425.00 350.00 Watering per hour 80.00 115.00 125.00 Emerg Call per hour 125.00 250.00 110.00 2019-2020 Section 11 50,000.00 28,000.00 34,560.00 Section 12 60,000.00 72,100.00 74,880.00 Section 13 36,000.00 24,000.00 25,920.00 Section 14 58,000.00 100,250.00 95,040.00 Section 15 3,300.00 2,900.00 6,760.00 Section 16 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 17 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00 Section 18 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 Section 19 38,250.00 36,750.00 63,000.00 Sub Total (Section 11-19)335,550.00 354,000.00 390,160.00 Planting 15 gal 265.00 275.00 200.00 24" box 325.00 425.00 350.00 Watering 82.00 115.00 125.00 Emerg Call 125.00 250.00 110.00 Total Bid 703,740.00 713,950.00 761,210.00 AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL 2018-2019 AND 2019-2020 CITY PROJECT NO. 85450 THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), made and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on_______________, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and _____________ hereafter called "Contractor," collectively referred to as the “Parties.” WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City Council authorized and the Department of Parks and Recreation issued, an invitation for bids for Tree Pruning and Stump Removal 2018-2019 & 2019 -2020, City Project No. 85450; and WHEREAS, on July 19, 2018, at 2:00 p.m., all bids received were opened in public, at Burlingame’s City Hall at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California; and WHEREAS, the bid from _______________was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bid for City Project No. 85450 in the amount of _____; and WHEREAS, under the terms of the bid documents, the City reserves the right to award, and City shall award, only those portions of the bid items which the City has funding. WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this Agreement for the services described in the Invitation for Bids. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work Contractor shall perform the work as described in Sections 1 through 10 of the Scope of Work for Fiscal Years 2018-19. Contractor shall perform the work as described in Sections 11 through 19 of the Scope of Work for Fiscal Years 2019-20. Contractor’s executed Scope of Work is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. 2. The Contract Documents The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement, Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, the Bid Summary Sheet, copies of the prevailing wage rates on file with the Director of Public Works, the accepted Bid, the complete and State Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment not to exceed the sum of (Dollar amount) ($00.00). In the event work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit (section) prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: MARGARET GLOMSTAD PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CITY OF BURLINGAME 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: Contractor Name Contractor Address Contractor Phone/Email address 6. Interpretation As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Termination The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement for failure of the Contractor to perform the work according to the Bid Specifications. On or about June 30, 2019, City shall provide Contractor with a performance review for work completed in the first fiscal year. If necessary, the City may issue Contractor a Notice to Cure any deficiencies. Failure to cure any deficiencies shall be grounds for the City to terminate the Agreement at the completion of the first fiscal year, 2018-2019. 8. Indemnification The Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Contractor, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Contractor from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall survive the termination of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME “CONTRACTOR” By ______________________________ By ___________________________ City Manager, Lisa K. Goldman Name 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Andrea Pappajohn, Sustainability and Climate Management Fellow – (650) 558-7271 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Expressing Support for Clean Air Day, Wednesday, October 3, 2018; Adoption of a Resolution Urging the United States Congress to Enact a Revenue-Neutral Tax on Carbon-Based Fossil Fuels; and Consideration of a Future Discussion Related to Investment of City Funds in Fossil Fuels RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of Clean Air Day, Wednesday, October 3, 2018, as requested by the Coalition for Clean Air, and a resolution urging the United States Congress to enact a revenue-neutral tax on carbon-based fossil fuels, as requested by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) San Mateo Chapter. Mayor Brownrigg also recommends that the City Council consider whether it wishes to discuss a policy related to investment of City funds in fossil fuels. BACKGROUND In early August, Mayor Brownrigg received a letter from the Coalition for Clean Air (CCA) asking the City to adopt a resolution in support of Clean Air Day. The CCA was founded in 1971 and is California’s only statewide organization working exclusively on air quality issues. According to their website, the CCA created the idea for California’s original Smog Check program in 1981; ensured the first national ban on the toxic dry cleaning chemical “perc”; and helped pass legislation to put one million electric vehicles on California’s roads by 2025. In addition, representatives from the Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame (CEC) and the San Mateo Chapter of the CCL have contacted Mayor Brownrigg to ask that the City adopt a resolution urging Congress to enact a revenue-neutral tax on carbon-based fossil fuels. The CCL’s mission is to create the political will for climate change solutions at the federal level, and their major focus is building bipartisan support for well-crafted and researched carbon fee and dividend legislation. To date, the State of California and 93 cities and counties across the U.S., including the City of San Carlos and San Mateo County, have adopted resolutions urging Congress to enact carbon fee and dividend legislation. Resolutions of Support for Clean Air Day and Carbon Fee and Dividend August 20, 2018 2 DISCUSSION Clean Air Day Resolution Emissions from vehicles, industry, and even household sources significantly affect the natural environment, air quality, and well-being of residents, employees, and visitors to Burlingame. While air quality has improved in California over the last several decades, there is more work to be done as California still has some of the most polluted regions in the United States. In fact, according to the CCA, seven California cities are among the top 15 most polluted in the nation, and ten California counties rank within the top 25 counties in the US for most polluted by short- term particle pollution. Thus, CCA is working to build awareness among California residents of the importance of clean air and what can be done individually to help improve air quality. The proposed resolution would declare October 3, 2018, as “Clean Air Day” in the City of Burlingame and encourage all residents, businesses, employees, and community members to participate in Clean Air Day and help clear the air for all Californians. Revenue-Neutral Tax on Carbon-Based Fossil Fuels Resolution According to the CCL, a national, revenue-neutral carbon fee-and-dividend system would place a predictable, steadily rising price on carbon, with all fees collected, minus administrative costs, returned to households as a monthly energy dividend. The CCL notes that such a system could reduce carbon emissions to 50% of 1990 levels in 20 years while adding 2.8 million jobs to the American economy. According to the CCL, research shows that the simple, market-based measure of a constantly rising price on carbon dioxide emissions and their equivalents will drive down the use of fossil fuels below Paris Accord goals. The carbon fee would place a national price on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and the dividend would return net proceeds to all U.S. households. For those reasons, the CEC and the San Mateo Chapter of the CCL have asked the City of Burlingame to adopt the attached resolution. Investment of City Funds in Fossil Fuels Finally, Mayor Brownrigg has asked that the City Council consider whether it wishes to discuss a policy related to investment in fossil fuels. He has provided the following information for the Council’s consideration. While Burlingame has no control over a large portion of its investment assets (for example, those assets controlled and managed by CalPERS), the City does have control over certain funds that are invested by the Finance Director and/or private agencies that can tailor portfolios to the City’s needs. Given the highly conservative nature of municipal finance and investment, these securities are mostly corporate bonds and Treasuries. The City has latitude over which corporate bonds it will hold in its account. The issue has been raised before whether Burlingame City government should own corporate bonds issued by petrochemical companies. As a matter of fact, the City does not own any such bonds today. But should this become an official exclusion? Some argue that there are a very large number of highly rated corporate bonds that can be owned in the City’s modest portfolio. Therefore, there is no need, from a practical or a diversification perspective, to own bonds issued by fossil fuel companies, and so they can and should be excluded to send the market a signal. Others, however, point out that the City’s fiduciary responsibility is to maximize returns on financial assets and that, as a general matter, any Resolutions of Support for Clean Air Day and Carbon Fee and Dividend August 20, 2018 3 constraint on an investment manager’s ability to select stocks and bonds can lead potentially to a sub-optimal financial outcome. This is not the occasion to reach a conclusion on that debate. If the Council is interested, however, it could empower a subcommittee to work with the Finance Director to determine whether an explicit exclusion of such bonds, and if so, which ones, should be adopted. The subcommittee could bring back recommendations to the Council for its consideration. FISCAL IMPACT None Exhibits: • Clean Air Day Resolution • Carbon Fee and Dividend Resolution • Coalition for Clean Air letter to Mayor Brownrigg RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR CLEAN AIR DAY, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018 WHEREAS, air pollution contributes to higher rates of cancer and heart and lung diseases, which adversely affect health; and WHEREAS, California has some of the most polluted regions in the United States; and WHEREAS, it is vital to protect the health and well-being of Burlingame residents, visitors, and workforce; and WHEREAS, emissions from vehicles, industry, and even household sources significantly affect the natural environment, air quality, and well-being of residents, employees, and visitors to Burlingame; and WHEREAS, individual actions such as not idling vehicles, walking or biking to work and school, carpooling, and conserving energy can directly improve air quality in the region; and WHEREAS, all community members can play a role; and WHEREAS, education about air quality can raise community awareness, encourage members of the Burlingame community to develop better habits, and improve the health of the community; and WHEREAS, Californians will be joining together across the state to clear the air on October 3, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is committed to the health of Burlingame residents, workforce, visitors, and community at large. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: 1. October 3, 2018 be declared “Clean Air Day” in the City, and 2. The City Council encourages all residents, businesses, employees, and community members to participate in Clean Air Day and help clear the air for all Californians. ____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS TO ENACT A REVENUE-NEUTRAL TAX ON CARBON- BASED FOSSIL FUELS WHEREAS, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human activities, including the burning of fossil fuels, are causing rising global temperatures; and WHEREAS, the average surface temperature on Earth has been increasing steadily, and current estimates are that the average global temperature by the year 2100 will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the current average global temperature, depending on the level of GHG emissions trapped in the atmosphere; and WHEREAS, the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) exceeded 410 parts per million (ppm) in June 2018, the highest level in three million years and clearly out of synch with long term geological patterns; and WHEREAS, scientific evidence indicates that it is necessary to reduce the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 from the current concentration of more than 400 ppm to 350 ppm or less in order to slow or stop the rise in global temperature; and WHEREAS, global warming is already leading to large-scale problems including ocean acidification and rising sea levels; more frequent, extreme, and damaging weather events such as heat waves, storms, heavy rainfall and flooding, and droughts; more frequent and intense wildfires; disrupted ecosystems affecting biodiversity and food production; and an increase in heat-related deaths; and WHEREAS, further global warming poses an unacceptable risk of catastrophic impacts to the ecosystems on which all life depends; and WHEREAS, warming air temperatures lead to the physical expansion of ocean water and to additional water in the oceans from melting ice, and therefore will lead inevitably to rising levels of San Francisco Bay, which will directly threaten and possibly destroy valuable private and public lands in Burlingame, including but not limited to land owners who are responsible for over 1/3 of the City’s tax revenues, baseball parks, walking paths, a high school, and office buildings, thereby imperiling the City’s ability to provide crucial services to future citizens and residents; and WHEREAS, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) commits the State of California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and the State has further established goals to reduce GHG emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32), and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (Executive Order S-3-05); and WHEREAS, the environmental, health, and social costs of CO2 emissions are not currently included in the price paid for fossil fuels, and these negative externalities are borne by all global inhabitants, particularly those in disadvantaged communities and communities near oceans; and WHEREAS, a national carbon tax will benefit the economy, human health, the environment, and national security as a result of correcting market distortions, driving innovation and employment into green energy, reducing toxic pollutants, reducing the outflow of dollars to oil-producing countries, and improving the energy security of the United States; and WHEREAS, a phased-in carbon tax on GHG emissions: 1) is an efficient, transparent, and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a renewable energy economy, 2) will incentivize manufacturers, businesses, and consumers throughout the economy to use less fossil fuel, which will lead to reduction in demand and therefore supply, and 3) will stimulate investment in alternative-energy; and WHEREAS, monthly dividends (or “rebates”) from the funds generated by the carbon tax paid to American households can mitigate the added costs to consumers, especially for families who can least afford them; funds can also be set aside to help cities and counties obtain low cost loans to invest in defensive infrastructure, made necessary by rising sea levels and other impacts from global warming; and WHEREAS, a national carbon tax, starting at a low rate and increasing steadily over future years, is a market-based solution that would minimally disrupt the economy while sending a clear and predictable price signal to businesses to develop and use non-carbon-based energy resources; and WHEREAS, fossil fuels can be taxed once, as far upstream as possible in the economy as practical, or at the port of entry to the United States, for efficient administration; and WHEREAS, a revenue-neutral national carbon tax can be implemented quickly and efficiently, and respond to the urgency of the climate crisis, while softening the price impact on consumers and offering municipalities resources to combat climate change effects; and WHEREAS, continued widespread use of fossil fuels and impacts due to climate change pose a present and growing risk to the residents of Burlingame, San Mateo County, across the United States, and around the world. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: 1. The City urges the Congress of the United State to enact, without delay, a revenue- neutral tax on carbon-based fossil fuels similar to proposed legislation endorsed by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby; and 2. The tax should be collected once, as far upstream in the economy as practical, or at the port of entry into the United States; and 3. The tax rate should start low and increase steadily and predictably with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the United States to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and 4. All tax revenue should be used to mitigate the impact of the carbon tax on low and middle income Americans and to help municipalities invest in defensive infrastructure made necessary by rising sea levels and other climate-related impacts. ____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ____________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk July 30, 2018 Honorable Michael Brownrigg Mayor, City of Burlingame Dear Mayor Brownrigg - On Wednesday, October 3, 2018, we will be hosting the first California Clean Air Day, and we invite you to join the effort as part of our Clean Air Day Mayor’s Council. The goal of California Clean Air Day is to build awareness among California residents of air quality and what can be done individually to help mitigate those impacts. You would be joining Mayor Garcetti from Los Angeles and hundreds of other mayors from across the Golden State to clear the air. From San Francisco’s Lombard Street and the Hollywood Sign to glistening miles of beaches and mighty redwood forests -- many world-famous landmarks are located in California, memorialized through countless photographs. What isn’t captured in these famous photos of California landmarks? Air. While California is home to these beautiful and iconic landscapes, eight of the most polluted cities in the United States also call California home. And No part of California is immune: last year, California had some of the worst air quality in the world. We ask that you, as Mayor of Burlingame , take the “Clean Air Pledge” (found at cleanairday.org) along with promoting CA Clean Air Day with engagement to your constituents and encouraging your city council to pass a resolution in support of clean air. We also hope you’ll allow Clean Air Day to use your name to build support and promote clean air, and if available, participate in media activities coordinated by Clean Air Day committee. The Coalition for Clean Air has made strides to push California to improve air quality since their inception in 1971, however, there is still more work to be done. California’s underserved communities face greater air quality issues. Children living in highly polluted areas operate at eighty percent or less in lung capacity resulting in an increase of asthma. Air pollution is responsible for one million school absences annually in California and 16,000 American die from lung cancer having never smoked in their lifetime. Depending on the location, Californians may lose nearly a year in life expectancy due to air pollution. Every California city truly weaves the state together as the Golden State. With your help, we can raise enough awareness to combat the air quality issues our communities are facing. Please confirm you can take the pledge and join the Clean Air Day Mayor’s Council by replying to John Bwarie of Stratiscope at john@stratiscope.com or calling 818-570-3408. Sincerely, Dr. Joseph K. Lyou President & CEO, Coalition for Clean Air 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1140 Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 223-6860 1107 Ninth Street, Suite 440 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 527-8048 www.ccair.org 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Eric Wollman, Chief of Police – (650) 777-4124 Subject Adoption of a Resolution Approving the City of Burlingame Response Letter to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report “Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses” RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached response letter to the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report “Law Enforcement Offices + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses.” BACKGROUND On June 28, 2018, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses.” An accompanying letter asked for a response from the City of Burlingame regarding the Grand Jury’s many findings and recommendations. DISCUSSION The report summarized the current state of the growing opioid epidemic, the risks of exposure and death to users and first responders (particularly from Fentanyl derivatives), and the benefits of training and equipping first responders with intranasal naloxone. Naloxone is a safe and easily administered opioid antidote that blocks opioid overdose and reverses its symptoms when administered in a timely fashion. The City’s response letter agrees with these findings. The report recommended training and equipping all law enforcement officers within San Mateo County with intranasal naloxone by December 31, 2018. Although all Burlingame Police Officers have been trained in administering intranasal naloxone, they have yet to be equipped with it. The City’s response letter agrees with these recommendations and confirms that all Burlingame Police Officers will be equipped with intranasal naloxone by December 31, 2018. FISCAL IMPACT The one-time cost of approximately $5,000 to equip all officers with intranasal naloxone and any other associated equipment will be funded from the Police Department’s 2018-19 fiscal year operating budget. Grand Jury Response Regarding Naloxone August 20, 2018 2 Exhibits: • Resolution • Draft Response Letter to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report • San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING RESPONSE TO THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY WHEREAS, the 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled, “Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses” on June 28, 2018; and WHEREAS, the report summarized the current state of the growing opioid epidemic; and WHEREAS, the report found that first responders are at a high risk of exposure and death when dealing with the epidemic; and WHEREAS, the report found that intranasal naloxone is a safe and easily administered opioid antidote that blocks opioid overdose and reverses its symptoms when administered in a timely fashion; and WHEREAS, the report concluded and recommended training and equipping all law enforcement officers within San Mateo County with intranasal naloxone by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame agrees with, and will follow, the report’s findings and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed draft response letter attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: That the letter in response to the San Mateo County Grand Jury Report, “Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses” is approved, and the Mayor is authorized to sign and convey said letter on behalf of the City. ________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018 and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk MICHAEL BROWNRIGG, MAYOR DONNA COLSON, VICE MAYOR EMILY BEACH ANN KEIGHRAN RICARDO ORTIZ TEL: (650) 558-7200 FAX: (650) 566-9282 www.burlingame.org The City of Burlingame CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 August 20, 2018 Honorable V. Raymond Swope Judge of the Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Subject: City of Burlingame’s response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses" Dear Judge Swope: After reviewing the 2017-2018 Grand Jury report entitled “"Law Enforcement Officers + Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses," the following are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s findings: Fl. Untreated opioid overdose can cause brain damage and death. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F2. Naloxone is a safe, nontoxic drug that can stop and reverse the effects of opioid overdose. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F3. Narcan@ is a brand of intranasal naloxone, which can be successfully administered with no more than one hour of training. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F4. Fire department and ambulance paramedics are the only emergency responders within the County currently carrying naloxone. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F5. Law enforcement officers may arrive at the scene of opioid overdose before paramedics. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. The Honorable V. Raymond Swope August 20, 2018 Page 2 Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org F6. Law enforcement officers' risk of accidental exposure to fentanyl derivatives varies based on their roles and responsibilities. Narcotics units, crime suppression units, SWAT teams, K-9 units, and evidence-handling units are at a heightened risk of exposure. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F7. Certain law enforcement officers and Sheriff Forensic Lab and Coroner's Office personnel are at heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. F8. Equipping and training officers with intranasal naloxone is inexpensive and the associated costs can be absorbed into existing programs and budgets. Response: The City of Burlingame agrees with this finding. The following are the City of Burlingame’s responses to the Grand Jury’s recommendations: R1. Train and equip law enforcement officers at heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives with intranasal naloxone as a minimum standard of practice. Response: The Burlingame Police Department completed First Aid Training in 2017, and all officers received training in administering intranasal naloxone. However, officers were not equipped with intranasal naloxone at that time. R2. Evaluate training and equipping all law enforcement officers with intranasal naloxone in order to protect themselves and the general public. Response: The Burlingame Police Department will continue to train all officers on administering intranasal naloxone, and will equip all officers with intranasal naloxone by the Grand Jury’s recommended date of December 31, 2018. The Burlingame City Council approved this response letter at its public meeting on August 20, 2018. Sincerely, Michael Brownrigg Mayor Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center Redwood Cify, CA 94063-1655 RODINA M. CATALANO COURT EXECUTIVE OFFICER CLERK & JURY COMMISSIONER (6s0) 261 -5066 FAX (650) 261-5147 www. sanmateocourt. org June 28, 2018 City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Grand Jury Report: "Law Enforcement Officers * Narcan = Lives Saved From Opioid Overdoses" Dear Councilmembers The2017-2018 Grand Jury filed a report on June 28,2018 which contains findings and recommendations pertaining to your agency. Your agency must submit comments, within 90 days, to the Hon. V. Raymond Swope. Your agency's response is due no later than September 26,2018. Please note that the response should indicate that it was approved by your governing body at a public meeting. For all findings, your responding agency shall indicate one of the following: 1. The respondent agrees with the finding. 2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion ofthe finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation ofthe reasons therefore. Additionally, as to each Grand Jury recommendation, your responding agency shall report one of the following actions: l. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. 2.The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. J.The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months fiom the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefore. 4. Please submit your responses in all of the following ways: l. Responses to be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court by the Court Executive Office. Prepare original on your agency's letterhead, indicate the date of the public meeting that your governing body approved the response address and mail to Judge Swope. Hon. V. Raymond Swope Judge ofthe Superior Court c/o Charlene Kresevich Hall of Justice 400 County Center; 2'd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655. 2. Responses to be placed at the Grand Jury website. Copyresponseandsendbye-mailto:@.(Insertagencyname ifit is not indicated at the top ofyour response.) 3. Responses to be placed with the clerk of your agency. File a copy of the response directly with the clerk of your agency. Do not send this copy to the Court. For up to 45 days after the end ofthe term, the foreperson and the foreperson's designees are available to clarifr the recommendations of the report. To reach the foreperson, please call the Grand Jury Clerk at (650) 261-5066. Ifyou have any questions regarding these procedures, please do not hesitate to contact Paul Okada, Chief Deputy County Counsel, at (650) 363-4761. Very truly yours, a a a GlfrTtt(fu,,^o Rodina M. Catalano Court Executive Offrcer RMC:ck Enclosure Hon. V. Raymond Swope Paul Okada Information Copy: City Manager cc: 2 LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS + NARCAN = LIVES SAVED FROM OPIOID OVERDOSEST ISSUE Should law enforcement officers and public employees in San Mateo County be trained and equipped to provide emergency opioid overdose medication to prevent deaths? SUMMARY The opioid epidemic is not somebody else's problem. Over 42,000 Americans died of opioid overdose in2016.2In that year, opioid deaths in California exceeded 1,900, including ld people in San Mateo County (the County).3 Opioids of all varieties can kill. Abuse of heroin and prescription opioids are the leading causes of opioid overdose in the County. New opioids pose an even greatei threat. Fentanyl urd it, derivatives are opioids 50 to 100 times more powerful than prescription opioids (such as Oxycodone) and heroin. While not yet reported being found in the County, carfentanil, an illegal laboratory-created analog that is estimated to be 10,000 times more powerful than morphine, lias been increasingly implicated in overdose deaths nationwide. Carfentanil and other powerful fentanyl derivatives not only endanger the lives of users but also present a potential source ofaccidental exposure (through skin contact or breathing airborne particles) for law enforcement officers and other first responders.aA lethal dose of-Fentanyl may be as low as 2 to 3 milligrams, less than 3 grains of salt.s Opioid overdose may induce respiratory failure which, if left untreated, will lead to severe brain damage and death within minutes.6 Administration of naloxone is the standard emergency treatment to reverse opioid overdose. Naloxone is safe, fast acting, and effective, havingieen used by medical personnel in its injectable form since 1971.7 ' NARCAN@ (naloxone HCI) Nasal Spray is the first and only FDA-approved nasal form of naloxone for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose. Use of the term "Narcan" in this report is neither anendorsement of NARCAN nor Adapt Pharma, Inc. Narcan is used in this report as a generic reference to intranasal naloxone. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury R. 2Centers for Disease Control."Understanding the Epidemic" Last modified August 30,2017. 5 u.s.Department of Justice,"A Briefing Guide for First Responder"Drug Enforcement Agency, June 6, 2017:9. Equipping law enforcement officers with intranasal naloxone (trade name Narcan@) can expedite treatment for overdose victims and officers who are accidentally exposed to powerful fentanyl derivatives. Law enforcement officers can be the first to respond to an opioid overdose, particularly in more sparsely populated areas.8 Even when paramedics are the first to respond to an overdose, if the scene compromises their safety, paramedics must wait until law enforcement arrives and secures the area before offering medical assistance. Lethal doses offentanyl derivatives can be accidentally absorbed, posing a risk ofoverdose to those individuals whose jobs bring them into potential proximity. In particular, law enforcement officers and employees in the Coroner's Office and the Sherifls Forensic Laboratory are at heightened risk of exposure.e Equipping these at-risk employees with intranasal naloxone can mitigate their risk from accidental exposure. Police dogs in K-9 units are also at special risk and can also be protected with naloxone. Law enforcement officers, following approximately one hour of training, can easily administer intranasal naloxone to opioid overdose victims. Available in the United States since November 2015, all first responders in the County are authorized to carry intranasal naloxone subject to being able to fulfill EMS standards and requirements. Although the San Mateo County Joint Narcotics Task Force (the NTF) is currently developing an officer-carry naloxone pilot program, no law enforcement agencies in the County train and equip their personnel to carry and administer intranasal naloxone.l0 The only emergency responders within the County currently carrying naloxone are fire department and ambulance paramedics (paramedics). lr In20l7,the White House Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis concluded: "We must equip all law enforcement in the United States with naloxone to save lives."l2 Over 1,200 law enforcement agencies in 39 states have authorized officers to carry naloxone. In Califomia,36law enforcement agencies currently equip officers with naloxone and 6 agencies have approved, but not yet implemented, naloxone programs (Appendix 1).13 The2017-18 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that all law enforcement officers in the County, and employees of the Sheriff s Forensic Lab and County Coroner's Office be equipped with intranasal naloxone on their person or in their vehicles as a minimum standard of practice. 8 Emergency Medical Services, "When Every Second Counts: San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services System Overview 2015-2016" County of San Mateo. Accessed on March 5,2018. <https://www.smche e DEA Public Affairs, "DEA Waming to Police and Public: Fentanyl Exposure Kills" Drug Enforcement Agency, June 10, 2016. <https://www.dea.s > r0 Ibid. llGrand Jury interviews with law enforcement agencies and other County officials. 12 The President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, "Final Report Draft", Presidential Commission Reports. by Chris Christie, Charlie Baker, Roy Cooper, Patrick J. Kennedy, Bertha Madras, and Pam Blondi. Last Modified November 1,2017: l19. <trttps://www.whiteh >. 13 Grand Jury interviews and investigations. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 2 Defined Terms The County San Mateo County K-9 Canine Law Enforcement Unit Paramedics Fire department and ambulance paramedics in San Mateo County (County) NTF Narcotics Task Force (County) CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Federal) DEA Drug Enforcement Administration (Federal) SWAT Special Weapons and Tactics Unit (County) CHS San Mateo County Health System (County) EMS Emergency Medical Services (County) FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Federal) HHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Federal) NIDA National Institute of Drug Abuse NIH National Institutes of Health NCHS National Center for Health Statistics BACKGROUND On October 26,2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid crisis a nationwide public health emergency.la Opioid overdoses killed over 42,000 Americans in 2016 (anaverage of over 115 per duy).'t More than 2.5 million Americans abused opioids in 2015.16 14 Eric D. Harden, "Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists" Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Last modified October 26,2017. <https :i/www. phe. eov/emergenc),/newslhealthactions/phe/Pases/opioids. aspx> r5 California Department of Public Health, Sqn Mateo Numbers at a Glance (20 l8). 16 Department of Health and Human Services, "Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 20 l5 National Survey on Drug Use and Health" Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Last modified September 2016. <https://www.samhsa.eov/data/sites/default/files,A,lSDUH- FFR I -20 l 5,4rlSDU H-FFR l -20 1 5NSDU H-FFR I -20 1 5.pdD. J2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Opioids Opioids are powerful pain relievers prescribed to alleviate moderate to severe pain.lT Prescription opioids, including codeine, hydrocodone, morphine, and oxycodone, are among the most prescribed drugs in the country. They are ordinarily safe and reliable when preicribed as part of a strictly supervised, short-term treatment plan to relieve suffering caused by acute pain.ls but, patients using opioids to treat chronic pain are at risk of abuse and addiction.le Among patients who take opioid^s for more than 30 days in the first year, 47 percent continued to do sofor three years or longer.20 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that up to 25 percent of patients who are prescribed opioids for long-term pain managemellt struggle with addiction.2l Of the more than 42,000 opioid overdose deathsln 2016,an estimated 14,400 were the result of prescription opioid overdose.22 In response to the opioid epidemic, the medical community is restricting access to prescription opioids.23 When opioid abusers lose access to their prescriptions, they olften turn to illegai means of obtaining opioids.2a Among the most dangerous opioids they can obtuin are certain synthetic opioids, such as fentanyl, carfentanil, and their derivatives (fentanyl derivatives). Fentanyl derivatives are chemically related to, and utilize the same neurological pathways as othei opioids such as morphine and codeine. However, fentanyl derivatives can be extraordinarily potent, delivering more than 50 times the dose of opioids as morphine.2s Opioid abusers who have lost their prescriptions are increasingly turning to these fentanyl derivatives due to their relatively low cost, accessibility, and potency. As a result, synthetic opioid-related deaths nationwide have increased from 3 ,000 in 20 I 3 , to 20, 1 00 in 2016 - an increase ofover 500 percent.26 17 National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Opioids" National Institutes of Health. Accessed February 26,2018.<https://www.drueab > rs lbid. le Brady Dennis, "Opioids are among the most prescribed drugs. Here are the most common versions" Washington Post, April 14, 2014. <www.wastringtonpo are-6-common-op io ids/> 29r{ational Institute of Drug Abuse, "Opioid Prescribers Play a Key Role in Stopping the Opioid Overdose Epidemic" National Institutes of Health. Last modified March2017. -<hfips://www.arugaU > 2rCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, "Prescription dpioid Overdose Datai' Last fvfbalfiea August l,2Ol7.<https://www.cdc.g >. 22Ibid. 23 Bloomberg Schoolof Public Health, and the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Health Matters Initiative, "The Opioid Epidemicfrom Evidence to Impact" Johns Hopkins, October 2017.pg. 13. :.nnps:ttwwwihspn2aGerman Lopez, "The opioid epidemic, explained" Vox, Decembir 2l,2Ol7 . <https:/www.vox.com/icienci-and- health/20 I 7/8/3/ I 6079772lopioid-epidemic-drue-overdoses> 2s"Synthetic Opiates List-Drugs that Derive from Opium," Opium.com, Accessed on February 26,2018.<http;/iwww.opium.o > 26Josh Katz, "The First County of Fentanyl Deaths in2016: lJp 540% in Three years" New york fizes, September 2,2017 . <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 7/09/02lupshoVfentanyl-drug-overdose-deaths.html> 42017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Naloxone Naloxone (naloxone hydrochloride) is an opioid antidote that blocks opioid overdose and reverses its sy_mptoms. It is a safe, non-narcotic drug that can be easily administered nasally or by injection.2T Naloxone is considered safe enough io administer as a diagnostic tool with unresponsive patients to eliminate opioid overdose as a possible cause.28 Narcan@, the brand of naloxone that is commonly used by emergency responders, is a nasal aerosol spray. An opioid gverdose may cause respiratory failure, which can lead to asphyr<iation, cardiac arrest, and death.2e Once administered, naloxone can reverse the overdose and restore breathing within minutes.30 However, prompt medical attention thereafter is essential because the effects tf naloxone can wear off before the opioids.3l Timely emergency administration of naloxone is essential. As Figure l. shows, when opioid overdose causes breathing to stop, permanent damage can result within minutes.32 Figure l. Timeline after Breathing Stops Between 30-180 seconds Loss ofconsciousness After one minute Brain cells begin dying After three minutes Brain damage is likely After five minutes Coma and brain damage are almost inevitable After ten minutes Death is imminent While paramedics in the County carry naloxone, they may not arrive at the scene of an opioid overdose in time to save the victim. The required Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response times for the County shown in Figure 2. are illustrative. Law enforcement response times may be substantially less.33 2TCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, "Expanding Naloxone use could reduce drug overdose deaths and save lives" CDC Office of Media Relations, April24,20l5.<https://www.cdc.q naloxone.html> 28 Grand Jury interview with County official. 2e Department of Health and Human Services, "Opioid Overdose Toolkit" Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, January 2017: 15. <https://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA l4- 4 742lOverdose_Too lkit.pdf) 30 German Lopez, "How Fentanyl became America's leading cause of overdose deaths" Zox, Decemb er 21, 2017 :.https://www.vox.3r Peter Lurie, et al. "Multiple Naloxone Administrations Among Emergency Medicai Seivice providers is Increasing" Journal of P r e hosp ital Emergenqt C are (Y ol. 2l : 4) 20 17 : l.<https://www.tandfon > 32Zawn Villines, "What Happens After a Lack of Oxygen to the Brain" (2016) 33 Grand Jury Interviews with City and County law enforcement leadership. 52017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Figure 2. Emergency Medical Services - Permitted Response Times3a EMS Required Response Times Area Type Emergency Ambulance Fire-Paramedic Non-Transport Priority Response l3s Urban/Suburban < l3 minutes < 7 minutes Rural < 20 minutes < l2 minutes Remote < 30 minutes < 22 minutes Priority Response 2 Urban/Suburban < 23 minutes < l5 minutes Rural < 60 minutes < 25 minutes Remote < 60 minutes < 30 minutes The White House Commission on Opioids made the following recommendation regarding naloxone: Naloxone is a lifesaver that rapidly reverses opioid overdose. It is the first line of defense in many parts of our country; if we lose someone to overdose we obviously have no chance to treat them and return them to a productive life. We urge you to mandate, with federal assistance, that naloxone be in the hands of every law enforcement officer in the United States...The Federal Government should ensure that naloxone is made available when there is the greatest chance for an overdose.36 DISCUSSION Equipping law enforcement with naloxone Equipping law enforcement officers with intranasal naloxone empowers them to protect the public and themselves from opioid overdose. Officer-carry naloxone programs are increasingly common and implemented by law enforcement agencies with minimal training and cost. These programs do not expose officers to criminal or civil liability.3T 3a Emergency Medical Services, "When Every Second Counts: San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services System Overview 2015-2016" County of San Mateo. Accessed on March 5, 2018. <https://www.smchea 35 Emergency Medical Services, "When Every Second Counts: San Mateo County Emergency Medical Services System Overview 2015-2016 pC. 10. 36 The President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, "Final Report Draft" (2017) 37 California Assembly BillNo.635, October 10,2013. <http://www.leginfo.ca.govipub/13-14/bill/asm/ab-0601- 0650/ab_635_bil l_20 I 309 1 2 enrol led.htm> 62017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Fentanyl derivatives, including fentanyl, carfentanil and other analogs, can be absorbed into the body through any physical contact, including injection, oral ingestion, inhalation, transdermal transmission (through the skin), and contact with any mucus membranes.3s While, in each individual case the size of a lethal dose depends on individual tolerance and body mass, per the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), a lethal dose of fentanyl may be as low as 2 to 3 milligrams, the equivalent of a few grains of salt. (See Figure 3.) Figure 3. The threat of accidental exposure is present in any instance where an officer is in proximity to fentanyl derivatives. The DEA identified the following situations, among others, as presenting a heightened risk of exposure: while purchasing fentanyl during undercover operations, processing drug evidence containing fentanyl or fentanyl-related substances, and processing non-drug evidence which may be contaminated with these substances or while providing aid to overdose victims.3e While all law enforcement officers in proximity to fentanyl derivatives are at risk of accidental exposure, the degree of risk corresponds to the individual officer's duties. Per DEA's policy guidance and Grand Jury interviews, law enforcement officers in the following units in San Mateo County are at a heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives: narcotics units, crime suppression units, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, K-9 units,4o and evidence- handling units.4r 42 Law enforcement officers have been exposed to fentanyl derivatives when responding to opioid overdoses, serving search warrants, supporting national law enforcement actions, and during narcotics operations. Fortunately, however, no law enforcement officers in the County have, as of the date of this report, suffered overdose as the result of accidental exposure to fentanyl 38 U.S. Department of Justice, "A Briefing Guide for First Respond er" Drug Enforcement Agency, June 6, 2017: 9.<httos://www.dea.g . 3e Ibid. 40 K-9's can suffer the full effects of an opioid overdose, and due to the nature of their duties are at heightened risk of exposure. Naloxone is also an effective antidote for opioid overdose in canines. "New drug kits save police dogs from opioid overdoses" CBS News, June 1,2017.<https://www.cbsnew from-opioid-overdoses/>. V.S. Copland, S.C. Haskins , J. Patz, "Naloxone reversal of oxymorphone effects in dogs" American Journalof Veterinary Research 50 (1989): 1854-8. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.eov/pubmed/2482683>. 4r U.S. Department of Justice, "A Briefing Guide for First Responder" (2017): 13. a2 Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. 7 2-3 milligrams of fentanyl. 2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury .T. . jb+ derivatives.a3 As fentanyl derivatives continue to become more common in the County, the risk of exposure will continue to increase. The DEA recommends that, where an individual may have been exposed to fentanyl derivatives, immediate medical attention be sought.aa Law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have successfully implemented officer-carry naloxone programs. As of December 2016, over 1,200 law enforcement agencies in 39 states have equipped their officers with intranasal naloxone.45 As of the date of this report, 40 agencies in24 California counties have implemented programs for their officers to carry naloxone. Another six agencies have approved an officer-carry naloxone program but have not yet implemented it. For a complete list of agencies that equip officers with Narcan in California, see Appendix L Only eight California agencies have, as of the date of this report, published information regarding officer-administered naloxone "rescues" of overdose victims.a6 Those eight have reported a total of 103 rescues. As a majority of these agencies have not reported on their rescues, the actual number may well be higher than 103. Officer-cany naloxone programs can be implemented with as little as one hour of training and can be added into existing annual first aid certification programs.aT Such programs are readily available through a variety of sources.as Additionally, using "train-the-trainer" methods, agencies can quickly and efficiently train their entire force with minimal impact.ae The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) sets minimum selection and training standards for California law enforcement.s0 While the POST has yet to establish training protocols for the administration of naloxone, in October 2014 POST and California Emergency Medical Standards Authority began the process of developing course content and competencies for naloxone administration as an "optional skill."sl a3 Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. 44 U.S. Department of Justice, "A Briefing Guide for First Responder" (2017): 16. 45"US Law Enforcement Who Carry Naloxone" North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition Last modified February 12,2018 <http://www.nchrc. . 46 The Grand Jury counts a "rescues," as an intervention in which a trained officer administered nasal naloxone, the naloxone reversed the effects ofan opioid overdose, the patient survived the incident, and the law enforcement agency publicized the results. a7 Rian Fisher, Daniel O'Donnell, Bradley Ray, and Daniel Rusyniak "Police Officers Can Safely and Effectively Administer Intranasal Naloxone" Journal of Prehospital Emergency Care (Y ol. 20:.6, 2016): 675-680. DOI: l 0. l 080/ I 0903 127 .201 6.t l 82605 48 "Law Enforcement Training Safety Videos and Resources" North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition. Accessed on April5,2018 <http://www.nchrc > ae Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. 50 "About POST" The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Accessed on: May l0th, 20 I 8 https ://post.ca. gov/About-Us 5r POST Monthly Reports, "Monthly Report: October 2014" The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Accessed on May l0th,20 18. < https://post.ca.gov/October-20 l4-Report> 82017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Equipping Officers with intranasal naloxone is inexpensive. The Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD's) naloxone program provides a cost example for a complete and self- contained Narcan field kit. The LAPD determined that each Narcan field kit costs $137.95 and should contain: Figure 4. Narcan Field Kit and Costs . Narcan atomizer unit (trvo doses) ($7s.oo) . Bag/pouch ($4.95) . Expiration Pull Tight Security Seal ($17.99) . Gloves ($6.00) . A Safety Shield Face Mask ($3s.oo)s2 Based on the LAPD numbers, the cost of initially equipping a police department with 50 units of Narcan field kits would be approximately $6,900. Costs of supplying a unit with Narcan can be reduced to $75 where only the atomizer unit is purchased (and carried in existing first aid bags), rather than a full field kit. Narcan atomizer units do expire and must be replaced every eighteen to twenty-four months. But the ongoing cost should not be prohibitive. Some County law enforcement agencies stated that the estimated cost of equipping officers with Narcan could be absorbed within existing department budgets.s3 Partnerships with public and private entities can further reduce these costs. For instance, the LAPD received a donation of 6,000 Narcan doses from Adapta Pharmaceuticals, Los Angeles Sheriffls Department received 5,000 Narcan doses from the California Department of Public Health, and San Francisco received a donation of 3,600 doses of Narcan from the Drug Overdose Prevention and Education Project.sa The Santa Cruz Police Department financed the purchase of Narcan for their initial implementation with funds from Janus, a local nonprofit organization, through a Substance Abuse Block Grant.ss s2 Kevin Bayona, "Factsheet: NARCAN Program" Los Angeles Police Department Evaluation and Administration U n it, l anuary 20 17 . Last modi fi ed March l, 20 | 7 . <http ://www. lapdp 0077.pdf>. 53 Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. 54 "California Comprehensive Overdose Treatment Protection Signed by Governor" Harm Reduction Coalition Accessed on February 26,2018 <http://harmreductio >. 5s Ryan Masters, "Santa Cruz police issue overdose antidote in nasal spray form to officers" Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 5,2016. <http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article,t,lE/20l6l205NEWS/161209867>. I2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Officer-carry naloxone programs will not expose officers to criminal or civil liability. California Civil Code Section 1714.22 protects trained first responders from professional review, liability in a civil action, or criminal prosecution for possession or administration of an opioid antagonist.s6 However, an analysis of any possible claims that might be pursued for failure to administer naloxone is'beyond the scope of this report. Opioids in San Mateo County In February 2017, San Mateo County Health System (CHS) issued the public health alert Opioid Dependency and Deaths in San Mateo County.s1 The alert reported that an estimated 7,800 County residents were dependent upon opioids, that prescription opioid use in adolescents was increasing, and that "the prevalence of synthetic fentanyl laced drugs [in the County] is likely to increase." 58 The California Department of Public Health confirmed l9 opioid overdose fatalities in the County during 2}rc.se Fortunately, rates of opioid abuse, including prescription and street drugs, are currently lower in the County than in many other Bay Area communities.6o The CHS updated its February 2017 alert in October 2017, to report that "...the County does not seem to be experiencing anywhere near the same level of morbidity and mortality that other jurisdictions in the United States are experiencing."6l San Mateo County has taken steps to address opioid abuse. The CHS is monitoring opioid prescription rates and educating prescribers about best practices. The CHS is also tracking the presence of fentanyl derivatives in the County in conjunction with law enforcement, the Coroner's Office, and other agencies. At present, the only first responders in the County authorized to carry naloxone are fire department and ambulance paramedics. While the Sheriff s Office is considering implementing a naloxone carry program for the NTF, no law enforcement agencies in the County have 56 These protections were added by California Assembly BillNo. 635, October 10,2013. <http://www.legrnfo.c > 57 Scott Morrow, "Public Health Alert: Opioid Dependency and Deaths in San Mateo County" County of San Mateo Health System February 7,2017: l. <http://www.smcheal@ attachments/opioid_health_alert_-_0207 I 7.pdf). 58lbid. se California Department of Public Health, "San Mateo Numbers at a Glance" Califurnia Opioid Overdose Surv e i I I an c e D as hb o ar d (20 | 8). 60 Detailed information comparing opioid abuse statistics for the County to other California counties is available at <https://pdop.shinyapps. io/ODdash_v I >. 6r Scott Morrow, Greg Gilbert, "Open Letter to Sheriff Bolanos and Police Chiefs in San Mateo County" County of San Moteo Health System October 24,2017. 62 Grand Jury Interviews with Sheriff s Forensic laboratory leadership. 63 Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury IO Fentanyl derivatives are becoming more prevalent in the County. The Sheriff s Forensic Laboratory, which conducts chemical testing on suspect substances seized in law enforcement operations, saw the number of fentanyl samples triple between 2016 and 2On .62 The County's close proximity to San Francisco, a major point of entry for fentanyl derivatives imported from abroad, further exposes County law enforcement and residents to fentanyl derivatives.63 authorized offrcers to carry naloxone. Employees in the Coroner's Office and Forensic Laboratory are also at heightened risk of accidental exposure, and are not equipped with naloxone. Despite the lack of official authorization, the risk posed by accidental synthetic opioid exposure is such that some individual County employees, including one County official, have purchased intranasal naloxone using their own funds to safeguard themselves and their colleagues. Another County official advised employees to buy their own naloxone to protect themselves.6a Arguments against equipping law enforcement with naloxone include: The number of "rescues" that law enforcement in the County could make is uncertain, and therefore the public health benefits of officer-carry naloxone programs are uncertain. Any program comes with costs, including the "cost" of not pursuing other opponunities to enhance public safety. Additionally, there are concerns that law enforcement officers are not medical professionals and should not be relied upon to provide medical treatment to opioid overdose victims. However, the Grand Jury finds that the potential benefits of officer-carry naloxone programs outweigh these concems. As fentanyl derivatives continue to become more prevalent and more dangerous, it is reasonable to assume--based on "rescues" reported by other agencies--that some lives in the County will be saved if officers carry naloxone. The costs of an officer-carry intranasal naloxone program are small; therefore the reasonably expected future benefits outweigh the costs. Narcan (which is administered intranasally) is not intravenous naloxone--administration does not require an IV, shot, or other medical procedure. Law enforcement agencies in California and nationwide who have already implemented an officer-carry Narcan program recognize that trained officers are fully capable of administering this safe, fast acting, and effective drug. By equipping officers with Narcan, San Mateo County is not pioneering a new program. Rather, the County will be following the recommendations of federal agencies and a White House commission by implementing a program that has already been put in place by over 1,200 police agencies nationwide. Those who survive an overdose are still in considerable danger. Continuous care, readily accessible, medically assisted treatment for overdose patients, ongoing community education and diligent oversight is essential to protect residents and County personnel from the effects of the opioid epidemic. Equipping officers to carry naloxone is a necessary hrst step. 6a Grand Jury Interviews with law enforcement leadership. a a a a a a 2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury ll FINDINGS The2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury finds the following to be true: Fl. Untreated opioid overdose can cause brain damage and death. F2. Naloxone is a safe, nontoxic drug that can stop and reverse the effects of opioid overdose. F3. Narcan@ is a brand of intranasal naloxone, which can be successfully administered with no more than one hour of training. F4. Fire department and ambulance paramedics are the only emergency responders within the County currently carrying naloxone. F5. Law enforcement officers may arrive at the scene of opioid overdose before paramedics. F6. Law enforcement officers' risk of accidental exposure to fentanyl derivatives varies based on their roles and responsibilities. Narcotics units, crime suppression units, SWAT teams, K-9 units, and evidence-handling units are at a heightened risk of exposure. F7. Certain law enforcement officers and Sheriff s Forensic Lab and Coroner's Office personnel are at heightened risk ofexposure to fentanyl derivatives. F8. Equipping and training officers with intranasal naloxone is inexpensive and the associated costs can be absorbed into existing programs and budgets. RECOMMENDATIONS The20l7-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the San Mateo County Sherifls Office, the Broadmoor Police Protection District, and the Police Departments of Atherton, Belmont, Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Pacifica, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Mateo, and South San Francisco, do the following by December 31, 2018: Rl. Train and equip law enforcement officers at heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives with intranasal naloxone as a minimum standard of practice. R2. Evaluate training and equipping all law enforcement officers with intranasal naloxone in order to protect themselves and the general public. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t2 The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the San Mateo County Coroner do the following by December 3 I , 20 1 8: R3. Train and equip Coroner's Office personnel at a heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives with intranasal naloxone. The 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury further recommends that the San Mateo County Sheriff do the following by December 3 l, 201 8: R4. Train and equip Sheriff s Forensic Lab personnel at a heightened risk of exposure to fentanyl derivatives with intranasal naloxone. REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933.05, the Grand Jury requests the following to respond to the foregoing Findings and Recommendations referring in each instance to the number thereof: o San Mateo County cities and the Broadmoor Police Protection District to respond no later than 90 days after the date of this Grand Jury Report. o San Mateo County Sheriff to respond no later than 60 days after the date of this Grand Jury Report. o The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors to respond no later than 90 days after the date of this Grand Jury Report. . The Coroner to respond no later than 60 days after the date of this Grand Jury Report. The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted subject to the notice, agenda, and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. METHODOLOGY The Grand Jury interviewed law enforcement officers from these organizations within the County: . Belmont Police Department r Daly City Police Department o East Palo Alto Police Department o Menlo Park Police Department . San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force . Redwood City Police Department . San Mateo County Sheriff s Office . San Mateo Police Department o South San Francisco Police Department 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 13 The Grand Jury interviewed individuals at the County Coroner's Office, the Sheriff s Forensic Laboratory, and the County Health System. The Grand Jury reviewed numerous publications and materials regarding the opioids epidemic, including without limitation those listed in the bibliography.6s 65 The Grand Jury's source for local statistical and demographic information regarding the opioid crisis comes from the California Department of Public Health's (CDPH) California Opioid Overdose Surveillance Dashboard. <https://pdop.shinyapps.io/ODdash vll> The CDPH collected this data in conjunction with the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, the Department of Justice, and the California Health Care Foundation. Data sources include; Multiple Cause of Death Files, Emergency Department Visit & Inpatient Discharge Data, and Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System (CURES) prescription drug data. The Grand Jury also utilized data from county entities. National data is from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services, the Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis Final Report Draft, Drug Abuse, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute on Drug Abuse, NIDA, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition. 2017-2018 San Mateo Counfy Civil Grand Jury 14 BIBLIOGRAPHY Kevin Bayona, "Factsheet: NARCAN Program" Los Angeles Police Department Evaluation and Administration Unit, January 2017. Last modified March 1,2017. <http:/hwvw.Iapdpolice . Brady Dennis, "Opioids are among the most prescribed drugs. Here are the most common versions" Washington P o st, April 1 4, 2 0 1 4. <www.washinqtonpost.com/news/to-your- health/wp/2014/04/14lban-some-pain-killers-here-are-6-common-opioids/> California Department of Public Health, o'San Mateo Numbers at a Glance" California Opioid Overdose Surveillance Dashboard (2018). Accessed February 26,2018. <httns://ndon shi in/ODdesh vll> 'New drug kits save police dogs from opioid overdoses" CBS News, June 1,2017. <https:/hvrvw.cbsnews.co > Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Expanding Naloxone use could reduce drug overdose deaths and save lives" CDC Office of Media Relations, Apri|24,2015. <http s : /hvlvw. c dc. qov/ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Fentanyl: Preventing Occupational Exposure to Emergency Responders" National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Last Modified August 30,2017 . <https:l/wlvw.cdc.gov >. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Prescription Opioid Overdose Data" Last Modified August 1,2017.cdc.se/dataloverdose. html> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Understanding the Epidemic". Last modified August 30, 2017. <https://www.cdc.sov/drugoverdose/epidemic/index.html>. Christopher J. Ruhm, "Geographic Variation in Opioid and Heroin Involved Drug Poisoning Mortality Rates" American Journal of Preventive Medicine 53 (2017): 7 45 - 7 53 . Accessed February 28, 20 1 8. <doi. orgi I 0. I 0 I 6/j.amepre.20 I 7.06. 009>. V.S. Copland, S.C. Haskins, J.Patz, "Naloxone reversal of oxymorphone effects in dogs" American Journal of Veterinary Research 50 (1989): 1854-8. https ://www.ncbi. nlm. nih. gov/pubmed/24 826 8 3 . Dan Keating, Samuel Granados, "See how deadly street opioids like 'elephant tranquilizer' have become" Ilashington Post, October 25, 20 I 7. <https://www.washinet scale/?utm_terrn:.3 5 89990cde76> . 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury l5 Department of Health and Human Services, "Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health" Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Last Modified September,2016. <https : /hvlvw. s amhsa. eov 20 1 5A{SDUH-FFRI -20 I 5.pdF. Drug Enforcement Administration, "DEA Waming to Police and Public: Fentanyl Exposure Kills" Drug Enforcement Administration Office of Public Affairs, June 10,2016.<https:/hvlvw.dea.gov > Eric D. Harden, "Determination that a Public Health Emergency Exists" Office of the Assistant Secretaryfor Preparedness and Response, Last modified October 26,2017. <https://www.phe.gov/emereency/news/healthactions/phe/Pases/opioids.aspx> "California Comprehensive Overdose Treatment Protection Signed by Governor" Horm Reduction Coalition Accessed on February 26,2018. <http:/lharmreduction.org/overdose- prevention/caoverdo seprev/>. Food and Drug Administration. "Summary Review for Regulatory Action: NARCAN@ (naloxone hydrochloride) nasal spray," FDA Approved Drug Products. Last modified January 24,2017. <https:/hwvw.accessd German Lopez, "The opioid epidemic, explained" Vox, December 21,2017. <https : /hwvw. vox. c om/ overdoses> German Lopez, "How Fentanyl became America's leading cause of overdose deaths" Vox, December 21,201,7 //www.vox.com/science-and-healtU2} 17 I 5 I 8 I | 5 45 48321 fen carfentanil-opioid-epidemi*. Josh Katz, "The First County of Fentanyl Deaths in2016:Up 540% in Three Years" New York Times, S eptember 2, 20 77 . <https :/hwvw.nytimes. co drug-overde s q-dealhs.btrul> Ryan Masters, "Santa Cruz police issue overdose antidote in nasal spray form to officers" Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 5,2016. /l++^,11,,r cqnfqnnrzcpnfi cnrn/erlie.le 6 1205AIEWS/t61209867>. Scott Morrow, "Public Health Alert: Opioid Dependency and Deaths in San Mateo County" County of San Mateo Health System February 7,2017. health alert - 020717 1 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t6 Department of Health and Human Services, "Opioid Overdose Toolkit" Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, January, 20 17 : I 5 . <https://store.samh Scott Morrow, Greg Gilbert, "Open Letter to Sheriff Bolanos and Police Chiefs in San Mateo County" County of San Mateo Health System October 24,2017. "Opioids and Opiates" Pet Poison Hotline, Accessed February 26,2018 <http://www.petpoiso Peter Lurie, Jeremiah M. Kinsman Michael W. Dailey, Charmaine Crabaugh, Scott M. Sasser "Multiple Naloxone Administrations Among Emergency Medical Service Providers is Increasing" Journal of Prehospital Emergency Care (Vol. 21 : 4) 2017: l. The President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, "Final Report Draft", Presidential Commission Reports. by Chris Christie, Charlie Baker, Roy Cooper, Patrick J. Kennedy, Bertha Madras, and Pam Blondi. Last Modified November 1,2017: ll9. <https://wrvw.whiteh 2017.pdf>. National Institute on Drug Abuse, "Opioids" National Institutes of Health. Accessed February 26,2018. <https://www.drueabuse > National Institute of Drug Abuse, "Opioid Prescribers Play a Key Role in Stopping the Opioid Overdose Epidemic" National Institutes of Health. Last modified March, 2017. <https :/wlvw. drusabuse. g prescribing> *Law Enforcement Training Safety Videos and Resources" North Carolina Harm Reduction Coalition. Accessed on April 5,2018 <http:i wvw.nchrc.ore/1ffi safety-video s- and-resource s/> "synthetic Opiates List--Drugs that Derive from Opium," Opium.com, Accessed on February 26, 2018.://www o'About POST" The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. Accessed on: May 1 0th, 20 1 8 <https://post.ca.gov/About-Us> POST Monthly Reports, "Monthly Report: October 2014" The Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training Accessed on May 1Oth,2018. <https://post.ca.gov/October-20i4- Report> U.S. Department of Justice, "A Briefing Guide for First Responder" Drug Enforcement Agency, June 6, 2017. June2Ol Za:wnVillines, "What Happens After a Lack of Oxygen to the Brain" Spinalcord.com. Last Modified June 13,2016. <https://www.spinalcord.com/blog/what-happens-after-a-lack-of- oxygen-to-the-brain> . 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury t7 "US Law Enforcement Who Carry Naloxone" North Carolina Harm Reduction CoalitionLast modifi ed February 12, 20 18. <http ://www.nchrc.or carry-naloxone/>. 2017-2018 San Mateo Counfy Civil Grand Jury l8 GLOSSARY OF TERMS Analoe - a chemical compound with a molecular structure analogous to another compound. Antidote - a substance taken to counteract a poison or the effects of a drug. Derivative- a substance or compound obtained from, or regarded as derived from, another substance or compound. Opioid - all drugs having morphine-like effects and high abuse and addiction potential, including opiates, semi-synthetic opioids derived from opiates (and synthetic opioids Not all opioids are opiates, but all opiates are not opioids. They are listed as Schedule II drugs., Side effects include: constipation, sweating, and increased sensitivity to pain, dependency. Generic Brand Name Hydrocodone Oxycodone Morphine Codeine Fentanyl Heroin Hydromorphone Oxymorphone Meperidine Methadone Buprenorphine Vicodin, Lorcet, Lortab, Norco, Zohydro Percocet, OxyContin, Roxicodone, Percodan MSContin, Kadian, Embeda, Avinza Tylenol with Codeine, Tyco, Tylenol #3 Duragesic Dilaudid Opana Demerol Dolophine, Methadose Suboxone, Subutex, Zubsolv, Burnavail, Butrans Carfentanil - a synthetic opioid analgesic a derivative of fentanyl, 100 times more potent than fentanyl, and 10,000 times more potent than morphine. Two milligrams of carfentanil can be lethal. As a prescription drug, Carfentanil (trade name Wildnil) is sold as a general anesthetic for elephants and other large animals. It can cause respiratory depression in humans, leading to death. Unique derivatives of carfentanil continue to be created, as they can be manufactured at a low cost and cut into heroin. Fentanyl - a synthetic opioid, an analogue of morphine but 50 to 100 times its strength. Fentanyl is a synthetic that is legally made as a pharmaceutical drug to treat pain, or illegally made and sold as an additive to intensify the effects of other drugs, such as heroin. As a Schedule II prescription drug, it is typically used to treat patients with severe or chronic pain or to manage post-surgical pain. Fentanyl is known by such names as Actiq@, Duragesic@, and Sublimaze@ in prescription form. Street names: Fentanyl or for fentanyl-laced heroin are Apache, China girl, China white, dance fever, friend, Goodfella, jackpot, murder 8, tatch, Tango and Cash, and TNT. Naloxone - an opioid antagonist drug given by injection, nasal inhalation or subcutaneously to block opioid effects in case of overdose. [t works within minutes to reverse the effects of opioid overdose; effects last about 30-90 minutes; it is not effective with respiratory depression caused 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury GI by non-opioid drugs (such as cocaine, LSD, ecstasy (Molly), sedatives, tranquilizers or marijuana) or alcohol; antagonizes opioid effects such as respiratory depression, analgesia, and miosis. Repeat doses often needed due to naloxone's action time being shorter than the effects of many opioids. Intranasal Naloxone - a mucosal atomization device, drug is a fine mist sprayed into nasal cavity; works quickly and painlessly in vascular mucosa to absorb naloxone directly into the bloodstream (slightly slower than intramuscular or intra-venous injections), minimal training involved for law enforcement personnel and trained friends or relatives of overdose victims to use; may need repeated doses. Commonly known brand name for intranasal naloxone is Narcan@. Narcan@ - the commercial brand name of the intranasal prescription medicine, naloxone (HCL), used for the treatment of an opioid emergency such as a possible overdose with signs of breathing problems, severe sleepiness or noffesponsiveness. NARCAN Nasal Spray is the FDA-approved nasal form of naloxone for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected life-threatening opioid overdose. The side-effects of Narcan are minimal, though its use may result in symptoms of acute opioid withdrawal in overdose patient. Opioid Overdose - an opioid overdose (OD) is the body's response to being overwhelmed or poisoned by too much of a substance. Overdoses can be but are not always lifethreatening or life ending. They can result in unconsciousness, respiratory depression or failure, sleepiness, contracted pupils, unresponsive, seizures, possible bluish skin color indicating lack of oxygen, cold, clammy skin, irregular or stopped, faint pulse. failed breathing, heart failure, and seizures. Many overdoses are the result of taking drugs of inconsistent or unknown strength or drugs that are mixed with other substances. Scheduled Drugs - in 1971, under Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act, a federal drug policy was established for the United States regulating the manufacture, irnport, use, possession and distribution of categories of specific substances. Five Schedules (or classifications) were created, identifying drugs and other substances that met the qualifications and restrictions for each category. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classifies opioids and other drugs into three schedules (ll, III, and IV), based upon their abuse potential and relative risks. For example, Schedule II includes drugs such as heroin or other substances with high potential for abuse, having no medical use, and determined medically unsafe. 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury G2 APPENDIX 1: CALIFORNIA LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITH NASAL NALOXONE PROGRAMS BY COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT DATE STARTED Alameda Alameda Sheriffl K-9 luly 2017 Alameda Fremont January 20 I 8*66 Alameda Newark January 2018* Amador Amador Sheriff November 20 l7 Buffe County Chico Police February 20 I 8 Contra Costa Brentwood Police March, 2018 Contra Costa Contra Costa Sheriff November 2017 Contra Costa Lafavette Sheriff November 2017 Contra Costa Orinda Police November 2017* Conffa Costa Pleasant Hill Police November 2017 Contra Costa Pinole Police November 20 l7* Contra Costa San Pablo Police November 20 l7* Fresno Fresno Police Spring,20l8 Fresno Sheriff November,20l7 Humboldt Arcata Police June 2016 Kern Kern Countv Sheriff August 2016 Kings Hanford Police August 2017 Kings Kings County Sheriff luly 2017 Los Angeles Glendora Police 20t5 66 * Department has approved an officer-carry naloxone program, but deployment is pending completed training. 2017-2018 San Mateo County CivilGrand Jury Appendix 1 1 COUNTY DEPARTMENT DATE STARTED Los Angeles Long Beach Fall,2017 Los Angeles Los Angeles Police Spring 2017 Los Angeles Los Angeles Sheriff June 2017 Marin Central Marin Police Authority April20l7 Marin Fairfax Police April 2017 Marin Marin City Police April20l7 Marin San Rafael Police April20l7 Monterey Carmel Police September 2017 Monterey Pacific Grove Police September 2017 Monterey Seaside Police November,20l7 Nevada Grass Valley Police September 2016 Orange Orange County Sheriff October 201 5 Orange Anaheim Police September 2017 Placer Roseville Police luly 2017 Sacramento County Sacramento Police February 2018 Sacramento County Sacramento Sheriff February 20 I 8 San Diego San Diego Sheriff luly 2014 San Francisco March 2015 Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Sheriff April2017 Santa Clara CampbellPolice March2017 Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Police December 2016 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix I 2 San Francisco Police COUNTY DEPARTMENT DATE STARTED Shasta Redding Police December 2018 Shasta Shasta Sheriff August 2016 Solano Benicia Police January 20 I 8 Solano Vallejo Police March 2018 Sonoma Petaluma Police April20l8 Tehama Tehama Police September 2017* 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix I 3 Pld q pry on FIor cS fr,::-tla.-.-ltt:.-lI SYRINCE 1 APPENDIX 2: NASAL NALOXONE ADMINISTRATION INSTRUCTIONS How to Give Nasal Spray Naloxone 5 l, no rolcton ,n 2.5 mnult3, 9irtuffindabm. noafl: gh[ a aliort vlgsM Frah s and ol clprulc lo !9.ty ndor@hlore. m hafi ol ira o0au5 lnto rarr F.lnl. 6 P6h t, rp.!y.B q.i) 2rr*,n"* NALCIONT 3*r*,r-,"**.-rl Gmwsrc!rubdmtxmrl ,no urrer or rying.. J) Issued: June 28, 2018 2017-2018 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Appendix 2 I 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF to Perform Environmental Review Services Related to the Proposed Development of a Residential and Commercial and Adaptive Reuse Project at 220 Park Road (Former Post Office Site) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with ICF for environmental review services in the amount of $350,902 related to the development of the former Post Office site and City Parking Lot E for a new, five-story mixed-use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project at 220 Park Road, Burlingame. BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame and the applicant have entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to consider a proposal that would encompass both the 220 Park Road property and Parking Lot E. The proposed development would include a new, five-story mixed-use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project. The project would include replacement parking for that which is currently located in Lot E as well as a public plaza fronting Park Road. Currently, the site consists of the former United States Post Office, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A and C. An environmental review finding for the project will be required. DISCUSSION The Community Development Department circulated a Request for Proposals (RFP) to three environmental consultants qualified to provide environmental review services for development projects, and all three firms responded to the RFP. After reviewing the proposals, the Community Development Department has selected ICF to perform the environmental review required for the proposed project. Staff assessment and final selection was based on the combination of consultant personnel resources, number of hours budgeted for the various tasks, and track record. ICF’s proposal was the most complete and insightful, and they have a very good understanding of the various issues that will be involved in this project. They are currently preparing the environmental review of the “Village at Burlingame” housing and parking structure Professional Services Agreement with ICF August 20, 2018 2 on parking Lots F and N nearby, and have completed and are working on a number of studies for other projects within Burlingame. Environmental review is a duty imposed on the lead agency under state law, but such review is funded by the development applicant. Therefore, although the contract is with the City of Burlingame, the applicant will pay $350,902 to the City to cover the costs of the environmental review. The City will administer the contract and will pay the consultant on a monthly basis as services are rendered. Attached is a draft Agreement for Professional Services with ICF to perform the environmental review services for the proposed project, in an amount not to exceed $350,902 including optional services (Agreement, Exhibit 2). For clarification, the base scope of work cost is $337,122, but the agreement would provide for an optional Health Risk Analysis ($9,220) and Noise Measurements and Field Survey ($4,560) should it be determined that those would be required. Because the cost of the agreement exceeds $100,000, Council approval is required. The Scope of Work for services to be provided by ICF is included in the proposal attached to this report as Exhibit 3. FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the project's environmental review is provided by the project applicant. Therefore, there will be no fiscal impact to the City's budget. Exhibits: • Proposed Resolution • Draft Agreement for Professional Services with ICF • Scope of Work – ICF Proposal to Prepare Environmental Documentation for the Mixed Use Residential and Commercial and Adaptive Reuse Project Located at 220 Park Road, Burlingame RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ICF JONES & STOKES INC. TO PERFORM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SERVICES RELATED TO THE BURLINGAME PARK SQUARE DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 220 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME WHEREAS, Burlingame Park Square LLC has submitted an application to develop a new five-story mixed-use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project at 220 Park Road; and WHEREAS, the site currently consists of the former United States Post Office, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); and WHEREAS, the proposed project would also include an adjacent City of Burlingame public parking lot, known as “Lot E; and WHEREAS, the project is referred to as the Burlingame Park Square Development at 220 Park Road; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an environmental review of the project must occur prior to consideration of the proposed development of the Burlingame Park Square Development at 220 Park Road by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. has submitted a proposal to conduct the required environmental review related to the Burlingame Park Square Development mixed-use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project, at 220 Park Road; and WHEREAS, an agreement has been prepared incorporating the Scope of Services prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. in the amount of $350,902, which was found to be adequate to provide the level of environmental review required for the proposed Burlingame Park Square Development at 220 Park Road, and the costs associated with the services to be provided by ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. are to be reimbursed by the applicant; and WHEREAS, because the agreement will authorize work in excess of $100,000, City Council approval is required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with ICF Jones & Stokes Inc. for environmental review services related to the proposed mixed-use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project known as the Burlingame Park Square Development project at 220 Park Road, consistent with the Scope of Work attached to this resolution, for a maximum cost of $350.902, as stated in the Scope of Work. Resolution No. 2 2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager upon execution of the Professional Services Agreement. _______________________________________ Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council, held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ______________________________________ City Clerk AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND ICF JONES & STOKES, INC. THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. (“Consultant”) and the City of Burlingame, a public body of the State of California (“City”). Consultant and City agree: 1. Services. Consultant shall provide environmental consulting services for review of a proposed mixed use residential and commercial and adaptive reuse project located at 220 Park Road, Burlingame and would also include an adjacent City of Burlingame public parking lot, known as “Lot E” (together referred to as “the Burlingame Park Square Development”), as further set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Compensation. Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum compensation amount, Consultant agrees to perform all of the Scope of Services herein required of Consultant for $350,902.00, including all materials and other reimbursable amounts (“Maximum Compensation”), for preparation of a CEQA document for the proposal at the Burlingame Park Square Development. Consultant shall submit invoices on a monthly basis. All bills submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information to determine whether the amount deemed due and payable is accurate. Bills shall include a brief description of services performed, the date services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, a brief description of any costs incurred and the Consultant’s signature. 3. Term. This Agreement commences on full execution hereof and terminates on December 31, 2020, unless otherwise extended or terminated pursuant to the provisions hereof. Consultant agrees to diligently prosecute the services to be provided under this Agreement to completion and in accordance with any schedules specified herein. In the performance of this Agreement, time is of the essence. Time extensions for delays beyond the Consultant’s control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City’s Contract Administrator prior to the expiration of the specified completion date. 4. Assignment and Subcontracting. A substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation and competence of Consultant. Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein may be assigned or subcontracted by Consultant without the prior written approval of City. It is expressly understood and agreed by both parties that Consultant is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. 5. Insurance. Consultant, at its own cost and expense, shall carry, maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and provide proof thereof, acceptable to the City, the insurance coverages specified in Exhibit B, "City Insurance Requirements," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of required insurance coverage prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance to City. 6. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors, or 2 agents, or on account of the performance or character of the Services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. It is understood that the duty of Consultant to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed pursuant to California Civil Code section 2782.8. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve Consultant from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 7. Termination and Abandonment. This Agreement may be cancelled at any time by City for its convenience upon written notice to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to pro-rated compensation for authorized Services performed prior to the effective date of termination provided however that City may condition payment of such compensation upon Consultant's delivery to City of any or all materials described herein. In the event the Consultant ceases performing services under this Agreement or otherwise abandons the project prior to completing all of the Services described in this Agreement, Consultant shall, without delay, deliver to City all materials and records prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall be paid for the reasonable value of the authorized Services performed up to the time of Consultant’s cessation or abandonment, less a deduction for any damages or additional expenses which City incurs as a result of such cessation or abandonment. 8. Ownership of Materials. All documents, materials, and records of a finished nature, including but not limited to final plans, specifications, video or audio tapes, photographs, computer data, software, reports, maps, electronic files and films, and any final revisions, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be delivered to and become the property of City. All documents and materials of a preliminary nature, including but not limited to notes, sketches, preliminary plans, computations and other data, and any other material referenced in this Section, prepared or obtained in the performance of this Agreement, shall be made available, upon request, to City at no additional charge and without restriction or limitation on their use. Upon City’s request, Consultant shall execute appropriate documents to assign to the City the copyright or trademark to work created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall return all City property in Consultant’s control or possession immediately upon termination. 9. Compliance with Laws. In the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall abide by and conform to any and all applicable laws of the United States and the State of California, and all ordinances, regulations, and policies of the City. Consultant warrants that all work done under this Agreement will be in compliance with all applicable safety rules, laws, statutes, and practices, including but not limited to Cal/OSHA regulations. If a license or registration of any kind is required of Consultant, its employees, agents, or subcontractors by law, Consultant warrants that such license has been obtained, is valid and in good standing, and Consultant shall keep it in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, and that any applicable bond shall be posted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. 3 10. Conflict of Interest. Consultant warrants and covenants that Consultant presently has no interest in, nor shall any interest be hereinafter acquired in, any matter which will render the services required under the provisions of this Agreement a violation of any applicable state, local, or federal law. In the event that any conflict of interest should nevertheless hereinafter arise, Consultant shall promptly notify City of the existence of such conflict of interest so that the City may determine whether to terminate this Agreement. Consultant further warrants its compliance with the Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000 et seq.) respecting this Agreement. 11. Whole Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and Agreement of the parties and integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes all negotiations or any previous written or oral Agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. The parties intend not to create rights in, or to grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of this Agreement or of any duty, covenant, obligation, or undertaking established herein. This Agreement may be amended only by a written document, executed by both Consultant and the City Manager, and approved as to form by the City Attorney. Such document shall expressly state that it is intended by the parties to amend certain terms and conditions of this Agreement. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. Multiple copies of this Agreement may be executed but the parties agree that the Agreement on file in the office of the City Clerk is the version of the Agreement that shall take precedence should any differences exist among counterparts of the document. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 12. Capacity of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto warrants and represents to the other party that it has all legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement and that all necessary actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 13. Severability. Should any part of this Agreement be declared by a final decision by a court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional, invalid, or beyond the authority of either party to enter into or carry out, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement, which shall continue in full force and effect, provided that the remainder of this Agreement, absent the unexcised portion, can be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the parties. 14. Notice. Any notice required or desired to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be personally served or, in lieu of personal service, may be given by (i) depositing such notice in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to a party at its address set forth in Exhibit A; (ii) transmitting such notice by means of Federal Express or similar overnight commercial courier (“Courier”), postage paid and addressed to the other at its street address set forth below; (iii) transmitting the same by facsimile, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon confirmation of receipt by the sending facsimile machine’s acknowledgment of such with date and time printout; or (iv) by personal delivery. Any notice given by Courier shall be deemed given on the date shown on the 4 receipt for acceptance or rejection of the notice. Either party may, by written notice, change the address to which notices addressed to it shall thereafter be sent. 15. Miscellaneous. Except to the extent that it provides a part of the definition of the term used herein, the captions used in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be considered in the construction of interpretation of any provision hereof, nor taken as a correct or complete segregation of the several units of materials and labor. Capitalized terms refer to the definition provide with its first usage in the Agreement. When the context of this Agreement requires, the neuter gender includes the masculine, the feminine, a partnership or corporation, trust or joint venture, and the singular includes the plural. The terms “shall”, “will”, “must” and “agree” are mandatory. The term “may” is permissive. The waiver by either party of a breach by the other of any provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach of either the same or a different provision of this Agreement. When a party is required to do something by this Agreement, it shall do so at its sole cost and expense without right to reimbursement from the other party unless specific provision is made otherwise. Where any party is obligated not to perform any act, such party is also obligated to restrain any others within its control from performing such act, including its agents, invitees, contractors, subcontractors and employees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Consultant and City execute this Agreement. CITY OF BURLINGAME ICF Jones & Stokes, Inc. 501 Primrose Road 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 Burlingame, CA 94010 San Francisco, CA 94105 By: By: Lisa Goldman Trina Prince City Manager Contracts Administrator Date: Date: -- Attest: Federal Employer ID Number: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer License Number: City Clerk Expiration Date: 5 Approved as to form: Kathleen Kane City Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A Scope of Work Exhibit B City Insurance Provisions Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project 8102-91-6 desiveR Page1 1. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Burlingame Park Square, LLC (Project Sponsor) is proposing to redevelop 1.92 acres of land at 220 Park Road, which includes the former United States Post Office building and the City of Burlingame public parking Lot E. While the Post Office building is unoccupied, Lot E is currently in use and includes 70 public parking spaces. The Project would include approximately 18,000 square feet (sf) of ground floor retail and with 128 residential units (153,600 sf) within four levels above. In total, the building area would encompass 171,600 sf. Approximately 280 parking stalls would be provided in a new, two-level underground parking garage that would accommodate parking for the residential units and the displaced Lot E public parking. The Project would cluster around a major public square along Park Road, extending as a promenade to Lorton Avenue. The new public square would provide gather ing space and would become the center of downtown Burlingame, while providing additional pedestrian connections between Park Road and Lorton Avenue. The Project would incorporate the existing Post Office building, which has been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Hi storic Places (NRHP), into the ground floor retail. The Post Office building would be a dominant element of the overall Project, opening directly onto the proposed public square. The major elements of the building that would be retained include the wing facing Park Road and t he central wing/existing lobby area that will face the public square. The building would be shored and the proposed garage would not be built under the wings to be retained. 2. APPROACH ICF is aware of the importance of this Project in the context of providing mixed-use projects near transit to sustain the success of the City’s Downtown as a vibrant pedestrian-oriented shopping area. Understanding that ensuring the expediency of the environmental clearance process is essential to moving the Project forward, we have outlined an approach that will allow us to ensure the production of quality and legally sound products in a timely fashion. We have assumed some efficiencies would be gained by using the following existing documents: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and Specific Plan IS/MND (May 2010): The Project is located within Specific Plan area and Project is largely consistent with allowable development identified for the site in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan IS/MND evaluated the buildout of the Specific Plan programmatically and included Standard Conditions of Approval (SCAs) to mitigate potential environmental impacts. The SCAs have been found to substantially mitigate environmental effects of projects proposed in the area. As applicable, the SCAs are adopted as r equirements of individual projects when approved by the City and are designed to avoid or substantially reduce a project’s environmental effects. ICF anticipates being able to tier the analysis for a majority of the topics from this previous IS/MND and incorporating the SCAs, where applicable instead of mitigation measures, to address the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. Envision Burlingame General Plan and General Plan Draft EIR: The City’s general plan is in the midst of being updated and the General Plan Draft EIR (anticipated released in April 2018) will provide a programmatic analysis of the buildout of the General Plan. ICF anticipates being able to use some of the existing conditions information from these documents for the Project. EXHIBIT A Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 2 Aside from our commitment to the careful and efficient execution of the detailed scope of work described below, we bring the following key characteristics necessary to support the implementation of this Project. Seasoned Management Team with Relevant Experience, Commitment, and Availability We offer unique advantages with our local knowledge on the peninsula and experience with issues important to the City. This deep local knowledge and familiarity with the area, most notably through our current work on the 1499 Bayshore Highway Project and The Village at Burlingame Project in the City, and similar jurisdictions directly relates to enabling us to deliver high-quality environmental support. We understand the issues important to City staff as well as members of the public and, using our relevant experience on other local projects, can anticipate these needs and keep projects on schedule and budget. In addition to this wide-ranging knowledge, we have built productive and respectful relationships with City staff. Our goal is to devote the same level of commitment and dedication that we have devoted to our past successful CEQA compliance efforts in the City to the Project at hand. Erin Efner, our project director, and Kirsten Chapman, our deputy project manager, will contribute valuable local knowledge and strategic thinking to move this project through the CEQA process. Jessie Shen, our project manager, also has extensive experience successfully coordinating and writing complex CEQA compliance documents for projects throughout the Bay Area. Our team, including the talented and experienced technical specialists in the organization chart above, are available and excited to get to work on this project. Strong Team Management As a multidisciplinary environmental consulting firm, ICF provides a full range of in-house services related to environmental planning. Utilizing our own staff expertise, in combination with the skills and services provided by our subconsultants, we have the capabilities to successfully complete every element of our proposed scope of work. In this case, we have elected to add Hexagon Transportation Consultants and PreVision Design to our team due to their experience in the City preparing traffic studies and visual simulations, respectively. The key to successful teaming is a clearly defined scope of work with well-established roles for each of the consultants on a project. In approaching all tasks included in our scope of services, our management team would work with all project team members in developing and outlining these roles to ensure quality project delivery. With collaboration being a vital focus of our team, ICF role will be to ensure that the Project team understands project goals, objectives, and individual responsibilities. We will bring together all perspectives provided by the team throughout all phases of the Project and set incremental delivery schedules to meet project milestones. As a prime consultant, ICF will be responsible for reviewing subconsultant work products (e.g., technical studies) to ensure that they meet applicable CEQA requirements are clearly written, and provide the necessary level of technical analysis to support the CEQA document. 3. SCOPE OF WORK Based on our review of project materials, we understand that an EIR would be the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. We have assumed some efficiencies would be gained by tiering the Project analysis from the Specific Plan IS/MND and using some of the existing conditions information from the General Plan Draft EIR. This scope of work (SOW) assumes Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 3 that an EIR will be prepared for the Project in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, with certain topics, including, but not necessarily limited to: aesthetics (including shadows), agricultural/forestry resources, biological resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, public services/recreation, and utilities/service systems, scoped out from detailed review in the EIR. Task 1: Kick-Off Meeting/Data Collection/Project Description This task includes the following tasks: initiate CEQA process/kick-off meeting; prepare comprehensive data needs list; conduct site visit; review of site plans and preliminary studies; and refine the scope of work and schedule. We understand that it is the City’s intention to initiate CEQA review for the Project before the submittal of the final plans and applications for entitlement by the Project Sponsor. Given that Project design may be in flux during the first portions of CEQA review, ICF will propose CEQA topics to prioritize pending receipt of final Project design plans. At the kick-off meeting, the team will discuss which CEQA topics will likely be “scoped out” from detailed review in the EIR. This SOW presents our initial recommendations on CEQA topics to be scoped out. Our revised SOW will reflect discussions at the kick-off meeting and refinements as needed. Additionally, refinements to the traffic/transportation SOW may be necessary to be consistent with the City’s direction in the General Plan Draft EIR for addressing SB 743. The revised SOW will be prepared as part of Task 2. A clear and accurate Project Description is essential to the EIR analysis. Based on readily available Project information, ICF will prepare a Project Description that will incorporate the following topics: Project Overview and Background Project Site Location Project Objectives Project Characteristics by including: Site plan Employment levels Site access, circulation, and parking Project design, architectural themes, massing, building design, potential sustainable design features, and materials Amenities such as landscaping, lighting, signage, courtyards, and gathering spaces Utilities Recycling and Waste Phasing and Construction Scenario Project Approvals and Entitlements The Project Description will include up to three visual simulations (included for informational purposes) to depict the visual changes to the site. PreVision Design will prepare the visual simulations. Appendix A contains PreVision Design’s full scope of work. As described below in Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 4 Task 3, in accordance with SB 743, the Project’s aesthetics impacts are not considered significant impacts on the environment. Deliverables: Refined schedule; kick-off meeting agenda; data needs request; draft and final Project Description; and summary of kick-off meeting. Task 2. EIR Scope Definition ICF will prepare the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and refine the scope of work based on discussions with staff (as required), input obtained from scoping sessions, and comments submitted on the NOP. The approach to this task is divided into three subtasks: NOP, Public Scoping, and Revised Scope of Work. Task 2.1 Notice of Preparation. An NOP will be prepared by ICF for City staff and Project Sponsor review. The NOP will include a summary description of the Project, a description and map of the Project location, and information regarding the public scoping meeting. ICF will print and distribute the NOP to the State Clearinghouse. ICF assumes no more than 15 NOP packages will be distributed by ICF. City staff will print and distribute for local posting/filing. ICF will also prepare the Notice of Completion (NOC) for the City to submit to the State Clearinghouse. Task 2.2 Public Scoping. ICF will attend and present at one scoping meeting and record comments received during the meeting. The principle objective of this scoping meeting will be to solicit public meeting input on the list of critical environmental issues and the range of alternatives to be considered in the EIR. It is not assumed that ICF will provide a court reporter for the meeting. If requested by the Project team, ICF can arrange to have a court reporter present and adjust our budget accordingly. A total of five public hearings are assumed in our SOW. If more than one public meeting is required during scoping, we can reallocate our meetings as necessary. Task 2.3 Summary of Comments/Revised Scope of Work. As a result of discussion at the Project initiation meeting (Task 1), comments received at the public scoping meeting, and responses to the NOP, the ICF team will revise the scope of work for consideration by City staff, if necessary. The revised scope of work will fine tune the data collection activities, refine impact methodologies and assumptions (e.g., number of locations for traffic counts, noise measurements, visual simulation locations, etc.), adjust significance criteria for key environmental and neighborhood issues, and affirm or revise expectations about the preparation process, schedule, and products. Accordingly, in consultation with City staff, a revised scope of work and budget may be prepared as part of this task. ICF will also prepare a summary of all written and verbal comments received during the NOP scoping period. Information will be presented in tabular format, organized by CEQA topic. Deliverables: Electronic copies of draft and revised NOP in MS Word and Adobe PDF format. 15 copies of the NOP package to be filed with the State Clearinghouse as noted above. Electronic copy of the NOC in Adobe PDF format. Distribution of NOP as noted above. Summary of written and verbal comments. Revised scope of work (as needed). Task 3. Administrative Draft EIR In an effort to expedite the timeline and keep costs down, ICF is proposing to focus the EIR to the maximum extent possible. The EIR will focus on the issues most likely resulting in impacts on the environmental and/or the issues of importance to the public. Since an IS is not required Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 5 by CEQA in order to focus an EIR, ICF is proposing to “scope out” topics in a “No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts” chapter. This is explained further below. The purpose of this task is to prepare the Administrative Draft EIR. This task will synthesize background information for use in the existing setting, evaluate changes to those baseline conditions resulting from implementation of the Project, compare those impacts to the significance criteria to identify significant impacts, and identify SCAs or mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. For this task, there will be four principal activities: Determine, by individual resource topic, the significance criteria to be used in the analysis. Present the analysis at full buildout of the Project. Perform the analysis and make determinations of impact significance. Identify SCAs or recommend feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts, if needed. The ICF team will collect the information necessary to define baseline conditions in the Project area. It is anticipated that CEQA baseline conditions will be existing conditions at the time of the NOP. ICF anticipates utilizing some of the existing conditions information from the Specific Plan IS/MND and General Plan Draft EIR. For each environmental topic, significance thresholds or criteria will be defined in consultation with the City so that it is clear how the EIR classifies an impact. These criteria will be based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, General Plan standards used by the City, and our experience in developing performance standards and planning guidelines to minimize impacts. The analysis will be based on standard methodologies and techniques, and will focus on the net changes anticipated at the Project site. The text will clearly link SCAs or measures to impacts and indicate their effectiveness (i.e., ability to reduce an impact to a less-than-significant level), identify the responsible agency or party, and distinguish whether SCAs or measures are proposed as part of the Project, are already being implemented (such as existing regulations), or are to be considered. Our analysis will also assess whether SCAs or proposed mitigation measures themselves would result in any environmental impacts. This approach facilitates preparation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that follows certification of an EIR. The Administrative Draft EIR will incorporate the baseline conditions data as well as impact analysis and SCAs or mitigation measures, plus the alternatives and other CEQA considerations described in Task 4 (below). It is envisioned that the City’s initial review of the document will consider content, accuracy, validity of assumptions, classification of impacts, feasibility of mitigation measures, and alternatives analyses. The following task descriptions summarize the data to be collected, impact assessment methodologies to be used, and types of mitigation measures to be considered, by environmental issue. Topics with No Impacts or Less-than-Significant Impacts The Project is largely consistent with allowable development identified for the site in the Specific Plan. Because of this, ICF anticipates being able to tier the analysis for the following topics from the Specific Plan IS/MND and incorporate SCAs, where applicable, to address the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts. Based on our preliminary review, the following environmental topics may be scoped out from detailed review in the EIR. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 6 Aesthetics (including Shadow). The Project is a mixed-use residential project that is also classified as an employment center pursuant to SB 743.1 The Project site is also within a Transit Priority Area due to its proximity to transit options. As a result, in accordance with SB 743, the Project’s aesthetics impacts are not considered significant impacts on the environment. As such, this topic does not need to be evaluated. The discussion will instead focus on documenting compliance with SB 743 and the Project’s potential to create new shadows/shade (as discussed below). Visual simulations and other graphics will be included in the Project Description in order to adequately inform the public of the visual changes to the site. No CEQA significance conclusions related to aesthetics will be made. The Specific Plan includes Policy D-3.2, which requires that development over 40 feet be evaluated for the potential to create new shadows. The project description prepared by the Project Sponsor indicates a proposed building height of 66 feet, which exceeds the 55-foot height limit allowed by the site’s zoning district. Thus, the Project could shade pedestrian routes. ICF will conduct a site visit and photodocument existing conditions (included in Task 1) and prepare shadow simulations of the Project to analyze the Project’s impact on public open spaces and major pedestrian routes, including the Project’s proposed public square and promenade. A 3D model will be prepared in SketchUp utilizing the Project site plan depicting the Project features in relation to street and surrounding buildings, a roof plan depicting the shape and height of each portion of the roof above ground level, and an elevation drawing of the Project features from each direction. Shadows cast by Project features on surrounding open spaces and pedestrian routes will be simulated for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on March 21, June 21, September 21, and December 21. Shadow simulations, a description of the methods, and results of the analysis would be included in the EIR. Agricultural/Forestry Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site, identify the General Plan designation and the zoning district, and indicate lack of agricultural and forestry uses at the Project site. Biological Resources. The Project site is within an urban setting developed with an existing building and a paved public parking lot. There are street trees located along the perimeter of and on the Project site. It is anticipated that the Project would not involve work disturbing the underground Burlingame Creek currently enclosed in a box culvert, which traverses Lot E. ICF will describe the existing conditions at the Project site and identify that natural biological resources are not likely to be present on site. Based on prior experience in the region, and the urban nature of the site, ICF anticipates that the issues for the Project will be limited to nesting migratory birds, roosting bats, and protected trees. ICF will evaluate the Project’s effects on the identified biological resources and identify applicable SCAs, as warranted. In addition, a Tree Survey will be conducted for the Project site and the results will be incorporated into the analysis. The scope of work for the Tree Survey is includes as Appendix E. Geology/Soils. The Project site is located in a seismically active portion of northern California. A significant earthquake on one of the regional faults in the Project area, including the San Andreas, Hayward, San Gregorio, and Calaveras faults, will likely produce significant groundshaking during the practical life of the Project structure. Other site-specific geotechnical concerns, such as expansive soils, liquefaction, or differential settlement, could 1 Senate Bill No. 743. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB743. Accessed April 6, 2018. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 7 potentially affect the Project. Based on the requirements of the City’s Building Code, ICF assumes that the Project Sponsor will provide a site-specific soils report that identifies any potentially unsuitable soils conditions and contains appropriate recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including provisions to reduce the effects of these soils. ICF will review available geotechnical information for the Project site to characterize geologic concerns on the Project site and describe potential impacts associated with ground shaking, ground failure, and underlying soil conditions. The type and magnitude of seismic activity typical in the San Francisco Bay Area, the standards to be met by proposed structures to resist damage during seismic events, and design features to be incorporated in the Project to comply with those standards will be described in the EIR. ICF will evaluate the geohazard risks from development at the Project site, using information provided in the Specific Plan IS/MND, General Plan Draft EIR, and available geologic and/or soils maps. The main issue that will be analyzed is the seismic and geotechnical safety of the Project structures. ICF will assess potential geohazard impacts of the Project in light of existing regulations/policies and recommendations identified in the site-specific soils report that would serve to minimize potential impacts. Pertinent regulatory requirements will be explicitly identified so that the nexus between regulations and minimized impacts is apparent. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (November 2015) has been prepared for the Project site. Records indicate that a gasoline leak from an underground storage tank was identified on the Project site in 1990 and cleanup was completed in 1995. Four sites within a 1-mile radius of the Project site are considered recognized environmental concerns that may have contaminated soils or groundwater underlying the Project site. It appears that there may be asbestos-containing materials present in insulation materials in the existing Post Office building. Based on the age of the building and condition of painted surfaces, it is possible that the existing Post Office building has been painted with lead-based paint. ICF will summarize the activities and finding of the Phase I ESA (2015) to describe the extent and magnitude of known or potential subsurface contamination on the Project site as well as to identify potential hazardous building materials of concern associated with demolition or modifications to portions of the existing building. The EIR will describe the regulatory framework for hazardous materials use and storage during construction and operation of the Project. ICF will also evaluate available information regarding other public health and safety hazards required to be analyzed under CEQA, such as wildfire hazards, aviation hazards, and potential interferences with emergency response and evacuative plans. The analysis will describe applicable federal, state, local regulations as well as SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. Hydrology/Water Quality. The Project site is mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency as being a “moderate flood hazard area” and is not located within a 100-year flood zone. Proposed grading and construction activities could affect the geographic configuration of the Project site, potentially altering on and off-site flooding hazards. Construction and grading could also result in erosion and sedimentation, which could degrade stormwater runoff quality. Dewatering of excavations may be required during construction. Discharge of dewatering effluent could adversely affect receiving water quality. Construction activities would be required to comply with the State Water Board’s Construction General Permit for stormwater discharges. Creation of new impervious surfaces could increase the rate and volume of stormwater runoff from the Project area. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 8 Because the Project would create or replace 10,000 or more square feet of impervious area, the Project would be a C.3 regulated site and subject to the rules and regulation of the County of San Mateo Countywide Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCSWPPP) and the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). The operational activities associated with the Project could also introduce new pollutants sources (e.g., related to increased vehicular use at the site). The Project would be required to comply with the MRP, including the incorporation of post-construction stormwater management measures to treat stormwater prior to discharge. The Project site is not located within the hydromodification zone, and therefore would not be required to comply with the hydromodification requirements of the MRP. ICF will describe the existing regulatory environment, including, but not limited to, the Construction General Permit, MRP for stormwater discharges (including how the Project relates to C.3 requirements), the City Municipal Code, and the California Building Code. As described above, these regulations require specific measures for reducing potential impacts on hydrology and water quality. ICF will review the proposed grading and drainage plan for the Project, if provided. The primary hydrology and water quality issues that will be analyzed are impacts related to the Project’s potential impacts due to stormwater runoff (quality and rate/volume of discharge). A Preliminary Infrastructure Needs Analysis (November 2016) has been prepared for the Project and provides a preliminary analysis of the Project’s stormwater flows, storwmwater treatment, and hydromodification requirements. ICF will summarize the findings in the Preliminary Infrastructure Needs Analysis and assess potential Project hydrology and water quality impacts in light of existing capacity and the regulations/policies that would serve to minimize potential impacts. Pertinent regulatory requirements will be explicitly identified so that the nexus between regulations and minimized impacts is apparent. The analysis will also identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. Land Use/Planning. Land use and planning generally considers the compatibility of a proposed project with neighboring areas, change to, or displacement of existing uses, compliance with zoning regulations, and consistency of a proposed project with relevant local land use policies that have been adopted with the intent to mitigate or avoid an environmental effect. With respect to land use conflicts or compatibility issues, the magnitude of these impacts depends on how a proposed project affects the existing development pattern, development intensity, traffic circulation, noise, and visual setting in the immediately surrounding area, which are generally discussed in the respective sections. Based on the Project Sponsor’s project description and the conceptual plans presented to the City Council in a study session (May 2016), there are two conditions of the current Project design that may require a Special or Conditional Use Permits. The proposed building height of 66 feet exceed the current 55-foot height limit of the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) zoning district. The Project description also identifies mid-block ground floor residential uses, when residential uses in the HMU zoning district are only permitted on the upper floors only. The Project will be subject to Design Review approval. ICF will review the Specific Plan and incorporate relevant background information and goals/policies into the EIR. The EIR will describe existing land uses, intensities, and patterns in the vicinity of the Project site and the compatibility of the proposed land uses and zoning with current onsite and offsite development. Additionally, the analysis will consider consistency with the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport and flight path impacts on the proposed building heights. The analysis will describe the Project’s potential to divide an established community and Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 9 evaluate any potential conflicts between the proposed and current land uses that would result in environmental impacts. These conflicts could include a use that would create a nuisance for adjacent properties or result in incompatibility with surrounding land uses, such as differences in the physical scale of development, noise levels, traffic levels, or hours of operation. The analysis will identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for conflicts. Mineral Resources. ICF will describe existing conditions at the Project site and identify the mineral resources zone classification for soils at the site. It is anticipated that the site does not contain significant mineral resources. Population/Housing. ICF will present existing population projects for the City from the General Plan Draft EIR and ABAG projections. The analysis will focus on the direct increase in population due to residents and employees generated by the Project uses on site and. It is not anticipated that the Project would directly induce substantial population growth. Public Services/Recreation. The increase in residents and employees at the Project site could affect City public service providers, including police, fire, parks (recreation), schools, and libraries. Additional onsite residents and employees as compared to existing conditions would likely increase calls for service, creating an additional burden on the Burlingame Police Department and the Central County Fire Department. The Project would involve new residential uses; therefore, the Project may directly increase the number of school-aged children in the area. In addition, residents and employees could use the Burlingame Main Library or visit nearby parks. These potential public services impacts will be analyzed in the EIR. Additionally, considering the Project’s proposed on-site open space, the analysis will also evaluate the change in access to existing recreation facilities and any associated deterioration of these facilities. Utilities/Service Systems. The increase in residents and employees at the Project site could affect utilities and service systems, including water, wastewater, storm water, and electricity/gas. ICF will describe existing utility providers, system capacity, and improvement plans drawing from the information provided in the Specific Plan IS/MND and General Plan Draft EIR. A Preliminary Infrastructure Needs Analysis (November 2016) has been prepared for the Project and provides a preliminary analysis of the Project’s domestic water, fire flow, sanitary sewage flow, stormwater flows, and power demands. ICF will summarize the findings in the Preliminary Infrastructure Needs Analysis and evaluate the net change in the demand for water, wastewater, solid waste, and energy, relative to existing and planned capacity for the utilities. The EIR will discuss whether implications of the Project trigger the expansion or construction of new infrastructure or facilities. The analysis will identify SCAs, as warranted, and how these apply to the Project to reduce the potential for impacts. Air Quality In accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) 2017 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), projects under a certain size do not require a quantitative analysis of criteria pollutant emissions and impacts are considered less than significant. Although the Project could be considered to be below the BAAQMD’s screening level sizes for construction and operational criteria pollutants based on the number of residential units and retail space, ICF proposes a quantitative analysis for construction and operational emissions. The BAAQMD screening criteria does not address health risks associated with a project; as such, a quantitative health risk assessment (HRA) (discussed below) will be required and will necessitate a quantitative evaluation of criteria pollutants, namely fine particulate matter Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 10 (PM2.5). Additionally, the Project would not meet the BAAQMD’s screening criteria for operational GHG emissions, and the screening criteria do not address GHG emissions from construction activity (the approach for GHG analysis is described in the Greenhouse Gas section). Consequently, ICF will prepare a quantitative analysis of construction and operational criteria pollutant emissions, because such an analysis will also be needed to determine the emissions for the HRA and operational and construction GHG analysis, as described above. ICF will quantify construction-related emissions of ROG, NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 using an approved modeling methodology, such as the CalEEMod model, and construction data (i.e., construction schedule and equipment) for the Project provided by the Project Sponsor. Where Project-specific data are unavailable, we will use default values from CalEEMod. The analysis will address construction-related mitigation measures required by BAAQMD, including adherence to BAAQMD rules and regulations. Estimated construction emissions will then be compared to the BAAQMD’s construction emission thresholds to determine the Project’s significance for construction activities. For operations, ICF will use the traffic data (i.e., trip generation rates) from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants to estimate operational emissions from Project-related vehicle emissions based on approved methodologies, such as the CalEEMod model and the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) EMFAC model. Motor vehicle emission estimates will be based on motor vehicle activity (number of trips, trip length) estimated by the traffic analysis prepared by the transportation engineers. Operational emissions associated with area sources (i.e., landscaping, paints space and water heating, and consumer products) will also be estimated based on the CalEEMod model. Construction of the Project would result in emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC), which could impact sensitive receptors. ICF will complete the following tasks to evaluate potential health risks associated with Project construction: Document existing air quality conditions. Describe the existing environmental conditions and the current air quality regulatory environment as it applies to the Project. Describe the general locations of existing sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity. Prepare a project-level HRA for construction activities to estimate potential health risks to existing sensitive receptors near the Project site, particularly 2nd floor residences in the buildings adjacent to the site. ICF will work with the Project Sponsor to obtain the most accurate and realistic construction schedule and equipment information for the Project. Construction emissions for diesel-related exhaust as determined from the criteria pollutant analysis will be used to evaluate health risks to nearby receptors from exposure to construction-related diesel particulate matter (DPM) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exhaust emissions using the AERMOD dispersion model. These will be compared to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance to determine project-level impacts. Evaluate health risks to nearby sensitive receptors on a cumulative basis by evaluating the contribution of existing TAC sources located within 1,000 feet of the Project site boundary to health risks associated with construction activities. Where significant impacts are identified, we will identify mitigation measures (including those recommended and required by the BAAQMD designed to reduce the significance of Project- related air impacts). Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 11 The Project would involve residential and retail development, the operation of which is not typically associated with substantial sources of toxic air contaminants. Thus, it is anticipated that there would not be substantial sources of emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) during the operational phase of the Project. For the assessment of CO impacts during Project operation, data from the Project’s transportation analysis will be reviewed to determine the need for localized CO modeling, consistent with the BAAQMD’s CO screening procedures. In the event that the screening analysis indicates a quantitative CO analysis is necessary, ICF will use the CALINE4 model and the latest version of ARB emission factors to estimate CO concentrations at up to 3 intersections for each year analyzed in the transportation analyses. CO impacts will be assessed by evaluating whether each project meets the ambient air quality requirements for localized pollutants by determining whether it causes or contributes to an exceedance of state or federal CO standards. Optional Task: Operational Health Risk Assessment (HRA) The City has requested that an optional task to evaluate health risks associated with operation of the Project be included in the SOW. Based on the California Supreme Court Decision in the California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, the exposure of new proposed-project residences to existing toxic air contaminant pollutant concentrations is not a required analysis under CEQA, unless the project would exacerbate the effect of toxic air contaminants on new project residents. Based on the description of the Project provided by the Project Sponsor, ICF does not anticipate any substantial sources of TAC emissions that would occur during project operation; thus, we propose a qualitative discussion for the impacts of existing TAC emissions on the Project residents, which would not require an additional cost to this SOW. If it is determined that the Project would include appreciable sources of TAC emissions, such as truck-loading docks, a substantial amount of diesel generators, or would otherwise result in additional diesel vehicle traffic, a quantitative assessment of health risks will be conducted. Accordingly, ICF is including the following as an optional task: The quantitative HRA will evaluate the impact of the Project on the existing environment in addition to the impact of the Project on new Project residents. Additionally, if the Project would substantially increase vehicle traffic on El Camino Real through Burlingame, ICF will use the BAAQMD’s roadway screening calculator to determine the resulting health risks. The exact scope of the operational HRA is dependent on the number and types of sources that could potentially be present at the Project site. Our anticipated cost associated with a typical operational HRA is included in our cost estimate table presented in Appendix C. However, if it is determined that there are a large number or any atypical sources of TAC emissions associated with the Project, a revised SOW and budget would be required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ICF will prepare an analysis of climate change impacts. The climate change analysis will focus on the greenhouse gases (GHG) of greatest concern, carbon dioxide, (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) that will be generated by construction and operation of the Project. ICF’s climate change specialists will prepare a climate change analysis describing existing conditions, the Project’s impacts to climate change and impacts to the Project resulting from climate change, and mitigation measures designed to reduce the significance of Project-related climate change impacts. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 12 The climate change analysis will discuss that the City’s 2009 Climate Action Plan (CAP) is not considered to be a qualified reduction strategy, and we will coordinate with the City to determine the status of the CAP update as part of the City’s General Plan update to determine if it may be used for project-level CEQA analyses in the City. If it is determined that the City’s CAP update will not be certified in the timeframe of the Project or is otherwise unavailable for CEQA tiering, we will evaluate the impacts of the Project based on criteria that will be developed specific to the Project. ICF will conduct the following tasks: Describe the key concepts of climate change in the project setting, the GHGs of greatest concern, and the current climate change regulatory environment as it applies to the Project. In the impacts section, ICF will evaluate the Project’s contribution towards climate change. ICF will perform a quantitative analysis of construction and operational emissions associated with the Project and use significance criteria developed for the Project,2 based on the BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Guidelines. As discussed above, the Project does not meet the BAAQMD screening criteria specific to operational greenhouse gas emissions. ICF will quantify construction-related GHG emissions resulting from on- and off-road fuel combustion, which will be estimated based on the CalEEMod emissions model, other accepted protocols and methodologies (i.e., Climate Registry’s General Reporting Protocol, CAPCOA’s Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, etc.), and construction data (i.e., anticipated construction schedule and equipment) provided by the Project Sponsor. ICF will quantify direct and indirect GHG emissions related to Project operations. We will use traffic data (i.e., trip generation rates) from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants and the CalEEMod model to estimate operational GHG emissions from vehicular trips resulting from the Project. GHG emissions associated with operational area sources (i.e., landscaping and space heating), energy consumption (electricity, natural gas), water consumption, and waste and wastewater generation will be quantified using default consumption, generation, and emission factor data from the CalEEMod model, as well as other accepted protocols and methodologies (The Climate Registry, CAPCOA, California Energy Commission [CEC], etc.). In the event that Project- specific data is not available, default CalEEMod values will be replaced with this data. In the event the Project results in changes in vegetation and land cover, ICF will also evaluate changes in GHG emissions associated with land use and vegetation changes. To ensure the analysis of GHG emissions is consistent with the recent Cleveland National Forest Foundation, et al v. San Diego Association of Governments (2017) and Center for Biological Diversity v. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Newhall Ranch) (2015) court decisions and the GHG target outlined under Senate Bill 32 (i.e., post-2020 emissions), ICF will quantify operational GHG emissions based on the CalEEMod emissions model to determine whether the Project would be consistent with California’s climate goals for 2030. 2 This will be done if, as discussed above, the City’s CAP update will not be available for tiering. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 13 Cultural Resources Cultural Resources Technical Report. ICF will prepare a Cultural Resources Technical Report to consider the Project’s potential impacts to cultural resources (including historic built and archeological resources) as defined by CEQA. ICF will conduct the following tasks in preparation of the cultural resources analysis: Review Background Materials, Conduct Records Search, and Site Visit. This task will require review of background documentation on the property (including the Specific Plan Inventory of Historic Resources [October 2008], Postal Historic Structure Report for Burlingame Main Post Office [February 2013], and the 220 Park Road Preservation Covenant Language); a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC); outreach to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC); a desktop-based review of buried archaeological site sensitivity; Assembly Bill (AB) 52 consultation support; and a brief historic built resource reconnaissance survey to examine existing conditions. The following assumptions are included in this task: No archaeological fieldwork will be required to complete this task. ICF will prepare outreach letters to the NAHC and the individuals that the NAHC identifies. Follow-up with individuals that the NAHC identifies will consist of up to two telephone calls to each individual. ICF will tier NAHC outreach activities from any recent outreach efforts conducted as part of the City’s General Plan update. ICF's AB 52 consultation support will include authoring and submitting AB 52 consultation letters to Native American tribes on behalf of the City, documenting responses from Native American tribes, integrating any information into the EIR section, and providing all documentation to the City. Project Sponsor will provide access to the property and will coordinate any necessary site access and safety precautions. Attend Project Design Meetings. A key part of the cultural resources analysis will involve meeting with the Project development and design team, including the Project architect and historic consultant (as applicable), before the Project design is finalized so that ICF can improve our understanding of the objectives and constraints of the Project. This will inform the review of potential Project impacts. ICF will participate in meetings to advise the team on strategies to reach conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties (Standards) with regards to the existing Post Office building on the Project site. Projects that are found to comply with the Standards are typically considered to have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources during CEQA review. ICF also notes that compliance with the Standards is a condition in the 220 Park Road Preservation Covenant Language. ICF will attend up to two meetings with the Project team to provide comments on the Project design's compliance with the Standards. If additional meetings are requested or required to review additional iterations of the project design, ICF will request a contract amendment in order to attend these meetings. Complete Cultural Resources Technical Report. ICF will complete a Cultural Resources Technical Report, which will summarize the prehistoric and ethnographic context of the Project site, the methods and results of the NWIC records search, NAHC outreach, and AB 52 consultation. Additionally, the report will assess the Project’s conformance with the Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 14 Standards with regards to built environment resources. The existing Post Office building at the Project site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and is considered a historical resource for CEQA review purposes. ICF will coordinate with the Project development and design team and will provide independent and impartial analysis of the Project design’s conformance with the Standards. If the Project design is found not to be in compliance with the Standards, the report will include measures that can be incorporated into the Project to improve its Standards compliance. The report will also analyze potential Project impacts on surrounding historical resources, such as the nearby Burlingame Hotel at 283-287 Lorton Avenue. The analysis in the report will inform an assessment of the Project’s impacts on cultural resources under CEQA. The following assumptions are included in this task: ICF will complete the Cultural Resources Technical Report, which will include a Standards analysis in response to one set of design drawings provided by the Project Sponsor. If Project design is adjusted following the completion of the report, ICF will request a contract amendment in order to revise the report based on the updated design. ICF assumes no additional age-eligible resources are located within or surrounding the Project site that require evaluation for listing in the National Register or California Register eligibility evaluations will be conducted. EIR Section. Based on the results of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, ICF will prepare the cultural resources section in the EIR. To complete the CEQA analysis, ICF will conduct the following tasks: Describe the regulatory framework for cultural resources, including federal, state, and local agencies, laws, and regulations. Summarize the findings of the Cultural Resources Technical Report, which include the results of the NWIC records search, NAHC outreach, AB52 consultation, and assessment of the Project’s impacts on historic architectural resources, in order to make conclusions regarding the Project’s level of potential impacts on cultural resources under CEQA. As necessary, discuss alternatives and identify Project-specific mitigation measures. The following assumptions are included in this task: ICF assumes that no consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office is required per the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Implementation of mitigation measures is not included in this SOW. Noise ICF will prepare a noise and vibration impact analysis that employs standard noise and vibration modeling techniques consistent with the requirements of the City of Burlingame Noise Element and noise section of the City’s municipal code. ICF will address the following key noise issues: Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to noise and vibration associated with demolition and construction activity. Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to Project-related changes in traffic noise. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 15 Exposure of existing noise sensitive land uses to operational noise from the Project site (mechanical equipment, parking lots, loading docks, etc.). Exposure of proposed noise-sensitive uses on the Project site to existing or potential future sources of noise. Primary noise sources in the Project vicinity include local and regional roadway traffic, including traffic along California Drive. Noise-sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include predominantly office and commercial land uses, as well as some residential uses, located adjacent to the project site on all sides. Other sensitive receptors could be identified during the screening process or during the optional noise field survey (discussed below). Due to the development intensity at the Project site, the Project will likely result in greater noise levels as compared to existing conditions. Traffic noise will be evaluated along up to a maximum of 10 roadways segments under the following conditions using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) and traffic data prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. A Project scenario and cumulative scenario will be evaluated for the noise analysis. It is assumed that traffic data from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants will include average annual daily traffic volumes, posted speeds, and heavy truck percentages for each roadway segment. City of Burlingame noise standards and other noise standards as applicable will be summarized. In the setting section, existing sources of noise in the Project area will be identified along with existing noise-sensitive land uses in the Project area. Existing noise levels in the Project area will be characterized based on noise measurements from the Specific Plan IS/MND, the City’s General Plan Draft EIR (when available), and traffic noise modeling, as follows: Existing traffic noise conditions in the Project area will be modeled using TNM and traffic data from the traffic analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants. In the impact section CEQA significance thresholds will be established based on applicable City noise standards. Demolition and construction noise will be evaluated using construction noise modeling methods recommended by the U.S. Department of Transportation and construction equipment data to be provided by the Project Sponsor. Noise generated by facility operations, including noise sources such as loading docks, outdoor gathering areas, parking lots, and mechanical equipment, will be evaluated using standard acoustical modeling methods and operational data provided by the Project Sponsor. Where significant noise impacts are identified, SCAs or mitigation will be identified to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level (where feasible). Noise mitigation will be described at a level that is appropriate for environmental review and not at a design level of detail. Optional Task: Noise Measurements and Field Survey Noise measurements document the existing noise levels in the Project area before the Project is developed. The scope above assumes that measurements taken for the Specific Plan IS/MND and measurement provided in the City’s General Plan Draft EIR (when available) are adequate for this purpose. If there has been substantial development in the Project area since that time, it is likely that noise levels have changed. If this is the case, updated noise measurements would be appropriate. Accordingly, ICF is including the following as an optional task: ICF will conduct short-term (15 minutes or less) noise monitoring at up to two locations in the Project area. Continuous long-term monitoring (24 hours or more) will be conducted at Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 16 up to two locations in the Project area. The cost associated with this task is included in our cost estimate table presented in Appendix C. Transportation/Traffic ICF reached out to multiple transportation firms to determine the how to best serve the City and the CEQA process. Ultimately, after reviewing various approaches, ICF has selected Hexagon Transportation Consultants to prepare a new Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) report and EIR section due to their existing work in the City and deep familiarity with downtown Burlingame. ICF has a long and successful history of working with Hexagon. Although TJKM prepared a Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report (June 2016) for the Project, ICF and Hexagon Transportation Consultants propose a new TIA report for the Project to evaluate study intersections that were not evaluated in the Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report, which would likely be affected by the Project. This recommendation is based on ICF and Hexagon Transportation Consultants’ current work on The Village At Burlingame Project, which is also in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The full scope of work for the Transportation analysis is included as Appendix B. We have also included an optional task for a TIA peer review should the City and project applicant select this approach. If the optional peer review task is selected, the new TIA will not move forward and the budget will be adjusted accordingly. It is ICF and Hexagon’s recommendation, based on our experience with adjacent projects, that a new TIA be prepared. It is our professional opinion that the TIA previously prepared for the 220 Park Road Project does not include the intersections most likely to experience impacts. To conduct the peer review, Hexagon would review all input assumptions for the traffic study, including traffic counts, trip generation and assignment, and level of service calculations. Hexagon would also review the conclusions, recommendations, and analysis of alternative transportation modes. Deliverables: Five hard copies of Administrative Draft EIR with CD attachments of the appendices. One electronic copy of the Administrative Draft EIR in MS Word via email. Task 4. Project Alternatives and Other CEQA Considerations The purpose of this task is to complete drafts of the remaining sections (Alternatives and Other CEQA Considerations) of the EIR for City staff review. This task involves preparation of other required sections examining particular aspects of the Project’s effects and the identification and comparison of Project alternatives. Other CEQA Considerations This task involves documenting unavoidable adverse impacts, growth-inducing effects, and cumulative effects of the Project: The unavoidable effects will be summarized from analyses performed in Task 3. Growth-inducing effects will be based on economic multipliers for the proposed uses (these multipliers provide information on direct and induced growth and were developed by ABAG for the regional input-output model), as well as comparisons with ABAG Projections for the City. Growth inducement will be discussed in the context of population increases, utility and public services demands, infrastructure, and land use. The energy use of the Project will be analyzed consistent with Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines. Although Appendix F is highly vague in providing useable significance criteria, Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 17 ICF will provide an energy analysis as a cautionary approach. It is probable that this analysis will conclude that the energy impacts are less than significant as it is probable that the Project’s energy use will not be “wasteful,” “inefficient,” or “unnecessary.” Cumulative effects where relevant will be addressed in Task 3 and analyzed as part of this section of the EIR. The future projects in the vicinity of the Project site will be considered as they relate to potential cumulative. ICF will work with the City to help develop the approach for analyzing cumulative effects, typically a combination of using the General Plan and a list of reasonably foreseeable planned projects. Alternatives The alternatives to the Project must serve to substantially avoid or reduce at least one, if not more, of the significant impacts identified for the Project while feasibly attaining most of the Project objectives. ICF assumes that at least two Project alternatives will be analyzed, both at a qualitative and quantitative level, and will be based on a sensitivity analysis to reduce identified impacts. The No Project Alternative would be qualitatively analyzed and could potentially be a scenario where the existing entitlements were developed. This scope assumes that offsite alternatives will be dismissed due to the lack of a suitable large site in the vicinity that can meet the Project Sponsor’s objectives and that the Project team will provide supporting evidence to that conclusion. Deliverables: Other CEQA Considerations chapter to be submitted with Administrative Draft EIR. Alternatives chapter to be submitted with Administrative Draft EIR. Task 5. Screencheck Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to prepare the Screencheck Draft EIR for City staff review. ICF will prepare a Screencheck Draft EIR to respond to the City’s comments on the Administrative Draft EIR. This scope assumes that comments from multiple reviewers will be consolidated with any conflicting comments are resolved, and that comments do not result in substantial revisions or additional analyses. Deliverables: Two hard copies of Screencheck Draft EIR with CD attachments of the appendices. One electronic copy of the Screencheck Draft EIR in MS Word via email. Task 6. Public Draft EIR The purpose of this task is to prepare and submit the Draft EIR to the City for distribution to the public. ICF will revise the Screencheck Draft EIR to incorporate modifications identified by the City. The revised document will be circulated among the public agencies and the general public as well as specific individuals, organizations, and agencies expressing an interest in receiving the document. During this task, ICF will also compile the appendices that will be distributed with the Draft EIR and produce a version of the full document that can be uploaded onto the City’s website. ICF will also prepare an NOC to accompany the copies that must be sent to the State Clearinghouse. This scope of work and budget assumes that ICF will file the required documents and Draft EIR with the State Clearinghouse and the City will distribute the Draft EIRs to all other recipients. This scope of work includes printing of the Draft EIR. ICF will also prepare the Notice of Availability, which will be filed and published by the City. Deliverables: 25 hard copies of the Draft EIR with CDs of appendices. Electronic copies of the Draft EIR in MS Word and in Adobe PDF format via email. 15 hard copies of the Executive Summary and 15 CDs of the Draft EIR per State Clearinghouse filing requirements. Notice of Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 18 Completion and Notice of Availability in Word and Adobe PDF. Additional hardcopies can be printed at a cost of approximately $120 to $200, depending on the size of the document. Task 7. Public Review and Hearings The City will provide a 45-day review period during which public agencies and the public will have an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR. ICF will be available to attend two public hearings during the public review period. ICF will prepare the PowerPoint presentation, present findings, and answer specific questions (the extent to which will be discussed with City and Project Sponsor beforehand) at any or all of the public hearings. Similar to the NOP comments, ICF will prepare a summary of all public comments received during the public review period and identify any comments on topics not already in the Draft EIR. A total of five public hearings are assumed in our SOW. If more than two public hearings are required during the public review period, we can reallocate our meetings as necessary. Deliverables: PowerPoint presentation, comment summary matrix and corresponding memo. Task 8. Draft Responses to Comments The purpose of this task is to prepare responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR and incorporate these responses into a Responses to Comments document for City and Project Sponsor review. The document will include: Comments received on the Draft EIR, including a list of all commenters and the full comment letters and public meeting transcripts with individual comments marked and numbered; and Responses to all comments. All substantive comments for each written and oral comment will be reviewed, bracketed, and coded for a response. Prior to preparing responses, ICF will meet with staff to review the comments and suggest strategies for preparing responses. This step is desirable to ensure that all substantive comments are being addressed and that the appropriate level of response will be prepared. This scope of work and budget assumes ICF will prepare responses for up to 100 substantive discrete, non-repeating individual comments and will coordinate integrating the responses prepared by other consultants. However, the number and content of public comments is unknown at this time. Therefore, following the close of the Draft EIR public review period and receipt of all public comments, if comments exceed assumptions above and City required responses, ICF will provide a revised budget associated with this effort to the Project Sponsor. Alternatively, ICF could bill on a time and materials basis for additional comments using an agreed-upon average cost for each additional comment (typically from $400-$700 per substantive comment depending on complexity). Frequently raised comments of a substantive nature may be responded to in a Master Response, which allows for a comprehensive response to be presented upfront for all interested commenters. ICF will identify and recommend possible Master Reponses for City consideration during the initial meeting to discuss strategies for preparing responses. Following the strategy session, ICF will prepare Master Responses (as appropriate) and individual responses to the bracketed and coded comments. Individual responses to each comment letter will be placed immediately after the comment letter. As necessary, responses may indicate text revisions, in addition to clarifications and explanations. All text changes stemming from the responses to the comments, as well as those suggested by City staff, will be compiled into an errata included as part of the Final EIR. Our budget presumes that revisions to Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 19 the Draft EIR will be explanatory and clarifying in nature and will not require new technical or quantitative analysis. Deliverables: Five hard copies of the Administrative Draft Responses to Comments document. Electronic copies Administrative Draft Responses to Comments document in MS Word and in Adobe PDF format. Task 9. Final EIR and Certification Hearings Following City’s review of the Administrative Draft Responses to Comments document, ICF will address all comments received and prepare an Administrative Draft Final EIR for City and Project Sponsor review. This document will contain the revised Responses to Comments and an errata for changes to the Draft EIR. The errata will show all changes made in responses to comments in underline and strikethrough. Following City and Project Sponsor review of the Administrative Draft Final EIR, ICF will prepare the Final EIR to be sent to decision makers. The Final EIR will then consist of the Draft EIR (incorporating all revisions), the Responses to Comments document, the Findings (part of Task 10), and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (part of Task 10). In addition, team members will attend and participate in up to two public hearings to certify the EIR. If requested by City staff, ICF will present the conclusions of the EIR and a summary of the comments and responses. In addition, following the preparation of the Final EIR, it may be necessary to assist City staff with responding to additional EIR comments that come up during the certification process. For scope and budgeting purposes, it is assumed that ICF will assist with drafting responses for up to 20 discrete, non-repeating comments. A total of five public hearings are assumed in our SOW. If more than two public hearings are required to certify the EIR, we can reallocate our meetings as necessary. Following certification of the EIR and approval of the Project, ICF will prepare the Notice of Determination (NOD) for City staff and Project Sponsor review. ICF will file the NOD with the State Clearinghouse within five working days after the City approves the Project. This scope of work and budget assumes that ICF will file the required documents and Final EIR with the State Clearinghouse. City staff will print and distribute for local posting/filing. It is assumed the City will be responsible for the payment of filing fees. This scope of work includes printing of the Final EIR. Deliverables: Electronic copies Administrative Draft Final EIR document in MS Word and in Adobe PDF format. 25 hard copies of the Final EIR with CDs of appendices. Electronic copies of the Final EIR in MS Word and in Adobe PDF format via email. Notice of Determination in Word and Adobe PDF. Task 10. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings/Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Administrative Record As part of this task, ICF will also prepare a draft and final MMRP for the Project, as required by Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The MMRP will be in a tabular format and include: The SCAs or mitigation measures to be implemented The entity responsible for implementing a particular SCA or measure The entity responsible for verifying that a particular SCA or measure has been completed Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 20 A monitoring milestone(s) or action(s) to mark implementation/completion of a SCA or mitigation measure In addition, in conjunction with the City, ICF will prepare the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance the economic, legal, social, and technological benefits of a Project against its unavoidable environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations includes the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and other information in the record. ICF will also prepare CEQA Findings describing each significant impact, including mitigation and alternatives. ICF will also submit a full Administrative Record documenting and providing backup for all information cited sources in the EIR. This will be submitted on DVD with an accompanying matrix indexing each entry. Deliverables: Electronic copies of the Draft and Final MMRP in MS Word and Adobe PDF format (if necessary). Five hard copies of the Revised Final MMRP (if necessary). Two electronic copies (on DVD) of the Administrative Record (submitted at the Draft EIR phase and the Final EIR phase). Electronic copies of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings in MS Word and Adobe PDF format. Five hard copies of the Statement of Overriding Considerations and Findings (if necessary). Task 11. Project Management and Meetings The purpose of this task is to effectively manage the above tasks, and maintain communication with City staff. ICF project management will be responsible for coordination activities, will maintain QA/QC requirements for document preparation, and will monitor schedule and performance for all EIR work tasks. Project management subtasks also include maintaining internal communications among ICF staff and subconsultants and with City staff and other team members through emails and frequent phone contact, as well as the preparation of all correspondence. The Project Manager will coordinate internal staff, project guidance, and analysis criteria. This task also includes attending meetings to accomplish the above tasks. Team members will attend and participate in meetings on an as-needed basis. For purposes of the cost estimates, ICF has assumed 5 City staff and/or Project Sponsor face-to-face meetings (excluding public hearings, as described above) and 20 additional phone conference calls. These meetings are in addition to what is already assumed in the preceding tasks. Additional meetings may be appropriate during the course of this effort, and will be invoiced on a time-and-materials basis. The estimated cost for additional meetings is included in the discussion of the Project budget. In terms of progress reporting, ICF will prepare a brief progress report every month documenting the key accomplishments on the CEQA process, schedule progress, and identification of any key issues that have arisen that may affect the EIR, budget, or schedule. ICF will also report key deliverable (i.e., Admin. Draft EIR) progress both in terms of percent complete as well as costs incurred to examine task burn rates to determine if cost progress is matching deliverable progress, as necessary. 4. COST ESTIMATE The cost estimate for the services described above is included as Appendix C to this proposal. ICF will invoice monthly, on a time and materials basis. Proposal to Prepare an EIR for the 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project Revised 6-19-2018 Page 21 5. SCHEDULE Our preliminary project schedule is included as Appendix D. APPENDIX A – PREVISION DESIGN SCOPE OF WORK 995 Market Street, 2nd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94103 | 415 498 0141 Page 1 of 4 Erin Efner, Principal ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 March 28, 2018 Proposal for CEQA Visual Simulations: 220 Park Road, Burlingame CA Dear Erin, PreVision Design is pleased to present this proposal to ICF for the generation of visual simulations for the proposed mixed-use development at 220 Park Road in Burlingame, California. A total of 3 viewpoints for visual simulations are assumed by this proposal. A. SCOPE OF WORK DETAILS 3D Modeling (4 hours) The client will provide PreVision Design with CAD drawings of the proposed project’s improvements as well as exterior finish information (colors, materials, etc.). Additionally, the client will furnish a CAD site survey and/or a site plan with referenced grade elevations shall be provided to accurately locate the improvements. PreVision Design will use this information to generate a 3D model of the improvements. Site Photography (4 hours, including travel time) We will perform a site visit to take photographs from an array of potentially desired viewpoints, to be determined based on input by ICF/City of Burlingame. Photo Compositing (3 hours) Using the selected viewpoint photos, we will align the 3D model view to match the perspective and scale of each selected viewpoint photo. Visual Simulations (12 hours) Using photoreal rendering techniques, we will generate preliminary photo simulations of the project in each of the viewpoint’s context for the client’s review and comment. Upon approval of these draft views, final views will be generated which will include fine tuning, and photoshop work to clean up foreground and background details. B. PROPOSED FEES The total fee allowance to generate three visual simulations is $5,175 A breakout of itemized fees per additional scope/deliverable is as follows: Add Scope Additional Fee Changes project design or materials (after work is started/completed) T&M Additional Site Visit(s) T&M + Mileage Fees Additional Visual Simulation Viewpoints $750 per viewpoint Project Alternative Simulations $450 + T&M for modelling Attendance at meetings, hearings T&M + Mileage Fees 995 Market Street, 2nd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94103 | 415 498 0141 Page 2 of 4 Fee Qualifications: 1. Listed fees are for professional services and named deliverables only, are based on the scope of work as understood at this proposal was prepared, and are subject to change due to changes in the scope of work. 2. Work performed at client’s behest beyond the above-outlined scope of work, including attendance at meetings and/or public hearings shall be subject to additional fees, billed hourly as Extra Services at the rates per the attached Schedule of Charges. C. PAYMENT SCHEDULE Progress billing shall occur monthly on the 1st of each month with amount due reflecting percentage completion. Invoices shall be sent electronically via email (unless paper copies are requested) and are considered due upon receipt and shall be deemed delinquent after 30 days. D. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY 1. The proposed visual simulations produced are presented as reasonable and economical approximations of the visual characteristics of the proposed project based on data provided. PreVision Design is indemnified and held harmless from any actions arising from their accuracy and any errors on the part of PreVision Design will be corrected as a matter of course at no additional cost to the client. 2. PreVision Design has the right rely on the accuracy and completeness of any client supplied materials. 3. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Client agrees to limit PreVision Design’s liability for the Client’s damages to PreVision Design’s total fee. This limitation shall apply regardless of the cause of action or legal theory pled or asserted. 4. Each party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party and its employees, members, land-lord, successors, and assigns, from any claims, liabilities, losses, damages, and expenses asserted against the other party arising out of the performance of any of its duties or obligations under this Agreement, however this indemnification shall not extend to cover acts of willful misconduct and/or gross negligence. The provisions of this indemnification are solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or otherwise, to another person or entity. E. OTHER PROVISIONS & DISCLOSURES 1. This Contract shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located. 2. Neither party to this Contract shall assign the contract as a whole without written consent of the other. 3. Nothing contained in this Contract shall create a contractual relationship with, or a cause of action in favor of, a third party against either the Client or PreVision Design. 4. Contract may be terminated by either party by providing written notice. Upon termination, prorated fees for any work performed since the last invoice shall be paid to PreVision Design. 5. PreVision Design maintains the following insurance coverage (per occurrence/aggregate limits): a. Commercial General Liability (1M/2M) b. Professional Liability Errors & Omissions (1M/1M) 995 Market Street, 2nd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94103 | 415 498 0141 Page 3 of 4 March 28, 2018 c. Workers Compensation (1M/1M) d. Business Auto (1M/1M) 6. Disclosure: PreVision Design is a DBA for Adam Phillips Architectural Corporation. For the purposes of this contract no distinction shall be drawn between these entities. F. ACCEPTANCE If this proposal is acceptable, please sign below and return to PreVision Design to execute this contract and proceed. This unsigned proposal shall expire 30 days from its submission. ____________________________________________ _________________________ Adam Phillips, Principal Date Client Authorization: ____________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Client or Authorized Agent Date Printed Name: _______________________________ Title: _______________________________ 995 Market Street, 2nd Floor | San Francisco, CA 94103 | 415 498 0141 Page 4 of 4 2018 Schedule of Charges Effective January 1st, 2018 STAFF BILLING RATES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES Adam Phillips, Principal $225 / hr REIMBURSABLE CHARGES The following charges are in addition to personnel fees: Auto Mileage IRS Standard Mileage Rates CD-ROM $15.00 / ea Printing and reproduction (per sheet) Black & White Prints/Copies (Letter) $0.25 Black & White Prints/Copies (Ledger/Super B) $1.00 Presentation Color (letter size) $4.00 Large Format prints/plots (outsourced) Cost + 10% Unless otherwise specified by contract, charges for all outside consultant and other reimbursable expenses are computed on the basis of cost plus 10%. PAYMENT METHOD Invoices shall be prepared and sent via email (unless hard copy is requested) on a monthly basis. Billing shall reflect hours spent and/or project progress and shall be due and payable within 30 days of the invoice date. Failure of the client to make payments within 30 days shall be taken as a directive to cease all work until payment is received. Past due payments shall additionally be subject to interest at the prevailing rate. CHANGES IN BILLING RATES AND POLICIES The rates shown on the schedule of charges are reviewed yearly and are then reissued if modified. Unless specified by contract, charges to all projects (including those continuing from the previous schedule) will be based on the latest schedule of charges. APPENDIX B – HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS SCOPE OF WORK April 9, 2018 Ms. Kirsten Chapman ICF International 620 Folsom Street, 2nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94107 Re: Proposal to Prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Report for the Proposed Park Square Mixed-Use Development at 220 Park Avenue in Burlingame, California Dear Ms. Chapman: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and the Draft EIR transportation section for the proposed Park Square mixed-use development at 220 Park Avenue in Burlingame, California. The project proposes to redevelop the former US Post Office site and the adjoining City-owned surface parking lot with a five-story, mixed-use residential building. The mixed-use development would consist of 50,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor and 128 residential units above the retail space. Currently, the site is occupied by the vacant post office building and City Parking Lot E. Access to the project site would be provided via two full-access driveways on Lorton Avenue. Parking would be provided via a subterranean parking garage, which would also include designated for public parking, to replace the loss of public parking spaces in Lot E. This scope of services was developed by Hexagon staff based on our knowledge of City of Burlingame and San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) transportation study requirements, as well as our past experience with preparing various traffic studies for projects within the City of Burlingame. A previous study was completed for the site in 2016 by TJKM. However, the TJKM study looked at different study intersections. Hexagon just completed a scope of work that was approved by Burlingame for the Village at Burlingame project, which is located a block away from this project site. The Village at Burlingame study includes a completely different set of intersections. Our proposed scope of work must be reviewed and approved by Burlingame staff prior to our commencement of the study. The Scope of Services provided below is therefore subject to change. We will inform you if the City requests additional work elements not included in our proposal that would affect the project schedule or budget. Scope of Services The purpose of the updated transportation study is to satisfy the requirements of the City of Burlingame and C/CAG and to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed mixed-use development on key intersections in the vicinity of the site. The traffic analysis will include an analysis of weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions at nearby intersections within the surrounding roadway network. The nine (9) signalized and three (3) unsignalized intersections that we propose to study are identified below. Ms. Kirsten Chapman April 9, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Study Intersections: 1. California Drive and Burlingame Avenue 2. California Drive and Howard Avenue 3. California Drive and Bayswater Avenue 4. California Drive and Peninsula Avenue 5. Lorton Avenue and Burlingame Avenue (unsignalized) 6. Lorton Avenue and Howard Avenue (unsignalized) 7. Park Road and Burlingame Avenue (unsignalized) 8. Park Road and Howard Avenue 9. El Camino Real and Burlingame Avenue 10. El Camino Real and Howard Avenue 11. El Camino Real and Bayswater Avenue 12. El Camino Real and Peninsula Avenue The tasks to be included in the traffic analysis are: 1. Site Reconnaissance and Existing Conditions. The physical characteristics of the site and the surrounding roadway network will be reviewed to identify existing roadway cross- sections, intersection lane configurations, traffic control devices, and surrounding land uses. Observations of existing traffic conditions will be made to identify any operational deficiencies and to confirm the accuracy of the calculated levels of service. 2. Data Collection. New manual peak-hour turning movement counts will be conducted during the typical weekday peak commute hours (7-9 AM and 4-6 PM) at each study location where the available count data is outdated (more than two years old). Trip generation counts will be conducted at the existing three driveways of Parking Lot E. 3. Evaluation of Existing Conditions. Existing traffic conditions will be evaluated based on existing traffic volumes at the study intersections. The existing traffic conditions at the key study intersections will be evaluated using the Synchro software, which employs the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology for intersection analyses and is the designated City of Burlingame and C/CAG level of service methodology. 4. Project Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment. Estimates of trips to be added to the surrounding roadway network by the proposed mixed-use development will be based on the trip generation rates recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The directional distribution of site-generated traffic will be forecast based on the projected areas to be served by the mixed-use development as well as existing travel patterns, relative locations of complementary land uses, and information obtained from previous traffic studies conducted for developments in the study area, as available. The site-generated traffic will be assigned to the roadway network based on the trip generation and distribution pattern discussed above. 5. Evaluation of Existing Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the existing traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under existing plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Intersection level of service calculations will be conducted to estimate existing plus project traffic conditions during the AM and PM peak hours after the completion of the proposed mixed-use development. Intersection impacts associated with the development of the proposed mixed-use development will be evaluated relative to existing conditions. Ms. Kirsten Chapman April 9, 2018 Page 3 of 5 6.Evaluation of Background Conditions. Background traffic volumes represent the existing volumes plus the projected volumes from approved developments that have not yet been constructed and occupied. Approved project trips and/or approved project information will be obtained from the City of Burlingame. In addition, roadway improvements associated with approved developments will be assumed as directed by City staff. Intersection levels of service under background conditions will be evaluated using the City methodology. 7.Evaluation of Background Plus Project Conditions. Project-generated traffic will be added to the background condition traffic volumes. Intersection levels of service under background plus project conditions will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Intersection impacts associated with the proposed mixed-use development will be evaluated relative to background conditions. 8.Evaluation of Cumulative Conditions. Traffic volumes under cumulative no project conditions will either be obtained by applying a growth factor of 1% per year to the existing traffic volumes (growth factor taken from the C/CAG travel demand forecast model) or another source as directed by City staff. Roadway improvements associated with volume forecasts will be assumed as directed by City staff. Project-generated traffic will then be added to the cumulative traffic volumes to derive cumulative plus project volumes. Intersection levels of service under cumulative conditions with and without the project will be evaluated using the Synchro software. Cumulative intersection impacts associated with the proposed project will be evaluated relative to cumulative no project conditions. 9.Site Access, On-Site Circulation, and Parking. A review of the project site plan will be performed to determine the overall adequacy of site access and on-site circulation in accordance with generally accepted traffic engineering standards . This will include a quantitative analysis of the anticipated traffic volumes at the site’s driveway, as well as a qualitative analysis of the proposed site circulation and parking layout. The site plan review will consider driveway location and dimensions, sight distance, truck access, pedestrian access and circulation, and vehicle queuing. Parking supply will be evaluated relative to the City of Burlingame parking requirements. 10.Signal Warrant Analysis. The need for future signalization at selected unsignalized study intersections near the project site will be evaluated on the basis of the Peak Hour Warrant (Warrant 3 – Part B) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). The warrant will be evaluated using peak-hour volumes for all study scenarios. 11.Evaluation of Vehicle Queuing. For selected locations where the project would add a significant number of left-turning vehicles (e.g., more than 10 trips per left-turn lane), the adequacy of existing and/or planned storage at turn pockets will be assessed by means of comparison with expected maximum vehicle queues. Vehicle queues will be estimated using a Poisson probability distribution. 12.Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Facilities. A qualitative analysis of the project’s effect on transit services in the area and on bicycle and pedestrian circulation in the study area will be included in the traffic report. The traffic study will identify any deficiencies due to the project and will recommend improvements if necessary. Ms. Kirsten Chapman April 9, 2018 Page 4 of 5 13.Description of Impacts and Recommendations. Based on the results of the intersection level of service analysis, impacts of the site-generated traffic will be identified and described. Recommendations will be formulated that identify the locations and types of improvements or modifications necessary to mitigate significant near-term or long-range project impacts, if any. Improvements could include street widenings, lane additions, changes in lane usage, or modifications to existing traffic signals. 14.Reports and Meetings. Our findings and recommendations will be summarized in a draft TIA report. Hexagon Transportation Consultants will respond to editorial comments on the draft report and prepare a final report. Hexagon also will work with ICF to prepare the transportation section of the EIR, and we will assist ICF with response to comments on the DEIR. This proposal includes attendance at two staff meetings, periodic conference calls, and five public meetings in connection with this project. Additional Services Any work not specifically referenced in the above Scope of Work —for example analyzing a modified project description or project alternative, analyzing different phases of development, conducting additional counts of any kind, analyzing additional intersections, analyzing roadway segments or freeway segments, developing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, drawing conceptual plans for mitigation measures, or attending any additional meetings— shall be considered additional services. Additional services will require additional budget and additional time. Time of Performance Barring any unforeseen delays, a draft traffic report will be submitted approximately four weeks after: (1) authorization to proceed, (2) City approval of our proposed scope of work, and (3) receipt of all new count data. Please note that this schedule is subject to the responsiveness of City staff to our requests for information. The final traffic report will be delivered one week after receipt of all review comments. Ms. Kirsten Chapman April 9, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Cost of Services The total fee for the Scope of Services rendered under this agreement will be based on staff time plus expenses not to exceed $38,000. We look forward to working with you on this project and appreciate your consideration of Hexagon Transportation Consultants for this assignment. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you. Sincerely, HEXAGON TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Gary K. Black President Lance Knox Transportation Planner APPENDIX C – SCHEDULE ID Task Name Duration Start Finish Predecessors0220 Park Road Mixed‐Use Project196 daysMon 4/23/18Thu 1/31/191Kick‐Off Meeting/Data Collection/Prelim PD20 daysMon 4/23/18Fri 5/18/182Notice to Proceed1 dayMon 4/23/18Mon 4/23/183Kick‐Off Meeting1 dayTue 5/1/18Tue 5/1/182FS+5 days4Data Collection5 daysTue 4/24/18Mon 4/30/1825ICF Prepares Project Description5 daysWed 5/2/18Tue 5/8/1836City/Applicant Review Project Description5 daysWed 5/9/18Tue 5/15/1857ICF Prepares Final Project Description3 daysWed 5/16/18Fri 5/18/1868EIR Scope Definition35 daysTue 5/1/18Tue 6/19/189ICF Prepare Notice of Preparation5 daysTue 5/1/18Mon 5/7/18410City/Applicant Review NOP3 daysTue 5/8/18Thu 5/10/18911ICF Revises NOP3 daysFri 5/11/18Tue 5/15/181012City/Applicant Review Revised NOP2 daysWed 5/16/18Thu 5/17/181113NOP Circulated1 dayFri 5/18/18Fri 5/18/181214Public Review Period30 edaysFri 5/18/18Sun 6/17/181315Scoping Meeting1 dayTue 6/12/18Tue 6/12/1814SS+15 days16Summary of Comments/Revised Scope of Work(if nec)2 daysMon 6/18/18Tue 6/19/181417Draft EIR122 daysMon 5/21/18Fri 11/9/1818Hexagon Prepares Transportation Impact Analy20 daysMon 5/21/18Mon 6/18/184,719City/Applicant Review TIA10 daysTue 6/19/18Mon 7/2/181820Hexagon Prepares Final TIA5 daysTue 7/3/18Tue 7/10/181921ICF Prepares Admin Draft EIR20 daysWed 7/11/18Tue 8/7/182022City/Applicant Reviews Admin Draft EIR10 daysWed 8/8/18Tue 8/21/182123ICF Prepares Screencheck Draft EIR12 daysWed 8/22/18Fri 9/7/182224City/Applicant Reviews Screencheck Draft EIR7 daysMon 9/10/18Tue 9/18/182325ICF Prepares Draft EIR5 daysWed 9/19/18Tue 9/25/182426Draft EIR Public Review Period45 edaysTue 9/25/18Fri 11/9/182527Public Hearings1 dayWed 10/31/18Wed 10/31/1826SS+25 days28Responses to Comments30 daysThu 11/1/18Fri 12/14/1829ICF Prepares Admin Draft Responses to Comments20 daysThu 11/1/18Fri 11/30/182730City/Applicant Review Admin Draft Responses to Comments10 daysMon 12/3/18Fri 12/14/182931Final EIR31 daysMon 12/17/18Thu 1/31/1932ICF Prepares Admin Final EIR (includes revised Responses to Comments)10 daysMon 12/17/18Mon 12/31/183033City/Applicant Reviews Admin Final EIR5 daysWed 1/2/19Tue 1/8/193234ICF Prepares Final EIR5 daysWed 1/9/19Tue 1/15/193335Circulate Final EIR Prior to Cert Hearings10 daysWed 1/16/19Wed 1/30/193436Certification Hearings1 dayThu 1/31/19Thu 1/31/193518152229613202731017241815222951219262916233071421284111825291623306132027310Apr '18May '18Jun '18Jul '18Aug '18Sep '18Oct '18Nov '18Dec '18Jan '19Feb '192019220 Park Road Mixed‐Use Project EIR ScheduleMon 4/9/18 1:46 PM Page 1 APPENDIX D – BUDGET Cost Estimate for 220 Park Road Mixed-Use Project EIR - RevisedEfner Eri Shen JesChapman KirAndersen JenViramontes Jes Rocha Lau Yoon Lau Matsui CorBuehler Dav Scott Eli Elder Jam Arias Lil Hilyard Gre Rusch JonRicketts MatRoberts Dia Hartley SetMessick TimHexagon PreVisionDavid BabbyProject DirectorProject Manager Deputy PMLand Use, Pop / HousingTrans, PS/Util/Rec Hydro Senior AQ AQSenior Noise Noise Archaeo ArchaeoArchitectureArchitecture BioGeo/Paleo / Hazmat AQ Graphics TaskProj Dir Sr Consult ISr Consult IIAssoc Consult II Sr Consult IMng ConsultSr Consult II Sr Consult I Proj DirAssoc Consult IISr Consult IIIAssoc Consult IIISr Consult III Sr Consult ISr Consult II Sr Consult ISr. Consult IIAssoc Consult III SubtotalTransportation Visual Sims Arborist Subtotal Editor Pub SpecAdmin Tech Subtotal Labor TotalDirect Expenses Total PriceTask 1: Kick-Off Meeting/Data Collection/Project Description 8 24 168 8 6 $11,216 $0 4 4 $840 $12,056Task 2. EIR Scope Definition$0 $0 $0 $0Task 2.1 Draft and Issue Initial Study and Notice of Preparation2862 $2,842 $0 4 $300 $3,142Task 2.2 Public Scoping6622 $2,892 $0 4 $300 $3,192Task 2.3 Summary of Comments/Revised Scope of Work242$1,362 $0 $0 $1,362Task 3. Administrative Draft 1 EIR (ADEIR-1) 2 2 1$919 $0 $0 $919Topics Excluded from Detailed Analysis416102025 85 24 28 $20,278 $5,175 $5,500 $10,675 6 1 $760 $31,713Air Quality4 8 2 40 15040 2 $30,516 $0 4 2 $640 $31,156Greenhouse Gas Emissions2 6 1 40 70$15,309 $0 $15,309Cultural Resources 610 26 36 20 74 2 $20,782 $0 6 3 $960 $21,742Noise462890$14,708 $0 4 2 $640 $15,348Transportation610 2 12$4,972 $38,000 $38,000 $42,972Task 4. Project Alternatives and Other CEQA Considerations 10 10 6 4 6 20 2 20 8 16 16 2 $17,022 $0 4 2 $640 $17,662Task 5. Screencheck Draft EIR 10 24 16 6 8 3 20 2 20 2 4 10 30 2 8 16 4 $26,000 $0 8 4 $1,280 $27,280Task 6. Public Draft EIR 4 12 8 2 2416115151442$10,337 $0 8 4 4 $1,580 $11,917Task 7. Public Review and Hearings 12 12 8$5,820 $0 $0 $5,820Task 8. Draft Responses to Comments 16 40 40 2 2 2848221630262$28,078 $0 8 16 $2,480 $30,558Task 9. Final EIR and Certification Hearings 8 20 164241166 212$11,553 $0 4 10 6 $1,890 $13,443Task 10. MMRP, SOC, and Admin Record 8 20 30$9,394 $0 4 6 $850 $10,244Task 11. Project Management and Meetings 40 60 50$25,870 $0 $0 $25,870Total hours 154 298 220 34 55 13 80 276 19 148 12 44 73 179 10 44 79 5256 52 24ICF E&P 2018 Billing Rates*$238 $145 $153 $129 $149 $172 $151 $111 $290 $114 $155 $106 $199 $116 $143 $127 $128 $144$110 $100 $75Subtotals $36,652 $43,210 $33,660 $4,386 $8,195 $2,236 $12,080 $30,636 $5,510 $16,872 $1,860 $4,664 $14,527 $20,764 $1,430 $5,588 $10,112 $7,488 $259,870 $38,000 $5,175 $5,500 $48,675 $6,160 $5,200 $1,800 $13,160 $321,705Direct Expenses523.02 Reproductions$10,000523.04 Postage and Delivery$1,500523.05 Travel, Auto, incld. Mileage at current IRS rate (.535/mile)$600523.07 Surveys and Reports (NWIC)$1,200529.00 Other Reimbursable Expenses$250Mark up on all non-labor costs and subcontractors: 3%$1,867Direct expense subtotal$15,417Total price$337,122Optional Task: Operational HRA$9,220Optional Task: Noise Measurements and Field Survey$4,560Optional Task: Transportation Peer Review$10,000*Billing rates are subject to a 3% increase per year.Subcontractor Production Staff Employee NameProject RoleLabor ClassificationConsulting StaffDate printed 6/18/2018 5:29 PMApproved by Finance { sh }Burlingame_220_Park_Road_Budget_040918 APPENDIX E – TREE SURVEY A RBOR R ESOURCES professional consulting arborists and tree care p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.3351 cell: 650.274.3656 licensed contractor #796763 June 16, 2018 via: email Erin Efner, Principal ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 RE: TREE SURVEY REPORT 220 Park Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Efner: This document serves as a proposal to prepare a Tree Survey Report for the above- referenced project, and the scope of services considered are as follows: Visit the site to visually analyze the health, structure and surrounding ground conditions of 13 trees located within or immediately adjacent to the subject site. Measure each trunk's diameter at 54 inches above grade, and estimate heights and canopy spreads. Assign numbers 1 thru 13 to the trees, and affix round metal tags with corresponding engraved numbers onto each tree. Show each number on an aerial or site survey. Obtain photographs. Develop general design guidelines and protection measures to help mitigate or avoid impacts to retained trees. Prepare a report containing the above information, and submit via email as a pdf document; the report can be produced roughly 2 to 4 weeks following contract execution (excludes 6/25/18-7/6/18 and 7/23/18-7/27/18). My fee to complete the above scope is $5,500, and to execute a contract, please sign and date at the bottom of the enclosed Terms and Limiting Conditions form, and kindly email the entire agreement back to me. A RBOR R ESOURCES professional consulting arborists and tree care p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.3351 cell: 650.274.3656 licensed contractor #796763 June 16, 2018 220 Park Road page 2 of 2 Also, attached please find a Certificate of Liability Insurance reflecting my coverage and limits (note I am exempt from Worker's Compensation due to being a sole proprietor with no employees, and I personally perform all services). Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board‐Certified Master Arborist #WE‐4001B CA Licensed Tree Service Contractor #796763 (C61/D49) Attachments: Terms and Limiting Conditions Certificate of Insurance A RBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arborists and tree care p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net office: 650.654.3351 cell: 650.274.3656 licensed contractor #796763 TERMS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 1. All information (to be interpreted throughout this document as either verbally or in writing) supplied by David L. Babby (“Consultant”) covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of examination. 2. Consultant cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of trees, plants, or property in question may not arise in the future. 3. No assurance can be offered that if all Consultant’s recommendations and precautionary measures are accepted and followed the desired results may be achieved. 4. It is assumed the property where examination or evaluation occurs is not in violation of any applicable ordinances, codes, statutes or other governmental regulations. 5. All information received from the “Client” (as listed below) and/or reliable sources is assumed to be correct. Consultant shall not be responsible for the content or accuracy of information provided by others. 6. Consultant shall not be required to attend court or give testimony by reason of information provided unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services. 7. Unless otherwise documented in writing, each site visit is limited to visual examination from the ground, and exclude probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. 8. Consultant’s liability, including indemnification, is hereby limited to the specific conditions, limits, and sublimits of Consultant’s insurance policies. 9. Information provided by Consultant represents an opinion, and Consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion or value. 10. Client agrees to pay Consultant according to the contracted fee(s). 11. Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled through mediation and by a mediation service acceptable to both parties. The demand for mediation shall not be made after such claim or dispute would be barred by any governing binding arbitration law. In the event that mediation does not resolve the issue, the parties agree to proceed through in accordance with the then prevailing rules of the American Arbitration Association. Consultant shall not pay punitive damages or fees in excess of his billed charges. Client: ICF, c/o Ms. Erin Efner; 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500, San Francisco, CA 94105 Project Site: 220 Park Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Agreed Upon By: ________________________________________ Date: ________________ DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW.THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT:If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies)must be endorsed.If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement.A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). CONTACTPRODUCERNAME: FAXPHONE (A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. ADDL SUBRINSR POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITSPOLICY NUMBERLTR (MM/DD/YYYY)(MM/DD/YYYY)INSR WVD GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTED COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR MED EXP (Any one person)$ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GENERAL AGGREGATE $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG $ PRO-$POLICY LOCJECT COMBINED SINGLE LIMITAUTOMOBILE LIABILITY (Ea accident)$ BODILY INJURY (Per person)$ANY AUTO ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident)$AUTOS AUTOS NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $HIRED AUTOS (PER ACCIDENT)AUTOS $ UMBRELLA LIAB EACH OCCURRENCE $OCCUR EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $DED RETENTION $ WC STATU-OTH-WORKERS COMPENSATION TORY LIMITS ERAND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y / N ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $N / AOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH)E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT $DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (Attach ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE © 1988-2010 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORDACORD 25 (2010/05) ARBOR-1 OP ID: BP 09/25/2017 Mimi Watson Insurance by Allied Brokers-1 Lic # 0525309 630 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 ABCO-PA House Account 650-328-1000 650-324-1142 certs@alliedbrokers.com The Hartford 29424 Darwin Select Insurance Compan 066546Arbor Resources Attn: David Babby P.O. Box 25295 San Mateo, CA 94402 1,000,000 A 57SBAAT2922 09/11/2017 09/11/2018 1,000,000 X 10,000 X Business Owners 1,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 X 1,000,000 A 57SBAAT2922 09/11/2017 09/11/2018 X X B Professional Liab 0308-5925 09/11/2017 09/11/2018 Limits 1,000,000 RetroDate 9/11/2002 PROOF OF COVERAGE FORYOUR FOR YOUR INFORMATION 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a Contribution to the Public Agencies Post-Employment (Pension) Benefit Trust Administered by Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the 2018-19 contribution to the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust. BACKGROUND In October 2017, the City Council established a § 115 Pension Trust in order to set aside funds to cover the escalating CalPERS rates anticipated in the next 10-15 years. Contributions to the trust fund (administered by PARS) cannot be recorded as expenditures of the City, as the fund is considered to be a City asset. However, the trust fund balance is reflected as “restricted” fund balance for financial reporting purposes. Contributions of over $4.7 million were made from the City’s various operating funds for this purpose in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018. The balance of the § 115 Trust was $4,812,539.86 as of that date. On Monday, June 18, 2018, the City Council held a public hearing to adopt the City’s FY 2018-19 operating and capital budgets. In conjunction with that budget, it was determined that additional contributions to the § 115 Trust would be made from the various operating funds of the City, requiring a total $3.4 million transfer as shown below: CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA CONTRIBUTION TO PENSION TRUST / RESERVE (BY FUND) FY18-19 Proposed General Fund 2,838,000$ Admin/IT 5,200 Building Enterprise 75,900 Facilities 51,900 Fleet/Equipment 30,100 Landfill Fund 4,600 Parking Enterprise 17,500 Sewer Enterprise 158,200 Solid Waste Enterprise 28,000 Water Enterprise 188,300 Total 3,397,700$ Contribution to § 115 Pension Trust per Fiscal Year 2018-19 Budget August 20, 2018 2 DISCUSSION Prior to establishing the § 115 pension trust last year, the City Council approved a prefunding strategy of utilizing a “target” rate of funding, representing the average rate of projected employer contributions that would be required from CalPERS over the next 15 years. (Target rates were established separately for the City’s Safety and Miscellaneous pension plans with CalPERS.) Pursuant to this strategy, the required funding would be paid to CalPERS each pay period, and, to the extent that the target rate was higher than the required CalPERS employer contribution rate, amounts would be contributed to a dedicated trust or reserve fund, to be drawn upon when the required employer rate invariably exceeded the target rate. The amounts needed from all operating funds for the threshold rate of pension funding was approved with the adoption of the 2017-18 fiscal year budget. This same methodology was used to determine the 2018-19 contributions to the PARS § 115 pension trust that was established for this purpose. Note that the trust fund as established for use by the City of Burlingame is primarily for rate stabilization – to smooth the impact of future rate increases and pension costs. Amounts contributed to the trust cannot be reported as current year expenditures, and do not reduce unfunded liabilities. As such, staff will continued to explore the incorporation of other options into the City’s pension strategy, so as to more efficiently amortize the City’s Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) balance with CalPERS and to realize long-term savings from interest on these significant liabilities. FISCAL IMPACT The City’s budget for the 2018-19 fiscal year calls for contributions of $3,397,700 from the City’s various operating funds to the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust. Such funding will have impact only on the available cash balances of the various funds, as the amounts will be withdrawn from existing accounts and transferred to the irrevocable trust account. Exhibit: • Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving an Additional Contribution to the Public Agencies Post Employment (Pension) Benefit Trust for Fiscal Year 2018-19 RESOLUTION NO.________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A CONTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC AGENCIES POST-EMPLOYMENT (PENSION) BENEFIT TRUST ADMINISTERED BY PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT SERVICES (PARS) WHEREAS, effective September 1, 2017 the City Council adopted the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust, establishing the City’s participation in the program for the purpose of pre-funding pension obligations; and WHEREAS, the tax-exempt trust performs an essential governmental function within the meaning of Section 115 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and the Regulations issued there under, and is a tax-exempt trust under the relevant statutory provisions of the State of California; and WHEREAS, the City has reserved the right to make contributions, if any, to the Program; and WHEREAS, based on the City’s adopted budget for fiscal year 2018-19 for all funds, additional contributions are to be made to the trust from all operating funds that report a net pension liability; and WHEREAS, in recognition of the City’s large pension liabilities with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS), deposits to the trust are appropriate to fund future employer’s contributions as required by CalPERS, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Finance Director & Treasurer to transmit an additional $3,397,700 contribution to the PARS Public Agencies Post-Employment Benefits Trust on behalf of the City of Burlingame for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. _____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSELL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: _____________________________ City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Annual Renewal of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID): Resolution Approving the 2017-18 Annual Report; Declaring the City’s Intention to Establish and Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2018-19; and Setting Required Public Hearing for September 17, 2018 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution: • Approving the 2017-18 annual report of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District; • Stating the Council’s intent to levy assessments on businesses within the district for the 2018-19 fiscal year; and, • Setting a public hearing for Monday, September 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the Burlingame City Council adopted ordinance 1735 in 2004, establishing the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (DBID) for the purpose of promoting the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area. In the summer of 2010, the DBID was re-instituted after a hiatus of several years. For the past seven years, the DBID has provided business-enhancing activities, events, and publicity for the downtown Burlingame businesses. Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, the DBID must file a report with the City each year detailing its activities, its past-year activities, its finances for the past year, and its proposed budget for the coming year. DISCUSSION The DBID submitted its annual report and its 2018-19 fiscal year proposed budget on August 3, 2018. Copies of the documents are attached to the Resolution of Intention. Note that the DBID’s operating year begins October 1st and ends September 30th. The proposed budget for the DBID’s 2018-19 fiscal year provides a total of $98,000 for Special Events, Marketing and Advertising, Member Enhancements, and Administration. The $98,000 budget equals the $98,000 in forecasted revenues, which includes approximately $90,000 in annual member assessments. The DBID has available fund balance to cover any overages that may occur in expenditures, or any delinquent payments of member assessments. Burlingame Ave. (Downtown) BID - Intent to Assess August 20, 2018 2 Under the law, the City must, after a noticed public hearing, levy the annual assessments on the businesses within the district. The resolution attached to this report sets that public hearing and provides notice to the businesses in the district. The public hearing will be conducted at the Council meeting on September 17, 2018. The method of assessment will remain the same as in prior years. Following the Council’s adoption of the Resolution of Intention, the Finance Department will mail a letter to all affected businesses within the DBID. The letter will inform each business that the annual renewal process has commenced. The letter also will provide each business with the geographic zone in which they are located, square footage of the business, and the proposed assessment to be charged in the new fiscal year. In addition, each business will also receive a copy of the adopted Resolution of Intention and a Notice of Public Hearing as required by law. The Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council’s intention to levy and collect fees. The public hearing gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions, and concerns directly to the City Council. The recommended hearing date is September 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. FISCAL IMPACT Approximately $90,000 in assessments is anticipated to be collected annually. The funds are forwarded to the DBID for expenditures as authorized by their board of directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the DBID. Exhibits: • Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving the 2017-18 Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Annual Report and Declaring its Intention to Establish and Levy 2018-19 Assessments for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District • Notice of Public Hearing: Consideration of Establishment and Levy of Annual Assessments on Businesses Within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for the 2018-19 fiscal year RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2017-18 BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH AND LEVY 2018-19 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BURLINGAME A VENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame originally established the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District ("DBID") for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district, and WHEREAS, a majority protest was made against renewal of the DBID in 2007 and, accordingly, the DBID was not renewed at that time; and WHEREAS, in 2010 the DBID was re-instituted after the City Council amended the ordinance to revise the method and amount of the assessments and no majority protest was made against the revised assessments; and WHEREAS, the DBID Advisory Board has filed its 2017-18 annual report with the City Clerk and has requested the Burlingame City Council to set a public hearing and to levy the DBID assessments for the 2018-19 year; and WHEREAS, the DBID has provided important services in enhancing the downtown Burlingame Avenue business area, its businesses and properties; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council accepts and approves the 2017-18 annual report of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit “A”. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2018-19 year, beginning October 1, 2018, on businesses in the DBID in order to pay for improvements and activities of the DBID. 3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the DBID are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference; these activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the DBID. 4. The method and basis of levying the assessments on the businesses in the DBID for the 2018-19 year shall remain the same as those used to determine the assessments levied on DBID businesses in the 2017-18 year. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. The annual report of the DBID is on file at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, and is available for review during regular business hours, 8 am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. 7. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on the proposed DBID assessments for 2017-18 for Monday, September 17, 2018, at 7:00p.m., in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 9. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written protests against the proposed assessments. In order for a protest to be counted in the majority protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services, the protest must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on September 17, 2018. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address, include a description of the business and the amount of the assessment proposed for that business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business or otherwise empowered to enter a protest on its behalf. A written protest that does not comply with the provision of this paragraph will not be counted in determining a majority protest. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. 10. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are, of record, written protests by the owners of businesses within the downtown Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments, the City Council shall not levy any assessment for the District. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are, of record, written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a particular improvement or activity proposed, then that particular improvement or activity shall not be included in the District. 11. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and the procedures for filing a written protest, may be obtained from the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 650-558-7203. 12. The City Council directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the September 17, 2018 public hearing by publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. _____________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 2 0th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District P.O. Box 563 Burlingame, CA 94011 - 0563 August 2, 2018 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Honorable Council Members: The DBBID Advisory Committee is planning no changes to the assessment or boundaries of the district. Current Checking Balance: (As of 8/2/18): $ 29, 076.68 Current Savings Balance (As of 8/2/18) $ 20,147.56 Current Outstanding Assessments for 2017 - 2018 to be collected: $10,785.00 In October, we will be electing a new DBBID President, Vice President and Treasurer as two of the terms are up and our current Treasurer is stepping down from the Board, but hopes to continue with the DBBID as a general member. We have a few business owners who are interested in joining our board and we will be notifying you of the changes and DBBID Advisory Committee once our new fiscal year has begun and the nominations / elections have been ratified. Through September 30, 2018 our Advisory Committee is: Juan Loredo – DBBID President – BarrelHouse / Vinyl Room Jae Lim – DBBID Vice President – Barracuda Sushi Angeline Sebastian Stafford – DBBID Treasurer – Massage Envy Jenny Keleher – DBBID Secretary – A Runner’s Mind Following enclosures include our financial statement to date and our proposed budget for the 2018 – 2019 fiscal year. Proposed expenditures for the remainder of the current year include: •$4,000 for Administrative Assistant & Operations Costs •$1,000 for continued Marketing and Advertising endeavors (Kiosk Map Updates / Printing, Trolley Map Printing, Merchant Mixer, Sidewalk Sale, Marketing Material , Website Maintenance, App maintenance, First Friday Entertainment, Fall Fest Event Kick Off) EXHIBIT A Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District P.O. Box 563 Burlingame, CA 94011 - 0563 Our activities and programs completed for this fiscal year or in development to date include: • Holiday Parade on Burlingame Avenue and Live Entertainment on Park Road. • Sponsor and promote Fall & Spring Sidewalk Sales. (May & August 2018) • 3rd Annual Fall Fest on Howard Avenue (October 27, 28, 2018) • DBBID Website, Interactive Map development & maintenance. o Revamped Website to include Marketing tools for merchants to promote specials and events. • Continued to grow and maintain Social Media Presence of the DBBID and Downtown Burlingame Merchants (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) • Continued “First Friday” events April – November 2018. Live entertainment on Burlingame Avenue on each “first Friday” to promote ambiance and community spirit. • Maintain Kiosk Maps with quarterly updates to showcase the downtown businesses. • Increased Shuttle support / contribution. • Maintain Shuttle / Trolley Maps with quarterly updates and distribution to local hotels for clients to increase business downtown. • Maintain communication network for important information and distribution. • Merchant Communication efforts include: Email / Newsletter contact regarding downtown updates, parking updates, upcoming events, etc. , New Merchant Outreach (individually contacting new merchants to introduce the DBBID and welcome them to the community and to engage in future DBBID efforts. • Monthly Newsletters to merchants and subscribed members regarding community events and notices regarding events / issues happening in the Downtown area. • Maintenance of lighted trees on Burlingame Avenue. The lights were removed in May 2016 to allow uninhibited tree growth. It was agreed that we would re-string the lights and maintain them during the Holiday Period (December – January) and then remove them until the trees are a bit more mature. Trees are re wrapped as needed and broken lights / strings are replaced as needed. • Continued Marketing efforts to promote ALL businesses downtown (not just retail, restaurants and salons). • Set up and remove American Flags to celebrate patriotic holidays. • Continued relationship with Community Gatepath and hired teams to clean the streets (entire DBBID District on the 2nd Monday of each month. Working together with merchants to keep our streets clean. • Held quarterly Member Mixer’s to promote the DBBID, our members and merchants and celebrate our successes while giving the merchants a forum Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District P.O. Box 563 Burlingame, CA 94011 - 0563 to discuss what they’d like to see happen. Invited City Officials as well as Hotel Concierge. Planned Activities of interest for next year include: • Holiday Parade and Entertainment to coincide with Tree Lighting • 2 day Annual October Fall Fest – (Last weekend in October) on Howard Avenue • First Friday event April – November • 2 Sidewalk Sales • Shop Small – Downtown Burlingame • Merchant Mixers • Continuation of all existing programs Respectfully submitted by, The DBBID Advisory Committee Juan Loredo – DBBID President – BarrelHouse / Vinyl Room Jae Lim – DBBID Vice President – Barracuda Sushi Angeline Sebastian Stafford – DBBID Treasurer – Massage Envy Jenny Keleher – DBBID Secretary – A Runner’s Mind Oct '17 - Sep '18 Ordinary Income/Expense Income Direct Public Support 81,635.76 9,729.37 790.44 Member Dues 2017-2018 Fall Fest 2017 Income Member Dues 2016-2017 Individ, Business Contributions 2,000.00 94,155.57 30.00 94,185.57 Total Direct Public Support Other Types of Income Total Income Expense Marketing and Advertising 502.83 2,650.03 Social Media Boosts Hotel Advertising Maps and Schedules Total Hotel Advertising 2,650.03 701.99 511.70 600.00 Posters, Print & Multimedia Street Banners Web Site Hosting Marketing and Advertising - ...207.53 5,174.08Total Marketing and Advertising Member Enhancements 2,563.00 11,383.62 Beautification - Labor Beautification- Supplies Shuttle Contribution 8,000.00 21,946.62Total Member Enhancements Operations 469.00Dues and Subscriptions Contract Services 3,625.00 880.00 182.50 25.00 Marketing Assistant Accounting Fees Webmaster Legal Fees Contract Services - Other 31,050.00 35,762.50Total Contract Services Insurance 510.00 Downtown Burlingame Improvement District Profit and Loss Standard October 2017 through September 2018 Oct '17 - Sep '18 1,687.72 112.00 127.54 Office Supplies_Storage Stamps, PO Rental Telephone & Telecommunicati... Operations - Other 10.00 Total Operations 38,678.76 Special Events 100.00 1,200.00 28,353.02 5,224.80 200.00 Fall Fest 2018 First Friday's Fall Fest 2017 Holiday Event 2017 Fall Fest 2016 Fall Fest - Entertainment Total Fall Fest 2016 200.00 1,050.00Special Events - Other Total Special Events 36,127.82 Total Expense 101,927.28 -7,741.71Net Ordinary Income Net Income -7,741.71 Downtown Burlingame Improvement District Profit and Loss Standard October 2017 through September 2018 DBBID Annual Budget Proposal October 1, 2018 – September 30, 2019 Forecasted Revenue: $ 98,000.00 Budget Item Budget Amount Special Events $36,200.00 Fall Fest ($29,100) Holiday Event ($5,500) First Friday ($1,400) Small Business Saturday ($200) Marketing and Advertising $8,000.00 Print Advertising/Banners Web Site Maintenance , Kiosk & Maps Social Media / Boosts / Newsletter Member Enhancements $10,800.00 Beautification / Labor Supplies Tree Lighting Maintenance Shuttle Contribution Operations $43,000.00 Contract Services Administrator Webmaster Accountant / Legal Webmaster Accountant/Legal Office Supplies / PO Rental / Storage City Collection Fees Dues & Subscriptions Insurance Total $98,000.00 EXHIBIT B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2018-19 AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing to consider the following: 1. The adoption of a Resolution imposing proposed assessments on businesses in the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for the 2018-19 fiscal year, the amounts of those assessments, the types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the assessments, and the method and basis of levying the assessments 2. Any and all written protests against said assessments. 3. Whether there are written protests to the proposed assessments by the owners of businesses within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. 4. Whether there are written protests to a particular District improvement or activity by the owners of businesses within the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. The proposed basis for the 2018-19 assessment is the same as that used for the 2017-18 fiscal year. The purposes, programs and activities to be supported by the proposed assessments are described in the Resolution of Intention, a copy of which is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame California. The public hearing on the proposed Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District programs and the assessments for the 2018-19 fiscal year is set for September 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, in the Council's Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. At that time, the Council will hear from any interested person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed assessments. Oral or written protests may be made before or at that public hearing, but no later than the close of the public hearing. See the Resolution of Intention for information on how protests are made and what effect protests have. Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments and/or written protests may be directed to the City Council, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Quarterly Investment Report, Period Ending June 30, 2018 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive and approve the City’s investment report through June 30, 2018. BACKGROUND This report represents the City’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2018. The report includes all invested City funds with the exception of bond proceeds, the City’s account with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), which is used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical obligations, and the §115 trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program. All other investments are covered by and in compliance with the City’s adopted Statement of Investment Policy. DISCUSSION The City’s investments are guided by the Statement of Investment Policy (the “Policy”), which is reviewed and approved by the Council annually The Policy was last approved by the City Council on June 18, 2018. The Policy directs that investment objectives, in order by priority, are safety, liquidity, and return. This conservative approach ensures assets are available for use while also allowing the City to earn additional resources on idle funds. The City utilizes a core portfolio of investments managed by the City’s investment advisor, PFM Asset Management (PFM), and also maintains funds invested in the State’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) to achieve its investment goals. CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS Economic data during the second quarter of 2018 continued to indicate strong growth worldwide, despite the numerous geopolitical and global trade war events hitting the headlines. During the quarter, volatility waned, equity markets regained their footing, the U.S. dollar (USD) continued its ascent, and the Federal Open Market Committee’s (FOMC) dual mandate came into clearer focus. But, with trade wars officially on, it’s now a question of whether the strong fiscal stimulus that is driving the U.S. economy will be enough to overcome the drag of trade uncertainty. Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 2 Yield Curve History Positive economic data released in the second quarter included job gains, housing starts, new home sales, factory orders, manufacturing survey indices and consumer sentiment. U.S. labor market conditions—part one of the Fed’s dual mandate—remained strong during the quarter. Despite the quarter-end uptick in the headline unemployment rate to 4 percent (previously 3.8 percent), it remains near multi-decade lows. In addition, job growth remains robust (monthly average of 211,000 new jobs in the second quarter), weekly jobless claims reached a generational low and job openings reached a new record high. In fact, for the first time, there are currently more job openings in the U.S. than the number of unemployed persons. Inflation—the second part of the Fed’s dual mandate—continued to march higher. As measured by the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) core price index, year-over-year (YoY) inflation reached the Fed’s 2 percent target for the first time since 2012. Bolstered by its continued progress toward meeting its dual mandate, in a widely-anticipated move, the Federal Reserve (Fed) increased the overnight federal funds rate by 25 basis points (0.25%), to a new range of 1.75% to 2.00% in June. This rate hike was consistent with the Fed’s continuing resolve to gradually tighten monetary policy. Market estimates imply two more hikes in 2018, but are less optimistic for 2019. The S&P 500 Index (S&P) rebounded by 3.4 percent over the quarter, following the first quarterly decline (first quarter 2018) in nearly three years. International indices followed suit, posting gains in local currencies for the quarter; however, the stronger US dollar tempered those gains for domestic investors. Against this mostly-positive economic backdrop and promises of continued rate increases by the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury yields continued their ascent. The yield on 2-year U.S. Treasury has now increased for eight consecutive quarters, marking a 26 basis point (0.26%) quarterly increase to end the quarter at 2.53%. However, as has been the case in recent quarters, rate increases on the longer-end of the yield curve have been less pronounced. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury inched up by just 12 basis points (0.12%) over the same period to end the quarter at 2.86%. As a result, the yield curve flattened further. In fact, the yield spread (the difference in yield) between the 10-year and 2-year U.S. Treasury was just 33 basis points (0.33%) at quarter-end, its lowest level since 2007. Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 3 Source : Bloomb erg PORTFOLIO INFORMATION The City’s cash, excluding bond proceeds, is pooled for investment purposes. As of June 30, 2018, invested funds totaled $164,632,296. These investments are assets of the City of Burlingame, which includes the General Fund, the enterprise funds (such as Water, Sewer, and Solid Waste), as well as various non-major funds. Note that the City’s account with the California Employers’ Retiree Benefit Trust Fund (CERBT), used to pre-fund the City’s retiree medical obligations, is not included in the City’s managed portfolio. Similarly, funds held within the City’s §115 Trust account with the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) Pension Rate Stabilization Program are not part of the City’s investment portfolio. City’s Investments Market Value as of June 30, 2018 Main Investment Portfolio $107,281,635.65 Main Investment Portfolio - Cash Balance in Custody Account $163,551.69 CAMP Balance $23,186,606.73 LAIF Balance $34,000,501.95 $164,632,296.02 The portfolio’s duration was kept slightly short of the benchmark's duration in order to hedge against the negative impacts of rising interest rates. At the end of the quarter, the main portfolio’s duration was 2.41 years, slightly short of the benchmark’s duration of 2.58 years. Factoring in additional liquid investments, such as LAIF and CAMP, the effective duration of the City’s aggregate investments was 1.57 years. PFM sought opportunities to safely take advantage of the higher yields available in the market while still maintaining the portfolio’s short duration position relative to its benchmark. Maturity 6/30/18 3/31/18 Change 3-Mo. 1.91% 1.70% +0.21% 6-Mo. 2.10% 1.91% +0.19% 1-Yr. 2.31% 2.08% +0.23% 2-Yr. 2.53% 2.27% +0.26% 3-Yr. 2.62% 2.38% +0.24% 5-Yr. 2.74% 2.56% +0.18% 10-Yr. 2.86% 2.74% +0.12% 30-Yr. 2.98% 2.97% +0.01% Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 4 Despite strong fundamentals and earnings in the corporate sector, trade war worries and other geopolitical concerns contributed to a spread widening in the corporate sector. Given the underlying strength of this sector, PFM viewed this spread widening as an opportunity to increase the portfolio’s allocation to high-quality corporate securities at attractive yields. In total, PFM recommended a net increase to the portfolio’s corporate note holdings of over $1 million during the quarter. These purchases contributed positively to the portfolio’s performance for the quarter. In one instance, PFM recommended the sale of a Toyota Motor Note with just nine months to maturity in exchange for the purchase of Walt Disney Corp. and Home Depot Inc. corporate notes with approximately five years to maturity. These purchases represented a yield pick-up of approximately 50 basis points (0.50%) and 54 basis points (0.54%), respectively, of incremental yield compared to similar-maturity U.S. Treasury notes. Negotiable bank certificates of deposit (CDs) continued to offer strong value during the quarter. In total, PFM recommended the purchase of $2.6 million in negotiable CDs during the quarter. For example, in early April, PFM recommended the purchase of $1.8 million of negotiable CDs. These instruments are particularly attractive in a rising interest rate environment because the coupon rates on these obligations reset every quarter at then-current rates. PFM also recommended an increase to the portfolio’s allocation to asset-backed securities (ABS). In total, PFM recommended the purchase of $2.3 million of AAA-rated ABS at an attractive yield pick-up relative to U.S. Treasury obligations. Please see below for a summary of transactions for the quarter ended June 30, 2018: Trade Date Settlement Date Transaction CUSIP Term (Mths) YTM/YTC %(Yield) Principal 4/3/2018 4/5/2018 Purchase 25468PCW4 Walt Disney Corp. Notes 56 3.07% 1,075,000 4/3/2018 4/5/2018 Purchase 437076AZ5 Home Depot Inc. Corp. Notes 60 3.11% 1,075,000 4/3/2018 4/5/2018 Sale 89236TDM4 Toyota Motor Notes 9 2.46% 2,000,000 4/6/2018 4/10/2018 Purchase 13606BVF0 Canadian Imperial Bank NY Floating Rate CD 24 2.78% 900,000 4/6/2018 4/10/2018 Purchase 22532XHT8 Credit Agricole NY Floating Rate CD 24 2.85% 900,000 4/6/2018 4/10/2018 Sale 13606A5Z7 Canadian Imperial Bank NY CD 8 2.59% 1,500,000 4/10/2018 4/13/2018 Purchase 89236TEU5 Toyota Motor Notes 36 2.96% 925,000 4/10/2018 4/13/2018 Sale 3135G0T60 FNMA Notes 28 2.42% 335,000 Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 5 Trade Date Settlement Date Transaction CUSIP Term (Mths) YTM/YTC %(Yield) Principal 4/10/2018 4/13/2018 Sale 912828D72 U.S. Treasury Notes 41 2.52% 685,000 4/10/2018 4/13/2018 Sale 912828R77 U.S. Treasury Notes 38 2.48% 950,000 4/10/2018 4/18/2018 Purchase 44891KAD7 Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust ABS 51 2.80% 330,000 4/11/2018 4/30/2018 Purchase 3136B1XP4 FNMA MBS 41 2.27% 660,000 4/12/2018 4/13/2018 Purchase 313385WE2 FHLB Discount Notes 1 1.64% 675,000 4/12/2018 4/17/2018 Sale 912828R77 U.S. Treasury Notes 37 2.52% 930,000 4/12/2018 4/19/2018 Purchase 4581X0DB1 Inter-American Development Bank Note 36 2.70% 895,000 4/30/2018 4/30/2018 Purchase 3135G0T78 FNMA Notes 53 2.85% 2,635,000 4/30/2018 4/30/2018 Purchase 912828P79 U.S. Treasury Notes 58 2.80% 2,700,000 4/30/2018 4/30/2018 Maturity 313385WE2 FHLB Discount Notes 0 - 675,000 5/9/2018 5/16/2018 Purchase 89238TAD5 Toyota Auto Receivables Trust ABS 52 2.96% 910,000 5/14/2018 5/16/2018 Sale 912828ND8 U.S. Treasury Notes 24 2.57% 800,000 6/4/2018 6/6/2018 Purchase 912828L57 U.S. Treasury Notes 52 2.76% 1,500,000 6/5/2018 6/5/2018 Maturity 09659CF52 BNP Paribas NY CP 0 - 1,500,000 6/5/2018 6/7/2018 Purchase 06417GU22 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston CD 24 3.10% 1,700,000 6/5/2018 6/7/2018 Sale 06417GUE6 Bank of Nova Scotia Houston CD 10 2.56% 1,700,000 6/19/2018 6/27/2018 Purchase 02007JAC1 Ally Auto Receivables Trust ABS 55 3.09% 1,075,000 6/20/2018 6/27/2018 Sale 912828K58 U.S. Treasury Notes 22 2.54% 1,050,000 Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 6 News related to international tariffs, geopolitical uncertainty, and global trade wars remained major topics during the second quarter, but the strength of domestic economic themes continued to rule the day. PFM continues to monitor the markets and will recommend relative-value trades as appropriate in order to safely enhance the City’s portfolio earnings. However, the priority will always be to maintain the safety and liquidity of the City’s investments. In this current market environment, careful issuer credit research will drive individual issuer selection. * The “BBB+” category comprises securities rated in the category of A or better by Moody’s and/or Fitch, which meets the credit rating criteria established in the City’s Statement of Investment Policy. Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 7 ** The NR (Aaa) category comprises asset-backed securities that are not rated by S&P but are rated Aaa by Moody’s. As noted in the above pie charts, the City’s investment portfolio as of June 30, 2018, was heavily weighted towards the State Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the AAAm-rated CAMP Fund, and high-quality (AA+ rated) federal agency and U.S. Treasury securities to maintain the focus on safety and liquidity. As of June 30, 2018, 35% of the City’s funds were invested in very short-term liquid investments, 22% of the funds were invested with maturities between one day and two years, and 43% of the investment portfolio had a maturity ranging from two to five years. This distribution gives the City the necessary liquidity to meet operational and emergency cash needs while maximizing returns on funds not needed in the immediate future. The City’s aggregate investments maintain an effective duration of 1.57 years and currently generate annual interest income of 2.03% before investment expenses. The City’s funds are invested in high credit quality investments and continue to meet the City’s goals of safety, liquidity, and yield/return. As of June 30, 2018, the yield to maturity at cost on the main portfolio of securities was 2.07%. Including additional investments such as LAIF and CAMP, the average yield to maturity** on the City’s aggregate investments was 2.03%. During the quarter, the main portfolio generated amortized cost basis earnings (includes interest earnings and realized gains and losses) of $406,452. Market Value 164,632,296.02$ Effective Duration 1.57 Years Average Credit Quality*AA Yield to Maturity**2.03% City's Investments Statistical Information Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 8 * Ratings by Standard & Poor’s. Average excludes ‘Not Rated’ securities. ** Yield to maturity at cost. The chart below compares the yield of the City’s managed portfolio to the yields on the 2-year U.S. Treasury note, LAIF, and the San Mateo County Pool. As of June 30, 2018, the gross yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 2.07%; net of PFM’s investment advisory fees, the yield on the City’s managed portfolio was 1.99%. Below is a summary of cash and investment holdings held by each fund as of June 30, 2018, which includes invested funds, debt service reserves, amounts held in overnight (liquid) accounts, the City’s main checking account and other operating funds: 2.53% 2.07% 1.90% 1.84% Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 9 Cash holdings in the General Fund increased in the fourth quarter of the 2017-18 fiscal year due to major property tax receipts in April and June ($6.9 million combined). Other major receipts included $1.2 million from Burlingame Point permits (Building Fund); Storm Drain Fees of just over $1 million (collected with property taxes) are reflected as an increase in “Other Funds”. Capital Project Funds increased with a $2.2 million draw down in bond proceeds (from the Debt Service Fund) for storm drain capital improvements. The Debt Service Fund was also decreased as a result of annual debt service (principal and interest payments) of $2.8 million on outstanding bonds, including $1.4 million for Storm Drain bond payments due on July 1st. CONCLUSION All City funds are invested in accordance with the approved Statement of Investment Policy with an emphasis on safety, liquidity, and return (in that order). The City’s investment strategy of balancing the investment portfolio between short-term investments (to meet cash flow needs) and longer-term maturities (to realize a higher rate of return) is appropriate, given current market conditions. Due to the ease of access of the City’s funds in liquid accounts such as LAIF and CAMP, the City has more than sufficient funds available to meet its liquidity (expenditure) requirements for the next six months. Staff and the City’s investment advisor will continue to closely monitor the City’s investments to ensure the mitigation of risk and ability to meet the City’s investment goals while being able to respond to changes in market conditions. FISCAL IMPACT As of 06/30/18 As of 03/31/18 Change $ General Fund 29,681,883$ 22,447,393$ 7,234,490$ Capital Project Funds 54,358,364 52,846,017 1,512,347 Internal Service Funds 19,724,843 19,264,741 460,101 Water Fund 16,008,586 15,449,504 559,082 Sewer Fund 17,759,997 18,155,242 (395,245) Solid Waste Fund 4,677,981 4,788,536 (110,555) Parking Fund 8,854,349 8,304,020 550,329 Building Fund 10,844,613 9,428,700 1,415,913 Landfill Fund 1,483,707 1,406,136 77,571 Debt Service Fund 9,449,602 14,500,267 (5,050,665) Subtotal, Operating Funds 172,843,925 166,590,556 6,253,369 Other Funds 12,926,962 11,346,823 1,580,139 Total Cash and Investments 185,770,887$ 177,937,379$ 7,833,508$ Cash and Investments by Fund Investment Report, June 30, 2018 August 20, 2018 10 Quarterly reporting of the City’s Investment Portfolio will not result in any direct impact on City resources. Exhibits: • Portfolio Holdings as of June 30, 2018 • CERBT Strategy 1 Performance Data as of June 30, 2018 • PARS Monthly Statement for June 30, 2018 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 04/01/2013 1.125% 03/31/2020 976,250.00 994,233.16 2,827.87 984,140.63 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828UV0 1.46 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/17/2010 3.500% 05/15/2020 203,515.60 207,381.70 894.02 219,125.00 05/29/1505/29/15AaaAA+ 200,000.00 912828ND8 1.49 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 11/30/2015 1.625% 11/30/2020 136,860.92 140,733.52 192.69 141,214.06 11/14/1611/10/16AaaAA+ 140,000.00 912828M98 1.40 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 146,959.05 150,194.11 7.13 150,304.69 01/10/1701/05/17AaaAA+ 150,000.00 912828N48 1.70 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 12/31/2013 2.375% 12/31/2020 835,636.20 864,430.03 54.21 880,654.69 10/19/1610/18/16AaaAA+ 840,000.00 912828A83 1.19 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/28/2014 2.000% 02/28/2021 1,107,465.75 1,146,761.66 7,520.38 1,163,803.71 05/06/1605/03/16AaaAA+ 1,125,000.00 912828B90 1.26 US TREASURY N/B DTD 02/29/2016 1.125% 02/28/2021 1,856,945.64 1,900,739.19 7,257.17 1,892,832.42 10/04/1710/03/17AaaAA+ 1,930,000.00 912828P87 1.71 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 05/31/2016 1.375% 05/31/2021 598,324.18 612,608.25 722.06 610,215.63 07/10/1707/07/17AaaAA+ 620,000.00 912828R77 1.80 US TREASURY N/B DTD 07/31/2014 2.250% 07/31/2021 1,581,875.20 1,650,846.72 15,016.57 1,678,687.50 10/05/1610/03/16AaaAA+ 1,600,000.00 912828WY2 1.20 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/02/2014 2.000% 08/31/2021 1,436,444.22 1,467,574.97 9,793.21 1,468,776.95 12/05/1612/01/16AaaAA+ 1,465,000.00 912828D72 1.94 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 10/31/2014 2.000% 10/31/2021 983,957.31 1,010,242.61 3,386.41 1,012,105.66 04/05/1704/03/17AaaAA+ 1,005,000.00 912828F96 1.84 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 971,289.00 992,840.58 4,713.11 991,796.88 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 912828W89 2.07 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 03/31/2017 1.875% 03/31/2022 2,622,480.30 2,670,671.22 12,725.41 2,666,988.28 01/04/1801/03/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828W89 2.18 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2017 1.875% 07/31/2022 1,185,905.35 1,218,833.97 9,580.89 1,217,870.12 11/03/1711/01/17AaaAA+ 1,225,000.00 9128282P4 2.00 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par U.S. Treasury Bond / Note US TREASURY NOTES DTD 07/31/2015 2.000% 07/31/2022 2,383,582.95 2,476,041.71 20,439.23 2,481,103.52 09/01/1708/31/17AaaAA+ 2,450,000.00 912828XQ8 1.73 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,442,754.00 1,439,690.36 6,598.36 1,438,769.53 06/06/1806/04/18AaaAA+ 1,500,000.00 912828L57 2.76 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 1,620,693.66 1,668,555.34 7,412.16 1,666,175.39 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,685,000.00 912828L57 1.99 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 09/30/2015 1.750% 09/30/2022 2,164,131.00 2,213,463.96 9,897.54 2,208,779.30 12/05/1712/04/17AaaAA+ 2,250,000.00 912828L57 2.15 US TREASURY NOTES DTD 02/29/2016 1.500% 02/28/2023 2,556,036.00 2,547,292.73 13,536.68 2,542,113.28 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,700,000.00 912828P79 2.80 132,575.10 24,811,106.33 25,373,135.79 1.96 25,415,457.24 25,585,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Supra-National Agency Bond / Note INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV NOTE DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020 1,823,530.50 1,866,669.46 8,838.30 1,865,512.00 09/19/1709/12/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 45905UP32 1.64 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020 1,844,848.50 1,883,346.99 5,739.86 1,887,333.22 10/10/1710/02/17AaaAAA 1,870,000.00 4581X0CD8 1.81 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 01/25/2018 2.250% 01/25/2021 785,568.92 792,990.52 7,751.25 792,662.70 01/25/1801/18/18AaaAAA 795,000.00 45950KCM0 2.35 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION NOTE DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021 1,536,552.20 1,548,944.98 11,912.40 1,548,837.50 03/16/1803/09/18AaaAAA 1,550,000.00 45950VLQ7 2.66 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK NOTE DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021 890,703.11 893,157.90 4,698.75 893,031.00 04/19/1804/12/18AaaAAA 895,000.00 4581X0DB1 2.70 38,940.56 6,881,203.23 6,985,109.85 2.13 6,987,376.42 6,980,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation FNA 2018-M5 A2 DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021 669,332.47 672,739.78 1,958.00 673,128.06 04/30/1804/11/18AaaAA+ 660,000.00 3136B1XP4 2.27 1,958.00 669,332.47 672,739.78 2.27 673,128.06 660,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Federal Agency Bond / Note FHLB GLOBAL NOTES DTD 09/09/2016 1.000% 09/26/2019 2,161,909.20 2,199,215.57 5,805.56 2,198,086.00 09/09/1609/08/16AaaAA+ 2,200,000.00 3130A9EP2 1.03 FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 10/02/2012 1.250% 10/02/2019 246,201.50 248,687.26 772.57 246,145.00 12/31/1512/30/15AaaAA+ 250,000.00 3137EADM8 1.68 FREDDIE MAC GLOBAL NOTES DTD 10/02/2012 1.250% 10/02/2019 1,048,818.39 1,065,267.27 3,291.15 1,065,830.70 10/15/1510/14/15AaaAA+ 1,065,000.00 3137EADM8 1.23 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE DTD 11/07/2014 1.750% 11/26/2019 990,137.00 1,003,433.78 1,701.39 1,010,930.00 04/30/1504/29/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0ZY2 1.50 FREDDIE MAC NOTES DTD 01/17/2017 1.500% 01/17/2020 2,460,727.50 2,498,298.93 17,083.33 2,496,800.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3137EAEE5 1.54 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 986,657.00 1,001,924.35 7,222.22 1,005,810.00 03/27/1503/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 986,657.00 998,924.25 7,222.22 996,920.00 06/29/1506/24/15AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3135G0A78 1.70 FNMA NOTES DTD 01/12/2015 1.625% 01/21/2020 1,134,655.55 1,152,266.14 8,305.56 1,156,712.30 05/01/1504/30/15AaaAA+ 1,150,000.00 3135G0A78 1.50 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/01/2017 1.500% 07/30/2020 1,480,585.26 1,511,790.46 9,531.88 1,510,409.55 08/01/1707/28/17AaaAA+ 1,515,000.00 3135G0T60 1.60 FHLB NOTES DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020 865,302.50 886,556.39 3,161.35 885,380.90 09/19/1709/13/17AaaAA+ 890,000.00 3130ACE26 1.55 FHLB NOTES DTD 09/08/2017 1.375% 09/28/2020 981,972.50 1,007,605.85 3,587.60 1,006,757.90 09/08/1709/07/17AaaAA+ 1,010,000.00 3130ACE26 1.48 FHLMC NOTES DTD 09/29/2017 1.625% 09/29/2020 1,633,662.47 1,663,968.04 6,935.14 1,662,267.90 11/09/1711/08/17AaaAA+ 1,670,000.00 3137EAEJ4 1.79 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Federal Agency Bond / Note FHLMC NOTES DTD 11/15/2017 1.875% 11/17/2020 981,521.00 997,576.93 2,291.67 997,010.00 12/07/1712/06/17AaaAA+ 1,000,000.00 3137EAEK1 1.98 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 224,843.30 234,490.38 1,093.40 234,196.07 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 235,000.00 3135G0N82 1.32 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 731,936.70 763,035.79 3,559.38 761,901.75 08/19/1608/17/16AaaAA+ 765,000.00 3135G0N82 1.33 FNMA NOTES DTD 08/19/2016 1.250% 08/17/2021 1,506,928.50 1,568,845.25 7,328.13 1,565,361.00 09/02/1609/01/16AaaAA+ 1,575,000.00 3135G0N82 1.38 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 1,544,889.99 1,592,947.35 15,497.78 1,595,128.15 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,585,000.00 3135G0S38 1.85 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 01/09/2017 2.000% 01/05/2022 2,436,735.00 2,501,938.43 24,444.44 2,502,650.00 02/13/1702/10/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0S38 1.98 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 1,556,017.01 1,604,820.59 7,189.06 1,604,759.25 06/29/1706/27/17AaaAA+ 1,605,000.00 3135G0T45 1.88 FANNIE MAE NOTES DTD 04/10/2017 1.875% 04/05/2022 2,423,702.50 2,488,497.38 11,197.92 2,485,150.00 05/09/1705/08/17AaaAA+ 2,500,000.00 3135G0T45 2.00 FANNIE MAE AGENCY NOTES DTD 10/06/2017 2.000% 10/05/2022 2,549,989.63 2,545,554.95 12,589.44 2,542,195.30 04/30/1804/30/18AaaAA+ 2,635,000.00 3135G0T78 2.85 159,811.19 28,933,849.50 29,535,645.34 1.73 29,530,401.77 29,650,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Corporate Note WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES DTD 10/28/2013 2.150% 01/15/2019 1,764,118.29 1,772,019.73 17,547.58 1,785,345.90 10/16/1410/10/14A2A- 1,770,000.00 94974BFQ8 1.94 JP MORGAN SECURITIES DTD 04/23/2009 6.300% 04/23/2019 1,028,129.00 1,032,346.15 11,900.00 1,188,900.00 05/09/1405/09/14A3A- 1,000,000.00 46625HHL7 2.25 US BANCORP (CALLABLE) CORPORATE NOTES DTD 04/24/2014 2.200% 04/25/2019 1,753,239.84 1,763,077.15 7,098.67 1,777,952.00 10/16/1410/10/14A1A+ 1,760,000.00 91159HHH6 1.96 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON NT (CALLABLE) DTD 09/11/2014 2.300% 09/11/2019 1,775,339.58 1,787,019.60 12,544.58 1,793,353.80 10/16/1410/10/14A1A 1,785,000.00 06406HCW7 2.20 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020 1,282,944.00 1,307,820.33 9,374.44 1,311,765.00 09/07/1709/05/17A2A- 1,300,000.00 0258M0EE5 1.83 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020 215,241.62 219,910.77 107.25 219,865.80 06/22/1706/19/17A2A 220,000.00 24422ETS8 1.97 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 06/23/2015 2.750% 06/23/2020 956,420.19 980,129.96 589.72 994,432.50 08/22/1608/17/16A3A- 965,000.00 46625HLW8 1.92 WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE DTD 10/20/2017 1.900% 12/15/2020 1,812,511.60 1,847,923.21 1,562.22 1,847,317.50 10/20/1710/11/17Aa2AA 1,850,000.00 931142EA7 1.95 WELLS FARGO CORP NOTES DTD 03/04/2016 2.500% 03/04/2021 943,464.10 979,020.07 7,840.63 988,343.35 08/22/1608/17/16A2A- 965,000.00 949746RS2 1.94 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP CORP NOTES DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021 920,233.48 924,655.75 5,912.29 924,630.00 04/13/1804/10/18Aa3AA- 925,000.00 89236TEU5 2.96 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (CALLABLE) DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021 1,963,194.00 2,026,805.06 10,555.56 2,034,600.00 09/07/1709/05/17A1A 2,000,000.00 06406FAA1 2.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP NOTE DTD 04/19/2016 2.625% 04/19/2021 903,786.84 925,568.48 4,830.00 926,826.40 11/03/1711/01/17A3A- 920,000.00 06051GFW4 2.40 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 898,552.96 921,959.43 4,472.22 922,392.00 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 61746BEA0 2.42 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT (CALLABLE) DTD 04/25/2016 2.625% 04/25/2021 899,692.84 923,777.06 4,427.50 924,636.80 11/06/1711/02/17A3BBB+ 920,000.00 38141GVU5 2.47 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Corporate Note BRANCH BANKING & TRUST (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 05/10/2016 2.050% 05/10/2021 1,449,411.00 1,498,718.04 4,356.25 1,497,810.00 05/16/1605/12/16A2A- 1,500,000.00 05531FAV5 2.08 CITIGROUP INC CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 12/08/2016 2.900% 12/08/2021 901,255.00 925,369.19 1,704.56 926,283.60 11/22/1711/20/17Baa1BBB+ 920,000.00 172967LC3 2.72 IBM CORP BONDS DTD 01/27/2017 2.500% 01/27/2022 1,954,452.00 2,010,018.56 21,388.89 2,013,700.00 02/09/1702/06/17A1A+ 2,000,000.00 459200JQ5 2.35 WALT DISNEY COMPANY/THE CORP NOTES DTD 11/30/2012 2.350% 12/01/2022 1,031,854.88 1,043,131.78 2,105.21 1,041,503.00 04/05/1804/03/18A2A+ 1,075,000.00 25468PCW4 3.07 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES DTD 04/05/2013 2.700% 04/01/2023 1,049,479.50 1,055,590.27 7,256.25 1,054,682.50 04/05/1804/03/18A2A 1,075,000.00 437076AZ5 3.11 135,573.82 23,503,320.72 23,944,860.59 2.24 24,174,340.15 23,870,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Certificate of Deposit COMPASS BANK DTD 08/21/2013 1.800% 08/21/2018 249,950.75 250,000.00 1,602.74 250,000.00 08/21/1308/21/13NRNR 250,000.00 20451PCL8 1.73 AMERICAN EXPRESS CENTURION DTD 08/22/2013 1.900% 08/22/2018 249,997.50 250,000.00 1,678.77 250,000.00 08/22/1308/22/13NRNR 250,000.00 02587DSF6 1.83 SVENSKA HANDELSBANKEN NY LT CD DTD 01/12/2017 1.890% 01/10/2019 1,991,314.00 2,000,000.00 18,060.00 2,000,000.00 01/12/1701/10/17P-1A-1+ 2,000,000.00 86958JHB8 1.91 BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT DEPOS DTD 02/09/2017 1.880% 02/07/2019 1,996,274.00 2,000,000.00 15,040.00 2,000,000.00 02/09/1702/08/17P-1A-1 2,000,000.00 06427KRC3 1.90 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019 1,692,771.60 1,700,000.00 5,711.53 1,700,000.00 05/04/1705/03/17P-1A-1 1,700,000.00 86563YVN0 2.05 SKANDINAV ENSKILDA BANKEN NY CD DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019 1,784,471.40 1,799,617.18 13,708.00 1,799,298.00 08/04/1708/03/17Aa2A+ 1,800,000.00 83050FXT3 1.85 MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS DTD 09/27/2017 2.070% 09/25/2019 920,700.93 930,000.00 14,812.58 930,000.00 09/27/1709/25/17A1A 930,000.00 06539RGM3 2.07 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par Certificate of Deposit CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT DEPOS DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020 1,029,961.89 1,030,000.00 10,924.01 1,030,000.00 02/08/1802/07/18A1A 1,030,000.00 22549LFR1 2.67 NORDEA BANK AB NY CD DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020 1,492,087.50 1,500,000.00 14,620.00 1,500,000.00 02/22/1802/20/18Aa3AA- 1,500,000.00 65590ASN7 2.72 UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020 1,504,932.00 1,500,000.00 14,137.50 1,500,000.00 03/06/1803/02/18Aa2A+ 1,500,000.00 90275DHG8 2.93 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.807% 04/10/2020 900,994.50 900,000.00 5,755.29 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A 900,000.00 22532XHT8 2.85 CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.737% 04/10/2020 899,998.20 900,000.00 5,611.79 900,000.00 04/10/1804/06/18A1A+ 900,000.00 13606BVF0 2.78 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020 1,709,433.30 1,699,374.88 3,490.67 1,699,354.00 06/07/1806/05/18A1A+ 1,700,000.00 06417GU22 3.10 WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020 1,589,441.01 1,615,000.00 13,243.00 1,615,000.00 08/07/1708/03/17Aa3AA- 1,615,000.00 96121T4A3 2.05 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020 1,821,159.48 1,860,000.00 5,395.03 1,860,000.00 11/17/1711/16/17Aa2AA- 1,860,000.00 87019U6D6 2.30 143,790.91 19,833,488.06 19,933,992.06 2.33 19,933,652.00 19,935,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation NAROT 2017-C A3 DTD 12/13/2017 2.120% 04/15/2022 335,350.43 339,951.25 320.36 339,942.51 12/13/1712/06/17AaaNR 340,000.00 65478HAD0 2.13 HART 2018-A A3 DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022 328,906.74 329,952.58 409.20 329,950.30 04/18/1804/10/18AaaAAA 330,000.00 44891KAD7 2.80 TAOT 2018-B A3 DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022 910,151.70 909,986.90 1,197.16 909,986.44 05/16/1805/09/18AaaAAA 910,000.00 89238TAD5 2.96 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023 1,074,926.47 1,074,926.70 358.33 1,074,926.47 06/27/1806/19/18AaaAAA 1,075,000.00 02007JAC1 3.09 For the Month Ending June 30, 2018Managed Account Detail of Securities Held Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value CITY OF BURLINGAME Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Original YTM Accrued Amortized MarketTrade Settle Par 2,285.05 2,649,335.34 2,654,817.43 2.89 2,654,805.72 2,655,000.00 Security Type Sub-Total 109,335,000.00 109,369,161.36 2.07 614,934.63 109,100,300.84 107,281,635.65 Managed Account Sub-Total $109,335,000.00 $109,369,161.36 $614,934.63 $109,100,300.84 $107,281,635.65 2.07% $107,896,570.28 $614,934.63 Total Investments Accrued Interest Securities Sub-Total City of Burlingame Please note the Grand Total is your actual fund account balance at the end of the period, including all contributions per GASB 74 paragraph 22 and accrued disbursements. Please review your statement promptly. All information contained in your statement will be considered true and accurate unless you contact us within 30 days of receipt of this statement. If you have questions about the validity of this information, please contact CERBT4U@calpers.ca.gov. 1,061,190.987 1,061,190.987 $16,846,082.93 $16,846,082.93 15.87469515.874695Period Ending Unit Value 14.71154715.707757Period Beginning Unit Value 0.000 100,103.993 961,086.994 0.000 27,463.622 1,033,727.365 Year to DateCurrent Period Ending Units Unit Sales for Withdrawals Unit Purchases from Contributions Beginning Units Unit Value Summary:Market Value Summary: $16,846,082.93$16,846,082.93Grand Total 0.00 (7,664.75) 0.00 1,131,630.65 1,588,644.62 $14,139,076.52 0.00 (2,073.67) 0.00 171,595.70 440,538.51 $16,237,538.56 Year to DateCurrent Period Ending Balance Disbursement Administrative Expenses Other Investment Earnings Contribution Beginning Balance QTD Fiscal QTD Fiscal FY End Contrib per GASB 74 Para 22 0.00 0.00 Transfer In Transfer Out 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unit Transfer In Unit Transfer Out 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (5,604.11)(1,516.17)Investment Expense CERBT Strategy 1 Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001 Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 FY End Disbursement Accrual 0.00 0.00 1 Statement of Transaction Detail for the Quarter Ending 06/30/2018 City of Burlingame Entity #: SKB0-1429123533-001 Date Description Amount Unit Value Units NotesCheck/Wire 05/11/2018 Contribution $270,542.11 $16.015682 16,892.325 WIRE 2018051000331 529 06/11/2018 Contribution $169,996.40 $16.080940 10,571.297 WIRE 2018060800000 1048 If you have any questions or comments regarding the new statement format please contact CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov Client Contact: CERBT4U@CalPERS.ca.gov 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PARS Post•-Employment Benefits Trust 6/1/2018 to 6/30/2018 Carol Augustine Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd., 1st Floor Burlingame, CA 94010 Source 6/1/2018 Contributions Earnings Expenses Distributions Transfers 6/30/2018 PENSION 1002 $4,810,461.07 $0.00 $3,080.97 $1,002.18 $0.00 $0.00 $4,812,539.86 Totals $4,810,461.07 $0.00 $3,080.97 $1,002.18 $0.00 $0.00 $4,812,539.86 Source PENSION Source PENSION Source 1-Month 3-Months 1-Year 3-Years 5-Years 10-Years PENSION 0.06%0.90%----10/3/2017 Information as provided by US Bank, Trustee for PARS; Not FDIC Insured; No Bank Guarantee; May Lose Value Headquarters - 4350 Von Karman Ave., Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 800.540.6369 Fax 949.250.1250 www.pars.org The dual goals of the Moderate Strategy are growth of principal and income. It is expected that dividend and interest income will comprise a significant portion of total return, although growth through capital appreciation is equally important. The portfolio will be allocated between equity and fixed income investments. Account Report for the Period Beginning Balance as of Investment Selection Account Summary Moderate HighMark PLUS Ending Balance as of Account balances are inclusive of Trust Administration, Trustee and Investment Management fees Annualized Return Investment Return: Annualized rate of return is the return on an investment over a period other than one year multiplied or divided to give a comparable one-year return. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance returns may not reflect the deduction of applicable fees, which could reduce returns. Information is deemed reliable but may be subject to change. Investment Return Plan's Inception Date Investment Objective 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Two Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill two vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Claire Schissler and Karen Malekos Smith. The recommended deadline is Friday, September 21, 2018. This will allow applicants an opportunity to attend the September 18, 2018 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. BACKGROUND The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Ana Maria Silva, Executive Assistant – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Open Nomination Period to Fill Three Vacancies on the Beautification Commission RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council call for applications to fill three vacancies on the Beautification Commission due to the expiring terms of Commissioners Mary Hunt, Mary Ellen Kearney, and Richard Kirchner. The recommended deadline is Friday, September 21, 2018. This will allow applicants an opportunity to attend the September 6, 2018 Beautification Commission meeting. BACKGROUND The City’s current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any Commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. All past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director – (650) 558-7222 Subject: Approval of Recommended Changes to City Purchasing and Contracting Procedures RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council review and approve the proposed changes to the City’s purchasing policy and procedures. BACKGROUND Since 2005, the City’s Purchasing and Contracting Procedures has been used to guide City departments in the procurement of goods and services needed in the provision of operational and capital programs. The document was intended to provide procedures and guidelines to assist each department to efficiently manage, control, and plan their available resources, and to achieve maximum value for each public dollar spent. Only minor changes have been made to the Purchasing and Contracting Procedures since its adoption; the most recent being slight word changes in 2008. In addition, the City Council approved certain contracting authorization levels for the both the City Manager and City Attorney, and provided limits of settlement authority to both of these positions, in October 2013. DISCUSSION The volume of purchase orders prepared for smaller purchases has grown considerably since the adoption of the Procedures, prompting the need for an analysis of purchasing procedures required at various threshold levels (dollar limits). Staff has determined that the thresholds that have been in place for decades are too low and restrictive for today’s purchasing environment, resulting in unnecessarily significant time and resources spent on the procurement process for what are, in today’s dollar values, de minimis purchases. In order to maintain a cost-effective purchasing system conforming to good management practices, staff recommends certain changes in these threshold levels. Such changes do not dictate any changes in the City’s Municipal Code. Other small revisions to the City’s purchasing procedures are also recommended to clarify current purchasing practices and workflow. Dollar Limits – The City’s purchasing procedures require informal and formal bidding on certain purchases or contracts that fall within certain dollar amounts. Staff recommends that the Revisions to Purchasing and Contract Procedures August 20, 2018 2 threshold levels described in the Purchasing and Contracting Procedures for purchases of $25,000 or less be revised to reflect more flexibility and less processing for routine, smaller expenditures. The number of purchases over the current threshold of $1,000 - requiring a purchase order prior to purchase authorization - has grown measurably in recent years. The need to request purchase orders for routine goods or services adds a layer of workflow to the purchasing process that is unnecessary, unless a purchase order is requested by the vendor. Staff recommends that the threshold purchase or contract amount requiring a purchase order be raised to $5,000, bringing this threshold level in line with that of other jurisdictions in the area. Similarly, staff recommends that the threshold dollar amount for requiring that the department obtain three or more written quotations prior to requesting a purchase order be raised from the current $3,000 level to $10,000. Both of these changes are reflected in a revised “Purchasing Policy Summary Table” for staff use. Use of Federal Funds – Purchasing guidelines should include a statement that provides the requirement to comply with federal regulations and federal grant guidelines regarding the use of federal funds in purchase orders/contracts to City vendor/contractors. Insurance – Section I B of the existing Purchasing and Contracting Procedures lists exceptions to the bidding quotation requirements established for most procurement activities. One of these exceptions relates to payments for insurance, but no explanation is currently provided. The recommended (added) language clarifies existing settlement authorities for insurance claims. Signature Authorities – The language in the purchasing guidelines should be updated to include changes to the City’s Municipal Code §3.04.04 (amended in 2013) allowing the City Manager to enter into contracts on behalf of the City. Purchase Orders – Procedures for the creation of a purchase order have changed over the years, and the practices described in Section II of the Purchasing and Contracting Procedures document are no longer applicable. Currently, purchase orders are created and routed for authorizations via the City’s financial system software. These procedures will no doubt be revised with the implementation of the new ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) software, but the workflow will not be drastically altered. The changes proposed in this report pertain only to the first three sections of the City’s existing Purchasing and Contracting Procedures document. Other sections of the document, covering open purchase orders, procurement card procedures, travel reimbursements, etc. also require changes to more clearly delineate the procedures that should be followed within the City’s decentralized purchasing program. After a more thorough analysis is completed, staff will prepare and present a Purchasing Policy for the City Council’s consideration. A Purchasing Manual will then be developed containing expanded explanations and processes for accomplishing the procurement of goods and services in accordance with the Council-approved policy. Together, the Policy and Manual will replace the City’s current Purchasing and Contracting Procedures document. Revisions to Purchasing and Contract Procedures August 20, 2018 3 FISCAL IMPACT Clarification of the City’s internal purchasing and contract procedures will not have any significant fiscal impact. However, the change/increase in thresholds that dictate purchase order requirements and bidding procedures will allow more flexibility, and should help streamline the administrative efforts needed for small departmental purchases. Exhibits: • Redlined Purchasing and Contracting Procedures, Sections I-III • Purchasing Policy Summary Table (Proposed) Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 i Amended __/__/2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Resolution 10-2005………………………………………………………………… …………… V Purpose…………………………………………………………………………………………... 1 I. PROCEDURE TO USE/CONTRACTING PROCEDURES ................................................ I-1 A. Introduction ............................................................................................................. I-1 B. Exceptions to bidding/quotation requirements ........................................................ I-2 C. Business License ...................................................................................................... I-3 D. Contractor's License ................................................................................................ I-3 E. Contract Forms ......................................................................................................... I-3 F. Insurance .................................................................................................................. I-4 G. Bonds ....................................................................................................................... I-4 H. Signatures/Execution ............................................................................................... I-6 II. PURCHASE ORDERS .................................................................................................... II-1 A. Introduction ........................................................................................................... II-1 B. Procedure ............................................................................................................... II-1 C. Obtai1ting a purchase order number ...................................................................... II-1 D. Copies and Payment .............................................................................................. II-1 III. CHECK REQUEST ........................................................................................................ III-1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... III-1 B. Procedure .............................................................................................................. III-1 C. In case of urgency ................................................................................................. III-1 IV. OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS ....................................................................................... IV-1 A. Introduction .......................................................................................................... IV-1 B. Limitations ............................................................................................................ IV-1 C. Listing ................................................................................................................... IV-1 D. Submitting invoices for payment .......................................................................... IV-1 V. PROCUREMENT CARD PROCEDURES ..................................................................... V-1 A. Purpose .................................................................................................................... V-1 B. General information ................................................................................................ V-1 C. Procurement card authorization .............................................................................. V-1 D. Card restrictions ...................................................................................................... V-3 E. Purchasing procedures ............................................................................................. V-3 F. Telephone-mail order or internet procedures .......................................................... V-4 G. Statement processing procedures after purchase .................................................... V-4 Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 ii Amended __/__/2018 H. Disputes ................................................................................................................... V-6 I. Lost or stolen cards ................................................................................................... V-6 J. Changes to cardholder information and request for additional cards ....................... V-6 VI. PETTY CASH ................................................................................................................ VI-1 A.Introduction ............................................................................................................. VI-1 B. Procedure ................................................................................................................ VI-1 C. Maximum Amount ................................................................................................. VI-1 VII. BIDDING PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... VII-1 A. Solicitation of Written Quotations ....................................................................... VII-1 B. Informal Bidding .................................................................................................. VII-1 C. Formal Bidding .................................................................................................... VII-2 D. Processing of Bids ................................................................................................ VII-2 VIII. EMERGENCY PROCEDURES .............................................................................. VIII-1 IX. CAPITAL ASSET ACCOUNTING ............................................................................... IX-1 A. Policy ..................................................................................................................... IX-1 B. Purpose ................................................................................................................... IX-1 C. Definitions .............................................................................................................. IX-1 D. Procedures .............................................................................................................. IX-1 X. EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PROCEDURES .......................................................... X-1 A. Purpose .................................................................................................................... X-1 B. General Policy Statement ........................................................................................ X-1 D. Entertainment .......................................................................................................... X-6 E. Other expenses......................................................................................................... X-7 F. Documentation ......................................................................................................... X-7 G. Time for submittal ................................................................................................... X-8 H. Prohibited reimbursements ..................................................................................... X-8 Footnotes…………………………………………………………………………… … Footnotes-1 Appendices A. Purchasing Forms Purchase Order Check Request Petty Cash Voucher Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 iii Amended __/__/2018 B. Contract Forms Short Form Contract Consultant Form Contract Long Term Provision of Services Form Contract Materials Form Contract Request for Proposals Form Special Provisions Contract Checklist C. Contract Forms Bidder’s Bond Labor and Material Bond Performance Bond D. Standard Insurance Requirements (see also Contract Forms) E. Reimbursement Forms Travel Expense Report Lost Receipt Form F. Risk Management Matrix Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 Introduction-I Amended __/__/2018 PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES Purpose: This procedure describes the City's requirements for purchasing or contracting for services and materials. This Administrative Procedure contains the following: I. Procedure to Use/Contracting Procedures II. Purchase Orders III. Check Requests IV. Open Purchase Orders V. Procurement Card Procedures VI. Petty Cash VII. Bidding Procedures VIII. Emergency Procedures IX. Capital Asset Accounting X. Expense Reimbursement Appendix Purchasing Forms Contract Forms Bond Forms Standard Insurance Requirements Travel Reimbursement Forms Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-1 Amended __/__/2018 I. PROCEDURE TO USE/CONTRACTING PROCEDURES A. Introduction. In determining which procedure to use, the person authorized to make the purchase should determine; 1) which procedure is legally required by State or local law; and then 2) whether a more formal procedure would provide more benefit to the City. For example, while only verbal quotations may be legally required, written quot ations might ensure a better evaluation. Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 2.28 adopts the State Uniform public Construction Cost Accounting Act established by Public Contract Code Sections 22030 and following. This means that the City may use differing levels of contract cost to determine when formal bidding is required; however, use of that system also means that City officers and employees are obligated to scrutinize spending obligations and ensure that the City's money is properly accounted for. A-1. Dollar Limits (no federal funds used) 1. Under $1,000Up to $5,000: Departmental discretion. Purchase order is required if requested by vendor. 2. $1,000 to $2,999$5,001 to $10,000: Two (2) or more verbal quotations are required. Purchase order required. Use telephone quotation form and sSubmit telephone quotations with purchase order to Finance Department. 3. $3,000 to $25,000$10,001 to $25,000: Three (3) or more written quotations and purchase orders are required. Note: $25,000 or less: May be performed by City employees, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order after three (3) or more written quotations. However, this is an unusual occurrence and both the City Attorney and the Finance Director should be consulted on pursuing this alternative. 4. $25,001 to $75,000: Awarded by informal bidding procedures pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 2.28 (See Section VII(B) below) or formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C) below). 5. $75,001 to $100,000: Awarded by formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C) below), unless the City Manager specifically authorizes in writing the use of informal procedures (See Section VII(B) below) for that project. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-2 Amended __/__/2018 6. Over $100,000: Awarded by formal bidding procedures (See Section VII(C) below). In selecting the vendor or contractor to which to award the purchase or contract, it is expected that the award will be made to the responsible vendor or contractor that submits the lowest responsive quote or bid. In certain detailed quotes or bids, a request for proposal process, or in an extraordinary circumstance, a vendor or contractor who does not submit the lowest quote or bid may be awarded the purchase or contract. However, any such determination that is not based on a request for proposal process must be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the applicable department head. A-2. Procurement Requirements Using Federal Funds For federally-funded contracts and purchases, city departments should follow the Uniform Guidance procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326, to comply with Federal requirements and regulations. B. Exceptions to bidding/quotation requirements are listed below. However, the same rules with regard to approval apply, i.e. the Council approves any contract or purchase over $100,000; the City Manager approves any contract or purchase over $75,000: 1. Where a sole source of supply or standardization is determined to be beneficial to the needs of the City. Pre-approval by the Finance Director and the City Attorney in writing is required, and additional approval by the City Manager or the City Council may be required as determined by the City Attorney. 2. Where an emergency as defined in the State Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act requires the purchase without following the bidding procedures. Pre-approval by the Finance Director or the Director's designee, and the City Attorney, if available, is required, and additional approval by the City Manager or the City Council may be required as determined by the Finance Director or City Attorney. 3. Specialized professional or recreational services1. 4. Insurance Claims. For General Liability claims, under the Municipal Code, the City Attorney is authorized to enter into settlements of claims or litigation brought or asserted against the City in an amount up to $15,000 acting alone and in an amount up to $20,000 with the City Manager’s concurrence. Such settlements shall be reported to the City Council on a fiscal year basis. Claims over $20,000 require City Council approval. For workers’ compensation claims, the Human Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-3 Amended __/__/2018 Resource Director shall be able to enter into settlements of claims in an amount up to $100,000 with the concurrence from both the City Manager and the City Attorney. For claims over $100,000, City Council approval is required. 5. Where the calling for bids on a competitive basis is impractical or impossible. Pre-approval by the City Manager and the City Attorney is required, and additional approval by the City Council may be required as determined by the City Attorney. 6. Open purchase order. However, if the total purchases from a vendor or contractor for the fiscal year exceeds $10,000, the purchasing shall be reviewed annually for competitiveness by the Finance Director. If purchases exceed $25,000 in a fiscal year under an open purchase order, the purchasing or contracting shall be subject to the bidding procedures described above and the open purchase order process does not apply until purchases drop below $25,000 in a fiscal year. It is the general policy of the City that open purchase orders should be re- evaluated on no less than a 3 to 5 -year basis to ensure that the vendor is still providing a competitive price and quality product or service. 7. Purchase of equipment or software that are evaluated under a request for proposals process. C. Business License. Any vendor or contractor doing business in Burlingame must obtain a current City business license before award of purchase or contract is made. D. Contractor's License. Any call for a bid for a construction project of any kind must specify the level of State contractor's license required to perform the work. E. Contract Forms. 1. Considerations. If the minimal information provided on a purchase order will do, then a purchase order signed by the vendor or contractor is a contract. However, remember that the writing on that purchase order is probably all that can be relied on. If there is no date of delivery given or no quality description, then don't be surprised if things don't work out. Without a contract, a vendor or contractor may argue that there were some oral agreements that were different from what the purchaser understood. Very often, the lack of a more formal contract means that the understandings with the vendor or contractor may not be enforceable. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-4 Amended __/__/2018 2. A contract is necessary if insurance or a bond is to be required. If there is any question of importance, use a contract. 3. Attached are different forms of contract for use: a. Short Form Contract. This is intended for use when a vendor or contractor is going to perform limited work on City property, such as installing a piece of equipment. b. Material Contract. This is intended for use when equipment or supplies are going to be provided with little or no work to occur on City property. For example, a supplier is going to deliver and set up a copy machine. c. Consultant Contract. This is a form for alteration when retaining a consultant or other professional. d. Standard Request for Bids. This is for use when requesting bids; it is in a formal bid format, but can be redone to use in an informal bid process. Generally, it will be used with the Standard Special Provisions described in subsection (E). It also includes a standard agreement for use in awarding the bid. e. Standard Special Provisions. These are the standard provisions to be included in project specifications F. Insurance. If a vendor or contractor is going to spend any extended period of time on City property, insurance is required. The standard insurance requirements are provided in Appendix D. However, if there are high risks involved in a project or if the potential damage would be extensive, then these limits should be increased. Approval of the City Attorney is required for any variation in insurance. A checklist for insurance is provided in Appendix B. G. Bonds. 1. Type of bonds. In many projects, there are 4 bond types that are generally required. As described below, some of these bonds are required as a matter of State law. In other cases, their use should be considered to best meet the public and City interest. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-5 Amended __/__/2018 a. Labor & Materials (or Payment) Bond. This bond seeks to protect the rights of subcontractors, laborers, and material suppliers to a public contract. This is the most important bond under State law and should be required whenever there is any labor involved of any substantial nature. i. For any project or contract that involves labor or installation of materials/products and will cost more than $25,000, a labor & materials bond must be required and provided2. ii. The amount must be equal to the amount of the contract. iii. The bond must be in California form. For example, the AIA Form (a national form) is not acceptable. A form labor & materials bond is provided in Appendix C. iv. Failure to obtain this bond exposes the City and City employees to direct liability for unpaid labor, subcontractors, and materials providers b. Performance Bond. There is no statutory requirement that performance bonds be provided. However, a performance bond provides reasonable assurance that if the contractor defaults on the project, a bonding company will either provide or pay for another contractor to complete the work. Therefore, it is good practice to require a performance bond. A performance bond shall be required on all contracts over $75,000. i. The amount is equal to the amount of the contract. ii. A sample performance bond is provided in Appendix C. It is vital that the bond provide that any changes in the amount of the contract or the specifications will be covered by the bond. c. Maintenance Bond. As with performance bonds, there is no statutory requirement for a maintenance bond. However, it is good practice in many instances. It should be based on expected test and evaluation periods and can be for varying periods and amounts. Often, the performance bond may roll into a maintenance bond, and the submittal of an acceptable maintenance bond is a precondition to substantial completion of a project. d. Bidder's Bond. Whenever a project valued at $5,000 or more is put out for formal or informal bids, a bidder's bond must be required and provided3. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 I-6 Amended __/__/2018 The amount is 10% of the value of the bid, and ensures that the bonding company will pay the difference between the low bid and the bid actually awarded, should the low bidder fail to execute the contract for the project. It is a penalty bond. 2. Submittal and Review. When each bond is submitted, the City is required to verify through the State Insurance Commissioner's website that the bonding company is allowed to do business in the State. The webpage showing that information must be printed out and attached to the bond for filing. Failure to perform this step means that the City may be liable should the bonding company not perform its obligations under the bond4. H. Signatures/Execution. 1. Contracts. Except for exceptional situations, only the City Manager, the Director of Public Works and the Finance Director have explicit authority under the Municipal Code to execute contracts that bind the City. Authority for others to sign must come from Council action or when others are acting as the City Manager, the Director of Public Works or the Finance Director in their absence. Contracts must also be approved by the City Attorney as to form and by the City Clerk to attest. If an unauthorized City employee signs a contract that attempts to bind the City, that employee may be personally responsible to pay for the contract. 2. Purchase Orders. Purchase order signature authority is conferred by individual department heads. Finance will require written notification of individuals authorized to sign purchase orders. I. Risk Evaluation. In determining whether and how to proceed with a purchase of new equipment, the persons responsible for the purchase and program should use the Risk Matrix contained in Appendix F. This Matrix allows a thoughtful evaluation of the possible risks and strategies that may arise when considering such a purchase. This matrix is also useful when considering whether to begin or revise a service or program. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 II-1 Amended __/__/2018 II. PURCHASE ORDERS A. Introduction. Purchase orders are the way in which a verbal quotation or a written agreement is translated into a fiscal commitment and properly appropriated under the City budget. As soon as agreement with a vendor is reached, a purchase order must be prepared. All purchases capital equipment (see Section IX(C)) and contracts require a purchase order. Also refer to the earlier discussion in Section I(E) about having a contract accompany the purchase order. B. Procedure. A purchase order requisition is prepared as soon as agreement with the vendor is reached. A copy of the written quotation, telephone quotation, or agreement must be forwarded to Finance. If the agreement is being submitted to the City Council for approval, a purchase order requisition must be prepared the day after Council approval, and a copy of the vendor agreement sent to Finance. C. Obtaining a purchase order number. 1. To obtain a purchase order number until the implementation of the electronic purchase order requisition system, call the Finance Department at extension 215. Send the completed purchase order to the Finance Department. 2.1. To obtain a purchase order number upon implementation of the electronic purchase order requisition system, the requestor must enter a purchase order requisition in the electronic purchase order requisition system. After the purchase order requisition is approved by the requestor's supervisor; department head, and the Finance Department, a purchase order number is assigned by the electronic financial system. In an emergency situation, Finance can provide an emergency purchase order number. This number will then be entered into the electronic purchase order system. D. Copies and Payment. A department and a receiving copy will be returned to you. When the order is received, initial the "receive" copy, indicate receive date and quantity, and forward it to Finance for payment. If you receive only a portion of an order, make a copy of the receive copy, write "partial" in the description, note the amount to be paid, and forward the partial to Finance for payment. When Finance receives the invoice from the vendor, payment will be made based on the returned purchase order copy. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 II-2 Amended __/__/2018 Once a purchase order is approved, the Department has the ability to access and print out the purchase order. When the purchase is received, a paper copy of the PO or the Packing Slip should be made to, indicate the date and quality received, and initialed by a Departmental representative. This copy will be forwarded to Finance as back-up for payment once the invoice is received. If only a portion of an order is received, this should be indicated on this back-up documentation. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 III-1 Amended __/__/2018 III. CHECK REQUEST A. Introduction. For purchases of equipment that is not capitalized (see Section IX(C) for definition of capital assets) and for non-contractual services, check requests are the normal way of making payment to vendors. B. Procedure. Complete the check request form and obtain authorizing signatures. For first-time use of a vendor, fill in complete vendor information. The City is required to issue Form 1099's for payments to vendors, so if a payee is an individual, the City must obtain the individual's social securit y number for reporting to the IRS; the department making the purchase is responsible for obtaining the social security number, not Finance Department. C. In case of urgency, the Finance Department can quickly prepare checks, but this should be used only sparingly. Contact the Financial Services Manager Finance Department directly when such instances arise. Adopted 2/7/2005 Adopted 2/22/2006 Amended 2/21/2007 Amended 8/18/2008 Footnotes-1 Amended __/__/2018 FOOTNOTES 1. Gov’t Code § 4526. 2. Civil Code §§ 3247, 3248. 3. Public Contract Code § 20170. Cash, cashier’s check, or certified check can also be used as security. 4. Code of Civil Procedure § 995.311. 5. Public Contract Code § 22034. 6. Public Contract Code § 22037. PURCHASING POLICY SUMMARY TABLE Dollar Limits Type Requirements Up to $5,000 Department Discretion • Vendor quotations are optional. Staff seeks competitive pricing for the best value at low cost and document efforts. • Purchase Order is not required, unless requested by the vendor. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • Finance reviews for proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines. $5,001 - $10,000 Verbal Quotations • At least two (2) verbal quotations are required. • Purchase order is required1. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • Finance reviews quotation information, proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines2. $10,001 - $25,000 Written Quotations • At least three (3) written quotations are required. • Purchase order is required1. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • Finance reviews quotation information, proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines2. $25,001 - $75,000 Informal Bidding • Follow the informal bidding procedures. • Purchase order is required1. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • Finance reviews informal bid information, proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines2. $75,001 - $100,000 Formal Bidding • Follow the formal bidding procedures, unless the City Manager authorizes in writing the use of informal bidding procedures. • Purchase order and contract are required. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • City Manager, or the designee, approval is required. • Finance reviews formal bid information, proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines2. Over $100,000 Formal Bidding • Follow the formal bidding procedures. • Purchase order and contract are required. • Department Head, or the designee, approval is required. • City Manager, or the designee, approval is required. • City Council approval is required. • Finance reviews formal bid information, proper use of public funds and compliance with the purchasing guidelines2. 1 A contract is necessary if insurance or a bond is required. See Purchasing and Contracting Procedures Section I(F) and I(G). 2 When entering a purchase requisition in the city’s finance computer system, city departments should include an explanation as to why the vendor was selected, and submit relating document/information, such as quotations or bidding summary, as supporting document for Finance review. 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC for the Installation of Conduit on City Right of Way and Ratifying the Use of That Agreement as a Form for Subsequent Similar Applications RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a License Agreement with Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) to install conduit in the City’s right of way. BACKGROUND Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) is a mobile telecommunications carrier with an approved certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission. To improve mobile telecommunications services, Zayo desires to install conduit on the City’s right of way at various locations, as shown and described in Zayo’s permit applications filed with the City. The proposed installation is for conduit only, not antennas or other similar equipment. DISCUSSION Zayo’s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions of a License Agreement, which is a master agreement with individual encroachment permits to be obtained as conduit needs to be installed. The License Agreement is the result of considerable discussion and negotiation between City staff and Zayo. The License Agreement states that Zayo shall provide the necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation of the conduit will not interfere with the use of the property by the City, and Zayo shall remove or relocate the conduit should the needs of the City require such action in the future. FISCAL IMPACT There is no impact on the City General Fund. RESOLUTION NO. _______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR INSTALLATION AND USE OF UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Zayo Group, LLC (“Zayo”) is a mobile telecommunications carrier with an approved certificate of public convenience and necessity from the California Public Utilities Commission; and WHEREAS, mobile telecommunications service is an important element of life in the San Francisco Bay Area and in Burlingame specifically; and WHEREAS, to improve mobile telecommunications services, Zayo desires to install conduit on the City’s right of way as shown and described in Zayo’s permit applications filed with the City, and WHEREAS, Zayo’s installation of conduit shall be subject to the terms and conditions of an encroachment permit and a Licensing Agreement; and WHEREAS, the License Agreement states that Zayo shall provide the necessary assurances and covenants so that the installation of the conduit will not interfere with the use of the property by the City, and Zayo shall remove or relocate the conduit should the needs of the City require such action in the future; and WHEREAS, the License Agreement authorized by this Resolution may be used as a model template for subsequent similar applications, and the City Manager is authorized to make such minor changes as are necessary to it for future applications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the License Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. ____________________________ Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ City Clerk Page 1 of 15 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA AND ZAYO GROUP, LLC FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIBER OPTIC FACILITIES This Agreement is entered into as of ______________, 2018 (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Burlingame, California, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and Zayo Group, LLC, a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware (“Company”). RECITALS A. Company is authorized to provide Telecommunications Services (as defined herein) in the State of California by the California Public Utilities Commission. B. Company desires to install Facilities (as defined herein) from time to time within the Public Rights-Of-Way within City in order to provide Telecommunications Services. C. City has the authority to regulate the terms and conditions for use of the Public Rights-Of-Way and land use within the corporate limits of the City. D. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide the general framework within which Company will apply for necessary encroachment permits and install the Facilities within the corporate limits of the City. The parties do not intend the Agreement to give Company a right to the award of any such permits. AGREEMENT In consideration of the Recitals set forth above, the mutual promises and terms and conditions of this Agreement and other valuable consideration, the adequacy of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: ARTICLE 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 Company – means Company, and its lawful successors or assigns. 1.2 City – means the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of California, including the duly elected or appointed officers, agents, employees, and volunteers of the City of Burlingame, individually or collectively. 1.3 City Engineer – The City Engineer of the City of Burlingame, State of California, acting either directly or through properly authorized agents, such agents acting within the scope of the particular duties entrusted to them. 1.4 Public Rights-Of-Way – means the surface of and the space above and below any street, road, highway, Right-Of-Way, alley, easement, pathway, sidewalk and other public way, including driveway, curb, gutter, paving or other surface and subsurface drainage structure or facility and any public place, or City property, now or hereafter existing as such within the City. 1.5 Telecommunications Services – means services that Company is authorized to offer and/or provide as of the date of this Agreement pursuant to any applicable Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) issued by the California Public Utilities Commission, including its existing CPCN approved by D98-12-083 which authorizes Company to provide resold and full facilities-based local exchange service, including access service, in the territories of the Page 2 of 15 five Uniform Regulatory Framework companies, and interexchange services throughout the State of California. 1.6 Facilities – means fiber optic cables, coaxial and copper cables, conduits, converters, splice boxes, cabinets, handholes, manholes, vaults, equipment, drains, surface location marker, appurtenances, and related facilities located or to be located in the Public Rights-Of-Way of the City and used or useful for the transmission of telecommunication data. This shall not mean commercial transmitting, relaying and/or receiving antennas, antenna support structures and/or ancillary facilities, including, but not limited to, equipment cabinets, facility components and similar structures or equipment and/or overhead service/transmission lines used for the purpose of transmitting, relaying and/or transmitting and/or receiving data, voice and/or paging services. ARTICLE 2 INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF FACILITIES 2.1 Permitted Installations. During the term of this Agreement, Company may install, maintain, operate, relocate and remove the Facilities within the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way subject to the issuance of required encroachment and building permits and approvals. The Facilities shall be shown and described in permit applications filed with the City Engineer and may be modified by subsequent permits approved by the City. All Facilities to be installed, maintained, operated, relocated and removed under this Agreement shall be underground in areas where all existing utilities are already underground or all new utilities are being installed underground; provided, however, that in those areas where poles exist and electric and telephone lines are overhead, Company may install fiber optic cables overhead if using the same poles (subject to the approval of the pole owner and City); and further provided that whenever and wherever the owner of the poles moves its plant from overhead to underground placement in an area, all Company’s facilities must be relocated and moved underground as directed by the City Engineer, at Company's expense, and in accordance with then-existing City practices, policies and regulations. 2.2 No Cost to City. The construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and removal of any Facilities shall be accomplished (i) without cost or expense to the City and (ii) subject to the prior approval of the City Engineer. Company shall maintain any such Facilities at all times in good and safe condition and free from any nuisance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2.3 Compliance with Code. Company shall comply with the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time (the “Code”), including Title 12 Streets and Sidewalk, Chapter 12.10 Encroachment Permit and Chapter 25 Wireless Communications Facilities. Company shall also comply with applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code, as amended from time to time (the “Zoning Code”). In the event of a conflict between this Agreement and the Code and/or the Zoning Code, the provisions of the Code and/or the Zoning Code shall apply. 2.4 Encroachment Permits. All work performed by Company under this Agreement shall be made pursuant to individual encroachment permits. Company shall obtain encroachment permits from the City for the installation of the Facilities and for any other work or activities within the City’s Public Rights-Of-Way as required by Chapter 12.10 of the Code. Company shall submit all plans, schedules, and information required by the Code and the City Engineer. Company also shall submit all required fees, cash deposits, bonds or other security required by the City Engineer Page 3 of 15 in accordance with the Code. All work within the Public Rights-Of-Way shall be performed in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and the pertinent encroachment permit. Once a permit is issued, Company shall commence work and complete the construction and installation of the Facilities in accordance with the Code and any construction schedule approved by the City Engineer in the applicable permit. 2.5 Compliance with Laws and Regulations. Company shall at all times during the duration of this Agreement, comply with all state, federal and local laws and regulatory requirements, including, without limitation, compliance with Company’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity, the California Environmental Quality Act, zoning laws, and construction codes. Company shall at all times employ reasonable care so as not to endanger personnel or property or unreasonably obstruct travel on any Public Rights-Of-Way and shall install, maintain and use commonly accepted industry methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injury or nuisance to the public or other users of the Public Rights-Of-Way, public property or private property. 2.6 Coordination of Excavation with Other Permittees. Company shall coordinate work with other utilities using the Public Rights-Of-Way in accordance with Title 12 of the Code and the requirements imposed by any applicable encroachment permit. 2.7 Membership In Underground Service Alert. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 4216.1, Company shall become a member of Underground Service Alert-Northern California and shall field mark, at its sole expense, the locations of its underground Facilities upon notification in accordance with the requirements of Section 4216 of the State of California Government Code, as it now reads or may hereinafter be amended. Company shall furnish written proof of such membership to the City Engineer within thirty (30) days of obtaining such membership (or within 30 days of the date of this agreement if such membership has been obtained prior to the date of this agreement). Repeal or amendment of Government Code Section 4216.1 shall not negate Company’s obligation to maintain such membership, unless such repeal or amendment disbands or eliminates Underground Service Alert-Northern California, and shall not negate any notice requirement to City. Company shall undertake and perform any work authorized by this Agreement in a skillful and workmanlike manner, free of defects. 2.8 Facilities Maps. Company shall promptly submit to City accurate as-built maps, plans and record drawings showing in detail the location, depth, and size of all Company Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way (collectively, the “Maps”) within thirty (30) days of a request by the City Engineer. Such Maps shall be submitted in the form and with the detail required by the City Engineer. The Company shall provide, upon demand, copies of the Maps to other third parties interested in performing work within Public Rights-Of-Way for a reasonable charge upon request within thirty (30) days after such demand. The Company shall, moreover, at its sole cost and expense, pothole its subsurface Facilities to a depth of 1' below the bottom of its subsurface Facilities within thirty (30) days of receipt of a written request from the City to do so. 2.9 Contractors. Any contractor or subcontractor used for the construction, installation, operation, maintenance or repair of the Facilities must be properly licensed under the laws of the state and all applicable local ordinances, and each contractor or subcontractor shall have the same obligations with respect to its work as Company would have under this Agreement and applicable law if the work were performed by Company. Company shall be responsible for ensuring that the Page 4 of 15 work of contractors and subcontractors is performed consistent with this Agreement and applicable law, shall be responsible for all acts or omissions of contractors or subcontractors, shall be responsible for promptly correcting acts or omissions by any contractor or subcontractor, and shall implement a quality control program to ensure that the work is properly performed. This section is not meant to alter tort liability of Company to third parties. ARTICLE 3 LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 3.1 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or creating any franchise rights. 3.2 This Agreement is not a grant by City of any property interest but is made subject and subordinate to the prior and continuing right of City to use all the Public Rights-Of-Way, including but not limited to, public use as a street and for the purpose of laying, installing, maintaining, repairing, protecting, replacing and removing sanitary sewers, water mains, storm drains, gas mains, poles, overhead and underground electric and telephone wires, electroilers, cable television and other utility and municipal uses together with appurtenances thereof and with right of ingress and egress, along, over, across and in said Public Rights-Of-Way. 3.3 This Agreement shall not create a vested right of any nature in Company to use the Public Rights-Of-Way. This Agreement is made subject to all easements, restrictions, conditions, covenants, encumbrances and claims of title which may affect the Public Rights-Of-Way, and it is understood that Company, at its own cost and expense, shall obtain such permission as may be necessary consistent with any other existing rights. No reference herein to “Public Rights-Of-Way” shall be deemed to be a representation or guarantee by City that its interest or other rights to control the use of such property is sufficient to permit its use for such purposes. It is not a warranty of title or interest in any Public Rights-Of-Way. It does not confer rights other than as expressly provided in the grant hereof, and Company shall be deemed to gain only those rights to use as are properly in City and as City may have the undisputed right and power to give. 3.4 This Agreement only authorizes Company to use the portions of the Public Rights- Of-Way specifically described in one or more encroachment permits if and when issued by the City. It does not require the City to approve any particular encroachment permit applications, nor does it provide Company with any interest in any particular location within the Public Rights-Of- Way. This Agreement shall not be deemed to approve any particular design or installation technique. Certain specific physical design aspects of the Facilities and detailed approvals of the installation of the Facilities will occur through the issuance of specific permits and approvals by the City. 3.5 If Company proposes and is authorized by the Public Utilities Commission of California or the Federal Communications Commission to provide additional and/or alternative services other than Telecommunication Services and intends to offer such services to customers within the corporate limits of City, Company shall notify City in writing, as soon as practicable, and comply with City’s local ordinances, including any fee, franchise and/or permit requirements. Company acknowledges that any expansion or change in the character and nature of the services in general may increase City’s regulatory authority over such service and/or product, and this may, at City’s election, require Company to enter into a new Agreement consistent with the requirements Page 5 of 15 of an existing or hereinafter-enacted City ordinance regulating such services, if all or any part of such services fall under the regulation, jurisdiction and authority of City. 3.6 This Agreement shall be for the non-exclusive use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. By executing this Agreement, City does not agree to restrict the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way in all or any part of the City by any person in the same business, a related business, or a competing business as Company. 3.7 Company is not authorized to use any City property located outside of the Public Rights-Of-Way nor any City-owned infrastructure located within the Public Rights-Of-Way without the prior express written agreement of the City. ARTICLE 4 REQUIRED CASH DEPOSIT OR BOND 4.1 Security. Company will furnish and deliver to City, the following securities, each of which must be issued by a surety company duly and regularly authorized to do general surety business in the State of California, or such other surety as may be acceptable to the City Engineer: (a) Performance Security. Company shall furnish and deliver a surety security (the “Durable Performance Security”), naming the City of Burlingame as the obligee, in the amount of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the Work or concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. The Durable Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be released by City one-year following the termination of this Agreement. This one (1) year period is to guarantee that any work is of good quality and free from any defective or faulty materials or workmanship. City may draw on the Durable Performance Security in the event of a default by Company or in the event that Company fails to fulfill any of its obligations under this Agreement. City may also draw on the Durable Performance Security to cover any reimbursements owed to City by Company. If City draws on the Durable Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company will promptly restore the Durable Performance Security to the full amount of not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of the. In the event that a bond issued pursuant to this Section of this Agreement is canceled by the surety, after proper notice and pursuant to the terms of said bond, Company shall, prior to the expiration of said bond, procure a replacement bond that complies with the terms of this Section of this Agreement. 4.2 Additional Security. 4.2.1 Whenever Company applies for an encroachment permit to perform work under this Agreement, it will provide City with an estimate of its cost for the work, including estimated labor costs. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that the Durable Performance Security provides insufficient security in relation to the proposed work, it may require Company to obtain an additional performance security in an amount City determines necessary to provide adequate security (an “Additional Performance Security”), which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. Each Additional Performance Security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement and any work performed thereunder and shall be released by City Page 6 of 15 one-year following the date the work for which it was obtained is completed, inspected, accepted, and released by the City Engineer. With respect to any proposed work, City may recover against both the Durable Performance Security and any applicable Additional Performance Security obtained to insure that work. If City draws on any Additional Performance Security, it will notify Company of the amount drawn, and Company will promptly restore such Additional Performance Security to its full original amount. 4.2.2 Whenever Company applies for an encroachment permit to perform work under this Agreement, it will provide City with an estimate of its cost for the work, including estimated labor costs. If City, in its sole discretion, determines that the Durable Payment Security provides insufficient security in relation to the proposed work, it may require Company to obtain an additional payment security in an amount City determines necessary to provide adequate security (an “Additional Payment Security”), which security must be acceptable to the City Engineer. City shall retain each Additional Payment Security until both (i) one (1) year following the date the work for which it was obtained is completed, inspected, accepted, and released by the City Engineer and (ii) the applicable statute of limitations has expired. With respect to any proposed work, City may recover against the Durable Payment 4.3 Recovery. So long as any securities described in Section 4.2 and 4.3 remain in place (each an “Existing Security”), they may be utilized by the City as provided herein for reimbursement of the City by reason of Company’s failure to pay the City for actual costs and expenses incurred by the City with respect to the Facilities, including any expenses for removal under this Agreement. 4.3.1 In the event Company has been declared by the City to be in default of a material provision of this Agreement and if Company fails, within 30 days of mailing of the City’s default notice, to perform any of the conditions of this Agreement, or fails to begin to perform any such condition that may take more than 30 days to complete, City may thereafter obtain from the applicable Existing Security, after proper claim is made to the surety, an amount sufficient to compensate the City for its damages and/or expenses. Upon such withdrawal from an Existing Security, the City shall notify Company in writing, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, of the amount withdrawn and the date thereof. 4.3.2 Thirty days after the City’s mailing of notice of the cash deposit or bond forfeiture or withdrawal authorized herein, Company shall deposit such further cash or bond, or other security, as the City may require, which is sufficient to bring the amount of each Existing Security back to its original amount. 4.3.3 The rights reserved to the City with respect to any Existing Security are in addition to all other rights of the City whether reserved by this Agreement or authorized by law, and no action, proceeding, or exercise of a right with respect to any cash deposit or bond shall constitute an election or waiver of any rights or other remedies the City may have. 4.4 Other Security Provisions. 4.4.1 If any Existing Security is a corporate surety bond and, in the opinion of the City, any surety or sureties thereon become insufficient, Company shall renew or replace any such surety with good and sufficient surety or sureties within ten (10) days after receiving from City written demand thereof. Page 7 of 15 4.4.2 Any Existing Security consisting of corporate surety bonds shall be kept on file with the City Engineer. If a corporate surety bond is replaced by another approved bond, the replacement shall be filed with the City Engineer and made a part of and incorporated into this Agreement. Upon filing and approval by the City Engineer of a replacement bond, the former Existing Security shall be released. 4.4.3 If there is an increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may require Company to increase the amount of any Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment Security so that the applicable securities cover the entire estimated cost of the work. In addition, if there is any increase to the estimated cost of any work, City may also require Company to obtain an Additional Performance Security and/or Additional Payment Security even if such additional security had not been originally required with respect to the work. ARTICLE 5 TERM AND TERMINATION 5.1 Duration. This Agreement shall remain in force for ten (10) years, subject to the City’s authority to regulate the terms and conditions of Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of- Way, and its right to terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section 5.2 below. If none of the grounds for termination listed in Section 5.2 exist at the end of the initial term (or any Renewal Term), the Agreement shall automatically renew for a one (1) year period (a “Renewal Term”) on the same terms and conditions unless either party provides written notice to the other party at least six (6) months prior to the expiration of the then-current term stating it does not wish to renew the Agreement. For the sake of clarity, at the end of each Renewal Term this Agreement will renew for an additional Renewal Term unless it is terminated as described in the preceding sentence. In the event that Company loses its authorizations to use the Public Rights-Of-Way, including any CPCN, at any time during the initial term or a Renewal Term, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate. 5.2 Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days written notice of termination upon the occurrence of any of the following: 5.2.1 Reasonable determination by City that the provisions herein interfere with the use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way or any part thereof by City. Where only a portion of Company’s Facilities interfere with the use or disposal of the Public Rights-Of-Way, the City, at its sole discretion, may elect to require Company to relocate the said portion in accordance with Article 6 of this Agreement. 5.2.2 For failure, neglect, or refusal by the Company to fully and promptly comply with any and all of the conditions of this Agreement, or for nonuse in accordance with Section 6.2 herein, unless Company confirms within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice that the cited condition has ceased, been corrected or, subject to the City’s agreement, is diligently being pursued by the Company; 5.2.3 An order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction approving a petition in bankruptcy or ordering the dissolution, winding up or liquidation of Company or appointing a custodian, receiver, trustee, or other officer to administer a substantial part of Company’s property. Page 8 of 15 5.2.4 The revocation, expiration or other loss of applicable permits or authorizations required by City, state or federal law for the use, maintenance or operation of the Facilities. 5.3 Occupancy/Removal/Abandonment upon Termination. Company shall discontinue use of the Facilities immediately upon termination of this Agreement and within one hundred and twenty (120) days after termination of this Agreement, Company shall either completely remove the Facilities at Company’s sole cost and expense or, with City approval, abandon the Facilities in place. The provisions of Articles 6.2-6.4 shall govern any such removal or abandonment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period due to exigent circumstances and may authorize a longer period if it is in the public interest. If Company fails to remove the Facilities within the prescribed time period and the City has not approved abandonment in place, the City may remove the Facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all expenses, including but not limited to administrative, legal and consultant costs, within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice from the City. ARTICLE 6 REMOVAL, RELOCATION AND ABANDONMENT 6.1 Upon receipt of a written demand from the City, Company, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove and relocate any Facilities installed, used and/or maintained by Company under this Agreement when such removal or relocation is made necessary (a) due to any work proposed to be done by or on behalf of the City or other governmental agency, including but not limited to, any change of grade, alignment or width of any street, sidewalk or other public facility, installation of curbs, gutters or landscaping and installation, construction, maintenance or operation of any underground or aboveground facilities such as sewers, drains, pipes, power lines, and tracks or (b) due to a determination by the City that the Facilities are detrimental to governmental activities. Company shall complete the removal or relocation within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the City or according to an agreed upon schedule with the City of no less than ninety (90) days. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City Engineer may require a shorter period due to exigent circumstances and may authorize a longer period if it will not delay the public project. If Company fails to remove or relocate the facilities within the prescribed time period, City may remove the facilities at the expense of Company, and Company shall promptly reimburse the City for any and all expenses, including administrative, legal and consultant costs, within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice from the City. Any removal or relocation work by Company shall only be done pursuant to an encroachment permit. All of the foregoing shall be subject to all applicable rules, requirements and procedures of the California Public Utilities Commission. 6.2 Abandonment of Facilities. If any portion of the Facilities laid, installed, or constructed in the Public Rights-of-Way, other than redundant Facilities or Facilities for emergency use, are no longer used by Company or are abandoned for a period in excess of six (6) months, Company must notify the City Engineer and promptly submit all necessary applications for permits prior to commencing work to vacate and remove the Facilities. Alternatively, in its sole discretion the City may allow Company to abandon the Facilities, or any part thereof, in place and convey the Facilities to the City. 6.3 If Company fails to remove the Facilities as required by the City pursuant to Section 6.2, the City may, in its sole discretion, after providing written notice to Company (a) remove the Page 9 of 15 Facilities at Company’s sole expense, which expense Company shall promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice for such expenses, including all administrative, legal and consultant costs or (b) deem the Facilities, or any part thereof, to have been abandoned and conveyed to the City. 6.4 Repair of Public Rights-of-Way. Whenever the removal or relocation of facilities is required under this Agreement or the Code, Company shall promptly repair and return the Public Rights-Of-Way and adjacent property to a safe and satisfactory condition to the City in accordance with the Code and with the construction-related conditions and specifications established by the City according to its standard practice. If Company removes any Facilities from the Public Rights- Of-Way, company shall, within ten (10) days after such removal, give notice thereof to the City specifying the Right-Of-Way affected and the location thereof as well as the date of removal. Company agrees to promptly complete all restoration work and to promptly repair any damage caused by such work at its sole cost and expense. If Company fails to do so, the City shall have the option to perform such work at Company’s sole expense, which expense Company shall promptly reimburse to the City within thirty (30) days after receiving an invoice for such expenses, including all administrative, legal and consultant costs. Before proceeding with removal or relocation work, the Company shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City. ARTICLE 7 DAMAGES 7.1 The Company shall be responsible for any damage to the City’s street pavements, existing utilities, curbs, gutters, sidewalks due to its installation, maintenance, repair, or removal of its Facilities in the Public Rights-Of-Way and public utility or service easements, and shall repair, replace, and restore in kind the said damaged facilities at its sole expense. 7.2 If any Public Right-Of-Way to be used by the Company has preexisting installation(s) placed in said Right-Of-Way, the Company shall assume the responsibility to verify the location of the preexisting installation and notify the City and any third party of the Company's proposed installation. The cost of any work required of such third party or the City to provide adequate space or required clearance to accommodate the Company's installation shall be borne solely by the Company. ARTICLE 8 TAXES 8.1 Company agrees that it will be solely responsible for the payment of any and all lawful taxes, fees and assessments relating to its use and maintenance of the Facilities including but not limited to all taxes, fees and assessments listed in Company’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the California Public Utilities Commission. Company shall also comply with the Communication Users’ Tax Law, found in Chapter 32 Article VIII of the Code. Pursuant to Section 107.6 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, the City hereby advises, and Company recognizes and understands, that Company’s use of the Public Rights-Of- Way may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that Company will be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. Page 10 of 15 ARTICLE 9 INDEMNIFICATION 9.1 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Company, jointly and severally, for itself, its successors, agents, contractors or employees agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold the City, its directors, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers harmless from and against any and all liability, claims, suits, actions, damages, and causes of action arising out of, pertaining or relating to the actual or alleged negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct of the Company, its employees, subcontractors, or agents, or on account of the performance or character of the services, except for any such claim arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. Company shall indemnify for any loss of or damage to property caused, directly or indirectly, by an act or omission of Company or its personnel or by any structures of encroachments placed in, on or under the surface of any Public Rights-Of-Way and the use, misuse or failure of any equipment or facility used by Company, or by Company personnel regardless of whether such equipment or facility is furnished, rented leased or loaned by or to Company. It is understood that the duty of the Company to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any design professional services, the duty to defend and indemnify City shall be limited to that allowed by state law. Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve the Company from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages. 9.2 Duty to Defend; Notice of Loss. Company acknowledges and agrees that its obligation to defend the City under Section 9.1 (a) is an immediate obligation, independent of its other obligations hereunder; (b) applies to any Loss which actually or potentially falls within the scope of Section 9.1, regardless of whether the allegations asserted in connection with such Loss are or may be groundless, false or fraudulent; and (c) arises at the time the Loss is tendered to Company by the City and continues at all times thereafter. The City shall give Company prompt notice of any Loss under Section 9.1 and Company shall have the right to defend, settle and compromise any such Loss; provided, however, that the City shall have the right to retain its own counsel if representation of City by the counsel retained by Company would be inappropriate due to conflicts of interest between City and Company. City’s failure to notify Company promptly of any Loss shall not relieve Company of any liability to City pursuant to Section 9.1, unless such failure materially impairs Company’s ability to defend such Loss. Company shall seek City’s prior written consent to settle or compromise any Loss if Company contends that City shares in liability with respect thereto. 9.3 Assumption of Risk. Company shall assume all risk of damage to any and all other property of Company, or any property under the control or custody of Company while upon or near the Public Rights-Of-Way incident to the use of the Public Rights-Of-Way. Company releases City from any liability, including claims for damages or extra compensation, arising from construction delays due to any activities by City. Under no circumstances shall City be liable to Company for any loss of service downtime, lost revenue or profits or third-party damages. 9.4 Survival. Company’s obligations under this Article 9 shall survive Termination of this Agreement. Page 11 of 15 9.5 No Waiver. The failure of either party on one or more occasions to exercise a right or to require compliance or performance under this Agreement or any other applicable state or federal law shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver of such right or a waiver of compliance or performance by such party nor to excuse the other party from complying or performing, unless such right or such compliance or performance has been waived in writing. ARTICLE 10 INSURANCE 10.1 Minimum Insurance Requirements. The Company shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Company, Company’s agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 10.1.1 Minimum Scope of Insurance Coverage shall be at least as broad as: (a) Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/73) covering Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage ("occurrence" form GC 0001). (b) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025. (c) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability insurance. 10.1.2 Beginning of Work Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (a) General Liability: $2,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (b) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (c) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability: Worker's compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident. 10.1.3 Deductibles and Self-insured Retentions Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured Page 12 of 15 retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. 10.1.4 Other Insurance Provision The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provision: (a) General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages (i) The City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor, products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. (ii) The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor’s Insurance and shall not contribute with it. (iii) Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. (iv) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. (b) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage (i) The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City of Burlingame, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Contractor for the City of Burlingame. (c) All Coverages (i) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt required, has been given to the City of Burlingame. 10.1.5 Acceptability of Insurers Page 13 of 15 (a) Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and be authorized to conduct business with regard to the proffered lines of insurance in the State of California. 10.1.6 Verification of Coverage Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 10.1.7 Indemnification Not Limited Any insurance required to be obtained and maintained by Company under this Agreement shall not limit in any way Company’s indemnification obligations under Article 9 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 11.1 Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants that it has the full right and authority to enter into, execute, deliver and perform its obligations under this Agreement and that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable against such party in accordance with its terms, subject to bankruptcy, insolvency, creditors’ rights and general equitable principles. The Company represents and warrants that it has any and all authorizations and approvals from state and federal regulatory agencies including the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Communications Commission as are necessary for the activities and Facilities contemplated by the Agreement and that Company is in compliance in all material respects with its obligations under such authorizations. 11.2 Notices. All notices which shall or may be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and transmitted through first class United States mail, or by private delivery systems, to the following address or such other address of which a party may give written notice: City: City of Burlingame Public Works Director 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Company: ZAYO GROUP, LLCAttn. General Counsel 1805 29th Boulder, CO 80301 With CC to: Zayo Group, LLC Attn: Underlying Rights 1805 29th Suite 2050 Boulder, CO 80301 Page 14 of 15 11.3 Service of Process. Company shall designate a person in California who is authorized to accept service of process on behalf of Company. 11.4 Operations Center. Company’s Operations Center shall be available to City staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regarding problems or complaints resulting from the Facilities installed pursuant to this Agreement and may be contacted by telephone at: (866)_ 236-2824, or zayoncc@zayo.com regarding such problems or complaints. 11.5 Assignment. Company shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Company’s obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld), and any attempt by Company to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect; provided, however, Company may assign its rights and delegate its obligations hereunder without first obtaining the City’s consent to a corporation, limited liability company, partnership or other business entity wholly controlled or owned by Company or to the purchaser of all or substantially all of the Company’s assets. An assignment shall not be effective until the Assignee agrees in writing to comply with and be subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Code, and the Zoning Code. This Agreement may be assigned in its entirety; however, Company shall remain liable for any outstanding obligations incurred prior to such assignment. 11.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. There are no representations, agreements or understandings (whether oral or written) between or among the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not fully expressed herein. 11.7 Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended except pursuant to a written instrument signed by both parties. 11.8 Severability. If any one or more of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction in a final judicial action to be void, voidable, or unenforceable, such provision(s) shall be deemed separable from the remaining provisions of this Agreement and shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. 11.9 Survival. All of the provisions, conditions and requirements of this Agreement shall be in addition to any and all other obligations and liabilities Company may have to the City at common law, by statute, or by contract, and shall survive the City’s Agreement to Company and any renewals or extensions thereof. All of the provisions, conditions, regulations, and requirements contained in this Agreement shall further be binding upon the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives and assigns of the parties and all privileges, as well as all obligations and liabilities of each party shall inure to its heirs, successors and assigns equally as if they were specifically mentioned wherever such party is named herein. Page 15 of 15 11.10 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be subject to, and governed and construed by and in accordance with, the laws of the State of California. In the event that suit is brought by a party to this Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in San Mateo County, or in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. 11.11 Successors. This Agreement is binding upon the successors, assigns and transferees of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below. CITY OF BURLINGAME, a California municipal corporation __________________________ Lisa Goldman, City Manager Zayo Group, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company By: __________________________________ Its: __________________________________ Date: __________________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Attest: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7253 Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolutions Approving an Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to Incorporate Corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: 1. Conduct a public hearing and consider all public testimony related to the approval of amendments to Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. Following conclusion of the public hearing, consider adoption of a “Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame finding that adoption of amendments to the Land Use chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards will result in no significant impacts upon the environment reported in Negative Declaration (ND-555-P) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)"; and 3. Consider adoption of a "Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopting the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards". The public hearing for action was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation on August 8, 2018. A public hearing notice was also mailed to property owners within the Downtown Specific Plan boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary. BACKGROUND The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in October 2010. Since that time, the plan has been amended three times: • In 2011, the Land Use Chapter was amended to incorporate changes to the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2) in conjunction with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and adoption of the 2009- 2014 Housing Element. The changes included added setback requirements along El Downtown Specific Plan Amendment August 20, 2018 2 Camino Real, changes to the North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations, and the addition of hotels as a permitted use in the Donnelly Avenue area. • In 2014, the Land Use Chapter was amended to allow office uses on the ground floor of commercial areas within the Donnelly Avenue District, change the land use designation of properties at 305-371 Primrose Road and 1401-1403 Chapin Avenue from Burlingame Avenue Commercial to Donnelly Avenue Commercial, and change the land use designation of properties at 401-411 Primrose Road from Burlingame Avenue Commercial to Chapin Avenue Commercial. The changes were reflected in the Planning Area Land Uses Table (Table 3-1) and on the Planning Areas Exhibit (Figure 3-2). • In 2016, the Land Use Chapter was amended to incorporate revised side setback requirements for properties in mixed use zones adjacent to existing residential uses. The previous development standards allowed zero side setbacks in the Bayswater Mixed Use, California Drive/Auto Row, Howard Mixed Use, and Myrtle Mixed Use areas; the amendments changed the regulations to require R-3 mutlifamily residential side setback standards for property lines(s) abutting an existing residential use. In recent months, staff has been made aware of discrepancies in standards for the California Drive Commercial Area shown in the most recent (2016) version of the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2), compared to earlier versions of the table and to the standards in the applicable zoning regulations. DISCUSSION The 2011 amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan was part of a larger effort that included adoption of zoning regulations to implement the Downtown Specific Plan, as well as implementation of aspects of the 2009-2014 Housing Element (September 8, 2011 City Council staff report and resolution attached). Among the amendments were changes to the North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations, as shown on the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2). The changes included: • Front setback of 0 feet (i.e., no setback required), compared to minimum 10 feet previously; • Minimum rear setback of 10 feet, compared to minimum 20 feet previously; • Maximum building height of 35 feet (55 feet with a Conditional Use Permit), compared to maximum 35 feet (45 feet with a Conditional Use Permit) previously. With the amendments, Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan was revised from the previous version to reflect the changes in North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations. Concurrently, Section 25.31.060 (North California Drive Commercial District) was added to the Burlingame Municipal Code with the same setback and building height standards. Downtown Specific Plan Amendment August 20, 2018 3 Also among the amendments in 2011 were new setback requirements for frontages along El Camino Real that had not been in the original plan when it was adopted in 2010. A new line was added to Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan indicating minimum setbacks of 10 feet in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, Howard Avenue Mixed Use District, and Chapin Avenue Area, and minimum setbacks of 20 feet in the R-3 District, R-4 Base District, and Bayswater Mixed Use Area. These standards were reflected in the respective Municipal Code sections for each district. The North California Drive Commercial Area regulations and El Camino Real setbacks as amended in 2011 remained in Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan up until the more recent amendment in 2016. At that time, unrelated to the mixed use side setback revisions adopted in 2016, there appears to have been a series of clerical errors in the update of Table 3-2 to both the North California Drive Commercial District and El Camino Real standards. The North California Drive Commercial District regulations reverted back to the earlier height and setback regulations that had been in place prior to the 2011 amendment, and the El Camino Real setbacks were replaced with dash marks except for the Bayswater Mixed Use Area (refer to Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 version 2016). Meanwhile, the regulations in the respective zoning chapters remained the same as those adopted in 2011. Given that the 2016 amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan did not involve the North California Drive Commercial District, and given that the 2016 amendments did not propose or consider omitting the required El Camino Real setbacks, staff believes the discrepancies on Table 3-2 were unintentional “scrivener’s” errors. To correct the error, the Downtown Specific Plan would need to be amended with revisions to Table 3-2 to reflect the North California Drive Commercial District regulations and El Camino Real setbacks as adopted in 2011, together with the mixed use district side setback requirements adopted in 2016 (Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected). This item is intended only to make corrections to Table 3-2 to properly reflect the North California Drive Commercial District and El Camino Real regulations as adopted in 2011. It is not intended to propose or consider changes to other regulations in the plan or zoning standards. Should there be interest in changes other than those outlined in this report and resolution, those may be proposed as part of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Updates set forth in “Envision Burlingame.” R-3 and R-4 District Rear Setbacks: Unrelated to the corrections described above, this amendment provides the opportunity to provide further clarification to the R-3 and R-4 District rear setback standards shown in Table 3-2. Since the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted, Table 3-2 has shown a minimum rear setback of 20 feet in the R-3, R-4 Base, and R-4 Incentive Districts. However, the zoning standards in Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations) specify minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet for one and two stories, and 20 feet for more than two stories. This standard applies to R-3 and R-4 properties both within and outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. The revised Table 3-2 includes footnoted clarifications to the R-3, R-4 Base, and R-4 Incentive Districts Downtown Specific Plan Amendment August 20, 2018 4 columns so that the rear setback standards in the specific plan are consistent with those in the respective zoning standards. Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission considered the proposed amendments at its regular meeting on July 9, 2018 (minutes attached). Following conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council (see attached resolution). FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Exhibit 1: Table 3-2 version 2016 • Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected • Proposed Resolutions: • Downtown Specific Plan Amendment • CEQA • September 8, 2011 City Council Staff Report • City Council Resolution 66-2011, dated September 19, 2011 • July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Resolution • July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt) • Notice of Public Hearing – Published August 8, 2018 • Land Use Excerpt from Downtown Specific Plan TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standard Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Howard Avenue Mixed Use Chapin Avenue Area Donnelly Avenue Area California Drive/ Auto Row North California Drive Commercial District Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area Anita Road Area R-3 District R-4 Base District R-4 Incentive District Bayswater Mixed Use Area Front Setback - Minimum - - - - - 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Front Build-To Line 0 feet 0 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 feet - - - - - - - Side Setback - Minimum - 0 feet3 - - 0 feet3 - 0 feet3 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 0 feet3 Rear Setback - Minimum - - - - - 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet El Camino Real Setback - Minimum - - - - - - - - - - - 20 feet Height Limit - Maximum 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (75 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) Ground Floor Ceiling Height (Floor-to-Ceiling) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet - - - - - - - Lot Coverage - Maximum - - - - - 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% Landscape Coverage - Minimum - - - - - 10% of front setback 10% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 10% of front setback Architectural Encroachments Certain encroachments (e.g. architectural features promoting good urban design) that extend beyond setbacks and maximum height limits may be permit ted through a special Planning Commission design review process. Maximum Average Residential Unit Size1 N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A 1,250 sq ft - 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft - = no requirement 1 Average Maximum Unit Size is defined as the maximum value allowed when averaging the square footage areas of all residential units in a project. The intention is to provide a diverse range of unit types and sizes within a project by balancing larger units with smaller units. 2 3 feet for lots 42 feet wide or less; 4 feet for lots wider than 42 feet but less than 51 feet; 5 feet for lots wider than 51 feet but less than 54 feet; 6 feet for lots wider than 54 feet but less than 61 feet; 7 feet for lots 61 feet wide and over. Furthermore for all lots the side setback requirement shall be increased one foot for each floor above the first floor. 3 R-3 District side setback standards shall apply to property lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. Exhibit 1: Table 3-2 version 2016 TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standard Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Howard Avenue Mixed Use Chapin Avenue Area Donnelly Avenue Area California Drive/ Auto Row North California Drive Commercial District Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area Anita Road Area R-3 District R-4 Base District R-4 Incentive District Bayswater Mixed Use Area Front Setback - Minimum - - - - - 0 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Front Build-To Line 0 feet 0 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 feet - - - - - - - Side Setback - Minimum - 0 feet3 - - 0 feet3 - 0 feet3 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 0 feet3 Rear Setback - Minimum - - - - - 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15-20 feet4 15-20 feet4 15-20 feet4 20 feet El Camino Real Setback - Minimum 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Height Limit - Maximum 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (75 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) Ground Floor Ceiling Height (Floor-to-Ceiling) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet - - - - - - - Lot Coverage - Maximum - - - - - 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% Landscape Coverage - Minimum - - - - - 10% of front setback 10% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 10% of front setback Architectural Encroachments Certain encroachments (e.g. architectural features promoting good urban design) that extend beyond setbacks and maximum heigh t limits may be permitted through a special Planning Commission design review process. Maximum Average Residential Unit Size1 N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A 1,250 sq ft - 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft - = no requirement 1 Average Maximum Unit Size is defined as the maximum value allowed when averaging the square footage areas of all residential units in a project. The intention is to provide a diverse range of unit types and sizes within a project by balancing larger units with smaller units. 2 3 feet for lots 42 feet wide or less; 4 feet for lots wider than 42 feet but less than 51 feet; 5 feet for lots wider than 51 feet but less than 54 feet; 6 feet for lots wider than 54 feet but less than 61 feet; 7 feet for lots 61 feet wide and over. Furthermore for all lots the side setback requirement shall be increased one foot for each floor above the first floor. 3 R-3 District side setback standards shall apply to property lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. 4 15 feet for one and two stories, 20 feet for more than two stories . Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND-USE CHAPTER OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCORPORATE CORRECTIONS TO TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDS: WHEREAS, on October 4, 2010, the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included unintentional scrivener's errors in the North California Drive Commercial District setback and height standards and El Camino Real setback standards; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included rear setback standards for the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 Incentive Districts that were not fully consistent with the corresponding standards in Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations), respectively; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan has been amended to address the unintentional scrivener's errors in the North California Drive Commercial District setback and height standards and El Camino Real setback standards, and inconsistencies in the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 Incentive Districts, as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Planning Commission’s recommendation at a duly noticed public hearing on August 20, 2018 and concurred with the proposed amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the amendments to Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan as described herein. ____________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. __________ 2 I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August 2018, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ___________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CHAPTER OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCORPORATE CORRECTIONS TO TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WILL RESULT IN NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON THE ENVIRONMENT AS REPORTED IN NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND-555-P) PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME finds as follows: Section 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-555-P) was prepared and approved on October 4, 2010 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it was determined that with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the Standard Conditions of Approval for all projects included in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, there are no potential significant environmental impacts from adoption of the Plan; and Section 2. It has been determined that the proposed amendments to the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards have been adequately evaluated pursuant to CEQA in the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Plan, and that no further environmental analysis is required in advance of adoption of the amendments; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT adoption of an amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Table 3-2 was adequately evaluated pursuant to CEQA in Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ND-555-P since the amendments do not materially alter the mix of land-uses policies evaluated in the MND, and that no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). _______________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: RESOLUTION NO. __________ 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ________________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND USE OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND FINDING THAT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAGTS RELATED TO ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS WERE ASSESSED lN THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND-555-P) APPROVED AT ADOPTION OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, on October 4, 2010, the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included unintentional scrivener's errors in the North Catifornia Drive Commerciat District setback and height standards and EI Camino Real setback standards; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included rear setback standards for the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 lncentive Districts that were not fully consrstent with the corresponding standards in Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations), respectively; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan has been amended to address the unintentional scrivener's errors in the North California Drive Commercial District setback and height standards and El Camino Real setback standards, and inconsistencies in the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 lncentive Districts, as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a l\Aitigated Negative Declaration (ND-555-P) was prepared and approved on October 4, 2010 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEOA), and it was determined that with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the Standard Conditions of Approval for all projects included in tLre Bulingame Downtown Specific Plan, there are no potential significant environmental impacts from adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed amendments discussed herein and as shown on the attached Exhibit A are adequately evaluated pursuant to CEQA in Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Plan, and that no further environmental analysis is required in advance of adoption of Title 21 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on July 9, 2018, consider the proposed amendments as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt an the amendments to the Chapter 3 - Land Use of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan as described herein, and as shown on the Attached Exhibit A. 1 Chairm Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th dav of Julv, 2018, by the following vote: 2 Secretary t, EXHIBIT "A" TABLE }.2 - DEI'ELOPMENT STANDARDS - = oo EquiEment I Arcag \faximm Uoit Sze is de6aed o the muimm value alloved when averagiog the squre forege ra of atl asidential uiB in a p@iect The ineotion is to povide a diveBe t8e of 6it t,?es md sizes widio a ptoject by balmciag lagu MiB *'ilh sdalle! uib. br 106 6l ftet u.ide ed over Fu&emorc for all los the side setbacL equiroeor shall be ioctered ooe foot for each floor above the 6nt floot. , R-3 Dsuict side setbrct smduds shall apply to properq liues(s) vith m erirtingresidendal use on the abuniflgproPe(y | 15 fet for onc md Mo stories, 20 feet for mot drm so stories. 15 fet 15 feet 15 fect 10 ftet0 fect 10 feet 15 fetFmnt Setback - lvlinimum 0 - l0 fee!0 feetFmnt Build-To Line 0 feet 0 6et 0 -'10 ftet l7 fee9 3.7 feef T7 feetz 0 fteC0 feeC 0 feeF 17 feets0 feetrSide Setback - ltliniom 1i20 feeC 15-2, 6eC 20 feet10 ftet 2l feet 20 feet 15-20 feet'fuar Setbac! - l!{ioimum 2fi (eet 2l lect 2O fert 20 feetN/.{N/A N/A N/Al0 ftet 10 ftet 10 feetEl Camino Real Setback Llinimum 35 feet (45 feet s/ CUP) 35 fcct (55 feet s/ CUP) 35 feet 05 feet v/ cuP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet f/ cuP) 35 fEet (53 ftet v/ CUP) 35 feet (55 ftet w/ CUE 35 ftet (55 feet V/ CUP) 35 feet (.15 feet s/ CUB Height Limit - ll{l\ihum 35 ftet (55 feet w/ CUP) 55 6ct 35 feet (55 fEt s/ CUP) 15 feet 1i fcct 15 feetGoud Emr Ceiling Height (Flor-tqCriline) '15 fEet 15 fcet 5{.)%50%'JJ"1D 75"h'75%75%t tcnlrtr-trfdim@ @n/o of 6ont tctback (frYo ol &ont setbacL $)o/o ot ftont setback 60ok ol ftont !ctb[k 10P/o oa ftont setbrck 107o ofEodt setback 109/0 of f6dt setbacl Lmdsope Clvemge - l,liaimm .Lrchitecturrl Eacroachdeoa Cr@itr mcloachoeob (e.g. rchitecrural Coooissioa desiqr review pmcess. ftaures prcmotiog good ube dsig!) dat seod bepad setbacls md muimu heigbt limits Bay bc Pemired though a specid Pl@if,g 1,250 sq &1150 sq ft 1250 sq ft tl5o sq ft1,250 sq ft N/A 1,50 sq ftltatimm Aerage Residential Uoit Sizct N/A 1,2-i0 sq ft N/A N/A 1 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018 h.Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards DSP Amendments - Staff Report DSP Amendments - Attachments Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: When the Downtown Specific Plan was put together, had not realized buildings would be maxed out because of land values. When dealing with the setbacks when projects come forth, a 10 or 15-foot setback is not very much when there is a 55-foot or 60-foot building. State requirements will take away from local control, so suggests should make standards generous or keep what is had in place . Concern there will be no air, too squished. Needs to maintain control where it can be maintained. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The edits are straightforward. Understands the transposing, and the multiple generations of the tables and standards. >When the tables and setbacks are reviewed in the future, agrees with the point that if conditional use or special permits are available to reach a higher height, developers will take advantage of the opportunity . Should look at the setbacks again when updating the zoning together with the General Plan. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/12/2018 3.0 Land Use 3-3 3.3.3 CHAPIN AVENUE AREA The Chapin Avenue area consists of properties on either side of Chapin Avenue and is bounded by Primrose Road to its east and El Camino Real to its west. Chapin Avenue is characterized by a concentration of financial and real estate offices. Office uses are allowed on the ground floor of the Chapin Avenue area. 3.3.4 DONNELLY AVENUE AREA The Donnelly Avenue area consists of properties on either side of Donnelly Avenue between Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue. Ground floor retail use is allowed but not required. Existing residential uses may remain and be improved, but new residential uses are not allowed. 3.3.5 CALIFORNIA DRIVE MIXED USE DISTRICT The Auto Row area is the area along California Drive between Burlingame and Peninsula Avenues. Automobile-related uses dominate in this area. Auto showrooms, hotel or retail uses are permitted on the ground floor, and housing, offices or hotel uses can be allowed on upper floors. Non-auto uses should be carefully considered to ensure compatibility with the area's traditional focus on automobile businesses; retail, personal and business services, and hotels require a conditional use permit, as do commercial uses greater than 5,000 square feet. 3.3.6 NORTH CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT The North California Drive Commercial District is the area along the west side of California Drive north of Bellevue Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue. Service Commercial uses dominate in this area. Retail or hotel uses are permitted on the ground floor whereas offices or hotel uses can be allowed on upper floors. 3.3 PLANNING AREAS Downtown Burlingame is divided into a series of Planning Areas, as identified in the Planning Areas Map (Figure 3-2). Upon implementation of the plan, each planning area or district will provide for a different mix of uses and intensities as described below. To allow finer grain distinctions, each area is further divided into blocks which are numbered on the map. 3.3.1 BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT The Burlingame Avenue area is the commercial and retail heart of Downtown Burlingame. Burlingame Avenue features a mixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and many locally based retailers. The eastern end of Burlingame Avenue area near the train station has a concentration of restaurants and is active during both day and evening hours, while the western end towards El Camino Real provides more retail and is less active. Ground floor retail or personal service use is required in the Burlingame Avenue area. Office uses are allowed on the upper levels in commercial areas. Existing residential uses on upper floors may remain and be improved, but there should not be new residential uses within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. 3.3.2 HOWARD AVENUE MIXED USE DISTRICT The Howard Avenue Area is the area to the south of Burlingame Avenue and consists of a mix of uses, including retail and office along Howard Avenue, and multifamily residential uses between Howard and Peninsula Avenues. Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue together form the “Burlingame commercial” area. Ground floor retail use is encouraged, and housing is allowed on the upper levels above commercial uses. The interceding side streets--Lorton Avenue, Park Road, Primrose Road and Highland Avenue--will act as connector streets with the commercial uses along those streets strengthening the relationship between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. 3.0 Land Use 3-4 FIGURE 3-2: Planning Areas SAN FRANCISCO BAY CITY LI MI T CI T Y O F S A N M A T E O CITY LIMIT CITY OF SAN MATEO CI T Y L I M I T C I T Y O F H I L L S B O R O U G H RAI L R O A D R . O . W . RAI L R O A D R . O . W . ATE ROADWAYPRIV COYOTE POINT DRAIRPORT BLVD CAROLBURLINGAME AVEHOWARD AVEBAYSWATER AVEPENINSULA AVEA R U N D E L R D M Y R T L E R D EA S T L N B L O O M F I E L D R D DW I G H T R D S T A N L E Y R D C H A N N I N G R D B A N C R O F T R D VI C T O R I A R D HU M B O L D T R D BEACH RD FARRINGDON LNACACIA DRPALOMA AVEFAIRF IE LD RD W A L N U T A V E CONCORD WAYVERNON WAYLEXINGTON WAY PLYMOUTH WAY TRENTON WAYAL P I N E A V E LINDEN AVE LAUREL AVE MAPLE AVE WINCHESTER DR FRANCISCO DRMARIN DRCORBITT DRWINCHESTER PLCUMBERLAND RDMAR I N D R C H A T H A M R D ROLLINS RD AIRPORT BLVDAIRPORT BLVD RALSTON AVEHOWARDNEWLANDS AVECYPRESS AVEAVEBAYSWATER AVE EAST C A R O L BARROI L H E T A V ECHAPIN AVECOSTA OCCIDENTAL AVE N EW H A L L R D C R O S SW A Y ARCWAY R D CR O S S W A Y R D NE U C H A T E L A V E WIL L B O R O U G H RD AVE ALM E R AN S E L AVE RD BELLEVUE AVEP A R K R D P R I M R O S E R D L O R T O N A V E ANZA BLVD C L A R E N D O N R D CALIFORNIA DR CA L I F O R N I A D R H I G H L A N D A V E CHAPIN CRESCEN T AVECONCORD WAY AIRPORT BLVDBAYDWIGHT RD CA R O L A N A V E FLORIBUNDA AVEPALM DRBAYSHORE FREEWAY 101 CENT R A L A V EAVE AVERICALN DONNELLY AVEP E P P E R A V E ELM AV E CA L I F O R N I A D R LA U R E L A V E LIN D E N A V EPARK AVEOAK GROVE AVE MORRELL AVELARKSPUR DRTOYON DRLINDEN AVEAZALEA AVE MAJILLA AVESANCHEZ AVEEDGE HI L L D R WILLO W A V E BLOOMFIELD RD BURLINGAME AVEHOWARD AVEPENINSULA AVEP R I M R O S E R D BELLEVUE AVEDOUGLAS AVESOUTH LNWE S T L N NORTH IDAHO ST BAYSWATER AVE B L V D ROLLINS RD N AMPHLETTBAYSHOREVIEW PLROSE CTLANG RD CITYLNHALLPLAZA LNFOX SA N M A T E O A V E PALM DR SANCHEZ CREEK CHANNEL SANCHEZ CREEK CHANNEL BAY FRONT CHANNELCITY LIMIT CITY OF SAN MATEO BELL E V U E A V E FLORIBUN D A CALIFORN I A DR HI G H L A N D A V E E N D END H A T C H L N BAYSHORE FREEWAY 101 FREEWAY 101 AIRPORT BLVD AIRPORT BLVDBEACH RDLANG RDROLLINS RD ROLLINS RD ROLLINS RD ROLLINS RD ROLLINS RD HOWARD AVEHOWARD AVE C H A N N I N G R D B A N C R O F T R D DW I G H T R D S T A N L E Y R D C H A N N I N G R D BANCROFT RD S T A N L E Y R D DW I G H T R D C L A R E N D O N R D CA L I F O R N I A D R H I G H L A N D A V E L O R T O N A V E L O R T O N A V E P A R K R D CYPRESS AVEBARR OI L H E T A V E BARROI L H E T A V EOCCIDENTAL AVEAVEBURLINGAMEP E P P ER A V E P R I M R O S E R D EL C A M I N O R E A L A C A C I A D R P A L O M A A V E TOYON DRED G E H I L L D R EDGE HILL D R PENINSULA AVEOAK GROVE AVEVI C T O R I A R D AIRPORT BLVDCAROLAN AVE CHAPIN AVERALST O N A V E RAIL ROAD R.O.W. RAI L R O A D R . O . W .BURLINGAME AVEBAYSWATER AVE BAYSHORE FREEWAY 1 0 1 A N I T A R D OAK GR OVE AVENORTH LNEL CA M I N O R E A L PENINSULA AVE1 2A 2B 5C 5A 5B 4A 4B 3A 3B 6A 6B 9B 14B 7A 7B 12 11 8A 8B 10B 15B 16B 17B 18 13 19 20 27 26 34 33 32B 32A 31 25A 24B 24A 23A 23B22A 22B21B 21A 29 30A 30B 14A 15A 16A 17A 25B 28A 28B 10A 9A 9C MYRTLE ROAD MIXED USE AREA ANITA ROAD RESIDENTIAL AREABURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CALIFORNIA DRIVE MIXED USE DISTRICT R-4 INCENTIVE DISTRICTBAYSWATER MIXED USE AREA NORTH CALIFORNIA DRIVE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT R-3 BASE DISTRICT R-4 BASE DISTRICT CHAPIN AVENUE AREA DONNELLY AVENUE AREA HOWARD AVENUE MIXED USE DISTRICT 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director – (650) 558-7255 Kathleen Kane, City Attorney – (650) 558-7263 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code Related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be Consistent with Recently Adopted Amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2 and Additional Changes to Remove Constraints to Creating Accessory Dwelling Units RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council consider proposed amendments to the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding accessory dwelling units. In order to do so, the City Council should: 1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. 2. By motion, waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance. 3. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. 4. Following closure of the public hearing, discuss the proposed ordinance and provide any direction to staff; if no changes are requested, then direct that the ordinance be placed on the September 4, 2018 City Council Agenda for adoption. 5. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If introduced, the ordinance along with a resolution verifying that the actions of the City Council are in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be presented for adoption at the September 4, 2018 regular meeting of the City Council. Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units August 20, 2018 2 BACKGROUND On September 27, 2016 Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2299 and SB 1069 into law. The legislation amended Government Code Section 65852.2, regulations for accessory dwelling units (previously referred to as “Secondary Dwelling Units” in the Burlingame Municipal Code). The amendments were intended to streamline housing production in the face of the state’s ongoing housing crisis by making it easier for property owners to create a second unit associated with a single family dwelling. Under the legislation, such units are now referred to as “Accessory Dwelling Units” or “ADUs”. The revisions to state law became effective January 1, 2017. The City of Burlingame adopted revisions to its Zoning Code regulations creating consistency with State law on February 6, 2017. On September 29, 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation (SB 229 and AB 494) that provides clarification on the creation of ADUs. The bills became effective January 1, 2018, and are intended to help clarify and improve various provisions of the ADU law to promote the development of ADUs. Not all of the changes included in this new legislation require City action as the City’s current regulations are largely compliant. At its meeting of June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Burlingame Zoning Regulations and recommended that the City Council adopt the changes as proposed below. Staff notes that in addition to the changes that are required in order to be compliant with the most recent changes to state legislation, staff recommended additional ordinance changes for the Planning Commission’s consideration in order to reduce obstacles to the creation of ADUs. These changes are discussed below and are included in the attached ordinance for Council consideration. DISCUSSION Staff is bringing forward these changes to the City Council for adoption of text amendments to the City’s existing ADU regulations to ensure that the Burlingame Municipal Code is consistent with the new State regulations (SB 229 and AB 494). Jurisdictions are required to provide a copy of the changes to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) within 60 days of their adoption. Changes mandated by State Law Staff has provided a summary below of the most significant changes required by the State: • No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces, including allowing parking in setbacks; • Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family dwelling or accessory structure; • No lot size limitation for ADUs created within existing structures; and • Change to the current definition of tandem parking. No restriction on location of ADU parking spaces: Under our current regulations, ADUs have to provide one uncovered parking space, 9-feet wide by 20-feet deep. The parking space is required to be provided in addition to the required parking for the single family dwelling per C.S. 25.70. All ADU spaces are required to be provided in accordance with C.S. 25.70, meaning they cannot be located in a setback and were required to be independently accessible of the single family parking space (ingress and egress to the parking space without conflict with the parking required for the single family dwelling). Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units August 20, 2018 3 State law now requires no prohibition on parking locations for ADUs, and the ADU regulations would be amended to allow ADU parking spaces to be provided in a required setback. Currently the zoning code prohibits parking within the front and side setback. The zoning code requirements prohibiting parking in front and side setbacks would remain in place for required parking for all other uses, except for ADUs. Elimination of the parking requirement for ADUs created out of existing space in a single family dwelling or accessory structure: The most recent change to State law now prohibits requiring a parking space for an ADU that is created from within the envelope of an existing residence or existing accessory structure. The parking waiver includes accessory dwelling units that are part of the living space of the existing main residence or are in an existing detached accessory structure. This means that accessory dwelling units that are created by converting part of an existing single family dwelling (vs. adding new square footage) would be exempt from providing a parking space. This waiver also applies to detached accessory structures that have been previously approved for accessory living space, such as offices or recreation rooms constructed as part of a detached garage. In principle, this square footage has already been counted as living space (in terms of parking), and the conversion of this space to an accessory dwelling unit is not significantly increasing (or increasing at all) the parking requirement for the use of the property as a whole. This change would allow conversion of existing living spaces to ADUs for areas within a primary home or within an attached or detached accessory structure; however, the required parking for the primary residence must still be met on-site, in compliance with the zoning code regulations. For reference, single family dwellings with up to four bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, require one covered (10’ x 20’) parking space and one uncovered (9’ x 20’) space, and a single family dwelling with five or more bedrooms, or potential bedrooms, requires two covered spaces (20’ x 20’) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’). No lot size limit for ADUs created within existing structures: Currently, the ADU regulations require a minimum lot size of 6,000 SF to accommodate an ADU, except for ADUs constructed prior to January 1, 1954. The new legislation prohibits limits on lot size for ADUs that are created within an existing structure; either in the primary residence or in an accessory structure. New ADUs creating new square footage on a parcel would still have to be on a lot with a minimum size of 6,000 SF with the exception for those ADUs where a majority (>50% of the square footage) of the ADU is existing square footage in a legal structure on the property and the remaining construction complies with all other zoning district standards. Change to the definition of tandem parking: Currently the zoning code defines tandem parking as parking “one vehicle behind another.” This has been interpreted to limit only two cars, one behind the other, for tandem parking configurations. However, under the new changes to the ADU law, tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. The existing definition of tandem parking will be retained and applied to all other parking configurations except for those that involve parking for ADUs. The intent of this change is to provide more flexibility in allowing ADUs if the required parking can only be provided in a driveway behind the required parking for the primary residence. In many cases, single family homes have detached garages located at the rear of the property with a long driveway that runs next to the house that provides two or more parking spaces in tandem. Additional suggested changes – not mandated by State Law In the interest of removing constraints to the creation of ADUs, staff brought forward to the Planning Commission additional suggested changes to the zoning regulations (beyond those Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units August 20, 2018 4 required for state law compliance). Staff suggests the additional recommended changes, recognizing that ADUs are a way for the City of Burlingame to increase housing stock to help address the regional housing shortage. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) acknowledges ADUs as “housing units” that count toward the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers. Additionally, given the high cost of living in the Bay Area, there are people who may be able to afford to stay in the area if they have the added income from an ADU. The changes noted below were brought before the Planning Commission for consideration. The suggestions were referred to the Planning Commission’s Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for study and then returned to the Planning Commission, where Commissioners voted to recommend these additional changes to the City Council. Conditional Use Permit and Special Permit provisions: Sections 25.60.010 (Conditional use permit requirements) and 25.26.035 (Uses allowed with a special permit) currently include a number of provisions that may serve to discourage ADUs. In particular: 1) 25.26.035 (f) requires a special permit for a basement with any interior ceiling height of 6’- 6” or greater; 2) 25.26.035 (h) requires a special permit for a bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding 25 square feet located in a basement; 3) 25.26.037(a) prohibits bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; 4) 25.26.037(b) prohibits bedrooms in basements: Discussion: The removal of #1 through #4 above is proposed for cases where ADUs are proposed AND for all single family dwellings. These changes would eliminate barriers in the zoning code that currently prohibit ADUs from being developed in basements; for example, full bathrooms are currently not allowed in basements and also have a size constraint of 25 SF, and a separate unit cannot be created without a full bathroom. This change would encourage ADUs in basements and would also apply to all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district, regardless if an ADU was being created. However, the zoning code definition of a basement would not change; a “Basement” means the portion of a building between the floor and ceiling that is wholly or partially underground and where more than two (2) feet of any portion of the basement’s height is above the existing grade next to the basement, a basement shall be counted as a story (and is not considered a basement). While removing the prohibition of full bathrooms and bedrooms in basements and allowing a ceiling height greater than 6’-6”, the definition of a basement would not change, and the floor area regulations that apply to basements would remain in place as well with all basements with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater included in FAR calculations. The code would still allow up to six hundred (600) square feet of a basement with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater to be deducted from FAR if it meets BOTH the following criteria: • The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than two (2) feet above existing grade; and • No part of the basement is intended or used for parking. All ADUs in basements would be required to comply with Building Code requirements for egress, light and ventilation. 5) 25.26.;035 (b) requires a special permit to reduce the number of parking spaces existing onsite Title 25 - Zoning Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units August 20, 2018 5 Discussion: Currently, a special permit is required to remove any parking on-site (a parking variance is required for removal of required parking), even if the code required parking is met. For example a special permit is required if there is a three-bedroom single family home with a two-car garage (20’ x 20’) where one covered and one uncovered space is required by code, and the proposal is to expand the kitchen into the garage area, resulting in the loss of one of the covered parking spaces. The code changes propose removing this requirement when the reduction in the number of parking spaces is solely for the purpose of creating an ADU, so long as the code required parking for the main dwelling is still met on-site. This change is proposed to apply only when the removal of the parking (additional parking beyond code requirements) is proposed for an ADU. However, this requirement will remain in place for all single family dwellings in the R-1 zoning district. Performance Standards to ADUs: Section 25.59.060 (ADU requirements) currently includes a requirement for a deed restriction that may serve to discourage ADUs and is difficult to enforce. 6) 25.59.060(k) requires a restrictive covenant on properties with ADUs that mandates owner occupancy of at least one of the units and requires that the covenant be recorded on the deed for the property to establish the existing accessory dwelling unit. The restrictive covenant is binding upon any successor in ownership of the property. Discussion: At the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting, the Planning Commissioners discussed that the intent of the deed restriction requirement is that if an owner occupies one of the two units on a property, there would be “pride of ownership” resulting in a more well maintained property. Staff notes that the deed restriction exists in some ADU ordinances in other jurisdictions. It was acknowledged that the intent of this section is for the consideration of the neighbors and the goal of preserving single family neighborhood character. However, the Subcommittee discussed the fact that there are no such regulations for renting a single family dwelling, and that the enforcement of such a requirement is very difficult. It should be noted that zoning does not typically regulate tenancy. As a practical matter, regulating tenancy can present enforcement issues: for example, if the owner of a property is deployed on a long-term assignment for work or has to be in a longer-term nursing facility, the tenant in the ADU would have to be evicted in order to comply with the ordinance. The provision of a restrictive covenant might inhibit some property owners from pursuing the construction of an ADU because of the restrictions that would be placed on the property and its future use. The proposed ordinance is provided as an attachment to this report. FISCAL IMPACT None. Exhibits: • Proposed Ordinance • Code Language Showing Tracked Changes • May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes • June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes • Government Code Section 65852.2 1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTERS 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, AND 25.70 TO UPDATE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RECENTLY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO REMOVE CONSTRAINTS TO CREATING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEREAS the City of Burlingame enacted an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance in February 2017 in order to comply with State mandates regarding local regulation of ADUs; and WHEREAS the State legislature has since taken additional steps to facilitate the development of ADUs; and WHEREAS additional ordinance changes are required by the City in order to comply with these state mandates; and WHEREAS the Council recognizes the need to support the availability of a number of different housing types in the City; and WHEREAS this Ordinance takes measures to remove potential barriers to the development of ADUs, in addition to those mandated by the State legislature; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby ordains as follows: Division 1: Section 1: Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both existing and new accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts and on residential property consistent with state law (California Government Code Sections 65852.1 through 65852.2). This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory units 2 to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. An accessory residential dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. 25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure. (a) Applications for such an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Director on a form approved by the Community Development Director. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit under this chapter. (c) Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director shall ministerially process for approval any application for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this chapter. Upon finding that the performance standards set forth in Section 25.59.060 are met the proposal shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All accessory units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter, the Community Development Director shall deny the application. 25.59.030 Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the community development director’s denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community development director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.16. 25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Grounds. An accessory dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) The performance standards outlined in Sections 25.59 are not being met; or 3 (2) No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or (3) The accessory dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (4) The parking required by Section 25.59 is no longer provided; or (5) The primary single-family dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation; (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the director of community development unless a hearing before the planning commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the director of community development shall forthwith revoke the accessory dwelling unit permit as set forth in said notice. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days’ notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At any such hearing the property owner shall call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the planning commission shall determine whether or not the permit shall be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. 25.59.050 Variances prohibited. No variance under Chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter. 25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units. General Provisions. This section allows an accessory dwelling unit, either attached to the main dwelling or detached in a separate structure to be created on lots which now contain one single-family dwelling and meet the following criteria, upon approval of an administrative accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six thousand (6,000) square feet except for an accessory dwelling unit created entirely within an existing (legal) structure there shall be no minimum lot size limit; (b) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit permitted on a lot which contains no more than one primary single-family dwelling. 4 (c) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; (d) Unit Size. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six hundred forty (640) square feet. (e) Floor Area Ratio. The accessory dwelling unit shall fall within the total floor area ratio and lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning district. (f) Other Measurable Standards. (1) For attached units, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and declining height envelope regulations which apply to the underlying zoning district. (2) For detached units, on single family zoned lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and window placement criteria for accessory structures contained in Chapter 25.60, and shall meet the setback requirements, including exceptions for accessory structures, contained in Sections 25.26.072 and 25.26.073. (3) All detached units shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures except for accessory dwelling units create entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessory structure;* (g) Parking. On-site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling as required by Chapter 25.70 and parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: (1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street uncovered parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered and uncovered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (i) Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be in tandem with a required parking space for the primary dwelling , meaning two or more cars located directly behind each other; and (ii) Parking for accessory dwelling units may be provided in the front setback or yard; and (iii) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street. 5 (2) No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: (i) No on-site parking for the accessory dwelling unit shall be required if the accessory dwelling unit is only used for “affordable housing” as defined in Chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with Section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the accessory dwelling unit. A draft agreement shall be required at the time of application submittal. (ii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional transportation plan; (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district; (iv) The accessory dwelling unit is constructed within an existing structure and is part of an existing single family dwelling or an existing, authorized, permitted and finalized accessory structure intended for human habitation (v) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; (vi) When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community Development Director to have at least three dedicated parking spaces, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; (h) Construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes; except for accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954; (i) The new accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials as the primary single family dwelling located on the property. Compatibility with the primary structure includes coordination of materials, roofing and other architectural features, and landscaping designed so that the appearance of the site remains that of a single-family residence. (j) If the accessory dwelling unit is demolished, the accessory dwelling unit permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of Chapter 25.70 shall be met for the single family dwelling on the site. 6 (k) For existing accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met, in addition to subsections a-j above: (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. (2) An applicant for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this section that has been granted on conditions that it conform to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the accessory dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. (3) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the accessory dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (4) If the accessory dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the accessory dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe or in conformance with the standards for new accessory dwelling units contained in Section 25.59. Section 2: Chapter 25.08 Definitions, Section 25.08.573 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.573 Accessory dwelling unit. “Accessory dwelling unit” means an additional residential dwelling unit on a parcel occupied solely by a single-family residence that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation purposes on the same parcel as the primary single-family dwelling is situated in one of the following forms: (a) Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure (b) Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure (c) Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit. Section 3: Section 25.08.647 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.647 Tandem parking. 7 “Tandem parking” is the parking of one vehicle behind another; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit where tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. Section 4: Chapter 25.50 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 15.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses – R-1 zone is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses - R-1 zone. (a) This section shall only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two (2) detached nonconforming residential units. Only the primary residence, as determined by the director of community development, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if the accessory detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be required for any such increase to a primary unit. Only maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be made to any accessory dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such an accessory unit shall not be expanded. (b) Factors for determining the primary residence shall include, but not be limited to, relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two (2) residences. The property owner may request that the planning commission review any such determination by the director of community development. Section 5: Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: CHAPTER 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred (120) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; 8 (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet, provided: (1) Where the lot slopes more than ten (10) percent at the location of the accessory structure, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet above the plate line; (2) The portion of the structure at the rear property line may have a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet if the structure has a pitched roof on both sides and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; (3) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; and (4) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. (i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade; 9 (j) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated; (l) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; (m) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, trellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. Section 6: Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations, Section 25.26.035 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on- site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on-site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; (d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; 10 (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty- eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit (f) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well Section 7: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off- street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. Section 8: Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.030 is repealed and replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: 11 (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space. (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Section 25.59.060(g). (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, 12 (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. Division 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The Council declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Division 3: This Ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with California Government Code Section 36933, published, and circulated in the City of Burlingame, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage. _________________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ______ day of ___________ 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: __________________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk 1 REDLINED PROPOSED CODE CHANGES FOR ADU REGULATIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65852.2 Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units is replaced in total with the following text: Chapter 25.59 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS 25.59.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to regulate both existing and new accessory dwelling units in residential zoning districts and on residential property consistent with state law (California Government Code Sections 65852.1 through 65852.2). This chapter is intended to implement the Housing Element of the Burlingame General Plan by providing for additional housing opportunities. This will be accomplished by increasing the number of units available within existing neighborhoods while maintaining the primarily single-family residential character of the area, and establishing standards for the development and occupancy of accessory units to ensure that they are compatible with neighboring uses and structures, adequately equipped with public utility services, safe for human occupancy, and do not create unreasonable traffic and safety impacts. An accessory residential dwelling unit which conforms to the requirements of this chapter shall not be considered to exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which it is located and shall be deemed to be a residential use which is consistent with the existing General Plan and zoning designations for the lot. 25.59.020 Accessory dwelling unit permit procedure. (a) Applications for such an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be in writing and filed with the Community Development Director on a form approved by the Community Development Director. (b) As established by council resolution, a fee will be charged for an application for an accessory dwelling unit permit under this chapter. (c) Within 120 days of receipt of a complete application, the Community Development Director shall ministerially process for approval any application for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this chapter. Upon finding that the performance standards set forth in Section 25.59.060 are met the proposal shall be approved ministerially without discretionary review or public hearing and the applicant may proceed to acquire a building permit. All accessory units are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections15301 and 15303 of the CEQA guidelines. If the application does not meet all of the requirements of this chapter, the Community Development Director shall deny the application. (d) Deed Restrictions. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an accessory dwelling unit, or for improvements to bring an existing accessory dwelling unit into compliance with the accessory dwelling unit permit requirements, an agreement of restriction shall be filed with the county recorder. The agreement of restriction shall state the following: 2 (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; (2) The accessory dwelling unit is restricted to the standards specified in Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 25.59; (3) Either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization; and (4) The restrictions shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance shall result in legal action against the property owner. 25.59.030 Appeal. The applicant that requested the accessory dwelling unit permit may appeal the community development director’s denial of the request. The appeal shall be submitted to the community development director in writing within ten (10) days after the date of the community development director’s decision. The appeal shall be heard by the planning commission in a public hearing pursuant to the procedures established for discretionary actions in Chapter 25.16. 25.59.040 Revocation of accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Grounds. An accessory dwelling unit permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be revoked on any one or more of the following grounds: (1) The performance standards outlined in Sections 25.59.060 and 25.59.070 are not being met; or (2) No owner of the subject property resides on the property; or (3) The accessory dwelling unit is no longer used for residential purposes; or (4) The parking required by Section 25.59.060 is no longer provided; or (5) The primary single-family dwelling on the site is purposely demolished; or (b) Notice. Written notice to revoke an accessory dwelling unit permit shall be served on the property owner, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, either personally or by certified mail, and shall state: (1) The reasons for the proposed revocation; 3 (2) That the proposed action will be taken by the director of community development unless a hearing before the planning commission is requested within fifteen (15) days after the date of said notice. If no response is received, the director of community development shall forthwith revoke the accessory dwelling unit permit as set forth in said notice. (c) Hearing. If a hearing is requested, at least ten (10) days’ notice thereof shall be given to the requested party. At any such hearing the property owner shall call witnesses and present evidence in his or her behalf. Upon conclusion of such hearing, the planning commission shall determine whether or not the permit shall be revoked. Such determination may be appealed to the city council in the same manner as for appeals taken on applications for the granting of conditional use permits or variances. 25.59.050 Variances prohibited. No variance under Chapter 25.54 shall be granted from any requirement of this chapter. 25.59.060 Performance standards for accessory dwelling units. General Provisions. This section allows an accessory dwelling unit, either attached to the main dwelling or detached in a separate structure to be created on lots which now contain one single-family dwelling and meet the following criteria, upon approval of an administrative accessory dwelling unit permit. (a) Minimum Lot Size. The minimum lot size to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit shall be no less than six thousand (6,000) square feet except for an accessory dwelling unit created entirely within an existing (legal) structure there shall be no minimum lot size limit; (b) There shall be no more than one accessory dwelling unit permitted on a lot which contains no more than one primary single-family dwelling. (c) The accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from any part of the property on which it is located; Occupancy Restrictions. Either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied as the principal place of residence of the record owner of the lot. In the case of ownership by a corporation, partnership, trust or association, either the primary single-family dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be the place of residence of an officer, director or shareholder of the corporation, a partner in the partnership, a trustor, trustee or beneficiary of the trust, a member of the association, or an employee of any such organization. (d) Unit Size. The floor area of the accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed six hundred forty (640) square feet. (e) Floor Area Ratio. The accessory dwelling unit shall fall within the total floor area ratio and lot coverage allowed by the underlying zoning district. (f) Other Measurable Standards. (1) For attached units, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and declining height envelope regulations which apply to the underlying zoning districtmain dwelling unit. 4 (2) For detached units, on single family zoned lots, the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the setback, height and window placement criteria for accessory structures contained in Chapter 25.60, and shall meet the setback requirements, including exceptions for accessory structures, contained in Sections 25.286.072 and 25.286.073. (3) All dDetached units shall be limited to one story in height and shall not be constructed above detached garages or detached accessory structures exc ept for accessory dwelling units create entirely within an existing legal two-story detached accessessory structure;.* (g) Parking. On-site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling as required by Chapter 25.70 and parking requirements for an accessory dwelling unit shall be as follows: (1) Unless otherwise provided in this section, a minimum of one off-street uncovered parking space shall be provided for the accessory dwelling unit in addition to the off-street covered and uncovered parking spaces required for the main dwelling. (i) Parking for the accessory dwelling unit may be in tandem with a required parking space for the primary dwelling , meaning two or more one cars located directly behind each another car; and (ii) No required pParking for accessory dwelling units may be provided in the front setback or yard, except in the driveway; and (iii) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the public street. (2) No parking space shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit in any of the following instances: (i) No on-site parking for the accessory dwelling second unit shall be required if the accessory dwelling unit is only used for “affordable housing” as defined in Chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with Section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the accessory dwelling unit. A draft agreement shall be required at the time of application submittal. (ii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in California Public Resources Code § 21064.3 or included in the regional transportation plan; (iii) The accessory dwelling unit is located within a designated historic district; (iv) The accessory dwelling unit is constructed within an existing structure and is part of anthe existing single family main residence dwelling or an existing, authorized, permitted and finalized residential accessory structure intended for human habitation as having existed three years prior to application; Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5" Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt 5 (v) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit; (vi) When there is a car share vehicle, in a location determined by the Community Development Director to have at least three dedicated parking spaces, located within one block of the accessory dwelling unit; (h) Construction of the accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the all applicable provisions of this title and all applicable building, health and fire codes; except for accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954; (i) The new accessory dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary single family dwelling located on the property. Compatibility with the primary structure includes coordination of colors, materials, roofing and other architectural features, and landscaping designed so that the appearance of the site remains that of a single-family residence. (j) Upon approval of an accessory dwelling unit there shall be an application submitted for a new, separate address from the Public Works, Engineering Division. Address numbers shall be placed on all new and existing buildings with accessory dwelling units, in accordance with the street identification standards provided in Title 17, Chapter 17.04, and shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street to provide clear identification of the unit for emergency responders. (k) A restrictive covenant which mandates owner occupancy of at least one of the units shall be recorded to establish the existing accessory dwelling unit. The restrictive covenant shall be binding upon any successor in ownership of the property and lack of compliance shall void the approval of the unit and may result in legal action against the property owner. The restrictive covenant shall be subject to approval by the city attorney as to its form and content. (lj) If the accessory dwelling unit is demolished, the accessory dwelling unit permit shall lapse and be of no further force and effect, and all on-site parking requirements of Chapter 25.70 shall be met for the single family primary dwelling on the site. (mk) For existing accessory dwelling units constructed prior to January 1, 1954 the following additional criteria shall be met, in addition to subsections a-j above: (1) The accessory dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. (2) An applicant for an accessory dwelling unit permit pursuant to this section that has been granted on conditions that it conform to the requirements of this chapter may perform work to bring the accessory dwelling unit into conformance, such as reducing the size of the living unit, improving or constructing parking, and correcting violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 and the Uniform Housing Code. 6 (3) Any remodeling affecting the exterior of the accessory dwelling unit shall be matched to generally conform to the exterior treatment of the primary dwelling unit on the parcel. (4) If the accessory dwelling unit is destroyed or damaged by a natural catastrophe, the accessory dwelling unit may be reconstructed in exactly the same envelope and floor area as it existed immediately before the catastrophe or in conformance with the standards for new accessory dwelling units contained in Section 25.59.060. Chapter 25.08 Definitions, Section 25.08.573 is replaced in total with the following text: 25.08.573 Accessory dwelling unit. “Accessory dwelling unit” means either a detached or an attached an additional residential dwelling unit on a parcel occupied soleysolely by a single-family residencetial lot or parcel that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation purposes on the same parcel as the primary single- family dwelling is situated in one of the following forms: (a) Detached: The unit is separated from the primary structure (b) Attached: The unit is attached to the primary structure (c) Repurposed Existing Space: Space (e.g. master bedroom) within the primary residence is converted into an independent living unit.. 25.08.647 Tandem parking. “Tandem parking” is the parking of one vehicle behind another; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit where tandem parking is defined as two or more vehicles that are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another. Chapter 25.50 Nonconforming Uses and Structures, Section 15.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses – R-1 zone is replaced in total with the following text: 25.50.025 Expansion of nonconforming uses - R-1 zone. (a) This section shall only be applicable to R-1 zoned parcels which contain two (2) detached nonconforming residential units. Only the primary residence, as determined by the director of community development, may be increased in footprint or in any exterior dimension if the accessory detached unit is to be retained as a residential unit. A conditional use permit pursuant to Chapter 25.16 shall be required for any such increase to a primary unit. Only maintenance and repairs as defined by the Uniform Building Code may be made to any accessory dwelling unit. The floor area or footprint of such an accessory unit shall not be expanded. Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Italic Formatted: Space After: 3 pt, Line spacing: single, Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75", Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers Formatted: Font: 11 pt Formatted: Font color: Black Formatted: Space Before: 0 pt, After: 0 pt, Don't adjust space between Latin and Asian text, Don't adjust space between Asian text and numbers Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 11 pt 7 (b) Factors for determining the primary residence shall include, but not be limited to, relative age, size and conformity with zoning requirements of the two (2) residences. The property owner may request that the planning commission review any such determination by the director of community development. Chapter 25.60 Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 Districts is replaced in total with the following text: CHAPTER 25.60 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS 25.60.010 Conditional use permit requirements. Accessory structures in the R-1 or R-2 Districts shall be a conditional use requiring a conditional use permit if any of the following will exist: (a) Two (2) or more accessory structures, each having over one hundred (1200) square feet gross floor area, will exist on a single lot, except that there may be two (2) accessory structures if one is an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (b) Any single accessory structure will exceed six hundred (600) square feet of gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (c) All accessory structures on a single lot will exceed a total of eight hundred (800) square feet gross floor area; except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit may be up to six hundred forty (640) square feet; (d) An accessory structure will occupy any portion of the lot in front of the main building; provided, where a dwelling has been erected on the rear sixty (60) percent of the lot prior to January 15, 1954, a garage may be erected in front of the main building, but not in any portion of the front setback; (e) An accessory structure will be erected closer than four (4) feet to any other structure on the same lot; (f) Accessory structures will cover more than fifty (50) percent of the rear thirty (30) percent of a lot; (g) The plate line of the accessory structure will be more than nine (9) feet above grade at the closest point between the plate line and adjacent grade; (h) The roof height of the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) feet above grade, except the height may be increased one foot for each foot of separation from an adjacent property line, up to a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet, provided: 8 (1) Where the lot slopes more than ten (10) percent at the location of the accessory structure, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet above the plate line; (2) The portion of the structure at the rear property line may have a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet if the structure has a pitched roof on both sides and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; (3) The roof height of an accessory structure may have a maximum height of fifteen (15) feet above grade when the roof is pitched from ridge to plate on at least two (2) sides, and the ridge is no closer than five (5) feet to a side property line, and the rear plate line does not exceed nine (9) feet above the natural grade; and (4) No portion of the space within any accessory structure between the top of plate and the lowest portion of the roof structure including any dormer shall exceed seven (7) feet in height. (i) Glazed openings of the accessory structure will be within ten (10) feet of the property line or any portion of a glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above grade; (j) Water or sewer connections to the accessory structure will exceed building code minimums or the accessory structure will contain any shower, bath or toilet, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (k) The accessory structure will enclose mechanical equipment, excluding air conditioning equipment, which is designed to operate on a regular or continuous basis, which may be objectionable because of loudness, hours of operation, odor or other reason, and which is to be located less than twenty (20) feet from any structure for habitation, or less than ten (10) feet from any property line; provided such shall be allowed without a special permit if the building official approves the structure as adequately sound insulated; (l) Storage of household goods, tools or equipment in the accessory structure will exceed ten (10) percent of the gross floor area of the main dwelling structure; (m) Any portion of the accessory structure will be used for accessory living quarters, recreation purposes or for use in a home occupation; except for an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit does not require a conditional use permit; (mn) The accessory structure will be a greenhouse, lathhousetrellis, lanai, patio shelter or similar structure exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet of gross floor area. 9 Chapter 25.26 R-1 District Regulations is replaced in total with the following text: 25.26.035 Uses allowed with a special permit. The following are uses allowed in the district with a special permit: (a) Attached garages for single-family dwelling units; (b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site; except where the on-site parking requirement is met per Chapter 25.70 for the existing units on-site and the reduction in the number of parking spaces is for the purpose of creating an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope; (d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40) percent of the lot; (e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight (28) feet in width or depth, except that an accessory structure containing an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59 and obtains an accessory dwelling unit permit; (f) A basement with any interior ceiling height of six and one-half (6 1/2) feet or greater; (gf) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than a light or window well; (h) A bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet located in a basement. 25.26.037 Prohibited uses. The following uses are specifically prohibited in the R-1 Districts: (a) Bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; and (b) Bedrooms in basements. Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left Formatted: Tab stops: 0.5", Left 10 Chapter 25.70 Off-Street Parking, Section 25.70.010 is replaced in total with the following text: 25.70.010 Vehicle parking spaces to be provided. (a) Parking Required. At the time of erection of any building or structure, or at the time any building or structure is enlarged or increased in capacity, there shall be provided off-street parking spaces with adequate and proper provision for ingress and egress by standard size automobiles. (b) Parking with Remodel or Reconstruction. When any building is remodeled, reconstructed or changed in use by the addition of dwelling units, gross floor area, seating capacity, change in type of use or intensified use, such additional garage or parking facilities as may be required must be provided, except for accessory dwelling units approved per Chapter 25.59. (c) Minimum Requirements. The regulations which follow are the minimum requirements unless specific requirements are made for a particular use in a district. Additional spaces may be provided. Unless otherwise expressly permitted by a section of this chapter, parking required by this chapter is to be provided on the same lot as the use for which the parking is required. 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings. The following are parking requirements for single-family dwellings. (a) Parking Space Requirements. Each single-family dwelling shall provide off-street parking spaces for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport. The following further requirements apply to certain additions and to new single-family dwellings: (1) An existing single-family dwelling increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with up to four (4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two (2) vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five (5) or more bedrooms and a new single-family dwelling with five (5) or more bedrooms shall provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of which must be covered by a garage or carport; (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1) and (2) of this section, an existing garage not less than eighteen (18) feet wide and twenty (20) feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide two (2) covered off-street parking places; (4) For additions to existing single-family dwellings, an existing garage with an eighteen (18) foot depth interior dimension shall be considered to meet the dimensional requirements for a parking space. 11 (5) Bedrooms that are within accessory dwelling units shall not be counted toward the overall number of bedrooms for the primary single family dwelling on the lot on which it is located; parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with Section 25.59.060(g). (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways. Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four (24) foot back-up area or be designed to be entered or exited in no more than three (3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3) maneuvers in the forward direction. (c) Parking Limitations. (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking; except for parking for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the Vehicle Code) shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property line; (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration; except for an accessory dwelling unit which complies with the provisions of Chapter 25.59; (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling and for accessory dwelling units, required uncovered spaces may be provided in tandem configuration and may extend: (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk, (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb, (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018 f.Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. >Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Thought the purpose of the regulations was to permit family to have older parents live on the same property as their children. (Meeker: can't restrict occupancy of the secondary unit to family members.) >What limitations will remain regarding parking in the front setback? (Keylon: currently can't park in the front setback unless it is done in a driveway leading to a garage. However, State law prohibits restrictions on the location of parking for ADUs, therefore one could park in the front setback if the parking is for an ADU. For units within one-half mile of transit, or conversion of existing structures on a property, parking is not required.) >How is parking for an ADU counted? (Keylon: parking for the ADU, when required, is counted separately from the parking for the residence.) >Understands that the City must come into compliance with State law. There are steps that the community can take to promote the development of additional housing stock. The City is restricted from requiring affordable housing in any new development due to Measure T. Permitting ADUs within R -1 districts is a relatively low -impact means of providing additional housing as long as they are provided consistent with local and State regulations. >Feels that the special permit for ceiling height should be eliminated. >Somewhat uncomfortable with eliminating the special permit for a direct ingress /egress from a basement. Should be reviewed to ensure that they are not an impact upon the neighbors. >In favor of removing the restriction on the size of bathrooms in basements. >Supports the restriction that would permit the removal of a parking space to accommodate construction of an ADU. >Torn regarding the restriction for owner occupancy of one unit. The issue should be vetted through the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. >Supports removing the requirement for approval of a conditional use permit for windows within ten feet of a property line in an accessory structure. >Is the floor area of an ADU taken off of the total allowed for the primary residence? (Keylon: counts toward FAR and lot coverage.) >Suggested looking at other cities' approaches to FAR and lot coverage for ADUs. >May ADUs be located greater than one -half mile from transit? (Keylon: yes, but must provide parking for the unit.) >Has construction of ADUs above a garage ever been considered? (Meeker: second-story occupiable space is not permitted above a garage as it may adversely impact the neighboring property.) >Has no issue with removing the owner -occupancy restriction; the City doesn't require the property owner to reside in a single-family residence without an ADU. >Would like to retain the ability to review having windows within ten feet of a property line in accessory structures. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is there some way to encourage parking for ADUs not to be within the front setback. (Keylon: can't require, but may make suggestions to applicants when meeting with them. Meeker: but cannot require it . The issue may come to a head as it relates to stormwater requirements.) >Concerned that it would be very possible to convert a single -family dwelling into a duplex if an exterior basement ingress/egress is allowed without Commission review. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission is being asked to make recommendations regarding those items (State mandates) that it supports without change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval of all State-mandated changes to the ADU regulations; recommend that the restrictions regarding openings within ten-feet of a property line and owner occupancy of one of the units on a property be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for further review; remove the restriction on basement ceiling heights; retain the requirement for Commission consideration of external ingress/egress from a basement; remove the restriction on the size of a basement bathroom; and remove the requirement for a special permit for removal of a parking space on-site when associated with construction of an ADU. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 g.Proposed amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units ), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. ADU Staff Report - 6.25.18 ADU ord change 6.25.18- PC minutes 5.14 and Resolution ADU ord change REDLINES 6.25.18 ADU ord change CLEAN 6.25.18 ADU ord change Attachments 6.25.18 Attachments: Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >What are the fire sprinkler requirements for ADUs? (Keylon: The ADU is not required to be sprinklered if the house is not required to be sprinklered.) >Would fire-rated windows be required if there is proximity to the property line? (Keylon: In non-sprinklered structures the Building Code does not allow openings within 5 feet of the property line, and one-hour construction is required. If the structure is sprinklered the distance is 3 feet.) >If there is not a kitchen, would it be considered an ADU? (Keylon: There would need to be a kitchen to be considered an ADU. Otherwise it would be considered an accessory living space.) >A fire-rated window that is one-hour rated could be allowed on the property line. (Keylon: Correct. Building Code provisions are attached to the staff report for reference .)(Kane: Intent is to minimize inconsistencies between Conditional Use Permit provisions that consider issues differently than fire and building codes.) >The complexity of issue is why some commissioners supported eliminating the requirement for a CUP for windows within 10 feet of the property line, because of the various different issues related to the the fire and building codes that govern and dictate openings within proximity to a property line. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jerry Deal: Having an additional unit can help people afford to stay in town. Conditional Use Permit is required for staircase from a basement to outside; this is a perfect example of a second unit that would not be on property line, which would be preferable. Otherwise a structure in the backyard could be disruptive to neighbors if the windows are open. Does not mind having an accessory unit in the back, but having a window close to the property line is an issue since sound carries. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/16/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Concern with window openings being close to property line. The Planning Commission needs to consider privacy. ADUs can be on the property line, so seems like it is worthwhile retaining. There will be instances where it doesn't matter at all, but it needs to be evaluated. >ADUs are otherwise approved ministerially, but one would come before the Planning Commission if it proposed a window within 10 feet of the property line. However in that instance it would not be before the commission for anything other than the CUP. >Would expect the commission will be reviewing a lot of CUPs for windows within 10 feet of the property line given the constraints in accommodating ADUs on small lots. >Needs to determine whether the CUP requirement restricts ADUs from happening. A project could be designed with no windows within 10 feet of the property line, so would not need the CUP. Doesn't mean the project itself cannot be within 10 feet of the property line. >The CUP window requirement will not necessarily limit the number of ADU applications, it will just change the nature of the ADU designs, while possibly preserving quality of life for neighbors. >The issue is not just noise, it can be light shining into an adjacent yard too. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to recommend the amendments to the City Council with the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit for a window within 10 feet of a property line retained. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/16/2018 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: August 20, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director – (650) 558-7230 Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7204 Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Real Estate Agreement with Caltrain and Related Documents to Allow Relocation of Caltrain Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) to City Property on the East Side of the Railway Tracks in the Industrial Zone RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the construction of PS-3 partially on City property, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a Real Estate Agreement with Caltrain substantially in the form attached along with related documents to facilitate the relocation of PS-3 to City Property on the east side of the railway tracks in the Industrial Zone. BACKGROUND In 2015, Caltrain certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), which proposes to electrify Caltrain from San Francisco to San Jose. As part of the PCEP, Caltrain proposed 10 paralleling stations (PSs) along the corridor to power its electrified trains, with PS-3 located in Burlingame on the west side of the railway tracks, north of Broadway near the intersection of California Drive and Lincoln Avenue. Subsequently, as part of the Broadway Grade Separation Project Study Report (PSR), it was determined that the originally proposed location of PS-3 as identified in the PCEP FEIR is in conflict with the Broadway Grade Separation Project. In particular, the retaining walls, which would support the partially raised train tracks, would be in conflict. As a result, the Broadway Grade Separation Project PSR identified that PS-3 needs to be relocated outside of the Broadway Grade Separation Project footprint. Caltrain determined that if PS-3 is not relocated now, it would cost approximately $10 million to $12 million (in current dollars) to the Broadway Grade Separation Project to relocate it in the future. Relocation of Caltrain Paralleling Station 3 to the East Side of the Railway Tracks August 20, 2018 2 DISCUSSION In March and April of 2018, Caltrain consulted with City staff regarding the relocation of PS-3, and analyzed a total of four different sites for feasibility, including on the east side of the railway tracks. From the beginning, City staff expressed grave concerns regarding locating PS-3 on the residential side of the railway tracks and requested that Caltrain relocate PS-3 to the east side of the tracks. In response to staff’s request, Caltrain studied relocating PS-3 to the east side of the railway tracks. However, due to right-of-way constraints and lack of readily available maintenance access, Caltrain was unable to identify a feasible site on the east side of the tracks and identified the most cost effective and readily implementable solution on the west side of the tracks near the intersection of California Drive and Mills Avenue. Subsequently, Caltrain issued an addendum to the PCEP FEIR on July 12, 2018, and held a community outreach meeting on July 18, 2018, to seek public input prior to the August 2, 2018 Caltrain Board meeting, at which the Addendum to the FEIR was scheduled for approval. Understandably, the residents along California Drive were extremely upset to learn about PS-3 being proposed in close proximity to the residential neighborhood. They expressed strong opposition to the proposal and requested that PS-3 be relocated away from the residential area. On July 30, 2018, the Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Manager, and Public Works Director met to discuss the issue and identify a solution to the problem. On July 31, 2018, the Mayor issued a letter to the Board requesting the relocation of PS-3 to the east side of the tracks. Additionally, the City Manager and Public Works Director participated in a conference call with County Supervisor Dave Pine, who facilitated a discussion with Caltrain Program Director John Funghi to help resolve the conflict. After extensive analysis, City staff determined that PS-3 could be located adjacent to the Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot with maintenance access provided through the lot, which would address the maintenance access problem that Caltrain was facing. On August 1, 2018, the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City staff held a field meeting with Caltrain at the Public Works Corporation Yard to review the logistics and feasibility of locating PS-3 adjacent to the Corporation Yard along the east side of the railway tracks. After review of the site conditions, Caltrain expressed confidence that the site looked promising. Caltrain staff indicated that in addition to maintenance access, they would need a temporary construction easement (approximately 40 feet of the rear Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot) for the nine to 12 month duration of construction, and a long-term lease (strip of approximately 20 feet of land in the rear of the parking lot), which would make the construction of PS-3 feasible on the east side of the tracks. This proposal will address the community’s concerns and help facilitate the relocation of PS-3 to the east side of the tracks; however, it will significantly impact Public Works operations as an estimated 10 to 12 parking spaces used to park City equipment trucks and vehicles will be lost. Staff is currently in the process of identifying alternative locations to address the parking problem, including the possibility of leasing nearby properties. In order to address the impacts to City operations, the City has requested that Caltrain pay the cost of addressing the parking problem, which they have agreed to. Since Caltrain had originally budgeted approximately Relocation of Caltrain Paralleling Station 3 to the East Side of the Railway Tracks August 20, 2018 3 $100,000 for the right-of-way acquisition costs to be reimbursed by the Broadway Grade Separation Project in the future, that funding could be now used to mitigate the impacts at the City Public Works Corporation Yard. Furthermore, together Burlingame and Caltrain will request reimbursement from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority from future funding for the Broadway Grade Separation Project for costs associated with relocating PS-3. As a result, staff has negotiated the attached Real Estate Agreement with Caltrain to facilitate the relocation of PS-3 on the east side of the railways tracks. Below are the key terms of the Agreement. 1. City of Burlingame will grant Caltrain approximately 40 feet by 100 feet (4,000 square foot area) for a temporary construction easement in the rear of the Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot for the purposes of construction access and staging for a period of one year. 2. Caltrain will lease from the City of Burlingame approximately 20 feet by 100 feet (2,000 square foot area) in the rear of the Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way for $1 per year for a period of 55 years, and a renewal option for a 45-year term. This will allow Caltrain to construct the PS-3 partially on City property to avoid conflict with the future shoofly tracks associated with the planned Broadway Grade Separation Project. In the future, if PS-3 disappears or for any reason Caltrain's need for the City land no longer exists, then the land will revert back at no cost to the City. 3. City of Burlingame will grant Caltrain a maintenance access easement over and across the City’s Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot. This will facilitate Caltrain’s access for the purposes of maintenance and servicing of PS-3. 4. Caltrain will pay $150,000 to the City of Burlingame to mitigate the costs associated with construction impacts, including the costs associated with mitigating the loss of parking for the duration of the PS-3 construction. Because the PCEP is already under construction, time is of the essence, and any delay in securing a feasible and readily available site for the PS-3 by August 21, 2018 could potentially result in $100,000 per day in delay costs to Caltrain. In the event a feasible site on the east side of the railway tracks does not become available by August 21, 2018, the Caltrain Board has authorized the PCEP team to proceed with the relocation of PS-3 to the west side of the railway tracks near the intersection of Mills Avenue and California Drive as originally contemplated in the Addendum to the FEIR. Staff recommends that the Council authorize the City Manager to execute a real estate agreement with the Caltrain JPB in substantially the form attached. Given the rapidly evolving nature of the planning for this imminent construction, some minor adjustments to the language or attachments may be necessary, but the key terms will be as described in this report. The Council should also confer authority to execute additional related documents necessary to effectuate the intent of the agreement, such as a temporary construction easement and a permanent easement for the PS-3 facility and its access. Relocation of Caltrain Paralleling Station 3 to the East Side of the Railway Tracks August 20, 2018 4 FISCAL IMPACT The proposal to relocate PS-3 on the east side of the railway tracks adjacent to the Public Works Corporation Yard property would result in the loss of approximately 10 to 12 parking spaces for City equipment trucks and employees during and after the construction. Caltrain has agreed to pay for costs for addressing parking impacts as indicated in the staff report. Exhibits: • Resolution • Addendum to FEIR dated July 12, 2018 • Mayor’s Letter to Caltrain dated July 31, 2018 • Mayor’s Letter to Caltrain dated August 1, 2018 • Proposed Site Plan for PS-3 • Proposed Site Plan for Temporary Construction Easement and Access Easement • Draft Real Estate Agreement 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARALELLING STATION 3 ON CITY PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California resolves as follows: WHEREAS, in 2015, Caltrain certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), which included 10 proposed paralleling stations along the corridor to power its electrified trains; and WHEREAS, Paralleling Station 3 (PS-3) was originally identified in the FEIR as located in Burlingame on the west side of the railway tracks, north of Broadway near the intersection of California Drive and Lincoln Avenue, but that location has been determined to be in conflict with the future Broadway Grade Separation Project footprint, notably the planned retaining walls that will support the partially raised tracks; and WHEREAS, in March and April of 2018, City and Caltrain staff analyzed a total of four different sites for PS-3, but due to right-of-way constraints and lack of available maintenance access, Caltrain determined the most cost effective and readily implementable solution to be on the west side of the tracks near the intersection of California Drive and Mills Avenue, resulting in an addendum to its FEIR for the PCEP on July 12, 2018; and WHEREAS, Burlingame residents along California Drive were upset to learn the PS-3 site would be in close proximity to the residential neighborhood and expressed strong opposition to the proposal; and WHEREAS, after multiple discussions among Burlingame elected officials, City staff, Caltrain, and County Board of Supervisor representatives, including extensive analysis and a site visit, City staff determined that PS-3 could be located adjacent to the Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot and would remedy the right-of-way constraints, lack of available maintenance access, and concerns identified by City staff and residents; and WHEREAS, in order to successfully relocate PS-3 in an industrial area on the east side of the tracks, the City and Caltrain have negotiated the attached draft Real Estate Agreement; and WHEREAS, in order to avoid unnecessary delays and substantial costs to Caltrain that would be occasioned by delaying this action until the next available Council meeting, Council wishes to confer the necessary authority to the City Manager to execute a Real Estate Agreement and implementing documents now, and allow for any minor adjustments as the City Manager deems necessary in order to facilitate the goals and key terms identified in this Resolution and its accompanying staff report. 2 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED BY THE COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Real Estate Agreement in substantially the form attached between the City of Burlingame and Caltrain and all necessary implementing documents including easements and deeds for the purpose of granting Caltrain the required access and property rights on a portion of the Public Works Corporation Yard Parking Lot to facilitate the relocation of PS-3 along the east side of the railway tracks in the industrial zone; and 2. The Council authorizes staff to coordinate with Caltrain to work out the details and logistics of the required temporary construction easement and maintenance access on City property to minimize operational impacts to the extent feasible. ______________________________ Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, MEAGHAN HASSEL-SHEARER, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of August, 2018, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: ______________________________ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 1 July 2018 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Prepared by ICF for the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, July 2018 The Peninsula Corridor Joint Power Board (JPB) certified the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on January 8, 2015 (JPB 2015). Since certification of the Final EIR, the JPB has identified one new potential site for Paralleling Station 3 (PS3). The environmental effects of the new PS3 Option 3 compared with the environmental effects of the PS3 Options 1 and 2 evaluated in the certified 2015 Final EIR are examined in this addendum. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an addendum to an EIR is needed if minor technical changes or modifications to a proposed project occur (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164). An addendum is appropriate only if these minor technical changes or modifications do not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. An addendum does not need to be circulated for public review (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c)); however, an addendum is to be considered along with the Final EIR by the decision-making body prior to making a decision on a project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)). This addendum to the PCEP Final EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2013012079) has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Project Background and Supplemental Environmental Review In 2015, the JPB certified the Final EIR for the PCEP. The Proposed Project would require the installation of 130 to 140 single-track miles of overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electrical power to the electric rolling stock. The OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (AC) supply system consisting of two traction power substations (TPSs), one switching station (SWS), and seven paralleling stations (PSs). The Final EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with the four options for the site of the northern TPS (TPS1 in South San Francisco) and three options for the site of the southern TPS (TPS2 in San Jose). In addition, the Final EIR evaluated environmental impacts associated with one switching station (SWS1) (with two site location options) and seven paralleling stations (PS1 through PS7) at a spacing of approximately 5 miles. Two options were evaluated for the PS3 and PS6 sites and three options were evaluated for the PS4, PS5, and PS7 sites. Subsequent addenda have reviewed additional options for PS2 and PS7, minor pole relocations, and design detail for the PG&E interconnections and substation upgrades. Since certification of the Final EIR, the JPB has proposed one additional alternative location for PS3 (Option 3). A new location (PS 3 Option 3) was needed because the original location included in the FEIR is no longer viable. The location of the original PS3 is in conflict with the potential Broadway Grade Separation Project. PS3 Option 3 would be located at approximately Mile Post 14.6, west of the Caltrain tracks along California Drive in Burlingame. The approximately 0.14 acre site would be situated approximately 130 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 2 July 2018 feet south of the intersection of California Drive and Mills Avenue, partially on land owned by JPB within the Caltrain right-of-way and partially on land owned by the City and County of San Francisco within the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) right-of-way. The acquisition of 6,000 square feet of land (120 feet by 50 feet) within the SFPUC’s right-of-way would be required. The site would be setback from California Drive by 15 feet to avoid existing overhead utility lines and poles, and would be accessed via a driveway at the southern end of the site that connects to California Drive. Table 1 describes the potential environmental impacts of PS3 Option 3 and analyzes any potential change in the level of significance as determined in the 2015 Final EIR. An attached figure, Figure 1, shows the site location and the area of property acquisition. 0 10050 Feet´ AlamedaCounty ContraCostaCounty San MateoCounty SantaClaraCounty SanFrancisco Oakland San Jose !!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Source: Imagery, ESRI 2018 Legend PS3 Option 3 JPB Right of Way Caltrain Tracks Figure 1, Proposed Paralleling Station 3 (PS3) Option 3 Burlingame ParallelingStation PS3Option 3 CALI F O R N I A D R I V E MILLS AVENUEMILLS CREEKGROVE AVENUE Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 3 July 2018 Table 1. Summary of Impacts of PS3 Option 3 Environmental Topic Impact Aesthetics The EIR significance criteria concern scenic vistas, scenic roadways, visual character/quality, and light and glare. The area surrounding the site is not a scenic vista as it consists of a roadway, single-family residences, utility poles and wires, and urban trees, and thus no impacts to a scenic vista are identified. California Drive is not a designated scenic roadway and thus no impacts to scenic roadways are identified. Impacts associated with v isual character/quality and light and glare are addressed below. PS3 Option 3 would be located between the Caltrain tracks and California Drive, on land partially within Caltrain’s and SFPUC’s rights-of-way, across the street from residential areas along California Drive in Burlingame. The existing visual elements of the PS3 Option 3 area consist of suburban residential land uses to the west of the Caltrain corridor, and a row of trees and overhead utility lines and poles lining the SFPUC right-of-way. Nearby residents, roadway users, and recreationalists (e.g., bicyclists) using local roadways have views toward the PS3 Option 3 location, which would be approximately 60 feet closer to adjacent residences than the PS3 Option 1 evaluated in the Final EIR. Figure 2a depicts the existing and simulated view of the PS3 Option 1 evaluated in the Final EIR. Figure 2b depicts the existing view from the neighborhood west of the corridor to the PS3 Option 3 site and a simulation of PS3 Option 3 with potential vegetative screening. The introduction of PS3 Option 3 would alter the visual character of the existing railway ROW, overhead utility lines and poles, and vegetative screening due to removal of existing vegetation at the site and the introduction of new structures and equipment. PS3 Option 3 would also introduce an elevated element (the gantry) that would be higher than current features on the site. However, given the existing visual character is a busy roadway with utility poles and wires and urban trees, the new features only moderately change the overall visual character by introducing additi onal utility-like infrastructure. To reduce the change in visual character, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would minimize impacts on trees lining the SFPUC right-of-way to only that necessary for electric equipment safety, while Mitigation Measure AES-2b would require vegetative screening along California Avenue between the roadway and PS3 Option 3, and appropriate color treatment for the TPF facilities to reduce the visual effect on views from the neighborhood. With mitigation, the change in visual character would be lessened as the paralleling station equipment and compound would be screened from view from the roadway and residences by vegetative screening in the form of a vegetated wall. With the vegetated wall, the elevated gantry and some of the higher parts of the paralleling station would still be apparent. However, given the existing visual character is not a high value aesthetic landscape, but rather a mixed urban one of residences, roadway, and train and utility infrastructure, the residual aesthetic impact after mitigation is considered less than significant. Construction of PS3 Option 3 could result in spillover light or glare, and new nighttime lighting for security purposes could spill outside of the site boundaries, creating a new source of nuisance lighting or glare to nearby residents. Mitigation Measures AES-4a and AES-4b would apply to reduce impacts from lighting; the impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. Figure 2a PS-3 Location, 2015 PCEP FEIRICF Graphics … 00370.17 (7-19-2018) tmExisting View of EIR Location for PS3 Simulated View of PS3, EIR Location Figure 2b PS-3 Proposed Addendum #5 LocationICF Graphics … 00370.17 (7-19-2018) tmExisting View of New Location for PS3 Simulated View of PS3, Relocated to Avoid Broadway Grade Separation Project Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 4 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding aesthetics that were analyzed in the Final EIR. Air Quality No new air quality impacts are identified relative to PS3 Options 1 and 2 because the amount and duration of construction would be similar to the construction of the other paralleling stations. Mitigation Measures AQ-2a, AQ-2b, and AQ-2c would apply to reduce construction impacts regarding criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs) by requiring Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) best management practices (BMPs) and equipment requirements to reduce construction-related dust, reactive organic gasses (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding air quality than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Biological Resources The PS3 Option 3 is located in an area covered by urban landscaping: trees and ornamental shrubs line the existing SFPUC right-of-way. Tree surveys have not been conducted at this location, but the dominant tree species along the Caltrain right- of-way in Burlingame include acacia trees, eucalyptus, and oak. No waters of the U.S., including wetlands, or habitat for special-status species are present with the boundaries of the PS3 Option 3 location. The trees provide suitable habitat for migratory birds during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31). No other habitat for special-status species are present with the boundaries of the PS3 Option 3. Mitigation Measures BIO-1a, BIO-1g, and BIO-1j would apply to reduce potential impacts to nesting birds and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would apply to reduce impacts from tree pruning and removal; the impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding biological resources than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Cultural Resources An ICF Architectural Historian reviewed the records for the PS3 Option 3 site on June 20, 2018 and determined that there are no historic resources on or adjacent to the site. An ICF Archaeologist reviewed the records for the PS3 Option 3 site on June 20, 2018 and determined that there are no archaeological sites or areas of known archaeological sensitivity within the vicinity of the site and there would be no new archaeological effect related to selection of PS3 Option 3. Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2f would apply to reduce potential impacts to unknown archaeological resources; the impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding cultural resources than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 5 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)/Electromagne tic Interference (EMI) The distance from PS3 Option 3 to sensitive receptors would be similar to that of the paralleling station sites evaluated in the Final EIR and thus EMF/EMI impacts related to PS3 Option 3 would also be below the EMF thresholds used in the Final EIR for the general public, workers, and individuals with pacemakers or implanted medical devices . PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the s everity of impacts regarding EMF/EMI than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Geology, Soils, Seismicity The soil underlying the PS3 Option 3 site is 132—Urban land-Orthents, cut and fill complex. The site has moderate susceptibility to liquefaction and low susceptibility to landslides. Expansive soil could exist on the site since specific soil sampling has not been completed. Mitigation Measures GEO -4a and GEO-4b require identification and mitigation of expansive soils. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would require a site-specific geotechnical study for PS3 Option 3 to reduce exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides; the impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding geology, soils, and seismicity than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions PS3 Option 3 would not introduce any new construction impacts not previously analyzed in the Final EIR because the amount of construction would be the same as the PS3 sites analyzed in the Final EIR. With PS3 Option 3, there would be no changes to normal train operations, so there would be no change to operational emissions. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding greenhouse gas emissions than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 6 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact Hazards and Hazardous Material Thirteen hazardous materials sites are within 0.25 mile of PS3 Option 3. Each of these thirteen cases are closed and represent a low level of concern. Sunshine Family Child Care and Coolidge Grammar School are located approximately 0.18 mile southeast and 0.13 mile south of PS3 Option 3, respectively; the distances from these schools to PS3 Option 3 is comparable to the distance of these schools to the PS3 sites evaluated in the Final EIR. Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b would require additional actions for areas with a high likelihood of contaminated media and would control exposure of workers and the public to contamination where encountered . This mitigation would also control potential spills of hazardous material during co nstruction, as well as potential effects on emergency plans. With these mitigation measures, construction and operation of PS3 Option 3 would not affect land uses outside of the project footprint, including schools. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 7 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact Hydrology and Water Quality Like PS3 Option 1, PS3 Option 3 would be within the 100-year floodplain due to the proximity to Mills and Easton Creeks, which experience flooding overflow in large events and are located approximately 0.16 mile northeast and 0.1 south east of PS3 Option 3, respectively. The amount of existing infiltration at the site is likely limited because PS3 Option 3 would be approximately 120 feet by 50 feet (6,000 square feet or 0.14 acre) and would be located in a previously cleared and graded area on the northern edge of the inundation area along the Caltrain right-of-way. As a result, it is unlikely that PS3 Option 3 would contribute significantly to flooding due to loss of infiltration. Mitigation Measure HYD-4 would reduce the potential of PS3 Option 3 to contribute to localized flooding by minimizing the amount of new impervious areas by using graveled or pervious pavement for all facility areas other than the foundations for new electric equipment and any other weight–bearing facilities. Mitigation Measure HYD-5 would provide for electrical safety at PS3, Option 3 from flood damage by requiring all new electrical equipment to be placed on elevated pads above expected flood depths and/or protect such equipment with flood barriers. If equipment cannot be designed so that flood waters cannot contact the equipment, then sealed or capped moisture‐resistant components are required. Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCIs) will be utilized for all electrical circuits below the base flood elevation for the 100‐year flood. Caltrain will develop emergency response procedures to provide electrical safety including system shutdown during projected flood events. Due to the potential for gaps in current FEMA mapping of areas subject to flooding due to levee failures, Caltrain will also investigate potential flooding risks due to levee failures for all new TPFs and apply emergency shutdown requirements to all additional facilities identified as at risk of flooding due to potential levee failures. PS3 Option 3 would be located in an area vulnerable to potential sea level rise after 2050. Such inundation could result in damage to Caltrain facilities resulting in structural damage and service interruptions. Mitigation Measure HYD-7 would require Caltrain to assess its vulnerability to future flooding associated with sea level rise and partner with adjacent municipalities, flood districts, regional agencies, state agencies, and federal agencies to do its fair share to help adapt to changing flood conditions over time. Potential adaptation solutions could include flood levees, seawalls, elevated tracks, and/or minor track realignment. The secondary environmental effects of construction of additional flood facilities for PS3 Option 3 would likely be similar to that disclosed in the Final EIR. If groundwater is encountered during construction activities, dewatering may be required and Mitigation Measure HYD -1 would be implemented. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding hydrology and water quality than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 8 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact Land Use and Recreation The site for PS3 Option 3 is zoned as unclassified, as it is within the existing Caltrain and SFPUC rights-of-way. The site is adjacent to areas covered by the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and is separated from residential development to the west by a major arterial route, California Drive, which fronts along the Caltrain ROW. The nearest residences are approximately 60 feet south of the site, but would be buffered by California Drive. PS3 Option 3 would not physically divide an established community and would be consistent with the existing Caltrain and SFPUC operations and compatible with the surrounding land uses. The site is not within an existing specific, area, or precise plan. The closest park is the Village Park located approximately 0.18 mile east of the PS3 Option 3 site. PS3 Option 3 would not be visible from this park. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding land use and recreation than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Noise and Vibration With PS3 Option 3, the character of construction and operational noise would be the same as disclosed in the Final EIR. PS3 Option 3 would be located approximately 60 feet from single-family residences. It is not anticipated that there would be new significant impacts from operational noise at PS3 Option 3 based on the analysis of paralleling station noise in the Final EIR because significant operational noise effects to residential receptors would not exceed the significance threshold at locations 55 feet or more away from a paralleling station The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding noise and vibration than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Population and Housing No housing or other displacements would occur with PS3 Option 3. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding population and housing than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Public Services and Utilities There would be no change in demand for public service or utilities with implementation of PS3 Option 3 as the demand would be the same as previously analyzed options. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR wo uld not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding public services and utilities than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 9 July 2018 Environmental Topic Impact Transportation Impacts to transportation during construction would be similar to those described in the Final EIR . Mitigation Measure TRA-1 would reduce temporary construction impacts on roadway traffic; the impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would have no adverse operational impact on transportation (traffic, transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities) because it would result in minimal operational traffic due to site maintenance. PS3 Option 3 would not change any conditions for freight operations. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts regarding transportation than were analyzed in the Final EIR. Cumulative No new impacts associated with PS3 Option 3 have been identified. Therefore, there would be no change to the cumulative analysis. The impact determinations identified in the Final EIR would not change. PS3 Option 3 would not result in new cumulative significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of cumulative impacts that were analyzed in the Final EIR. Alternatives No new alternatives identified relative to PS3 are proposed. The Final EIR together with this addendum consider three potential sites for PS3. No new or substantially more severe impacts were identified with implementation of PS3 Option 3 compared to the prior options. Therefore, three options for PS3 are sufficient and additional alternatives are not warranted. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Addendum: Paralleling Station 3 Option 3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project 10 July 2018 Conclusion This addendum analyzes the proposed PS3 Option 3 and compares the potential impacts to the conclusions of the 2015 Final EIR. This analysis was completed to determine the requirement for further environmental documentation pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines sections 15162, 15163 and 15164. This analysis has identified no new or substantially more severe impacts of the proposed PS3 Option 3 compared with those identified and evaluated in the 2015 Final EIR. Mitigation measures identified in the 2015 Final EIR would be applied to PS3 Option 3, as proposed, to reduce or avoid significant impacts. With the application of these previously-identified mitigation measures, no new significant impacts or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified impacts requiring revisions to the 2015 Final EIR would occur. No new mitigation measures are required for the adoption and implementation of the proposed PS3 Option 3. PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems 6$10$7(2&2817<&,7<2)%85/,1*$0( Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 1 of 19 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PREAMBLE This real estate agreement ("Agreement" or "Lease") is made and entered into this __ day of ___________, 2018, ("Agreement Date") by and between the City of Burlingame, California, a California municipal corporation, with its primary business address at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010-3997 ("City" or "Lessor") and Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a Joint Powers Authority, with its primary business address at 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 ("Caltrain" or "Lessee") for the lease of a parcel of land (the "Premises") to be used as the site for an electrical paralleling station for the Caltrain electrified rail service. City and Lessee may be referred to individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties" or the "Parties to this Agreement." RECITALS These recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement: A. Lessee provides passenger train service in the San Francisco Bay Area region including Burlingame; B. Lessee is undertaking the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project ("PCEP") which will electrify the rail service on its right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose and has adopted a Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for that project in January of 2105; C. As part of the PCEP, Caltrain needs to install electrical facilities along its right-of- way, including certain electrical paralleling stations to provide power to operate the trains, one of which is planned for Burlingame and is referred to as "PS-3"; D. City owns an improved parcel of real estate located at 1361 North Carolan Street, Burlingame, commonly known as the “Burlingame Corporation Yard” ("Yard") in the City of Burlingame; E. The original location planned for Caltrain's paralleling station in Burlingame, which was approved in the FEIR, is in conflict with the location of facilities that will be needed for the planned construction of a railroad grade separation project at Broadway in Burlingame; F. Caltrain considered several alternative locations, all on the west side of its tracks because feasible options were not available on the east side of the tracks, but the City has offered to make available certain rights at its Yard to facilitate the siting of PS-3 Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 2 of 19 14754047.1 on the east side, away from residences; G. On August 2, 2018, the Caltrain Board of Directors approved Resolution 2018-28, which authorized its Executive Director to approve an Addendum #5 to the FEIR to include the location offered by the City, provided suitable property rights can be obtained in a prompt fashion; and H. Lessee desires to lease a portion of the Yard (the "Premises") and to obtain attendant easement rights over other portions of the Yard in order to construct and maintain PS-3 (the "Project") in the location preferred by the City and to obtain a temporary construction easement, consisting of property of approximately 4,000 square feet, and a permanent access easement across the Yard property to access the Premises. In consideration of the above referenced recitals and the following mutual covenants, commitments, and obligations of the Parties, Lessee and City agree as follows: AGREEMENT PROVISIONS 1. LEASE OF PROPERTY In order to provide a location for Caltrain to locate its paralleling station on a portion of the Yard and in consideration of the faithful performance by Lessee of the terms and conditions of this Agreement and of the payments to be made by Lessee, City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee leases from City, certain improved real property located at 1361 North Carolan Street, Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California. The Premises consists of approximately a maximum of 2000 square feet of developed land and is more particularly shown on Exhibit A, attached and incorporated herein by reference. Caltrain is preparing legal descriptions for the Premises and the easements listed in Section 2 below, which the parties will review and agree upon before any documents are recorded evidencing these interests. 2. GRANT OF EASEMENTS In order to provide Caltrain with access to the Premises, and to areas required for the construction of PS-3, City will grant to Caltrain the following easements over the Yard, in the forms attached as Exhibits B and C respectively, and in the general locations shown on Exhibit A: A. A perpetual access and maintenance easement over, across and through the Yard; and B. A temporary construction easement for the duration of the construction of PS-3. 3. AGREEMENT DATE AND TERM OF THE AGREEMENT A. For purposes of all leasehold rights and interest created by this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall commence on August 21, 2018 (also known as the "Effective Date") and shall terminate fifty five (55) years thereafter or August 21, 2073 ("Lease Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 3 of 19 14754047.1 Term"), unless Lessee exercises an option to extend the Agreement as provided below. B. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section, Lessee hereby is granted the right and option (“Renewal Option”) to extend the term of this Lease for an additional 44-year term(s) (“Renewal Term”). Lessee shall exercise the Renewal Option, if at all, by giving written notice to City of Lessee’s election to extend the Term no earlier than one hundred and eighty (180) days prior to the end of the Lease Term and no later than ninety (90) days prior to the end of the Lease Term. Lessee shall be entitled to exercise the Renewal Option only if: (1) Lessee has complied with all terms and conditions of the Agreement prior to the date of exercise; and, (2) Lessee is not at the time of exercise in default under the Agreement. 4. USE OF PROPERTY A. The Premises shall be used by Lessee to construct and operate an electrical paralleling station as part of the PCEP. Lessee shall not use or permit the Premises, or any part thereof, to be used in whole or in part for any purpose other than as set forth above except with the prior written consent of the City nor for any use in violation of any present or future applicable laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. B. Lessee hereby expressly agrees at all times during the term of this Agreement, at its own cost, to maintain and operate the Project in a clean and sanitary condition and in compliance with any present or future applicable laws, ordinances and rules or regulations. Lessee shall at all times faithfully obey and comply with all laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Project adopted by federal, state, local or other governmental bodies or departments or officers thereof. Lessee further agrees to cooperate with City in maintaining and adhering to reasonable restrictions related to the security of City property and persons in the Corporation Yard facility. C. The Parties agree to cooperate in the event that, in the future, Caltrain requires more extensive access through the Yard to undertake major repairs, which will be conducted in a manner so as to minimize impacts to the operations of the Yard. D. Following completion of the construction of the Broadway grade separation project, the Parties agree to consider allowing the City to use a portion of the Caltrain Right- of-Way for additional parking for the Yard, provided such areas are not required for rail operations. 5. RENT AND COMPENSATION Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 4 of 19 14754047.1 A. Upon execution of this Agreement, Caltrain shall pay the City rental for the Premises in the amount of $1.00 per year, for $55.00 for the full term of the lease. B. The payment for the easements referred to in Section 2 above (“Payment”), shall be $150,000 to be paid by Lessee to the City within 90 days of receiving an invoice from the City. The Payment is intended to make the City whole for the actual cost of securing replacement parking for its vehicles displaced by the temporary construction easement and for mitigating permanent impacts to City operations. 6. DELINQUENCY CHARGE If the Payment is not received by Lessor within fifteen days (15) of the date it is due, then Lessee shall be subject to a delinquency charge for violation of this Agreement and for damages, of a sum equal to one-tenth of one percent (0.1%) of such required payment amount per day for each day from the date such required payment amount became due and payable until payment of said required payment amount has been received by the City. 7. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS By executing this Agreement, the City consents to the construction of PS-3 based as generally shown on attached Exhibit D. JPB shall cooperate with the City to install appropriate landscaping screening surrounding the PS-3 to minimize visual impacts. No additional improvements shall be constructed on the Premises, with the exception of additional facilities necessary to support the continued safe and efficient operation of PS-3, unless the City specifically and in writing consents to such construction, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. All federal, state, and local laws and regulations, including but not limited to land use and permitting laws, must be adhered to in the event of such construction. 8. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS Lessee shall maintain, at its own expense, all equipment and utility lines serving the Project to their point of connection with the main lines. Lessee waives the right to make repairs at the expense of the City and the benefit of the provisions of Sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code of California relating thereto; and, further agrees that if and when any repairs, alterations, additions or betterments shall be made by it as this paragraph provides, it promptly shall pay for all labor done or materials furnished in that behalf and shall keep Premises and Lessee's possessory interest therein free and clear of any lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever. 9. TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT The Lease is terminable by City upon the occurrence of an event of default as provided below, or by Caltrain without cause on 30 days’ advance written notice to the City. The occurrence of any of the following shall constitute a material breach and default (“Default”) of Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 5 of 19 14754047.1 this Lease by Lessee: A. Any failure by Lessee to pay when due any of the Rent or other charges payable by Lessee; B. A failure by Lessee to observe or perform any other provision of this Lease to be observed or performed by Lessee when such failure is not corrected within 45 days after written notice thereof from Agency; or if such failure cannot be cured within this 45 day period, as determined by Agency in its reasonable discretion, if such cure is not commenced within 30 days of Agency’s written notice and thereafter diligently pursued to completion; C. The abandonment or the vacation of the Premises by Lessee for a period of more than 90 consecutive days; 10. STATE AND LOCAL LICENSES AND LAWS A. Lessee shall, at all times, comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations and orders of the Federal government, State of California, County of San Mateo and City of Burlingame. B. Lessee shall observe and comply with the requirements of all applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations regarding the Project. Lessee shall, at its sole expense and cost, procure and keep in force, during the entire term of this Agreement and any extension thereof, all permits and licenses required by such statutes, ordinances or regulations. 11. SIGNS Lessee shall not install, paint, inscribe or place any new signs or placards without the prior written consent of the City and concurrence by the Planning Director of the City of Burlingame that the signs are in conformance with all City of Burlingame ordinances. 12. UTILITIES Lessee agrees to pay the cost of all utilities furnished to it in connection with its use and occupation of the Premises. The City is not obligated to provide or pay for any utility services, but in the event the City by arrangement with Lessee provides or pays for any utility services, Lessee shall pay the City for such services or reimburse to the City any payment the City has made for such services not later than the first business day of the calendar month following Lessee's receipt from the City of a billing statement for said services or reimbursement. Any and all other utility services required by Lessee shall be provided by Lessee at its expense. 13. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 6 of 19 14754047.1 The parties do not expect the site to be taxed, but if taxes are assessed, the Lessee agrees to pay all lawful taxes, assessments or charges which at any time may be levied by the State, County, City or any tax or assessment levying body upon any interest in this Agreement or any possessory right which Lessee may have in or to the Premises covered hereby by reason of its use or occupancy thereof or otherwise, as well as all taxes, assessments and charges on goods, merchandise, fixtures, appliances, equipment and property owned by it in or about the Project and shall hold City harmless therefrom. 14. DAMAGE OR DESTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY A. General Provisions. City shall not be required to repair any injury or damage to the Project or the Premises, except to the extent of City's obligations under this Agreement. City and Lessee hereby waive the provisions of: 1. Sections 1932(2) and 1933(4) of the Civil Code of California and any other provisions of law from time to time in effect during the term of this Agreement and relating to the effect on leases of partial or total destruction of the Premises; and, 2. Sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code, providing for repairs to and of Premises. City and Lessee agree that their respective rights upon any damage or destruction of the Premises and the Premises shall be those specifically set forth in this Paragraph 14. B. City and Lessee waive the provisions of any statutes that relate to termination of leases when leased property is destroyed and agree that such event shall be governed by the terms of this Agreement. 15. HOLD HARMLESS/INDEMNIFICATION It is an express condition of this Agreement that the City of Burlingame shall be free from any and all liabilities and claims for damages and/or suits for or by reason of any death or deaths or any injury or injuries to any person or persons or damages to property of any kind whatsoever, whether the person or property of Lessee, its agents or employees, or third persons, from any cause or causes whatsoever while on the Premises or any part thereof during the term of this Agreement or occasioned by any occupancy or use of the Premises or any activity carried on by Lessee in connection with this Agreement. To the extent permitted by law, Lessee hereby covenants and agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and to save harmless the City from all liabilities, charges, expenses, including counsel fees and costs on account of or by reason of any such death or deaths, injury or injuries, liabilities, claims, suits or Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 7 of 19 14754047.1 losses, however occurring, or damages for which Lessee shall become legally liable arising from Lessee's negligent acts, errors or omissions by Caltrain or its employees, agents or contractors on the Premises or with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement. This obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City extends to criminal or negligent acts committed by agents or contractors of Lessee while on City property or accessing the Premises. Lessee shall not be liable for damage caused by City or its employees, agents or contractors. To the extent permitted by law, the City hereby covenants and agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and to save harmless the Lessee from all liabilities, charges, expenses, including counsel fees and costs on account of or by reason of any such death or deaths, injury or injuries, liabilities, claims, suits or losses, however occurring, or damages for which City shall become legally liable arising from negligent acts, errors or omissions by the City or its employees, agents or contractors on the Premises or with respect to or in any way connected with this Agreement. 16. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS A. Lessee agrees to maintain in full force and effect, at Lessee's own cost and expense, at all times for the term of this Agreement or any authorized extension thereof, insurance coverage in amounts and with the endorsements herein indicated and set forth in Exhibit E, attached and incorporated herein by reference. Lessee and City shall be listed as additional insureds under all insurance policies required under this Agreement, and such insurance shall be primary as to the City under the terms of this Agreement. Upon execution of this Agreement, and before commencing any work hereunder, Lessee shall file with the City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, and subject to the approval of the Attorney for the City for adequacy of protection, proper certificates and endorsements for the insurance requirement as set forth in Exhibit E. City understands that a substantial portion of the coverage required in Exhibit E is within Lessee’s self-insured retention and agrees to accept such coverage. B. A certificate or certificates evidencing such insurance coverage and endorsements shall be filed with the City Clerk of the City of Burlingame prior to the commencement of the term of this Agreement, and said certificate and endorsement, as applicable, shall provide that such insurance coverage will not be canceled or reduced without at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City Clerk. At least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, a certificate showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City Clerk. If such coverage is canceled or reduced, Lessee shall, within fifteen (15) days after receipt of written notice from the City of such cancellation or reduction in coverage, file with the City Clerk a certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another insurance company or companies. 17. LIENS Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 8 of 19 14754047.1 Lessee shall pay for all labor done or materials furnished in the repair, replacement, development or improvement of the Premises by Lessee and shall keep the Premises and Lessee's possessory interest therein free and clear of any lien or encumbrance of any kind whatsoever created by Lessee's act or omission. 18. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING Lessee shall not voluntarily, involuntarily or by operation of law, assign, mortgage or otherwise encumber, all or any part of Lessee's interest in this Agreement or in the Premises or sublet the whole or any part of the Premises (any and all of which transactions are herein referred to as a "Transfer"), except as specifically permitted by this Agreement or consented to by Lessor in writing, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing notwithstanding, Lessee may contract with third parties to operate its commuter rail service or permit other parties to operate trains on its Right-of-Way. Any third parties or contractors accessing, maintaining, or otherwise working on the Premises at the behest of Lessee shall be subject to the same insurance requirements in favor of the City as imposed under Paragraph 16 of this Agreement. 19. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS A. Compliance with Laws. Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Material (as defined below) to be brought upon, kept or used in or about the Premises by Lessee, its agents, employees, contractors or invitees, except as is necessary for the efficient and safe use of PS-3, and as is necessary for railroad and maintenance operations. B. Termination of Agreement. Lessor shall have the right to terminate the Agreement, but only after consultation with Lessee in the event that (i) Lessee has been required by any lender or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating the Premises, if the contamination resulted from Lessee's action or use of the Premises; or, (ii) Lessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal or storage of a Hazardous Material on the Premises, but only such order requires vacation of the Premises. C. Assignment and Subletting. If (i) any anticipated use of the Premises by any proposed assignee or sublessees involves the generation or storage, use, treatment or disposal or release of Hazardous Material in a manner or for any purpose; (ii) the proposed assignee or sublessees has been required by any prior Lessor, lender or governmental authority to take remedial action in connection with Hazardous Material contaminating a property, if the contamination resulted from such party's action or use of the property in question; or, (iii) the proposed assignee or sublessee is subject to an enforcement order issued by any governmental authority in connection with the release, use, disposal or storage of a Hazardous Material, then it shall not be unreasonable for Lessor to withhold its consent to an assignment or subletting to such proposed assignee or sublessee. Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 9 of 19 14754047.1 D. Hazardous Materials Defined. The term “Hazardous Material(s)” shall mean any toxic or hazardous substance, material or waste or any pollutant or contaminant or infectious or radioactive material, including but not limited to, those substances, materials or wastes regulated now or in the future under any of the following statutes or regulations and any and all of those substances included within the definitions of “hazardous substances,” “hazardous waste,” “hazardous chemical substance or mixture,” “imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture,” “toxic substances,” “hazardous air pollutant,” “toxic pollutant” or “solid waste” in the (a) “CERCLA” or “Superfund” as amended by SARA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601 et seq.; (b) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6901 et seq.; (c) CWA., 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.; (d) CAA, 42 U.S.C. 78401 et seq.; (e) TSCA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.; (f) The Refuse Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 407; (g) OSHA, 29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.; (h) Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Sec. 1801 et seq.; (i) USDOT Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments) or the EPA Table (40 CFR Part 302 and amendments); (j) California Superfund, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25300 et seq.; (k) Cal. Hazardous Waste Control Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.; (l) Porter-Cologne Act, Cal. Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq.; (m) Hazardous Waste Disposal Land Use Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25220 et seq.; (n) “Proposition 65,” Cal. Health and Safety Code Sec. 25249.5 et seq.; (o) Hazardous Substances Underground Storage Tank Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 25280 et seq.; (p) California Hazardous Substance Act, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 28740 et seq.; (q) Air Resources Law, Cal. Health & Safety Code Sec. 39000 et seq.; (r) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory, Cal. Health & Safety Code Secs. 25500-25541; (s) TCPA, Cal. Health and Safety Code Secs. 25208 et seq.; and, (t) regulations promulgated pursuant to said laws or any replacement thereof, or as similar terms are defined in the federal, state and local laws, statutes, regulations, orders or rules. Hazardous Materials shall also mean any and all other substances, materials and wastes which are, or in the future become regulated under applicable local, state or federal law for the protection of health or the environment, or which are classified as hazardous or toxic substances, materials or wastes, pollutants or contaminants, as defined, listed or regulated by any federal, state or local law, regulation or order or by common law decision, including, without limitation, (i) trichloroethylene, tetracholoethylene, perchloroethylene and other chlorinated solvents; (ii) any petroleum products or fractions thereof; (iii) asbestos; (iv) polychlorinated biphenyls; (v) flammable explosives; (vi) urea formaldehyde; and, (vii) radioactive materials and waste. E. Lessor’s Right to Perform Tests. At any time prior to the expiration of the Lease Term, Lessor shall have the right to enter upon the Premises in order to conduct tests of water and soil and to deliver to Lessee the results of such tests to demonstrate that levels of any Hazardous Materials in excess of permissible levels has occurred as a result of Lessee's use of the Premises, provided that Lessor’s activities on the Premises shall not block entrances to the Premises nor unreasonably interfere with Lessee’s use of the Premises, provided that if City seeks to enter upon the Caltrain Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 10 of 19 14754047.1 Right-of-Way, it will be required to comply with all necessary, then-current requirements, including the execution of any necessary permits or other access documents and compliance with applicable safety procedures. Lessee shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold Lessor harmless from and against all claims, costs and liabilities including actual attorney’s fees and costs arising out of or in connection with any removal, remediation, clean up, restoration and materials required hereunder to return the Premises to its condition existing prior to the appearance of the Hazardous Materials for which Lessee is responsible. The testing shall be at Lessee's expense only if Lessor has a reasonable basis for suspecting and confirms the presence of Hazardous Materials in the soil or surface or groundwater in on, under or about the Premises or the Project, which has been caused by or resulted from the activities of Lessee, its agents, employees, contractors or invitees. F. Environmental Audits. Upon request by Lessor during the Lease Term and option periods, prior to vacating the Premises, Lessee shall undertake and submit to Lessor an environmental audit from an environmental company reasonably acceptable to Lessor. The audit shall evidence Lessee's compliance with the terms of this Agreement. G. Hazardous Materials Indemnity. Lessee shall indemnify, defend (by counsel reasonably acceptable to Lessor), protect and hold Lessor harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses and/or expenses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Premises, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Premises, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Premises) and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, attorney’s fees, consultant and expert fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, costs of death of or injury to any person or damage to any property whatsoever (including, without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems and atmosphere), arising from, or caused or resulting, during the Lease Term, by the presence or discharge in, on, under or about the Premises by Lessee, Lessee's agents, employees, licensees or invitees or at Lessee's direction of Hazardous Material, or by Lessee's failure to comply with any Hazardous Materials Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability. Lessee's indemnification obligations shall include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any required or necessary Hazardous Materials management plan, investigation, repairs, cleanup or detoxification or decontamination of the Premises and the presence and implementation of any closure, remedial action or other required plans, and shall survive the expiration of or early termination of the Lease Term. For purposes of the indemnity provided herein, any acts or omissions of Lessee or its employees, agents, customers, sublessees, assignees, contractors or subcontractors of Lessee (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Lessee. Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 11 of 19 14754047.1 20 INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 21. SURRENDER AND HOLDING OVER A. Lessee covenants that at the expiration of the term of this Agreement, or upon its earlier termination, it will quit and surrender the Premises in good state and condition, reasonable wear and tear and damage by the elements excepted. The City shall have the right upon termination to enter into and upon and take possession of the Premises. Should Lessee hold over the use of the Premises after this Agreement has been terminated in any manner, such holding over shall be deemed merely a tenancy from month to month and at a rental rate of $500.00 per month for a maximum period of one year, payable monthly in advance, but otherwise on the same terms and conditions as herein set forth. B. It is understood and agreed that nothing contained in this Agreement shall give Lessee any right to occupy the Premises at any time after expiration of the term of this Agreement or its earlier termination, and that this Agreement shall not create any right in Lessee for relocation assistance or payment from the City upon expiration of the term of this Agreement or upon its earlier termination or upon the termination of any holdover tenancy pursuant to this paragraph. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that upon such expiration or termination, it shall not be entitled to any relocation assistance or payment pursuant to the provisions of Title l, Division 7, Chapter 16, of the Government Code of the State of California (Sections 7260, et seq.) with respect to any relocation of its business or activities upon the expiration of the term of this Agreement or upon its earlier termination or upon the termination of any holdover tenancy pursuant to this paragraph. 22. WAIVERS A. No waiver by either Party at any time of any of the terms, conditions or covenants or agreements of this Agreement or of any forfeiture shall be deemed or taken as a waiver at any time thereafter of the same or of any other term, condition or covenant or agreement herein contained, nor of the strict and prompt performance thereof. No delay, failure or omission of the City to re-enter the Premises or to exercise any right, power or privilege, or option, arising from any default, nor any subsequent acceptance of rent then or thereafter accrued shall impair any such right, power, privilege or option or be construed a waiver of any such default or relinquishment thereof, or acquiescence therein, and, after waiver by the City of default in one or more instance, no notice by the City shall be required to restore or revive time as being of the essence in this Lease. No option, right, power, remedy or privilege of the City shall be construed as being exhausted by the exercise thereof in one or more instances. It is agreed that each and all of the rights, powers, options or remedies given to the City by this Agreement are cumulative and not one of them shall be exclusive of the other or exclusive of any remedies provided by law, and that exercise Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 12 of 19 14754047.1 of one right, power, option or remedy by the City shall not impair its rights to any other right, power, option or remedy. B. In no event shall this Agreement be construed to limit in any way (i) the City's rights, powers or authority under the police power and other powers of the City to regulate or take any action in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens or (ii) Lessee's rights and privileges as an individual or corporate resident and/or citizen or governmental entity of the City of Burlingame, State of California and/or the United States of America as provided under applicable laws, except as expressly waived or limited by this Agreement. 23. RIGHT TO INSPECT PREMISES The City or its duly authorized representatives or agents and other persons for it, may enter into or upon the Premises at any and all reasonable times during the term of this Agreement for the purpose of determining whether or not Lessee is complying with the terms and conditions hereof or for any other purpose incidental to rights of the City, provided that City’s activities on the Premises shall not block entrances to the Premises nor unreasonably interfere with Lessee’s use of the Premises and provided further, due to the proximity of the Premises to the Right-of-Way, City will comply will all necessary, then-current requirements to enter the Caltrain Right-of-Way, including the execution of all necessary permits or other access documents and compliance with Lessee's then-current safety procedures. 24. DISPOSAL OF TRASH AND GARBAGE Lessee agrees to handle and dispose of its trash, garbage and refuse in a sanitary manner and in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Burlingame City Code. Lessee agrees not to place any boxes, cartons, barrels, trash, debris or refuse in or about the Premises. Lessee shall provide an area or areas within the trash area of the Premises for the cleaning of garbage cans and for the placement of trash and storage bins. Lessee shall not wash or clean waste containers except within the designated area. Trash and garbage can storage and the garbage can cleaning area shall be screened from public view. 25. EXTENSIONS OF TIME The City shall have the right to grant reasonable extensions of time to Lessee for any purpose or for the performance of any obligation of Lessee hereunder. 26. SUCCESSORS Each and every one of the provisions, agreements, terms, covenants and conditions herein contained to be performed, fulfilled, observed and kept shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives of the parties hereto, and the rights hereunder, and all rights, privileges and benefits arising under this Agreement and in favor of either Party shall be available in favor of the Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 13 of 19 14754047.1 successors and assigns thereof, irrespectively provided no assignment by or through Lessee in violation of the provisions of this Agreement shall vest any rights in such assignee or successor. 27. TIME OF ESSENCE Time is hereby expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement. 28. NOTICES All notices to the Parties to this Agreement shall, unless otherwise requested in writing, be sent by mail, facsimile or personally delivered to the addresses listed in this paragraph. The notices shall be deemed served and delivered three (3) days after deposited in the United States mail by first class mail or personal delivery or upon receipt of a facsimile transmission. Any notice permitted or required to be served upon the City may be served upon: City of Burlingame Attention: Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010-3997 Any notice permitted or required to be served on the Lessee may be served upon: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Attention: Manager of Real Estate and Development 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (650) 508-7781 or by facsimile at (650) 508-6365 29. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY; NONDISCRIMINATION In furtherance of the City’s policy to ensure that equal employment opportunity is achieved and nondiscrimination is guaranteed in all City-related activities, it is expressly understood and agreed with respect to Lessee's activities in conducting the Project: A. That Lessee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical handicap or veteran's status. Lessee shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are treated fairly. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. B. That Lessee shall, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 14 of 19 14754047.1 behalf of Lessee, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical handicap, or veteran's status. 30. DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. No arbitration or civil action with respect to any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement, except for the nonpayment of rent, may be commenced until the matter has been submitted to mediation. The Parties will cooperate with one another in selecting a mediator and in scheduling the mediation proceedings, said mediation to take place in Burlingame, California. B. Either Party may commence mediation by providing to the other Party a written notice of mediation, setting forth the subject of the dispute and the relief requested. Each Party agrees to participate in up to eight (8) hours of mediation before resorting to litigation in the San Mateo County Superior Court. C. The Parties may agree on one mediator. In the event the Parties are unable to agree upon a mediator within ten (10) days following the date of the written Notice of Mediation, the Parties shall submit the matter to the American Arbitration Association, which shall appoint a mediator. The Parties shall share equally in the costs of mediation. Either Party may seek injunctive relief prior to the mediation to preserve the status quo pending the completion of that process. Except for an action to obtain such injunctive relief, neither Party may commence arbitration or a civil action with respect to the matters submitted to mediation until after the completion of the first mediation session, or forty-five (45) days after the date of filing the written request for mediation, whichever occurs first. D. The mediation meeting shall not exceed one day (eight (8) hours). The Parties may agree to extend the time allowed for mediation under this Agreement. Mediation may continue after the commencement of arbitration or a civil action, if the Parties so agree. E. The costs of the mediator shall be borne by the Parties equally. However, all costs, fees, expenses and any attorney's fees related to such mediation activities are to be paid by the Party having incurred such fees, costs and expenses. F. The provisions of this paragraph may be enforced by any court of competent jurisdiction. 31. QUIET POSSESSION Lessee, upon performing its obligations hereunder and while not in default, shall have the quiet and undisturbed possession of the Premises throughout the term of this Agreement. Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 15 of 19 14754047.1 32. CONSENT AND APPROVAL Whenever the City's consent or approval is required, under the terms and conditions of the Agreement, said consent or approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. 33. INTENTIONALLY BLANK 34. SEVERABILITY The invalidity of any provision of this Agreement as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction shall in no way affect the validity of any other provision hereof. 35. ENTIRE AGREEMENT, MODIFICATION This Agreement contains all agreements of the parties with respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective. This Agreement may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties in interest at the time of the modification. 36. CUMULATIVE REMEDIES No remedy or election under this Agreement shall be deemed exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at law or in equity. 37. BINDING EFFECT; CHOICE OF LAW Subject to any provision hereof restricting assignment or subletting by Lessee and subject to the provisions of Article 9, this Agreement shall bind the parties, their personal representatives, successors and assigns. The laws of the State of California shall govern this Agreement. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall be construed with its fair meaning and not strictly for or against the City or Lessee. 38. STATUS OF TITLE Title to the leasehold estate created by this Agreement is subject to all exceptions, easements, rights, rights-of-way, and other matters of record on the date of approval by the City Council. 39. NO PARTNERSHIP OR JOINT VENTURE Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to render the City in any way or for any purpose a partner, joint venture or associate in any relationship with Lessee other than that of Landlord and Tenant, nor shall this Agreement be construed to authorize either to act as agent for the other. 40. NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF CITY Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 16 of 19 14754047.1 No official or employee of City or Caltrain shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement. 41. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR It is agreed that Lessee shall act and be an independent contractor and not an agent nor employee of City. 42. MEMORANDUM OF LEASE Following execution of this Agreement, either party, at its sole expense shall be entitled to record a memorandum of Agreement in the official records of San Mateo County. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, Lessee shall execute and record a quitclaim deed as to its leasehold interest. The Parties acknowledge and accept the terms and conditions of this Agreement as evidenced by the following signatures of their duly authorized representatives. It is the intent of the Parties that this Agreement shall become operative on the Agreement Date first set forth and defined above. CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA a California municipal corporation APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________ _________________________________ KATHLEEN KANE LISA GOLDMAN City Attorney City Manager ATTEST: 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010-3997 Telephone: Fax Number: _______________________________ City Clerk PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD a Joint Powers Authority Approved as to Form: Parcel: JPB-SM2-0318 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Page 17 of 19 14754047.1 _______________________________ _________________________________ BRIAN FITZPATRICK Attorney Director, Real Estate and Development 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 Telephone Number: (650) 508-7781 Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board/ Exhibits Page 1 of 1 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EXHIBIT A SITE DESCRIPTION Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board/ Exhibits Page 2 of 1 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EXHIBIT B PERMANENT NON-EXCLUSIVE ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT Ground Lease/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board/ Exhibits Page 3 of 1 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EXHIBIT C TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT Ground Lease/Peninsula Joint Powers Board/ Exhibits Page 1 of 1 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EXHIBIT D PAYMENT SCHEDULE Ground Lease/Peninsula Joint Powers Board/Exhibits Page 1 of 1 14754047.1 REAL ESTATE AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF BURLINGAME and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EXHIBIT E INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Lessee shall purchase and maintain the insurance policies set forth below on all of its operations under this Agreement at its/their sole cost and expense. Such policies shall be maintained for the full term of this Agreement and the related warranty period (if applicable). For purposes of the insurance policies required under this Agreement, the term "City" shall include the duly elected or appointed council members, commissioners, officers, agents, employees and volunteers of the City of Burlingame, California, individually or collectively. 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Mayor Michael Brownrigg Subject: Committee Report I hope everyone enjoyed the mental break from Council meetings and agendas and such! CalTrain Electrification Paralleling Station: I think all of us are up to speed on the work that went on during the break on this crucial matter. The compromise we reached is agendized on Monday and we will discuss it then. I just wanted to call out for special thanks our neighborhoods and citizen leaders who helped rally attention and engagement at a high volume on short order. It reminded me of Burlingame struggles in the past with misguided infrastructure proposals and I was very proud of the decorum and intellectual firepower that our residents brought to the issue. I also want to give quick shout outs to our City Manager and Director of Public Works, who jumped right on this issue, and to the Vice Mayor for joining me and staff to help develop an alternative that seems to work for all parties. The flexibility and teamwork shown by our folks at the Corp Yard is to be especially commended. I also subsequently attended the CalTrain Board Meeting with Ms Goldman and Mr Murtuza to ensure the Board could address any questions to us. They voted to approve the compromise. Anson Burlingame Bust arrives from China: The Chinese artist’s work, donated to our city, has been received by our Library and plans continue for the October 12 unveiling at the Library. We will have an informational item on this at the first meeting in September. Village at Burlingame, Burlingame Point, Hanover Company: At the request of the respective developers, I met over the period with each of them about their projects and some of the modifications that are being made. At this point, it is now public knowledge that Facebook expects to lease the entirety of the Burlingame Point campus (the Planning Commission effectively green- lighted their changes at their last meeting). On Burlingame Village, the elevations continue to be tweaked with the goal of providing as much daylight as possible between the next door neighbors while preserving unit count. I believe they hope to be in front of the Planning Commission for final review in September. Hanover is the group looking to build at the site of the Italian Restaurant and tennis courts on Rollins near Cadillac Way. I am not certain on their timing but they have progressed their design based on inputs from many sources. Rotary / Japan Visit: Thanks to our team at BPD, CCFD, City Hall and especially our K-9 squad, we hosted a small but respectful and engaged delegation of students from Japan, at Rotary’s request. Highlight was probably setting up an impromptu “public hearing” at which the students played Council members and had to decide whether to allow dogs off leash in one of our large Brownrigg Committee Report August 20, 2018 2 parks. Margaret Glomstad did an admirable job as a dog lover advocating for liberal policies and the Chief of Police was quite a rabid, no pun intended, dog hater in opposition. SAMCAR: I am indebted to the folks at SAMCAR for meeting with me to go over potential incentive programs that can have a meaningful impact on encouraging land owners to preserve affordable housing stock. There was much food for thought in that conversation. Lobbyist: I was lobbied to hire a lobbyist, if that is not redundant. A lobbying firm set up a call with me to review why Burlingame ought to follow San Mateo’s lead and hire a lobbying firm to help request federal funding for Broadway Grade Separation. It was this firm’s opinion that Burlingame would be the lead agency and would need to coordinate the charge, as San Mateo is doing for their large infrastructure, apparently. I plan to ask Mr Murtuza for his insights on this at the Monday meeting under the Grade Sep presentation item. New Staff: Was on hand to welcome Andrea Pappajohn to our team for sustainability and to breakfast with the City interns, at our HR directors’ request. Citizen Meetings. As always, there were a number of both formal and informal engagements with citizens over the period. Those meetings included, but were not limited to, meeting with the Housing for All Burlingame group, the Citizens Environment Council, the Burlingame Neighborhood Network, National Night Out, and others. I have also tried my best to keep up with correspondence addressed to the Council by citizens. 1 Memorandum To: City Council Date: August 20, 2018 From: Vice Mayor Donna Colson Subject: Committee Report July 18, 2018 Meetings Meeting Regarding Immigration Conversation with Kevin Mullin - Assemblyman Mullin hosted a small community conversation about immigration. The focus was on work and ideas for smoothing transition into our local community and providing support services. Follow up in the fall for more work on the topic. Altria cook off judge - Chief Wollman vs. Altria staff - I thought the Chief was the best, but the staff took home the award for best meal prepared with tomatoes! CalTrain Electrification Meeting - First learned of the PS3 station issues and new location on California Street selected by CT staff. July 16 and 17, 2018 PCE Search Committee Meeting Worked to finalize CFO Search Firm and meeting with Supervisor Pine regarding process to retain CFO for PCE. July 26, 2018 PCE Board of Directors Meeting 1. CEO Report: Update on staff included: Working with the search firm to find a permanent CFO. Using a temporary CFO at this point 2 days a week. Seeking several other positions that are listed on the PCE website. Reviewed the conference schedule for fall - Sept 5-6, 2018 including the California Community Choice Association Annual Meeting called The Power of Partnerships. 2. Marketing and Outreach: Going well, working on more Eco-100 Opt-ups and businesses seem to be doing well and interested in this. 3. Regulatory and Legislative: On summer break so Jan and team are meeting with the local Assemblymen and Senators to discuss pending legislation. Most interesting (and we are neutral) is that around the fire liabilities and the utilities. 4. Local Programs - Moving forward on EV vehicle rebate work both new and used cars and targeting lower income communities. Also working on Redwood City Resilience Project Colson Committee Report August 20, 2018 2 that is a small investment over six years as a part of a group of grants to explore micro- grids and other such innovative green electric solutions. 5. Review of the PUC IRP = Developing a report that basically is like an analysis and roadmap for the business - as for where we are meeting our environmental procurement targets and where the potential environmental issues - includes forecasts and a review of our portfolio. Reviewed several key areas including impact on lower income communities and providing plans to address needs in the six lowest income areas as well as looking at our solar facilities we are building in Central Valley. Looking at modeling constraints and our procurement energy load. This is the first time that the PUC has requested this and we are including more information than requested. All CCAs are working on these. This is a planning exercise and we are not held to this - we have worked hard to note where the assumptions may be weakest. They are looking to make sure that if there are fossil fuels and if those are impacting disadvantaged communities. July 31, 2018 Meeting #2 for PS-3 2015 EIR on this and there was a year of discussion on the location. City asked for the east side, but Caltrain said we cannot get access to the station and would have to purchase the property and cannot get to the back. We will screen and put dampers so that the ambient sound is same. This was not acceptable to attendees. Then 2018 April - We are working on the Broadway grade separation. The cost to relocate is $8- $15 mm to relocate later if we have to move it at some time for Grade Separation. July 12 - Addendum to the EIR - and on July 18 said they were going to have a general meeting and there was a couple of slides about PS3 and we recommended that they do a separate meeting on this, but Caltrain choose not to do that. No impact was stated on the EIR. Final solution worked with City of Burlingame to provide access to easement via the Corporation Yard. July 30, 2018 Park and Recreation Foundation 1. Music in the Park was very successful this summer - five series and made significantly more money that last year. 2. Family Camp Out - Friday, August 24 - We need as much help as possible on this event. 3. BCE Spirit Run - We will have a booth, but not be working the event. August 8, 2018 Caltrain Broadway Grade Separation Meeting Caltrain and City Staff provided local residents and update on the Caltrain Grade separation including estimate design, cost, and timing. Colson Committee Report August 20, 2018 3 August 13, 2018 PCE Executive Committee 1. EV Drive - Had dozens of e-cars and gave over 200 separate rides for passengers to experience e-cars. 2. Right Solar Ground Breaking - October 11 at 11:00 AM and will leave from PCE around 8:00 AM. 3. Eric Hall has started and interim CFO and doing work on IPS for September delivery and working with the auditors. 4. Employee Handbook - Jennifer is reading this and we will be bringing this in September. 5. Legislation - Watching liability on fire issues, also keeping tabs on AB 237 - direct access bill, and AB 2345. Have retained our own PCE lobby group and person to represent us as well. 6. Looking at ways to use cash - dividend or rebate or lower rates in general. Direction was focused more on an annual dividend rather than a permanent lower rates. Or even consider on a one time basis. August 15, 2018 TopGolf Corporate Meeting Meeting with Indoor TopGolf to consider a location for a small indoor facility. Met with TG staff and City staff to tour the vacant spaces currently on open on the Avenue. Attended Other Local Events of Note: July 20 - Labor Council Awards Dinner at Westin Millbrae July 21 - San Mateo Daily Journal Fun Faire in Washington Park July 27 - Council of Cities Dinner in Hillsborough July 28 - Kids Take A Stand - Burlingame mom who started the idea and had over 100 lemonade stands across US that raised over $35,000 to help children and families separated at the boarder with legal costs. August 7 - National Night Out - Attended various neighborhood events August 9 - Open House at the Burlingame public library Various other meetings with constituents.